MOVIES: THE BOX OFFICE THREAD

[Talcy]

^Absolutely. While I'm looking forward to Munich it's not the type of movie to do giant business.

[DonSwoosh]

The competition will not bump Kong off from being number one on the weekend but Kong will loose audiences in the coming weeks because there are too many films coming out. Munich, New World, Fun with Dick and Jane, expansion of Brokeback Mountain and the Producers, Cheaper by the Dozen 2. Plus, Narnia and Potter will continue to do well over the holidays because they are family oriented films. The same goes for the Family Stone. All of those films will hurt Kong in the long run.

[P-Ray]

I also think that the Christmas break will help King Kong's #'s !

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by DonSwoosh@Dec 21 2005, 06:35 AM
Kong could loose audiences in the coming weeks because of other films coming out.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Fixed. It could also generate a large box office intake over a longer period of time, such as my above example of My Big Fat Greek Wedding (which pretty much killed your argument btw) a really small film which held it's own against much larger competition than what Kong will be facing in the coming weeks.

[DonSwoosh]

Yes, Kong could do that but the word of mouth beyond the internet/fanboy community isn't as great as people might think.

Kong is not a bomb but considering the numbers and what Universal wanted and how they advertised it, it is a disappointment thus far. Again, this weekend will be very telling.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by DonSwoosh@Dec 21 2005, 08:43 AM
Yes, Kong could do that but the word of mouth beyond the internet/fanboy community isn't as great as people might think.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
How could you possibly know that? Tell me your secret DonSwoosh, are you telepathic? Are you? Do you have ESP?

[DonSwoosh]

Call it a hunch.

Look, as I've stated before, Kong will make money. It just won't make the money people thought it was going to make. Whether Universal once to admit it or not, they wanted Kong to make at least 300 million. That's where their sights were and the marketing reflected that attitude.

Kong looks like it's going to struggle to 200 million. But again, this upcoming weekend could change that. Monday's numbers weren't helpful.

[Justin]

Virus, the problem is that when you make those statements you make them as if they are the gospel truth when they are, as you admit, your opinion.

When I make a statement based on my opinion I usually clarify with "I think" or "in my opinion."

Saying that people are not interested in seeing a King Kong remake is clearly false, as I am someone who was anticipating it greatly and I know many others who were as well.

And regardless, whether it makes a billion dollars or not won't change the fact that it is a fantastic film and I can't wait to see it again (and will definitely be buying the DVD).

If you wait for video then that will be your loss, although something tells me you will say it sucked no matter what to avoid admitting you were wrong.

IN MY OPINION, the main reason King Kong had a "good" opening and not a "great" opening is that people are turned off by the running time. I was not happy to hear that it would be three hours long when it was first announced, and I'm sure that for some it was a deal-breaker.

[BomarrPunk]

I saw King Kong yesterday, the 3 hour running time didnt really bother me. It dragged in parts, but it had some pretty brilliant stuff in parts. I think I am actually going to agree with the statement Virus made a while back in my opinion, style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif I think that there is starting to be a general buzz of discontent with hollywood rehashing and sequeling movies, TV shows, comics and Books. I just get that feeling reading/seeing reviews these days. Lots of "another remake" or "so and so is back as" and it tends to have a tone, I think it does anyway. These movies still will make a billion bucks because people eat what is put in frount of them (for the most part). it seems that every trailer I see is for a sequel or a remake or a sequel of a remake (cheaper by the dozen 2 wtf?). There are a lot of good movies getting overlooked that are original and cool but the general public doesnt hear about them so they dont see them, simple as that. Anyway... that is what I think.

[Justin]

King Kong's current numbers from boxofficemojo.com:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES
Domestic: $81,935,050 49.7%
+ Overseas: $83,002,080 50.3%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Worldwide: $164,937,130

Opening Weekend: $50,130,145
(3,568 theaters, $14,049 average)
% of Total Gross: 61.2%

Widest Release: 3,576 theaters

In Release: 8 days / 1.1 weeks [/b][/quote]

80 million domestic is not bad for a movie that's been out only one week. A lot of kids just got out for Christmas vacation, so clearly that is helping. Obviously there is a fairly large audience for this film, much to Virus' dismay. I predict next weekend will be pretty big as well, somewhere between 30-50 million domestic.

Sorry Virus but it looks like Kong will make it's money back in the long run as it only needs about 40 million more worldwide. It will probably turn a profit in the theater, and will DEFINITELY turn a profit in ancillary markets (DVD primarily), which is where most movies make their money.

[Leiafan]

I find it most amusing that "King Kong" is performing way under expectations the media, confidently predicted it would outgross "Titanic."

ROTS made as much in its opening day as "King Kong" made in its opening weekend. Not only that, it made as much in its midnight showings alone as KK made in its opening day.

So much for SW being dead, and so much for Peter Jackson having the Midas touch. Oh, I'm sure the media will make excuses for him, the same media that is ignoring ROTS's record-shattering box office run, made even more remarkable in light of how the rest of the year's "blockbusters" haven't even come close to approaching its gross, the same media which crowed about Spidey outgrossing AOTC in 2002: "Star Wars flopped!"

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Leiafan@Dec 23 2005, 03:39 AM
I find it most amusing that "King Kong" is performing way under expectations the media, confidently predicted it would outgross "Titanic."

ROTS made as much in its opening day as "King Kong" made in its opening weekend. Not only that, it made as much in its midnight showings alone as KK made in its opening day.

So much for SW being dead, and so much for Peter Jackson having the Midas touch. Oh, I'm sure the media will make excuses for him, the same media that is ignoring ROTS's record-shattering box office run, made even more remarkable in light of how the rest of the year's "blockbusters" haven't even come close to approaching its gross, the same media which crowed about Spidey outgrossing AOTC in 2002: "Star Wars flopped!"
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

There is much truth to what you say O wise one! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Do you think the main reason for this is because left "Hollywood" behind or do you think there's more to it?

[Leiafan]

Originally posted by P-Ray+Dec 23 2005, 11:16 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(P-Ray @ Dec 23 2005, 11:16 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Leiafan@Dec 23 2005, 03:39 AM
I find it most amusing that "King Kong" is performing way under expectations the media, confidently predicted it would outgross "Titanic."

ROTS made as much in its opening day as "King Kong" made in its opening weekend. Not only that, it made as much in its midnight showings alone as KK made in its opening day.

So much for SW being dead, and so much for Peter Jackson having the Midas touch. Oh, I'm sure the media will make excuses for him, the same media that is ignoring ROTS's record-shattering box office run, made even more remarkable in light of how the rest of the year's "blockbusters" haven't even come close to approaching its gross, the same media which crowed about Spidey outgrossing AOTC in 2002: "Star Wars flopped!"
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

There is much truth to what you say O wise one! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Do you think the main reason for this is because left "Hollywood" behind or do you think there's more to it?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Probably because he left Hollywood behind, and because he's managed to be successful without participating in the Hollywood game of back-scratching and butt-kissing.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Leiafan@Dec 23 2005, 04:39 AM
I find it most amusing that "King Kong" is performing way under expectations the media, confidently predicted it would outgross "Titanic."

ROTS made as much in its opening day as "King Kong" made in its opening weekend. Not only that, it made as much in its midnight showings alone as KK made in its opening day.

So much for SW being dead, and so much for Peter Jackson having the Midas touch. Oh, I'm sure the media will make excuses for him, the same media that is ignoring ROTS's record-shattering box office run, made even more remarkable in light of how the rest of the year's "blockbusters" haven't even come close to approaching its gross, the same media which crowed about Spidey outgrossing AOTC in 2002: "Star Wars flopped!"
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

You're in denial if you think the success of ROTS was ignored by the media. It was everywhere.

[Virus]

Sorry Justin, the crowds are not out to see this movie. Look at Wednesday's numbers: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ The King has fallen.

[Justin]

LOL! Jeeze Virus, people are going to see King Kong, you are over-playing it to support your anti-remake agenda. For ANY movie to make 80+ million domestically in one week a lot of people have to go to see it.

It's interesting to note that it has already made over 120 million overseas, more than what it made in the US. So clearly a lot of people are going to see it. Do you not count people outside the US as people, Virus?

I posted on this on the previous page. Kong will make its money back and probably turn a profit. It's already made over 200 million worldwide.

At the end of the day King Kong will have made a lot of money for its investors.

Virus, do you remember the post I made awhile back about how movies make money? You never responded so I guess you didn't. Most people (the media, the average US citizen) put so much importance on the domestic gross of a film, when in reality most films don't even make their money back in US theaters.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
Most people (the media, the average US citizen) put so much importance on the domestic gross of a film, when in reality most films don't even make their money back in US theaters.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Plus now with DVD sales, it's even better style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Virus]

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
LOL! Jeeze Virus, people are going to see King Kong, you are over-playing it to support your anti-remake agenda. For ANY movie to make 80+ million domestically in one week a lot of people have to go to see it.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


You do realize that ticket prices are so inflated these days and that King Kong did have lower tickets sold than Fellowship did back in 2001, right? Or is this your "agenda" to support anything that Jackson makes cause your a total fanboy. I can tell that this really bothers you. The fact that people are not going to see this movie in the numbers that they want is showing that no one is interested.

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
It's interesting to note that it has already made over 120 million overseas, more than what it made in the US. So clearly a lot of people are going to see it. Do you not count people outside the US as people, Virus?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I guess you too don't read what I type because I mentioned that nearly every single movie made makes back its money one way or another. Recent bombs that have are Waterworld and Alexander. Both did less than what their movies cost in the US but they will always recoupe with overseas and DVDs/rentals. Plus for some reason washed up musicans and mediocre movies always do great in Europe and Japan. Makes you wonder, huh?

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
I posted on this on the previous page. Kong will make its money back and probably turn a profit. It's already made over 200 million worldwide.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I also said that it will make back its money overall but probably will end at around $200-225 million in the US. Please read post 379 in the King Kong thread. I thought I mentioned it here but I rather not post in the Kong thread.


Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
At the end of the day King Kong will have made a lot of money for its investors.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Of course it will but when it will finish at around $225 in the US where they were hoping for around $350-400, thats a huge difference. Studios will not be willing to fork over $20 mil just for Jackson to direct next time.

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 24 2005, 03:23 AM
Virus, do you remember the post I made awhile back about how movies make money? You never responded so I guess you didn't. Most people (the media, the average US citizen) put so much importance on the domestic gross of a film, when in reality most films don't even make their money back in US theaters.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Yes I do remember but I just didn't have time to reply nor care to. And most movies do break even or make some profit in the US. Please read www.boxofficemojo.com more often before you start talking like you think you know what you mean. This is a huge hobby for me to follow and I enjoy it. I respect your viewpoints and I think its great that you find this movie to be fun and exciting, but sooner or later you will realize that these movies are nothing more than remakes. I say that starting in 2010, each studio should just remake every film that it had 10 years ago. So in 2010, every movie made in 2000 will be remade and released on the exact same weekend. Wouldn't that be so much fun to see the same movie with new actors and better effects and maybe even a different ending? I think not.

I see from reading previous posts that you like just about every movie that is debuting each week. I just went back to the 25th post and you praise each film being release. I am a bit more critical and only can gain respect for movies that are fresh, different and fun. I do have my likings for some sequels such as Star Wars or Harry Potter and once in a while a remake (Dawn of the Dead was amazing). But overall I get tired of remakes like Cheaper by the Dozen and even worse sequels of bad remakes, like Cheaper by the Dozen 2. Barf

[Justin]

Dude, if you think I like every film that is released you are totally wrong. I don't know how you come by that opinion, because it is absolutely wrong. I don't even SEE all the films that come out each week, so I don't know how you can say I like "just about every one" of them.

And as far as me supposedly not knowing what I am talking about regarding how movies make money, I have studied this very subject (the dynamic of filmmaking and the studios, and how they run their business now and since their beginning) in college courses. Not just by reading what people say on the internet.

Your statements about movies' grosses and your emphasis on the domestic gross shows that you are the one who is ignorant of this subject (as most people are).

Following box office grosses may be a hobby for you but your statements that no one is interested in King Kong just because it will not make 300 million (films rarely ever make that much) and that you think the box office gross is where it will make most of its profit shows that you do not know how films actually make money in today's market.

boxofficemojo is not the best and only source for understanding the business side of making films.

I definitely understand that King Kong is not doing what was expected, and that it will not be as successful as The Fellowship of the Ring. The Lord of the Rings is a phenomenon with a very large built in audience. King Kong is not, but to say it is a failure and no one is interested simply because it is not performing as well as expected is innacurate.

I don't support everything Jackson does because I am a "fanboy" and I don't know why you would think that. I thought his other movies before LOTR and King Kong kind of sucked, and if he made a film that I was not interested in I would not go to see it and if it sucked I would say so.

I think it is obscene that he made 20 million for directing Kong, and I hope he doesn't get that kind of money for his next films. I think it is wrong that some actors get paid that much, and clearly it shows that they are not the box office draws that they were previously thought to be.

If I thought King Kong was a bad movie I would have stated how dissapointed I was. But I found it to be a brilliant film, regardless of the fact that it was a remake.

And while we are on the subject of remakes, I don't like every remake that comes out and usually they kind of suck. But occasionally they are good films, like War of the Worlds and King Kong. Those are the only remakes I have seen recently that I thought were any good.

I am not opposed to a remake if it is done well and puts a fresh spin on the original material (particularly if I am a fan of the subject, like War of the Worlds and King Kong).

But if it is a lame artless film that is made solely for the sake of making money then I don't support that.

Like you said, Cheaper by the Dozen was a poor film and I don't know why they would make a sequel other than to cash in on the first one's success with young audiences.

Also like you, I am a fan of the James Bond franchise and hope it continues, but I recognize its faults and that each one is essentially a reworking of a formula that has been used for decades. There is not necessarily anything wrong with that because it works for that franchise.

But I don't write off every remake simply because it is a remake the way you do. I judge individual films based on their own merits, not my preconcieved notions and prejudices.

BTW, Merry Christmas.

[Leiafan]

Originally posted by Virus@Dec 24 2005, 02:24 AM
Sorry Justin, the crowds are not out to see this movie.* Look at Wednesday's numbers:* http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/* The King has fallen.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

You said it, Virus.

The media is being polite and gentle, with its harshest words being that KK is performing a little under expectations, but hurriedly pointing out that it also took "Titanic" a while to get going.

If anyone but Peter Jackson was behind KK, they would be declaring it a flop. Not a disappointment, not "performing under expectations" -- a flop. But since He Who Can Do No Wrong is behind it, they're laying down padding for every single word they utter about KK and its TOTAL FAILURE TO BRING IN THE HUGE NUMBERS THAT WERE SO CONFIDENTLY PREDICTED.

I wonder how Entertainment Weakly magazine will deal with this humiliating fact, after the shameless slobbering it did over KK, predicting it would be the blockbuster of the year, etc. I suppose it'll deal with it in the same way it dealt with the humilating fact that ROTS did not flop as it clearly hoped and also got overwhelmingly positive reviews: by ignoring or downplaying it. Or, perhaps, by being flatly dishonest as it was when promoting its various blatant falsities about how "Matrix" outperformed TPM, or how Gollum in Bored of the Borings was groundbreaking.

Of course, I see PT fans trying to prove how fair they are by not gloating about KK's underperformance, and/or by scolding those that are gloating. Myself, I am not ashamed at all to gloat, especially in light of the way the media and the PT-haters have gloated for six straight years about every misstep made by the PT, either real or perceived, and used Peter Jackson/Bored of the Borings as a bludgeon against Lucas/the PT.

I'm quite amused to see how the PT-haters are trying to save face by saying lame stuff like, "KK got great reviews!" (So did ROTS.) "And it will surely be nominated for multiple Oscars while ROTS gets nothing! Jackson's ownership of Lucas is now confirmed!" Or else they say "Box office totals don't mean anything!" Funny, because when Spidey outgrossed AOTC in 2002, they meant, among other things, that SW was dead, that Lucas had ruined SW forever, that everyone hated the PT, that Lucas was a has-been, that outraged SW fans had abandoned the series for other, "better" stuff.

So, yeah, I'm gloating, and I'm enjoying how the Jackson supremacists are trying to avoid eating their words.

[The Bandit]

^

There is much anger in you.

King Kong is a fun, solid flick, if a bit long. It's unfortunate that more people aren't seeing it.

And I will say it -- box office numbers don't mean anything. The best films that have come out this year -- Grizzly Man and Brokeback Mountain -- are not going to break any records either.

-- 2bq

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 25 2005, 11:53 AM
^

There is much anger in you.

-- 2bq
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

But yet a lot of truth! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Virus]

weird but the quotes are working so I will put your posts in bold.

Dude, if you think I like every film that is released you are totally wrong. I don't know how you come by that opinion, because it is absolutely wrong. I don't even SEE all the films that come out each week, so I don't know how you can say I like "just about every one" of them.

Well I went back a few pages on this thread and found that you seem to praise just about every movie that is new for the weekend:

King Kong - 714, 711
Aeon Flux - 695
Transporter 2 - 659
Brothers Grimm - 637
Corpse Bride - 613
The Island - 594

I'm just saying what I've been reading here. No comments.

And as far as me supposedly not knowing what I am talking about regarding how movies make money, I have studied this very subject (the dynamic of filmmaking and the studios, and how they run their business now and since their beginning) in college courses. Not just by reading what people say on the internet.

Same here as for knowing and taking classes (such bs classes actually). I never said that you didn't know what you were talking about. And when I take in opinions about movies, you have to look at every type of person and source available.


Your statements about movies' grosses and your emphasis on the domestic gross shows that you are the one who is ignorant of this subject (as most people are).

How rude style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif The fact that you keep arguing with me because you hate my views on bad movies is ignorant. I detest when people aim their anger towards others directly like you just did here. Please grow up and lets have a civilized chat. As for domestic grosses as my emphasis, yes it is.

Following box office grosses may be a hobby for you but your statements that no one is interested in King Kong just because it will not make 300 million (films rarely ever make that much) and that you think the box office gross is where it will make most of its profit shows that you do not know how films actually make money in today's market.


If you know so much about movies, please tell me where you learned all of this knowledge. If you want to get into a whizzing match with me, please send me a PM and I will blow you out of the water with my resume. And yes, it is becoming a fact that no one is interested in this movie because it is struggling at the box office. If not that many people are going to see it, then how can you honestly say that people want to see it? Doesn't make sense. I guess people just loved Alexander last year too. Wrong


boxofficemojo is not the best and only source for understanding the business side of making films.

They just state the facts on how much a movie costs and earns. You can't bend the truth on that one.

I definitely understand that King Kong is not doing what was expected, and that it will not be as successful as The Fellowship of the Ring. The Lord of the Rings is a phenomenon with a very large built in audience. King Kong is not, but to say it is a failure and no one is interested simply because it is not performing as well as expected is innacurate.


I agree that it does not have the backing of LOTRs because so many people read them as books. But it is very accurate that there just are not that many people rushing out to see this movie. $100 million is a decent amount of cash and I agree that you have to have some amount of people going to see it but to say that this is bigger than ROTS, War of the Worlds, Wedding Crashers, etc etc....Its only #17 so far on the 2005 list and will probably end at #8 or 9: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&p=.htm Facts

I don't support everything Jackson does because I am a "fanboy" and I don't know why you would think that. I thought his other movies before LOTR and King Kong kind of sucked, and if he made a film that I was not interested in I would not go to see it and if it sucked I would say so.


Fair enough. It just seems that you love almost everything that he produces and whatever is new to the weekend.

I think it is obscene that he made 20 million for directing Kong, and I hope he doesn't get that kind of money for his next films. I think it is wrong that some actors get paid that much, and clearly it shows that they are not the box office draws that they were previously thought to be.

I totally agree. $20 mil for a director is insane. I would put money on it that he doesnt get that kind of dough on his next picture.



If I thought King Kong was a bad movie I would have stated how dissapointed I was. But I found it to be a brilliant film, regardless of the fact that it was a remake.


That is great. I never said that you should be stating this to be a terrible film. If you love it or hate it, that is your opinion. Cheer on.


And while we are on the subject of remakes, I don't like every remake that comes out and usually they kind of suck. But occasionally they are good films, like War of the Worlds and King Kong. Those are the only remakes I have seen recently that I thought were any good.


I will see War of the Worlds in a few weeks when I get it on Netflix. I wasn't very interested this summer but I will give it a chance. I would give my "opinion" on remakes, but on wait, I already have. Echo echo echo.....


I am not opposed to a remake if it is done well and puts a fresh spin on the original material (particularly if I am a fan of the subject, like War of the Worlds and King Kong).


I agree. If they can put a fresh spin on it, thats great. But at least use a new title and try not to suck off lots of money just by using a recognizable title. If War of the Worlds and King Kong used different names, they would have both done worse at the Box Office. People would have labeled them as another ID4 and Godzilla. Urgh....just come up with a new idea.....nevermind style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

But if it is a lame artless film that is made solely for the sake of making money then I don't support that.


I would almost put these movies in that catagory as just out there to make some cash. Cruise and Speilburg pulled in a ton of cash for WOTW and so did Jackson. Big time paydays for these guys.


Like you said, Cheaper by the Dozen was a poor film and I don't know why they would make a sequel other than to cash in on the first one's success with young audiences.


Agree. How can anyone think this would make any money?


Also like you, I am a fan of the James Bond franchise and hope it continues, but I recognize its faults and that each one is essentially a reworking of a formula that has been used for decades. There is not necessarily anything wrong with that because it works for that franchise.

I agree. Bring on Bond 21


But I don't write off every remake simply because it is a remake the way you do. I judge individual films based on their own merits, not my preconcieved notions and prejudices.

BTW, Merry Christmas.


I write off these movies at first and usually don't like them when I see them later. I give every movie out there a chance (minus musicals) but its a sad day to see that just about every movie this December was a remake. Really only Narnia and Aeon Flux were not remakes but adaptations. Like I said before, lets just start remaking every single movie. Starting in 2006, lets remake every movie that was made in 1906 and release it. This way, we can get all of the same old movies that we love and hate in a new format. Joy! Damn, I can't wait for 2077 for a new version of Star Wars. haha. And as I said before, if I wanted to become a big director, all I have to do is remake Casablanca, Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz and I got it made in Hollywood. Maybe I'll even remake every single Stanley Kubrick and Hitchcock movie ever made because I have no good ideas of my own. I'll just STEAL theirs. That is all this is.

Anyway, I won't be back for a week so have a nice holiday everyone. Oh and King Kong is down to #2: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ The king has fallen once again. $207 million in the US seems impossible now.

[Leiafan]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 25 2005, 11:53 AM
^

There is much anger in you.
Anger? No. More like wry amusement and satisfaction that the shoe is now on the other foot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>King Kong is a fun, solid flick, if a bit long.* It's unfortunate that more people aren't seeing it.[/b][/quote]
Unfortunate for whom?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And I will say it -- box office numbers don't mean anything.[/b][/quote]
They mean that a film is popular, and that's pretty much it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The best films that have come out this year -- Grizzly Man and Brokeback Mountain -- are not going to break any records either.[/b][/quote]
Since I have seen neither movie, I can't say I agree or disagree that they are the best films of the year. However, it is almost always the case that the best movies of the year are not the highest grossers. Similarly, it's almost always the case that the best movies of the year win no Oscars, although it looks like "Brokeback Mountain," your pick for one of the two best movies of the year, may win a few. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But yet a lot of truth![/b][/quote]
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Justin]

Originally posted by Virus@Dec 26 2005, 02:11 AM
Well I went back a few pages on this thread and found that you seem to praise just about every movie that is new for the weekend:

King Kong - 714, 711
Aeon Flux - 695
Transporter 2 - 659
Brothers Grimm - 637
Corpse Bride - 613
The Island - 594

I'm just saying what I've been reading here. No comments.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I really liked King Kong, I thought Aeon Flux was OK (although I didn't even post about it in here I don't think), I didn't see Transporter 2, Brothers Grimm or Corpse Bride, and I liked The Island.

So that's three movies in the last six months that I saw in the theater and liked. Hardly "every movie that comes out each week."

[Leiafan]

By the by, 2 Butterflies, if you think I'm angry, I submit the following post that I found on another board, submitted today (Christmas):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>George should have given someone else the director's chair and just focused on all the little CGI crap that he obsesses over so much.

"Lucas, go play with the computer and alter the city's background and Vader outfit till your little heart is content. In the mean time, I'm going to be over here directing and making sure THE DIALOGUE DOESN'T SUCK in this scene."

It worked for ESB. It could have made the PT gold. But, alas, it didn't happen and now we have to live the rest of our lives with his crap.[/b][/quote]

I used to get annoyed about such posts. Now I simply feel pity for people like this -- people so full of bitterness and hatred (on a day that is supposed to represent love and forgiveness and the togetherness of humanity, no less). Oh, and I think the person's choice of words is particularly telling in the last phrase: "we have to live the rest of our lives with his crap."

As far as I know, "we," including this person, have to do no such thing. This person is choosing, of his/her own free will, to remain focused on movies he/she hates. (I've no doubt that he/she continues to watch them on DVD, so he/she can come back to his/her basher circles and complain more about how much they suck. Bashers usually do.) He/she could, at any time, simply move on from the PT, and/or focus on ESB, apparently the only SW movie that he/she likes. But he/she does not, and chooses to blame Lucas, when as far as I know, he has held no gun to this person's head or otherwise forced him/her to continue to devote time and money to the PT.

[Justin]

Now as for where my knowledge on Hollywood's financial business, I don't have any of the text books from the previous classes I have taken (none of which were "bs" classes, by the way) but the textbook for the one I took last semester is Movies and Meaning Third Edition by Stephen Prince, a professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Here are some quotes from the text that illustrate my point and show where you are wrong by categorizing Kong as a failure.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>For the Majors (Studios), the domestic theatrical market (U.S. and Canada) is but a small part of their total box office earnings. The world market for these pictures is more important in terms of box-office revenue. Because production costs are rising, the industry needs its overseas markets.

The popular media report box-office grosses...but information about box-office grosses is meaningless when taken out of context.

Despite the industry's impressive yearly earnings, [there is] little profit from theatrical venues. For this reason, Hollywood relies heavily on earnings from ancillary markets.

These are all of the nontheatrical markets in which studios derive revenues. [They] include broadcast and pay cable television (domestic and worldwide), home video royalties realized through rental and sale of videotapes and DVDs, and the licensing of film characters and logos to merchandisers and retailers.

Since the mid-1980s, revenue from home video and cable television has surpassed box office earnings. Since that time, the majors have earned more from sales of films to video and cable markets than from ticket sales in the nation's theaters.

[The studios] can offset the loss accruing to any one area of business operations from profits associated from profits associated with others.[/b][/quote]

The Matrix, which was held up as a big hit, earned $350 million worldwide when all was said and done. King Kong has earned more than half that worldwide in its first two weeks of release.

As you can see, King Kong will make all of its money back and turn a profit from its worldwide theatrical release, and will earn even more from ancillary markets. It is definitely NOT a failuer.

And for any film to earn 100 million domestically in its first two weeks means a lot of Americans wanted to see it (and still more will see it in the coming weeks). Not as many as went to Revenge of the Sith, but a lot of people were interested.

I don't know why you are hell-bent on saying no one or not that many people are interested in King Kong, when clearly there are. And keep in mind, this film has only been out TWO WEEKS.

And Leiafan, I don't know why you are crowing about how "the shoe is on the other foot" when this situation is nothing like AOTC's release. Most media coverage that I saw declared it a success but mentioned that it was interesting that for the first time a Star Wars film was not the number 1 film of the summer. Not that it was a failure. There may have been a few that mistakenly did but I'm sure it was not as bad as you are claiming it to be.

Also, as far as Entertainment Weekly goes, which you say wanted ROTS to fail and gave it no coverage, you are wrong. ROTS was a cover story (multiple times if I'm not mistaken) with multiple articles anticipating its release, and they gave it a high rating. The DVD release was also a cover story in Entertainment Weekly.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Leiafan@Dec 26 2005, 02:57 AM
By the by, 2 Butterflies, if you think I'm angry, I submit the following post that I found on another board, submitted today (Christmas):

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>George should have given someone else the director's chair and just focused on all the little CGI crap that he obsesses over so much.

"Lucas, go play with the computer and alter the city's background and Vader outfit till your little heart is content. In the mean time, I'm going to be over here directing and making sure THE DIALOGUE DOESN'T SUCK in this scene."

It worked for ESB. It could have made the PT gold. But, alas, it didn't happen and now we have to live the rest of our lives with his crap.

I used to get annoyed about such posts. Now I simply feel pity for people like this -- people so full of bitterness and hatred (on a day that is supposed to represent love and forgiveness and the togetherness of humanity, no less). Oh, and I think the person's choice of words is particularly telling in the last phrase: "we have to live the rest of our lives with his crap."

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
I use to too, but no matter what we say or do, we can't get those kind of people to like them or even appreciate them. I no longer waste my energy. Yes, I too question why someone would spend so much energy and time with their hate for simply a movie when there are other more deserving causes. But the one thing I know for sure, is that there are many that do love the PT (especially kids). My son and I absolutely love them and will continue to watch them and appreciate them. I now actually feel sorry for the people that can't enjoy them because they have less Star Wars to appreciate.

Oh Well, just my 2 cents!

[Vibroblade]

Sorry Justin but I think you're wrong this time.

Kong will end up with a profit, but it will generally be considered a MAJOR disappointment if not a flop.

The budget and marketing cost were around 270 million. Kong will need to make close to 600 million worldwide to earn a profit. Remember the studio doesn't get all the money.

It will earn a profit eventually, but this is a major dissappointment to box office followers, Peter Jackson, and the movie studio. I don't care what they say; given the hype, lack of significant competition, and the media love fest with Jackson, it should have done better.

Once again I repeat something I said earlier. As a longtime fan of following the BO, I think it should be noted that ROTS deserves some major props. The bo industry is in a serious decline ( there's no more ignoring the obvious ) and yet ROTS managed an impressive 380 million domestic.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by P-Ray@Dec 26 2005, 08:45 AM
Yes, I too question why someone would spend so much energy and time with their hate for simply a move when there are other more deserving causes.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
I'd say the same for people that seem to have almost a blind love for Star Wars.

Well Kong still came in #1 this weekend despite several new releases...who says it won't have legs?

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Darth Vegas+Dec 26 2005, 04:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Vegas @ Dec 26 2005, 04:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-P-Ray@Dec 26 2005, 08:45 AM
Yes, I too question why someone would spend so much energy and time with their hate for simply a move when there are other more deserving causes.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
I'd say the same for people that seem to have almost a blind love for Star Wars.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
You can say whatever you want! But I still think it makes more sense to speak highly of a movie you adore than to constantly trash something that you hate. Even with my "Blind love" of Star Wars, I still recognize some of their weaknesses. It doesn't bother me like it does some. I love them for what they are worth. Entertaining movies that bring us to different worlds. What bothers me is when people attack the problems with the PT but yet over look them for the OT.

Do you really think it's abnormal to want to constantly talk about something that you like? I'm sure that you speak about your other positive interests.

I know that I don't spend any time talking about something that I don't like. For example, a friend of mine runs a Howard Stern web board. I do not like Howard Stern so I don't go over to the web site at all. I don't waste my time and energy on it. And I wouldn't go over there to speak negatively about him. There's too much other stuff to do!

And BTW, what happened to you? You yourself used to defend and speak highly of the PT once upon a time.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Darth Vegas+Dec 26 2005, 08:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Vegas @ Dec 26 2005, 08:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-P-Ray@Dec 26 2005, 06:24 PM
Oh...and just for the record, I didn't have to go to film school to realze what movies I like. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I'm not just hating on SW, I'm largely unimpressed by most movies these days. Because I believe there's a better standard that could be achieved.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
I think that you are right there!

But, I also think it's what one expects to get out of a movie when you go into it. My example would be Fantastic 4. I got what I expected and ended up enjoying it. Some people wanted something different or more and ended up not liking it. Not that it was a great or ground breaking movie, but I enjoyed it for what it was. I think I went into it with the right state of mind.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Dec 26 2005, 06:53 PM
Kong will do just fine. It just won't do LOTR money and you know what? So what.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Agreed. I just hope it does well enough so Universal will release the extended cut on dvd.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by T'bone@Dec 26 2005, 08:53 PM
Kong will do just fine. It just won't do LOTR money and you know what? So what.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Just like SW and other movies, as long as some people like it!

And even if it doesn't do amazing B.O. #'s, people will still get to see it and appreciate it on DVD.

[Vibroblade]

Dang....this place has changed since this morning!

[Seanakin]

I know...I look around and see enough drama to merit an Oscar nomination! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Justin]

Originally posted by Vibroblade@Dec 26 2005, 03:42 PM
Sorry Justin but I think you're wrong this time.

Kong will end up with a profit, but it will generally be considered a MAJOR disappointment if not a flop.

The budget and marketing cost were around 270 million. Kong will need to make close to 600 million worldwide to earn a profit. Remember the studio doesn't get all the money.

It will earn a profit eventually, but this is a major dissappointment to box office followers, Peter Jackson, and the movie studio. I don't care what they say; given the hype, lack of significant competition, and the media love fest with Jackson, it should have done better.

Once again I repeat something I said earlier. As a longtime fan of following the BO, I think it should be noted that ROTS deserves some major props. The bo industry is in a serious decline ( there's no more ignoring the obvious ) and yet ROTS managed an impressive 380 million domestic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Actually Vibes, I'm not wrong - I conceded that King Kong is somewhat dissapointing so far in that I am sure everyone was hoping it would earn something like 100+ million in its opening weekend, but it is not a "major" dissapointment.

Especially since its gross actually increased significantly from Friday to Sunday on its opening, and only fell 34% to its second week when most films fall about 64% from their first week to their next. Its also intersting to note that it made almost three million more dollars last Tuesday than it did on its opening day.

Also interesting to note is that Titanic only made 28 million in its opening weekend and made less than 90 million after two weeks, which is where we sit with King Kong, which has made almost 130 million in the same time frame. Both are three hour movies.

Now, I don't think Kong will do nearly as well as Titanic, and they play to somewhat different audiences (a LOT of teenage girls went to see Titanic and then saw it again), but it is a bit surprising that 47% of the audience last weekend was made of women. Also, the strong word of mouth has and probably will continue to help Kong's numbers.

King Kong is definitely a "hit" (any movie that breaks $100 million domestically is considered a hit by Hollywood) but whether it is a financial success at the box office in comparison to its budget has yet to be seen.

As far as what it needs to make a profit inthe theater, you are right that not all the money goes to the studio. I don't know what back-end deals any of the cast or filmmakers may or may not have, but about 20 cents per dollar goes to the theaters.

Some of the money may go to foreign investors if there were any, but you would subtract the amount they contributed from the film's budget to determine how much the studio actually invested itself.

Other than that, it all goes to the studio. So my guess is that Kong will have to earn around 350-400 million worldwide to turn a profit, which is likely.

People were hoping it would do that much domestically, so that may be where the idea it is failing is coming from. But even then, we won't know until it's finished its theatrical run.

And regardless of box office - the ancillary markets are where the big bucks get generated these days, as I said in my previous post (and backed up with a professional source). Shrek 2 made more than twice as much on DVD as it did in the theater domestically.

In that respect, I am DEFINITELY not wrong. I have studied this recently in college, so I know what I am talking about.

[P-Ray]

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 29 2005, 05:13 AM
King Kong is definitely a "hit" (any movie that breaks $100 million domestically is considered a hit by Hollywood)
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

"Batman & Robin" made over a $100 Mill! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Actually Vibes, I'm not wrong - I conceded that King Kong is somewhat dissapointing so far in that I am sure everyone was hoping it would earn something like 100+ million in its opening weekend, but it is not a "major" dissapointment. [/b][/quote]

That's a matter of perception of course. To me anything less than 300 million domestic was dissappointing and less than 600 million worldwide would be a major dissappointment. But, like I said, that's certainly a matter of opinion.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Especially since its gross actually increased significantly from Friday to Sunday on its opening, and only fell 34% to its second week when most films fall about 64% from their first week to their next. Its also intersting to note that it made almost three million more dollars last Tuesday than it did on its opening day.[/b][/quote]

The second week fell on Christmas so that makes that argument moot. When one considers that Narnia made almost the same amount in its third weekend, it is far less impressive.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also interesting to note is that Titanic only made 28 million in its opening weekend and made less than 90 million after two weeks, which is where we sit with King Kong, which has made almost 130 million in the same time frame. Both are three hour movies. Now, I don't think Kong will do nearly as well as Titanic, and they play to somewhat different audiences (a LOT of teenage girls went to see Titanic and then saw it again), but it is a bit surprising that 47% of the audience last weekend was made of women. Also, the strong word of mouth has and probably will continue to help Kong's numbers.
[/b][/quote]

Nothing has ever done what Titanic did before Titanic and it's very unlikely anything will do it again. Obviously any movie that follows a path similiar to Titanic is a success. If that happens with Kong, then obviously I was wrong and it was not dissappointing. Of course, there almost no chance of such an occurance.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>King Kong is definitely a "hit" (any movie that breaks $100 million domestically is considered a hit by Hollywood) but whether it is a financial success at the box office in comparison to its budget has yet to be seen.[/b][/quote]

This is were IMO you are wrong. Making 100 million does not make a movie a hit. That may have been true 10 years ago but certainly not now. Hulk made 100 million and Godzilla made a 100 million, neither would be described as hits. Production budget, marketing, anticipation, etc must be factored into consideration when determining if a movie is a hit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As far as what it needs to make a profit inthe theater, you are right that not all the money goes to the studio. I don't know what back-end deals any of the cast or filmmakers may or may not have, but about 20 cents per dollar goes to the theaters. [/b][/quote]

That's for the first couple of weeks. By week 5 it is usually around 50/50. So over the course of the run for a movie like Kong, it will be close to 60/40 in terms of split of revenue. Assuming Kong gets 550 million worldwide and assuming the studio gets an average 60% of the revenue, the studio would turn a profit of about 50-60 million. If the studio has a great deal and gets 70% of the revenue, the profit would be around 100 million.

In my mind, that's pretty dissapointing for a movie with as much hype and pre-release buzz as Kong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Other than that, it all goes to the studio. So my guess is that Kong will have to earn around 350-400 million worldwide to turn a profit, which is likely. [/b][/quote]

I would say it needs at least 450 ( which it will get ) and maybe more depending on the deal the studio has with the theater chains.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>People were hoping it would do that much domestically, so that may be where the idea it is failing is coming from. But even then, we won't know until it's finished its theatrical run.[/b][/quote]

I agree it COULD turn around. I just don't think it will.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And regardless of box office - the ancillary markets are where the big bucks get generated these days, as I said in my previous post (and backed up with a professional source). Shrek 2 made more than twice as much on DVD as it did in the theater domestically. In that respect, I am DEFINITELY not wrong. I have studied this recently in college, so I know what I am talking about.[/b][/quote]

Agreed. But this thread is about BO and IMHO, Kong is not preforming very well at the BO. Maybe not a pure dud like Godzilla, but very dissapointing for a BO enthusiast like myself.

[Leiafan]

"King Kong" is not performing that well at the box office, no matter how the media wishes to ignore or whitewash it -- especially taking into consideration how much it cost, and also the fawning that critics have done over it.

It is true that many highly acclaimed movies don't do that well at the box office, but there is a difference between, say, a "Brokeback Mountain" or a "Pride and Prejudice" being highly acclaimed but not doing that well, and a "King Kong" being highly acclaimed but not doing that well. "Brokeback Mountain" and "Pride and Prejudice" are small movies without mainstream appeal, and are clearly not intended to be blockbusters -- art house hits, perhaps, but not blockbusters. "King Kong," on the other hand, was not only expected to be a blockbuster, it was expected to be the blockbuster of this year. It has failed to live up to that expectation.

If ROTS had performed as KK is performing so far, we would never hear the end of the crowing and gloating in the media about how it "flopped." Heck...as it stands, ROTS blew away all the competition at the box office, and it apparently would cause everyone in the media physical distress to mention it.

The media is currently trying to lick its wounds by being as nasty toward ROTS as possible. E! Online and Entertainment Weakly (not a typo) have both taken vicious swipes at ROTS in their respective year-end wrap-ups. EWeakly even accompanied their swipe at ROTS (the blurb contains inaccuracies such as the claim that Anakin "fell into lava" and "turned to the Dark Side because some old man made him paranoid" -- did the idiot who wrote it even see the movie?) with an incredibly tasteless drawing of Lucas, holding a lightsaber with a limp blade.

They're so pathetic. So completely, utterly pathetic in their childish rage. Even with all the pronouncements of how SW is over, dead, gone, been supplanted by Bored of the Borings or some other overpraised flick/series, the media still can't stay away from SW -- it still uses SW as the standard against which they measure their pets, dragging it into totally irrelevant articles and blurbs.

Makes me wonder if their fawning over the PT's "rivals" isn't so much about sincere liking for the rivals as it is about spiting the PT and Lucas.

[Sam]

Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause.
Victor Hugo

*****

The more I feel threatened to protect my belief, the less confidence I have in its validity.
Dhananjaya Kumar

*****

The more importance you attach to an object, the less freedom you have to enjoy it.
Dhananjaya Kumar

*****

Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
Yoda

[Justin]

Vibes I see where you are coming from in that it's fun to look at films and how much they make, and you're right that from that perspective it is dissapointing because everyone expected King Kong to be an unstoppable monster.

But it is in no way a failure. It will end up making a lot of money for Universal in the end.

$100 million is sort of the magic number in Hollywood that makes a film a "hit," meaning a lot of people went to see it. The Pacifier made about $114 million and is considered a popular movie. The Matrix, widely accepted as being a big hit made $171 million domestically.

King Kong is a hit, but it needs to be a pretty BIG hit to be financially successful.

The problem is not that people are not interested in King Kong and that it's not generating cash, it's that it was way too expensive. It is visually an amazing film due to the money spent, but I imagine that some FX shots could have been dropped and action sequences shortened slightly without losing that sense of grandeur and spectacle in order to reign in the price tag.

I hope that soon the film industry will take a look at what's going on and realize they are spending way too much money where it doesn't need to be spent.

I would love it if they would make public budget breakdowns so we can see where the money is going.

[The Bandit]

Waitasec, the frickin' Pacifier made 114 million dollars? The one where Vin Diesel is playing Hulk Hogan playing Mr. Nanny? That one?

God, no wonder people paid money to see penguins fornicate with the crap that is out there now.

-- 2bq

[Justin]

You didn't like March of the Penguins, 2BQ?

[Seanakin]

^ style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[The Bandit]

I thought it was a very well made and shot nature documentary. Something I would see on Discovery, PBS (NOVA) or the National Geogaphic channel if they hadn't shelled out money to have Morgan Freeman do the narration. I really hated how they kept trying to place human emotions/characteristics on the penguins.

Is my life any better for having seen the film? No. Do I have a better understanding about the reproduction habits of Emperor Penguins? You bet.... but I tend to look for something more substansial in film -- especially in documentary, as I think it's one of the great windows we have into human psyche -- which is why a "nature documentary" like Herzog's Grizzly Man, or a cinema verite piece like the Maysles Brothers' "Salesman" are films i wil revisit time and time again over the years. Once you've seen penguins mate and hatch an egg you've seen it.

-- 2bq

[Justin]

I wanted to see Grizzly Man when we got it early at Blockbuster but I ran out of time to see it before we had to put it out. I will get it later, because I hear it is really good.

[The Bandit]

I bought the DVD today at Borders...

but hey, the Pacifier, 114 million? I stll can't get over that.

And in the meantime, if you want a great documentary, check out "Capturing the Friedmans" or "Salesman" or "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr." if your store has any of them....

-- 2bq

[Virus]

Originally posted by Justin@Dec 29 2005, 05:13 AM
In that respect, I am DEFINITELY not wrong. I have studied this recently in college, so I know what I am talking about.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


After reading all of these crazy posts, I think everyone is RIGHT! Hahaha. But Justin when you go off saying that anything over $100 million is a success and that King Kong might turn it around, I'm sorry but you are most likely wrong. It could happen, you never know and that is why we are all right. But it is highly unlikely. BTW, where did you goto college? You seem to be up for a whizzing match so I'm game. All you mentioned about is where the book you read and where the college that that professor went to.

Anyway: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ Go Narnia. King has fallen once again.

[Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)]

http://us.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-12-30/#film3

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>15 Blockbuster Films Scored in 2005; All Others Did Not
The top 15 films of 2005 performed as well at the box office as the top 15 films of 2004; however, every film below the top 15 performed worse, Daily Variety reported today (Friday) in a year-end analysis of the top 100 films at the box office. The trade publication pegged the total for the year at around $8.75 billion, down 5 percent from $9.2 billion a year ago, while admissions dropped 11 percent to 1.32 billion from 1.48 billion. (It marked the third consecutive year of declining attendance.) Variety observed that only two studios, Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox, posted higher box-office earnings this year than last. It pointed out that Fox had received a big boost from Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith, which earned $380 million, making it the year's top grosser. It failed to point out, however, that Lucasfilm, which fully funds its productions, also takes all of the profits, paying the studio only a flat distribution fee. [/b][/quote]

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It is true that many highly acclaimed movies don't do that well at the box office, but there is a difference between, say, a "Brokeback Mountain" or a "Pride and Prejudice" being highly acclaimed but not doing that well, and a "King Kong" being highly acclaimed but not doing that well. "Brokeback Mountain" and "Pride and Prejudice" are small movies without mainstream appeal, and are clearly not intended to be blockbusters -- art house hits, perhaps, but not blockbusters. "King Kong," on the other hand, was not only expected to be a blockbuster, it was expected to be the blockbuster of this year. It has failed to live up to that expectation.[/b][/quote]

The eternal optomist and armchair analyst in me wants to say that this is because the public is getting tired of the same old "blockbuster" mentality that Hollywood is shoveling out and is now looking for something different. To that end I point you towards the per-screen numbers on Brokeback Mounain and to the box office success of "March of the Penguins." Maybe audiences are finally realizing that they're shelling out ten bucks a ticket for the same recycled garbage 90 percent of the time? Maybe someone got burned by paying to see 'Stealth' or 'Four Brothers' this summer is thinking "Well s***, I'm just going to save my time and money on this King Kong nonsense... it'll be out on DVD in two weeks anyway..." When something so radically different as Penguins (which I didn't find to be all that impressive, but it got buzz and press and people flocked to it, pardon the pun) or Brokeback hits the big screen they want to go see it. My mom is going to see Brokeback Mountain with some friends this weekend -- she hasn't been out to see a movie since.... I want to say I saw The Rock with her in the theatre, but I'm sure there's been a couple in between then and now. Oh yeah, saw Saving Private Ryan with her -- that's the last movie I remember her going out to see.

The success of the DVD market and quick turnaround times on releases have also helped to hurt sales -- much more than piracy in my mind, because who is going to download a cam'd copy of a movie if they can get a great quality DVD a six-eight weeks down the road? (and of course, one can make the argument that Hollywood has moved to quick release times on movies to disc to help recoup some money being lost to piracy).

I also think that exhibitors need to step back and take a clear look at what they're doing --> twenty minutes of ads before a movie and overpriced/crappy food aren't really doing anything to help the cause. Most art-houses I've been to skip the ads entirely, show maybe ten minutes of trailers before a film, and sell a nicer variety of snacks at much more reasonable prices. They can stay in business doing this -- why not the megaplex?

Of course, there was that girl in the DVD aisle at Best Buy today who picked up a copy of "White Chicks" and started telling her friend how it was the funniest movie she'd ever seen.... so maybe there is no hope for the future of cinema after all. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

- 2bq

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Virus@Dec 30 2005, 10:54 PM
Anyway: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ Go Narnia. King has fallen once again.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
Not bad considering that it's playing on less screens than Narnia and because of it's much longer running time there are less showings per screen.

Narnia has been out a week longer than Kong and domestically Kong is only about 50 million behind, counting worldwide receipts it's actually grossed about 30 million more than Narnia (narnia is at 270 mil worldwied, Kong is at 296).

[T-bone]

Jim - one day I'll explain to you the power of the "family" film. It's one of those things that until you have a family of your own, you won't know or understand - trust me. We saw The Pacifier and we have the DVD believe it or not. Kids love that stuff and to tell you the truth, when looking for safe stuff for kids to watch, these films are a goldmine.

That's why it made all that money.

Now if you want to try and figure out a mystery, go figure out why TITANIC made all that money it did. THAT'S one I can't figure out. I really think that film was average at best.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 31 2005, 01:33 AM
To that end I point you towards the per-screen numbers on Brokeback Mounain and to the box office success of "March of the Penguins."<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
This isn't due to huge public interest as much as it's due to the film opening in very few theaters.

March of the Penguins...I dunno, that's one of those weird ones that no one could've predicted. That's all I got to say about that.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Dec 31 2005, 09:47 AM
Now if you want to try and figure out a mystery, go figure out why TITANIC made all that money it did. THAT'S one I can't figure out. I really think that film was average at best.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Did fandango exsist in 1997? If so, has anyone ever looked into the gross Titanic made from internet ticket sales? I'm telling ya', it's a vast conspiracy! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r.gif

[The Bandit]

I dunno Lou, I just don't think that poop jokes make for a good family film -- it's like you're taking the genre and throwing it to the lowest common denominator. Why not show the kids Mr. Nanny? I don't remembe the Hulkster changing any diapers in that one. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

I mean, when I was growing up in the 80's there were definitely a lot of kid-friendly movies and, maybe it's just the nostalgia kicking in, but I think they're a lot better than what's being put out now (Mr. Nanny not being an example of this, I just throught the similarities between it and the Pacifier were kind of funny).... I'm talking about stuff like The Goonies and Adventures in Babysitting... Bill & Ted's Excelent Adventure -- even something like Home Alone (which is kid of on the outer edge for me, something that came along later so it's not really something I want to revisit)

Cartoons today too -- nothing I see on TV touches the original Transformers or GI Joe for me.... I can't see why kids would want to watch Ed Ed and Eddy if they can pop in a DVD with the Optimus Prime and Megatron going toe to toe.

-- 2bq

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This isn't due to huge public interest as much as it's due to those films opening in very few theaters.[/b][/quote]

According to Mojo, Penguins made around 77 million and was on 2500 screens at its widest point of release -- I think that shows that there is public interest in something -- anything -- different. If you figure that average ticket costs 7.50, that's over ten million people who went to see that movie. Do you think you could sell ten million tickets to a Penguin documentary five years ago? There is a trend here, I think -- a few years from now you might see one of these out of nowhere off-the-beaten-path films hit 100 million.

As for Brokeback, Mojo says it's currently on only 269 screens, but it is doing extremely well and I would expect that you will see it expand and continue to do well. I know local to my parents' place it's playing in a few mainstream theatres.

[T-bone]

I'm not saying it was a great film - I'm answering your question as to why it made so much money.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 31 2005, 10:05 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This isn't due to huge public interest as much as it's due to those films opening in very few theaters.

According to Mojo, Penguins made around 77 million and was on 2500 screens at its widest point of release -- I think that shows that there is public interest in something -- anything -- different. If you figure that average ticket costs 7.50, that's over ten million people who went to see that movie. Do you think you could sell ten million tickets to a Penguin documentary five years ago? There is a trend here, I think -- a few years from now you might see one of these out of nowhere off-the-beaten-path films hit 100 million.

As for Brokeback, Mojo says it's currently on only 269 screens, but it is doing extremely well and I would expect that you will see it expand and continue to do well. I know local to my parents' place it's playing in a few mainstream theatres.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Sorry, I geuss I didn't revise my post soon enough, I was referring only to Brokeback with that comment. Penguins...I think for the most part it's just a freak of nature. Can't really explain that one. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif

But I will agree with you that there is a trend here. Since F911 there's been a growing box office trend towards documentary films.

[Leiafan]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 31 2005, 03:33 AM
The eternal optomist and armchair analyst in me wants to say that this is because the public is getting tired of the same old "blockbuster" mentality that Hollywood is shoveling out and is now looking for something different. To that end I point you towards the per-screen numbers on Brokeback Mounain and to the box office success of "March of the Penguins." Maybe audiences are finally realizing that they're shelling out ten bucks a ticket for the same recycled garbage 90 percent of the time? Maybe someone got burned by paying to see 'Stealth' or 'Four Brothers' this summer is thinking "Well s***, I'm just going to save my time and money on this King Kong nonsense... it'll be out on DVD in two weeks anyway..."
That's certainly possible. I've seen a very self-righteous version of that attitude from some people, wherein they pat themselves on the back for refusing to see a blockbuster and instead say they're going to spend their money on an independent, quality film -- treating "independent" and "quality" like synonyms, which they aren't at all.

[Dutch]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Cartoons today too -- nothing I see on TV touches the original Transformers or GI Joe for me.... I can't see why kids would want to watch Ed Ed and Eddy if they can pop in a DVD with the Optimus Prime and Megatron going toe to toe.
[/b][/quote]

It's mostly nostalgia, 2bq.

My Dad used to say the same stuff to me about G.I. Joe and Transformers. I can still hear him complaining about how horrible they were compared to the cartoons when he was a kid (Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, etc.)

[Sam]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Dec 31 2005, 03:33 AM
The eternal optomist and armchair analyst in me wants to say that this is because the public is getting tired of the same old "blockbuster" mentality that Hollywood is shoveling out and is now looking for something different. To that end I point you towards the per-screen numbers on Brokeback Mounain and to the box office success of "March of the Penguins." Maybe audiences are finally realizing that they're shelling out ten bucks a ticket for the same recycled garbage 90 percent of the time? Maybe someone got burned by paying to see 'Stealth' or 'Four Brothers' this summer is thinking "Well s***, I'm just going to save my time and money on this King Kong nonsense... it'll be out on DVD in two weeks anyway..." When something so radically different as Penguins (which I didn't find to be all that impressive, but it got buzz and press and people flocked to it, pardon the pun) or Brokeback hits the big screen they want to go see it. My mom is going to see Brokeback Mountain with some friends this weekend -- she hasn't been out to see a movie since.... I want to say I saw The Rock with her in the theatre, but I'm sure there's been a couple in between then and now. Oh yeah, saw Saving Private Ryan with her -- that's the last movie I remember her going out to see.

The success of the DVD market and quick turnaround times on releases have also helped to hurt sales -- much more than piracy in my mind, because who is going to download a cam'd copy of a movie if they can get a great quality DVD a six-eight weeks down the road? (and of course, one can make the argument that Hollywood has moved to quick release times on movies to disc to help recoup some money being lost to piracy).

I also think that exhibitors need to step back and take a clear look at what they're doing --> twenty minutes of ads before a movie and overpriced/crappy food aren't really doing anything to help the cause. Most art-houses I've been to skip the ads entirely, show maybe ten minutes of trailers before a film, and sell a nicer variety of snacks at much more reasonable prices. They can stay in business doing this -- why not the megaplex?

Of course, there was that girl in the DVD aisle at Best Buy today who picked up a copy of "White Chicks" and started telling her friend how it was the funniest movie she'd ever seen.... so maybe there is no hope for the future of cinema after all. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif

- 2bq
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Excellent points, especially about the ads.

[Justin]

Jeese Virus, I have no interest in getting into a "whizzing match" and I don't know why you think that because I am just putting forth my knowledge on the subject.

I also don't understand why you are questioning the credibility of the text book I mentioned. Do you really believe that all that stuff I mentioned is not true, when the numbers are there?

You seem dead set on believing that Kong will not be profitable, when it all likelihood it will. It is true that it is not the megablockbuster that everyone thought it would be, but a lot of people are still seeing it.

I thought I mentioned earlier that The Matrix, held as a massive success and highly popular film, actually grossed only slightly more domestically in its entire run (about $170 million) than Kong did in two weeks.

You could argue that the average ticket price was less expensive, but there is only about a $1.75 difference, which would not account for such different numbers in a shorter amount of time.

So clearly Kong is successful among moviegoers (who are giving it an average rating of B+) but whether it is a financial success in the theater remains to be seen.

The problem with King Kong (I thought I posted this earlier but I guess it must have gotten lost somehow) is that it was too expensive. If it had come in at its original budget of $150 million it would be being heralded as a big success, but it's massive price tag has increased everyone's expectations.

A lot of money must have been spent on the FX (Kong is the most realistic digital character I have ever seen) and it shows on the screen, but a lot of shots could have been trimmed without losing the core of the scenes or the visual grandeur, but an exhorbitant amount of money must have been spent on things that are not as essential to the final film.

Film studios need to wake up and realize they need to stop spending ridiculous amounts of money.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Virus@Dec 31 2005, 01:54 AM
Anyway: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ Go Narnia. King has fallen once again.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

So Virus, would you say that Narnia is doing better than Kong?

[Leiafan]

Originally posted by Dutch@Dec 31 2005, 09:27 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Cartoons today too -- nothing I see on TV touches the original Transformers or GI Joe for me.... I can't see why kids would want to watch Ed Ed and Eddy if they can pop in a DVD with the Optimus Prime and Megatron going toe to toe.


It's mostly nostalgia, 2bq.

My Dad used to say the same stuff to me about G.I. Joe and Transformers. I can still hear him complaining about how horrible they were compared to the cartoons when he was a kid (Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry, etc.)
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Every generation thinks that things were so much better back when they were a kid.

Myself, I'm shocked when I see some of the kids' entertainment from the 1940s -- it's incredibly racist.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
Jeese Virus, I have no interest in getting into a "whizzing match" and I don't know why you think that because I am just putting forth my knowledge on the subject.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


If you have no interest then why are you always touting your knowledge. Scared?

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
I also don't understand why you are questioning the credibility of the text book I mentioned. Do you really believe that all that stuff I mentioned is not true, when the numbers are there?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Sorry but I'm not questioning the credibility of the book. I never said anything negative about it, just you and what you know. As for numbers, you clearly are having trouble understanding that concept when I show you the box office numbers from www.boxofficemojo.com. Its not that hard.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
You seem dead set on believing that Kong will not be profitable, when it all likelihood it will. It is true that it is not the megablockbuster that everyone thought it would be, but a lot of people are still seeing it.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Please go back and read about what I have been posting that is related to Kong. I have said that it will probably finish around $225 or so which will make it break even in the US. And can you please go back and reread what I have wrote that nearly every movie over the past 20 years always makes back all of its money and more due to overseas.

Yes, I agree that it is not a megablockbuster. Makes you question the quality of the subject. People simply are not interested. Sure it has made a good amount of cash which shows that someone out there is interested but its not pulling in a ton of cash.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
I thought I mentioned earlier that The Matrix, held as a massive success and highly popular film, actually grossed only slightly more domestically in its entire run (about $170 million) than Kong did in two weeks.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


R vs PG-13. But you could agree 2hr vs 3hr. And like your next post mentions about ticket prices being lower back then.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
You could argue that the average ticket price was less expensive, but there is only about a $1.75 difference, which would not account for such different numbers in a shorter amount of time.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


$1.75 can make a big difference.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
So clearly Kong is successful among moviegoers (who are giving it an average rating of B+) but whether it is a financial success in the theater remains to be seen.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Its a moderately successful film. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
The problem with King Kong (I thought I posted this earlier but I guess it must have gotten lost somehow) is that it was too expensive. If it had come in at its original budget of $150 million it would be being heralded as a big success, but it's massive price tag has increased everyone's expectations.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


I totally agree that it cost way too much and it should have been 1 hour less. Its such a weak story but Jackson seems to think that everyone wants a 3 hr epic. King Kong is not an epic, not even close.

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
A lot of money must have been spent on the FX (Kong is the most realistic digital character I have ever seen) and it shows on the screen, but a lot of shots could have been trimmed without losing the core of the scenes or the visual grandeur, but an exhorbitant amount of money must have been spent on things that are not as essential to the final film.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Think how much could have been saved if you didn't pay Jackson which would have cut out about 1 hour of film?

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 1 2006, 01:53 AM
Film studios need to wake up and realize they need to stop spending ridiculous amounts of money.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


AGREE!!!!!!! And they also need to realize that people are sick and tired of remakes of remakes and sequels.

[Sam]

Originally posted by Virus@Jan 1 2006, 06:59 PM
And they also need to realize that people are sick and tired of remakes of remakes and sequels.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

On remakes, that all depends on what it is that's being remade.

Example: If the subject were "The Three Musketeers," then I would agree with you. I found the pair of films that Richard Lester directed in the 70's to be the definitive piece on the subject. No more remakes needed to me made after that. The ones that were made after it all flopped critically and, I think, also commercially.

But a story like "King Kong," which always had a lot of potential, but where the original version is dated to the point of being either laughable or offensive to many people today, and where the first attempt to remake it in 1976 self-destructed in a way that's arguably more offensive, needed another chance. Jackson gave it that chance and, in the areas most important to the story, got it right. Its critical acclaim is due mainly to this realization, even among some who regard the original highly as a classic. We have yet to see whether or not more audiences will catch on.

In other words: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is broke, then by all means fix it.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Darth Vegas+Dec 31 2005, 09:42 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Vegas @ Dec 31 2005, 09:42 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@Dec 30 2005, 10:54 PM
Anyway: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ Go Narnia. King has fallen once again.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
Not bad considering that it's playing on less screens than Narnia and because of it's much longer running time there are less showings per screen.

Narnia has been out a week longer than Kong and domestically Kong is only about 50 million behind, counting worldwide receipts it's actually grossed about 30 million more than Narnia (narnia is at 270 mil worldwied, Kong is at 296).
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Just wanted to bring attention to this again in case anyone (ahem, Virus) missed this ...except to add that it's about a 60 million margin now.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Darth Vegas+Jan 1 2006, 07:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Vegas @ Jan 1 2006, 07:48 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Darth Vegas@Dec 31 2005, 09:42 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Virus@Dec 30 2005, 10:54 PM
Anyway: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ Go Narnia. King has fallen once again.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
Not bad considering that it's playing on less screens than Narnia and because of it's much longer running time there are less showings per screen.

Narnia has been out a week longer than Kong and domestically Kong is only about 50 million behind, counting worldwide receipts it's actually grossed about 30 million more than Narnia (narnia is at 270 mil worldwied, Kong is at 296).
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Just wanted to bring attention to this again in case anyone (ahem, Virus) missed this ...except to add that it's about a 60 million margin now.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Before you type something, why don't you go back and read my posts. I've stated many times that King Kong will make a profit in the US but not that much. I've guessed anywhere from $225-250. So before you post a short note trying to act smart and funny, please go back and read before you make any quick shots. Thank you.

It'll be interesting to see how Narnia and Kong do after the holidays because they have both been pulling in about 7-8 million a day. The dry January season at the movies and Oscar nominations at the end of the month will shift what people are watching. (Not that many people are going to the theaters anyway these days).

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's certainly possible. I've seen a very self-righteous version of that attitude from some people, wherein they pat themselves on the back for refusing to see a blockbuster and instead say they're going to spend their money on an independent, quality film -- treating "independent" and "quality" like synonyms, which they aren't at all.[/b][/quote]

Fill a dart board up with independent films that have received major distribution and fill another up with "blockbuster" type films. Throw five darts at each board. I'd wager you'll have a better selection of films from the independent board.

[Justin]

Originally posted by Virus@Jan 1 2006, 07:59 PM
Sorry but I'm not questioning the credibility of the book.* I never said anything negative about it, just you and what you know.

Well considering that what I told you came directly from the book and I posted it word for word then if you think I am wrong or lying or whatever then you are questioning the credibility of the textbook.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for numbers, you clearly are having trouble understanding that concept when I show you the box office numbers from www.boxofficemojo.com.* Its not that hard.[/b][/quote]

Dude, what are you talking about? I have been looking at the numbers form boxofficemojo.com and I don't know what you think I am failing to comprehend. It doesn't at all contradict what I told you. Just that you are putting all your emphasis on the domestic totals and declaring it a failure, when really what makes a film a success are worldwide gross and ancillary markets.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Please go back and read about what I have been posting that is related to Kong.* I have said that it will probably finish around $225 or so which will make it break even in the US.* And can you please go back and reread what I have wrote that nearly every movie over the past 20 years always makes back all of its money and more due to overseas.* [/b][/quote]

Then why are you arguing with me?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, I agree that it is not a megablockbuster.* Makes you question the quality of the subject.* People simply are not interested.* Sure it has made a good amount of cash which shows that someone out there is interested but its not pulling in a ton of cash.[/b][/quote]

For any movie to make $355 million worldwide in less than three weeks means a LOT of people are interested. BTW you shouldn't question the quality of a film by how much it makes in the theater but by seeing it for yourself.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Its such a weak story but Jackson seems to think that everyone wants a 3 hr epic.* King Kong is not an epic, not even close.[/b][/quote]

Well I'm sorry but I thought it definitely was, and so did everyone in my family who saw it, and everyone I work with, and all of my friends, and people who shop at my store who have seen it. I've heard a couple people say it was too slow in the beginning but that was it.

Read all the myriad of good reviews that are declaring it an epic masterpiece. It has an 83% fresh rating at rottentomatoes.com, which is pretty rare. I think you should see it for yourself before declaring that it is a poor film.

[Justin]

Originally posted by 2 Butterflies Quarrleing@Jan 1 2006, 10:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's certainly possible. I've seen a very self-righteous version of that attitude from some people, wherein they pat themselves on the back for refusing to see a blockbuster and instead say they're going to spend their money on an independent, quality film -- treating "independent" and "quality" like synonyms, which they aren't at all.

Fill a dart board up with independent films that have received major distribution and fill another up with "blockbuster" type films. Throw five darts at each board. I'd wager you'll have a better selection of films from the independent board.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]
Would you count DVD as major distribution, or just theatrical releases?

[Vibroblade]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>So Virus, would you say that Narnia is doing better than Kong?[/b][/quote]

Not Virus but I'd say absolutely.

Narnia will be around 60million ahead after this week, and, despite being out a week more, expanding its lead around 10 million this week alone.

Should end it's run with at least 50 million more as I do think Kong will hold on a bit longer and make up some ground in the end because it may get some Oscar buzz.

Narnia looks poised to make at least 250 million and be third highest grosser of the year. (Domestic )

Now worldwide, I don't know. I haven't been following worldwide grosses enough to know what markets Narnia has yet to open in ( although I do know it hasn't opened in Japan ). I would expect they will be fairly close in overseas gross with Narnia finishing ahead in the worldwide tally.

[Justin]

Well I asked because it's not really doing as well overseas (if you can call $78 million not doing well) and Kong is doing just a smidge better overseas than domestic, and it's coming in at $355 million worldwide with Narnia at $288 million.

I was making the point that the worldwide gross is what ultimately matters (theatrically - as I said ancillaries is where the big bucks come from) for the studios. But it is fun to look at the domestic total for the sake of itself.

But you're right that domestically Narnia is definitely doing better than Kong, even though it has advantages (it's geared to families, it gets more showings because it's an hour shorter and it's been out about five days or so longer) and it plays to a much bigger audience.

The great thing about King Kong (in my opinion) is that Peter Jackson has been wanting to make this film forever and he made it the way he wanted it to be, regardless of what the studios were telling him. Much like George Lucas and his films. And it's already making money so it's all working out. So good for him. And the movie kicks ass.

[Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)]

Justin, part of the reason for the difference could be that Narnia has still not been fully released internationally - here in Oz we only got it on 26/12 and there are still many countries yet to even start their run, whereas King Kong has opened everywhere:

Narnia release dates (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/releaseinfo)

Kong release dates (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/releaseinfo)

[Darth Vegas]

Including only worldwide receipts, Kong has grossed more than twice as much as Narnia, over 50% of Kong's gross is from outside markets, where only about a quarter of Narnia's gross is coming from. So unless Kong just falls dead in it's tracks, it's really doubtful that those markets are going to make the difference for Narnia, Japan is the only really big market where it hasn't yet opened.

[P-Ray]

latest BO results!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=12534

[Vibroblade]

Actually, for whatever reason boxofficemojo hasn't been updating Narnia's overseas gross.

As of today Narnia has 156 million overseas and 224 million domestic for a total of 381. As compared to Kong at 222 overseas and 174 domestic for a total of 396.

In essence, Kong is about 15 million ahead worldwide despite opening in far more markets than Narnia.

[Vibroblade]

Update: I read on bocofficeguru that Narnia was around 175 million overseas counting today....

[Vibroblade]

Looks like the overseas data for Narnia is kinda all over the board. The official number for now is the 156 million overseas from mojo.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Vibroblade@Jan 2 2006, 06:42 PM
Looks like the overseas data for Narnia is kinda all over the board. The official number for now is the 156 million overseas from mojo.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


Exactly. According to most websites, it is hard to get an official number of how many theaters movies are in across the world. The only true numbers we know about are for the US and since this is the country where movies are the biggest and it is where I am from, its the reason I really only care about US box office numbers.

I think its funny how people who are trying to make King Kong into a movie that is bigger than what it really is are now taking into account the overseas numbers. When was the last time you heard people add in those numbers to a movies gross? Just about never. I can tell you no one was mentioning overseas numbers as much when ROTS or War of the Worlds came out this summer because those two films didn't have to rely on that.

[Justin]

Actually with Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg taking a combined 60% of War of the Worlds' gross, the overseas totals were crucial.

I know the media likes to put all the emphasis on the domestic totals, but the people who stand to make or lose money from releasing films look at the worldwide numbers because, as I said, big budget films rarely ever make money in the domestic market alone. It's been this way for a long time.

Why would someone not take into account that their movie is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars overseas? I doubt the CEO of Universal is saying "well since I am from the U.S. I am only going to pay attention to the U.S. market, even though I stand to make a whole lot more from theaters outside my country."

[Virus]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1975&p=.htm Always a great article from Mojo.

^and as for the CEO of Universal, of course he only cares about the bottom line. I didn't think this needed to be mentioned since it was obvious. But when it comes to caring about what a movie makes, most of us really only care about domestic because we're from America. Read just about any newpaper article and they rarely mention worldwide gross. The only time they will is in the first weekend if the movie opens in a few countries (like Kong or Sith) and when the movie is done in the theaters. Like I mentioned before that Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven were major flops in the US but still were able to make a decent profit due to overseas.

Should be an interesting few weeks to see how these movies do with everyone going back to school and work. January is always very low for box office numbers.

[Justin]

For us to only care about box office totals because we are from the U.S. (although there are a lot of Senators here who are not - Suzanne is from Down Under I believe) would be awfully geocentric and a bit insensitive of us.

Besides, the issue then is why would anyone care how a movie is doing if they are going to write off how it's REALLY doing.

[T-bone]

"Sith" Happens at 2005 Box Office
By Joal Ryan

Hollywood suffered an off year at the box office. George Lucas did not.

Lucas' Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith, charting the death of Anakin Skywalker and the birth of Darth Vader, was 2005's top-grossing movie, tapping loyalists for $380.3 million, according to the box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations.


The film was the only $300 million-plus grosser in a year in which, Exhibitor Relations said, overall movie attendance fell about 7 percent, and ticket sales dipped about 5 percent.


Sith, ostensibly the final chapter in the Skywalker saga, seemed unaffected by the bad box-office vibes. It now stands seventh among the all-time box-office champs, per the stats at BoxOfficeMojo.com.


With Sith leading the way, Hollywood made a lot of money ($8.9 billion) and sold a lot of tickets (1.4 billion) in 2005, per Exhibitor Relations. It just didn't make as much money ($9.4 billion) or sell as many tickets (1.5 billion) as it did in 2004.


Exacerbating the angina among the executive suite set are stats like these: lowest yearly gross since 2001; lowest attendance since 1997; worst ever opening for a Jim Carrey comedy since Ace Ventura: Pet Detective made him a star.


Other factoids from the box office year that was, according to stats from Exhibitor Relations and BoxOfficeMojo.com:

The $100 million Fun with Dick and Jane, the offending Carrey comedy, made $64.6 million through New Year's Day weekend, and couldn't crack the top 30. The $200 million King Kong made $175.6 million through New Year's day weekend, and couldn't crack the top 10. It finished 11th, even as two other holiday releases, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ($277.1 million) and The Chronicles of Narnia ($225.7 million), quickly settled into second and fourth place, respectively. The penguin-populated Madagascar (eighth place, $193.1 million) was the top-grossing animated film; the penguin-populated March of the Penguins (24th place, $77.4 million) was the top-grossing documentary. In retrospect, perhaps Martin Short's Jiminy Glick in Lalawood ($36,039) could have used from some penguins. The $130 million-ish Kingdom of Heaven ($47.4 million) and the $120 million-ish The Island ($35.8 million) didn't have penguins, but they did have overseas audiences ($163.6 million and $124.5 million, respectively). Neither penguins, nor international markets, could save the $130 million disaster Stealth ($31.7 million). The $5.5 million Diary of a Mad Black Woman ($50.6 million) made just about every studio production look bad. Chicken Little (14th place, $132.3 million), the top-grossing G-rated film, made about $1.6 million for every bad review counted by RottenTomatoes.com. Narnia was the top-grossing PG-rated film; Sith, the top-grossing PG-13 film; and Wedding Crashers (fifth place, $209.2 million), the top-grossing R-rated film. Among the few, the proud and the barely released NC-17 movies, Inside Deep Throat, a documentary about the porn classic Deep Throat, led the way with some $650,000--about one-tenth of 1 percent of what its source material allegedly generated during its own box-office run. House of Wax ($32.1 million) was the top-grossing Paris Hilton film; Kids in America ($492,078) was the top-grossing Nicole Richie film. The Dukes of Hazzard (23rd place, $80.3 million) was the top-grossing Jessica Simpson film; Undiscovered ($1.1 million) was the top-grossing Ashlee Simpson film. In a hotly contested battle, Herbie: Fully Loaded ($66 million) was the top-grossing Lindsay Lohan film; Cheaper by the Dozen 2 ($55.1 million) was the top-grossing Hilary Duff film. Vexing or no to Empire magazine readers, who voted Tom Cruise 2005's most irritating star, the couch-jumper's War of the Worlds (third place, $234.3 million) was the biggest box-office success of his 25-year career. The comedy Sex Sells: The Making of Touche ($2,386) was Adrian Zmed's biggest box-office success since a 1999 movie you've also never heard of. One Ice Cube movie (Are We There Yet?, $82.3 million--22nd place overall) was worth more than two Charlize Theron movies combined (Aeon Flux, $24.6 million; North Country, $18.2 million). One Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie movie (Mrs. and Mrs. Smith, $186.3 million--ninth place overall) was worth more than two Jennifer Aniston movies, combined (Derailed, $35.7 million; Rumor Has It..., $26.9 million). Saw II (20th place, $86.8 million) was a hit sequel; Son of the Mask ($17 million) wasn't. Rent ($28.9 million) was the top-grossing musical, which was not a compliment.

Here's a complete look at 2005's top 10 moneymakers, according to figures compiled by Exhibitor Relations:


1. Star Wars: Episode III--Revenge of the Sith, $380.3 million
2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, $277.1 million
3. War of the Worlds, $234.3 million
4. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, $225.7 million
5. Wedding Crashers, $209.2 million
6. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, $206.5 million
7. Batman Begins, $205.3 million
8. Madagascar, $193.1 million
9. Mr. & Mrs. Smith, $186.3 million
10. Hitch, $177.6 million

[Virus]

^Always a great article.

Funny how numbers drop when everyone has to go back to work/school: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

[Virus]

Way to go Hostel. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I definitely want to see this movie.

[James T. Skywalker]

Originally posted by Virus@Jan 8 2006, 01:04 PM
Way to go Hostel. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I definitely want to see this movie.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


My sister went and saw it this weekend. She said it freaked her out, she didn't realize how gory it was.

~JTS

[Virus]

Originally posted by James T. Skywalker+Jan 9 2006, 02:47 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(James T. Skywalker @ Jan 9 2006, 02:47 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Virus@Jan 8 2006, 01:04 PM
Way to go Hostel. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

I definitely want to see this movie.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


My sister went and saw it this weekend. She said it freaked her out, she didn't realize how gory it was.

~JTS
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Sweet. Gory horror movies have been ruling the box office for the past years. Low budget and big profit.

[Justin]

Hey man, I don't get it. King Kong had a $50 million opening weekend and you're like "it's a failure, noone is interested," and then this movie Hostel has a $19 million opening and you say "way to go! Horror movies rule the box office!"

Sure, their budgets are where their financial success come in, but they mean nothing when you are considering an audience's interest.

[Virus]

Originally posted by Justin@Jan 10 2006, 01:18 AM
Hey man, I don't get it. King Kong had a $50 million opening weekend and you're like "it's a failure, noone is interested," and then this movie Hostel has a $19 million opening and you say "way to go! Horror movies rule the box office!"

Sure, their budgets are where their financial success come in, but they mean nothing when you are considering an audience's interest.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>


True. More people will have seen King Kong than Hostel due to many reasons. Not really sure I mentioned this in my short post. You can't seem to get over this. And more people have seen Narnia and Star Wars and about 7 other films this year than Kong. I was mentioning "way to go horror films" because they are ruling the box office with profit margins. Do the math. These movies are rolling in cash and they were made on a shoe string budget. I'd have the same respect for King Kong if it made 800 million in the US. Same percentage style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif and we won't even count marketing for both

[Justin]

See this is what I don't understand about your arguments. The b