Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pcottraux

The original quote in post 45 is "and the box office says not that many people like Kong." Box office is theatrical.

When somebody greenlights spending $200 million on a movie and it only gets $200 million domestic gross that somebody gets fired. This is Hollywood, people get fired a lot, pick up their crap, head down the street, get another version of the same job, and probably get fired from that in 12 to 18 months. Hollywood is into rolling heads.

No, at $207 million for production and $32 million in advertising the movie did NOT make respectable box office. Respectable box office is profitable on domestic grosses alone. Had the movie cost under $100 million to make the $218 would have been respectable, with a $207 million budget the box office was best described by it's initials: BO. Sorry I garauntee somebody got fired opening weekend, once it opened at a pathetic (for the budget) $50 million it was obvious that the budget was too high for the real world revenue and that person got sh!t canned.


70 posted on 09/02/2006 10:10:10 PM PDT by discostu (you must be joking son, where did you get those shoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: discostu
"and the box office says not that many people like Kong." Box office is theatrical.

And yet the DVD sales indicate that many people DID like Kong. Although I think there is a "Home movie" box office as well as a theatrical one.

Now you're just starting to recycle the same ol' argument over and over again. You can't pinpoint exactly WHO was fired, and you offer a lot of speculation and theory more than anything else.

I think, above all, this may be an indication of a trend towards the future. People have been talking a lot about the box office, and a general decline in movie attendance (the ominous "Hollywood slump" of lore). This may or may not be true, but it is said that DVDs are a possible culprit. Why go see a movie in the theater now? You only have to wait a few months till the DVD comes out. And with that, you actually get a better and sound quality than a lot of theaters give (faults of management...dim picture, poor sound, not to mention old celluloid instead of digital printout). So why not just wait, and then rent it (or buy it)? Then you get the WHOLE movie...not just the film, but special features, deleted scenes, extended cuts, alternate endings, etc. etc.

In fact, I've even heard that in the not-too-distant future, movies are going to be released on DVD at the same time as the theatrical releases.

If this has any element of truth, "Kong" would illustrate a very good example. Of course, it's EXACTLY the type of movie you'd want to see on DVD, with its epic story and cool special effects. I remember seeing the movie in the theater and having some slight feelings of being underwhelmed...the sound quality was too low, and the picture looked a little dim. But my DVD experience with the film has been phenomenal.

72 posted on 09/02/2006 10:23:33 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson