Posted on 01/02/2006 2:14:48 PM PST by wagglebee
It's far too early to write any obituaries for Universal Pictures' "King Kong." As of Tuesday, the end of its first two weeks in release, Peter Jackson's remake had amassed $128 million domestically and $153.6 million abroad, for a combined worldwide haul of $282.1 million. With those numbers, it's just about halfway home to recouping its $207 million production costs, give or take the added millions spent on marketing as well as the participations earmarked for Jackson.
Still, the fact that "Kong" didn't automatically prevail as king of the jungle -- but instead has found itself in a day-to-day battle with "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe" -- has created its own suspense.
One of the problems for "Kong" is that the much of the media covers the boxoffice battles with all the subtlety of color commentators at a demolition derby.
At one holiday gathering this past week, when the conversations turned to movies, one friend mentioned that her sister said she wouldn't be going to see "Kong." When he asked her why, her woman replied, "Because I read on Drudge that it was bombing."
In fact, the always hyperventilating Drudge Report first responded to the early, ecstatic reviews of "Kong" by reporting unrealistic expectations that it could challenge "Titanic" as the biggest film of all time -- a feat that no movie has come anywhere close to since "Titanic" set sail in 1997. Then, on Dec. 16, Drudge headlined the first reports of "Kong's" less-than-record-breaking first day with the ominous words " 'King' Bomb?"
Now, if there's someone out there saying she doesn't plan to check out "Kong" simply because Drudge was erroneously hinting it was dead-on-arrival, it's quite possible that person never seriously intended to see the movie in the first place.
But the anecdote also suggests that in this media-saturated moment, Hollywood doesn't just have to worry about genuine word-of-mouth coming from moviegoers who actually attend a movie before spreading the word -- good or bad -- it also has to defend against secondary word-of-mouth based on little more than a half-baked opinion or a snarky headline.
Webmaster Matt Drudge actually tried something similar this season as "Brokeback Mountain" rode onto the scene, trying to scare the horses, if you will, with the alarmist tone of one headline that read "Hollywood Rocked: Gay Cowboy Movie Becomes an Oscar Frontrunner." In the story itself, he ratcheted up rhetoric, describing the film as "arriving with nudity and explicit gay sex scenes" as if it were just one step short of a campfire orgy. To date, though, media attempts to turn "Brokeback" into a raging controversy haven't really taken hold -- the filmmakers, a dignified bunch, never rose to the bait, and the movie has been able to speak to itself.
That isn't the case for Steven Spielberg's "Munich," which has moved to the center of the media circus. "Now Israeli Spies Blast Spielberg's 'Munich,' " our man Drudge shouted Tuesday. The headline linked to a Reuters story in which a former Israeli field agent questions a scene in which a Mossad officer orders his operatives to keep track of their receipts.
Certainly, a movie like "Munich" invites serious debate. The only problem is that most Americans aren't knowledgeable about Israel's anti-terrorist operations. Every man on the street might have had an opinion about "JFK," because the Kennedy assassination is central to our history. But the "Munich" debate has rapidly devolved into the esoteric as the movie turns into a punching bag as all the self-appointed experts go at it.
It almost makes you feel some sympathy for the filmmakers, whose work is disappearing amid a foggy war of words.
Everyone has to deal with the effects of publicity.
Haven't we been putting up with snarky critics in the MSM for years?
Maybe Hollyweird should try making something that doesn't suck.
I was at the theater over the holiday break - at least in my area The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe was absolutely jammed, and King Kong was as empty as a beer can with a BB in it. And it wasn't Drudge that is to blame.
It almost makes you feel some sympathy for the filmmakers, whose work is disappearing amid a foggy war of words.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......................NAH!
Hollywood is now condemning wild speculation, rampant hyperbole, and lurid allegations? Just what do they think built Hollywood in the first place?
Suck (what?) or 'snark'? I usually snark vigorously when I've a head cold. I tried to write the editors but they didn't want to hear from me. I'll stay here.
Ninety-five percent of the reviewers gave Kong and Brokeback positive reviews, and many of the same reviewers disparaged Narnia.
Sorry, but not even Drudge is powerful enough to fix a Brokeback Movie.
If King Kong were an hour and 45 minutes long it would be winning by a mile. It's just that at three hours, it not only can't be shown as many times per day but it's such a huge time commitment for the viewer that it hurts repeat business. And Narnia is (somewhat) more appropriate for an under 10 audience.
I usually snark vigorously when I've a head cold
snarky
SYLLABICATION: snark·y PRONUNCIATION: snärk ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang Irritable or short-tempered; irascible. ETYMOLOGY: From dialectal snark, to nag, from snark, snork, to snore, snort, from Dutch and Low German snorken, of imitative origin. OTHER FORMS: snarki·ly —ADVERB
We took our granddaughter to see Narnia on a Thursday at 3:15. The theater was full... the only people I saw were going to Narnia.
I had a wonderful conversation with my gd(she's five) before Christmas. Her parents don't take her to Sunday school but she said, "Grandma, St. Nicholas died." I said, "Oh really?" She said, "Yup, but he came back to life as Santa Claus." Relieved, I said, "oh, good." She then asked, "How do you suppose he did that?" I just asked her how she thought it had happened. She brightened up and said, "Aslan did it!" I told her that was probably what happened.
As if he's not. These people are just losing it over the fact that intelligent, educated people have choices in info gathering and make up their minds based on a new media. Eat your hearts out you petty, self-important liberals.
Sounds as if Greggy is a bit jealous of Matt
Hollywierd executive #1: Nobody is going to the movies anymore, we need a blockbuster that will bring the crowds in. Any ideas?
Hollywierd executive #2: Well it would have to be something new and original, like a love story that will appeal to the "little people" in flyover country.
Hollywierd executive #1: How about an old-fashioned western with a love story?
Hollywierd executive #2: I've got a script right here about homosexual cowboys.
Hollywierd executive #1: That sounds great, let's go with that one.
Snarky headlines? Well, I sort of agree with this criticism. King Kong was much better than Drudge implied. However, the media and Hollywood have been leading their movies, stories, and headlines with snarky comments for years and years. Wasn't the movie 'Platoon' snarky? Or how about this headline; "Military leaders Fear up to 30,000 US Soldiers Will Die in Iraq." That is the gand pubah of snarky.
In fact, the last three years of Iraq coverage has been snarky. I started to read a story about how the 'innocents' in Iraq have suffered so much over the last three years. I expected to get a 'suicide bombing story' or perhaps an 'Al Qaeda is Evil' kind of thing. Instead, it was an expose of how a child was shot by a stray US marine bullet. It was a whole 'Snarky' story from top to bottom....nevermind that 90% of the innoncence killed in Iraq are at the hands of the terorist (In my mind, the other 10% killed are also the fault of the terorist as well....What about that angle media?)
In closing, the left getting a taste of its own medicine really doesn't bother me. I'm rather happy today.
That seems to be the problem, Hollywood. You're wasting Millions on a plethora of rancid dreck that no one wishes to spend $$$ to see!
Let's not just blame Drudge, Hollywood. When there's also Rottentomatoes.com, Boxofficemojo.com and dozens of other sites to shine some light on potential Turds-In-A-Punchbowl. Jack.
Well, OK, that was me. But the fivers were at it too...
Now, if there's someone out there saying she doesn't plan to check out "Kong" simply because Drudge was erroneously hinting it was dead-on-arrival, it's quite possible that person never seriously intended to see the movie in the first place.
I recall at the start of the war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein the MSM erroneously trumpeting that the war was a dead-on-arrival quagmire. Despite embedded reporters witnessing a hugely successful victory to oust Saddam. Did the reporters seriously intend to see the war in the first place?
I recall toward the end of Kerry's 04 campaign a political analyst said the MSM reporting positive for Kerry vs negative against Bush gave Kerry ten points at the Presidential election.
That's the large Main Stream Media influence on an important matter.
The lone Drudge Report with one headline couldn't effect a trivial matter as a movie by even 1 percent.
If you add that both executives are probably gay, you have it about right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.