Is there some kind of competition going with the box office numbers? We have Spielberg who created 2 awful duds - WoW and Terminal. Lucas on the other hand creates duds but still makes money. Personally, I don't care if KK makes money or not. I never expected anything from this remake.

--Ranjan:)

its opening day was certainly a splat. everyone heard it, and those who didn't didn't even know that the movie opened!!! :D

Tuesday, 27 Dec 2005:
1) "Narnia 1", $9,224,127
2) "King Kong", $7,919,225

Q-->>>"Where are all those Peter Jackson fans who wanted a December Peter Jackson movie?"<<<
A--Waiting for "The Hobbit" (and the 23:59hr Silmarillion);)

>>>"Every hubristic move (like Peter Jackson's "King Kong") that splats on arrival deserves to be given a thrashing. (y)"<<<
Splats? Maybe not the best grossing movie of all time, ...but......"splats"?

$60 million over budget AND 40 minutes over budget.
Yes, actors were going on TV before opening day saying how big the movie is!
The older I get, the more marketing/advertising I see in **everything**.
(If you don't believe me, just see the article on my web site);)
12/26
KK $12,015,360
CN $11,914,333
>>>Just wait. Wait till the film reveals its worth<<<
What if everyone did that? No one would see it!:x
Peter Jackson only deliverd half of the last rings movie on time and delivered
the rest of the reels a bit at a time. So they doubled-up copy production on
the first half, while the others were being completed.

OK, so it's all Lucas' fault.

Chris,

Bollocks--even you acknowledge the fact that "Jaws" is one of the all-time greats. Plus, Spielberg never worked with a budget that exceeded $150 million. With the exception of "Jaws", Spielberg has always been on budget and ahead of schedule. On the other hand, Peter Jackson was almost late in delivering "King Kong", and he went at least $60 million over budget.

Eddie

"Kong" had a great director and the same team that had produced one of the most successful franchises in movie history. And it was better than 95% of the films that get this kind of hype so I don't see what the problem is. Sure, the amount of time and energy expended talking about "Kong" is ridiculous and I'd say that even if I thought it was the best film of the year. That's why we all have to fight the system. Down with Hollywood. Death to the capitalist pigs!

And remember, Eddie. This is all Spielberg's fault.

Ranjan,

Why would Spielberg lie about his budgets? He's very cost-conscious, in part because he's been a producer for so long and in part because he ran a studio for a little more than a decade. For example, he squeezed costs on "Amistad" until he could shoot a historical drama for $40 million, which is difficult considering that you have to spend a lot of money to get the details right.

Also, I've never claimed that Spielberg is perfect. I gave a basically negative review of "The Terminal", and I thought that "War of the Worlds" had one of the worst second halves of any movie ever. I've never been able to watch "Hook" from beginning to end, and I don't even want to watch "Always".

Every movie is defined by their logistics, their budgets, and their scope (how much material is being tackled). This is especially visible with mega-budget movies like "King Kong", "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor", etc. You can't divorce a movie from how it was made; after all, without $207 million, without a three-hour running time, without everything that's in it, Peter Jackson's "King Kong" wouldn't be the same thing it is today.

Eddie

P.S. "War of the Worlds" cost an estimated $132 million.

" I'm interested in monetary facts related to "King Kong", not the movie's artistic merits (which are good/bad in the eyes of the beholder). " -- Eddie

What is the point of this thread if you are only interested in monetary aspect of KK. One can read articles at hollywood.com or movies.yahoo.com to see the daily earnings for KK. I believe PJ is a very talented director. And numbers don't justify his talent. KK could have never been profitable alone in the US. The movie was made for over $300M. There are still chances that KK might recover its costs from overseas. That given, Mr. Spielberg has also created his fare share of duds. Look at his last movie WOW which garned $230M at box office but it was profitable because of overseas earnings. Terminal was another disaster for Steven. But talent does not stop if you create duds. PJ has a long way to go & he is certainly headed in the right direction.

Numbers not define a particular director. Hence it is stupid to compare Spielberg vs. PJ. I don't agree with Eddie's statement that Spielberg never worked with a budget over 150M. I think WoW exceeded $150M in budget. Spielberg for last few years has created more dramas then actual special effects movie - Terminal, CMIYC, Minich. However, movies like JP, AI, MR were made few years ago, and if we re-evaluate the budget now, it will exceed $150M.

--Ranjan

Chris,

That is depressing, and the world does suck. However, what's the alternative? State-funded movies in communist countries are subject to censorship (makes sense since the government was paying for it). State-subsidized movies in socialist Europe are not seen by their home audiences (i.e. Europeans want to watch the same garbage that Americans do).

Eddie

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jan 1, 2006]