A Big Gorilla Weighs In [Hollywood blows $207 million on gorilla movie]

The New York Times ^ | October 27, 2005 | Sharon Waxman

[SteveMcKing]

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 26 - In hiring Peter Jackson, the Oscar-winning director of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, to remake the monster classic "King Kong," Universal Pictures took a daring leap, paying him $20 million to direct, produce and be the co-writer of the film.

With seven weeks to go before the movie's release, the risks are becoming clearer. After seeing a version of the film in late September at Mr. Jackson's studio in New Zealand, Universal executives agreed to release "King Kong" at a length of three hours.

The film is substantially longer than Universal had anticipated and presents dual obstacles: the extra length has helped increase the budget by a third, to $207 million, while requiring the studio, owned by General Electric, to reach for the kind of long-term audience interest that made hits out of three-hour movies like "Titanic" and the films in Mr. Jackson's "Rings" trilogy.

(continued)

[hdstmf]

They will keep making King Kong until they have another idea. Ditto Frankenstien. Ditto Dracula. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

[Lester Moore]

I am not spending $9 a ticket to see it in theater. If my wife and I go out to see it it would cost as much as the DVD! If we had two kids who wanted to see it (we have a 11 month old and one on the way) it would cost us about $30! Then add popcorn, drinks, etc.. and you are on the way to $45. No wonder movies don't make $$$ anymore (besides their craptacular content).

Not to mention the convenience of pausing for breaks and replaying words you just didn't make out.

[Conservative Firster]

Here is the video game

Peter Jackson's King Kong

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I always thought the original 1933 King Kong was the first "blockbuster" picture. Some of the stuff in that film was ahead of its time.

[grey_whiskers]

Hollywood blows $207 million on gorilla movie

Just about sums it up, doesn't it.

Apologies to Peter Jackson for LoTR, though.

Full Disclosure: And Wallace and Gromit, The Incredibles, and one or two others.

Cheers!

[durasell]

And here's another license...

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" Inspires Toys

HONG KONG, Sept. 9, 2004 - Playmates Holdings Limited announced today that its US based subsidiary, Playmates Toys Inc., has been appointed as the master toy licensee under the terms of a worldwide licensing agreement with Universal Studios Consumer Products Group for Universal Pictures' December 2005 release, "King Kong," from three-time Academy Award(R) winner Peter Jackson ("The Lord of the Rings" trilogy).
Playmates Toys will create a line of intricately detailed action figures and accessories with exceptional sculpting and innovative special features. The products will capture the fearsome power of King Kong and his adversaries and will enable kids and collectors to recreate epic battles on the mysterious Skull Island

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Its like in the original movie as its set in the 1920's/30's.

I thought the trailer for the new King Kong was spectacular. The movie is set in the early 30s and it has a colorized feel of the original one.

Now the 1976 King Kong with Jeff Bridges, you couldn't pay me to watch that crap.

[Ostlandr]

According to the web, the novel came out in '32. The movie was released in '33. I recall it being a rather epic novel in the spirit of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Denham in the novel alternates between an Indiana Jones type hero and a Captain Ahab type figure (in his obsession to capture Kong.)
Even if it was a novelization of the script, it was well done.
Yeah, three hours is long. Perhaps better to release a tightly edited version for the big screen, and save the extras for the Special Edition DVD.

[Sensei Ern]

Kingdom of Heaven is worth renting. I don't like how they made the arabs seem superior, but it was worth watching.

But, avoid Robots. Even Robin Williams couldn't save that snoozefest.

[A CA Guy]

I think with DVD sales they could break a little better than even, but I can see it doing great business in this market.
I think people are not going to the movies as much and the TV scripts have been better on the new shows.

[durasell]

People will go to the theaters to see a "spectacle" type movie on the big screen, like Titanic or LOTR. If teens like it, they'll go three or four times without blinking.

[denydenydeny]

Decadence.

What on earth are you talking about?

Movies cost what they cost, and they either make money or they don't, representing a risk only for those who have freely invested their money in the film. How is that decadent?

Particularly when we're talking about the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which are three of the most conservative films ever made.

[denydenydeny]

[A CA Guy]

Problem is that this is a remake and despite the job they do, it is a dead ending.

I could possibly go during a matinee.
I have no great interest in seeing this though.

[durasell]

I'm not all that hyped about it, either. But then again, I wasn't expecting much from The Aviator and it turned out to be a good movie.

[PAR35]

Now that they have done the re-make of King Kong, does it mean that they will do a remake of Gone With the Wind?

[dr_lew]

What's this picture supposed to mean?

Fay Wray's altar scene is like the most erotic thing ever!

The way she writhes around ... and those screams!

... did I say that out loud ?

[WillamShakespeare]

When are they going to do a remake of Magilla Gorilla?

"Oh gee!"

[Rastus]

Problem is that this is a remake and despite the job they do, it is a dead ending.

It seems a little different, though, as Jackson is a lifelong King Kong fan and is doing a "loving tribute" style remake. That's better than, "Hey, put a movie title on the dart board and we'll remake whichever one we hit." The Fog, for instance.

I didn't absolutely love the LOTR movies, but Jackson earned the benefit of the doubt with them.

[Rastus]

Oh, yeah. Meant to add: and, it's pretty much guaranteed to be better than the '70s turd. The teaser trailer alone is more entertaining than that monstrosity.