simply because the movie is 3 hours long. Most of the women I know simply don't want to sit through a non-drama/chick flick of that length.

I had forgotten to comment about that issue Greywar, thanks for the note on that part. And you are right, (not to generalize here, but I will anyway) I don't think that many females would have the desire to sit through 3 hours worth of Kong, while I know they will sit for that long for something like Titanic. Just a fact of the way Men view movies versus Women doing the same.

Hollywood's latest "guaranteed" block buster

Hearing that so much lately has been making really uncomfortable, because there's no such thing as a sure thing.

mid-1980's failure).

1976, actually.

Unless you mean the 1986 sequel King Kong Lives, in which we find out Kong didn't really die, but has been kept on life support. No, I'm not kidding.

continued slump in the movie market,

That's greatly exaggerated.

because the Hollywood and media elite are wanting to give that honor to Brokeback Mountain or just about any other non-Peter "Mr. Lord of the Rings" Jackson movie)

Actually, I think they're waiting to see Spielberg's Munich before they make any decisions. Kong would be a hard Oscar sell anyway, but even more so with LORT's recent wins. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Best Picture nomination, but a win is almost certainly out of the question.

A King Kong bomb, or just a very sluggish movie market?

It's way too early to know.

If by the end of the weekend it's taken in over $100 mil. (which it probably will), then I'd expect it to make $250+ mil. easy. If it doesn't make $100 mil. by the end of the weekend, I'd consider it a major disappointment. Then they'd have to hope people are waiting for a couple of weeks before seeing it and that the movie'll get a Titanic like growth spurt. We'll know by weekend 2 whether or not that would be the case.

(I'll place my bet on the $250+ mil. )


Let me slip into ill-informed pundit mode. Some thoughts on Kong...

Personally, I haven't cared. I never particularly liked Kong. When he took on Godzilla, I cheered for the big lizard.

When I was a kid, I much preferred Mighty Joe Young, or even the sequel to the original Kong, Son of Kong.

I keep hearing everyone say the film looks so great, and maybe it does on the big screen, but on TV I keep thinking it looks crappy. I hate CGI and this looks like I'm watching some live action poorly slapped into a video game. Have you seen that shot in the jungle where Kong has the girl and he's fighting and his fist comes toward the camera, lunging Naomi Watts toward the screen? That looks soooooo amateurish to me.

Oh, well.

Another turn off, watching the commercials and clips, as you mentioned, I don't see much there I haven't already seen -- several times. It's like *YAWN* why bother? That alone makes it a "wait till the library gets it" for me. But a lot of today's movie goers weren't even alive for the last iteration, so who knows? (Because of my own dislike, I'm also grossly underestimating Kong's inexplicable -- to me -- popularity.)

And 3 hours? Wasn't the original like an hour and forty minutes or something? That would make this one nearly twice as long to tell the same story. Good Lord, can't his man make a short film? News conference I'd like to see:

REPORTER: Mr. Jackson, what will your next project be?
JACKSON: I'll be adapting the classic, War and Peace. It'll be about 80 minutes long.

Another couple of Kong remakes and the bloody thing will be 6 hours.

Anyway, for me there are just too many turn offs.


That said, I'll probably see it and love it.

I really don't care if I see it either. I am more interested in Memoirs of a Geisha since I loved the book. I may take my boys to see King Kong it if they really, really want to see it. Munich may be a really good movie but it just looks too depressing to me.

I like to go to the movies but it seems like they are just there and gone so fast. If you can't get out within the first week or two they might be gone. I wanted to see Corpse Bride and Pride and Prejudice but by the time I could get to the theater, they were already gone in a matter of a couple of weeks.

We did see Just Friends because I was having a crappy day and just needed a funny movie pick me up. We took the boys to see Harry Potter opening weekend.

There is also the fact that they are now making it to DVD in record time. Serenity is already coming out. How long ago was it at the theaters? The summer maybe?

I don't know how much I trust this article, given its numerous grammar and spelling errors, including "Comparitively", "it's opening weekend," and others...use spellcheck, man. The name explains it - you're supporting the wrong team!

I loved the original King Kong film, the 1976 Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange remake had it's moments, but I have no plans to see this one (in theater or on DVD). Peter Jackson did a great job with LOTR, and (inho) he should have chosen a better follow up project. If all he has to add in his interpretion of the storyline and plot is CGI, then it isn't worth the time or money.

Can't wait to read the "abridged script" for this on the Internet.

Heh. The really scary part will be when this thing hits DVD and gets an extra special "extended Director's cut" that adds some amount of footage that was "on the cutting room floor." When that happens, the run time for the movie will probably near 3 hours 30 minutes, if not more, and we'll all be wondering how anyone could ever have made it that long.

I dunno...Narnia doesn't seem to be feeling the effects of the slump.

I think the situation is more like..."do we see the third remake of a movie whose original was a true classic, or do we see the first installment of the first fully realized (yes, I realize there was a BBC version, but anyone with a brain knows it didn't live up to its potential) version of what may be one of the true classics of this era?"

Much like LOTR, generations of fans have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the Chronicles of Narnia on the big screen, and, in this case, it may just be a case of the lion trumping the ape.

Aeon Flux killed itself...they didn't allow critics to prescreen the movie...certain death in that industry. As for Walk the Line, my guess is it'll be a DVD blockbuster...a lot of folks hold back on movies like that because the draw of the big screen these days is special effects.

As for FF...well, while it was a favorite of mine as a kid, that was as a kid. I've turned in my "geek squad" card and put more priority on raising a family. FF doesn't have the sentimentality that something like Narnia does. It doesn't hold up to the test of time because the characters are themselves one dimensional, as are many comic book heroes.

Hollywood's definitely in a slump, there's no doubt about that. But, while I am a HUGE Johnny Cash fan, "Walk the Line" would probably have worked better as a small screen movie channel release, and the others you cite were poor choices at best. The problem with Hollywood is that it's losing touch with the people. It's either painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa by remaking old films ("King Kong"), resurrecting small screen schmaltz in the hopes to lure Gen X viewers by insulting our intelligence ("Bewitched"), or releasing movies with agendas that are disconnected with many potential viewers ("Brokeback Mountain, Syriana"). The few standout movies they're making are most definitely NOT suffering at the box office.

The slump isn't in the viewers (since we will go see movies that we are excited about)... The slump isn't in the disposable income of the viewers (again, we will go see movies we're excited about)... The slump isn't even the inconveniences and expense of theaters (again, we will go see movies we'r excited about)...

The slump seems clear to me (although it seems to completely escape Hollywood)... They are just not making as many movies that are worth getting excited about!!!

Perhaps the slump is being caused by idiot celebrities inserting themselves into political causes, because no matter what side they take on any given issue, they're effectively alienating 50% of their potential audience every time they open their ignorant mouths.

I can't say that hasn't affected me along the way a bit. I used to really enjoy the work of Robert DeNiro, but his efforts in supporting Bill Clinton really turned me off, and now I have to remind myself to just ignore his politics when watching anything he is in.

Tom Cruise and his wackiness have killed my enjoyment of his movies for sure.

There are a few others in the same boat, so perhaps you are on to something there too. It's hard to say for sure, because even when I do knowingly despise an actor or actress I try to enjoy the remaining movie for what it is, a few hours worth of entertainment.

I think it is going to bomb.

I went into the article above with mixed feelings on whether or not I really wanted the movie to bomb or not.

There is another movie out currently that I guess you could easily expect to see me wanting to have bomb badly. (3 guesses, first 2 don't count, as to which Broken movie that may be... ooops, did I just give a clue there, sorry!)

On Kong though, I really started out not caring that much either way. After reading a few more reviews of it though, and reading some of the comments here, I've churned through my thoughts a bit more and am coming down on the side of hoping for a mega bomb.

How'd I get to that point? I could say perhaps $150+ million or so ways got me there.

First, $200 million just seems absolutely friggin' ridiculous for a budget for a movie. It's at least $150 million too much. Even if you take a couple of $20 milliion per picture stars and put them together, you'd still have $10 left over to do something with. At the most $60 - $70 million should be enough. At the absolute worst on the high end side, $100 to maybe as much as $120 million should be considered excessive. But $200+ million, that's just insanity.

If I'm a stockholder, I want my money back, and I want whatever CEO signed off and greenlighted the project pulled into the board room to be fired.

I know Peter Jackson made a ton of money for the studios with the Lord of the Rings triology, so he gets a bit more freedom in his budget and in projects he gets to do, but there had to have been some reasonable limit here.


Another reason -- the 3+ hour running time. Once I heard that was the running length of the picture, I knew I was gonna wind up having to pass on it. If I did want to see, it would have to be with my best friend, or maybe my kids. My wife would never sit that long for a movie, and heck, even my kids wouldn't have that much patience either. Even my friend would wind up turning a movie like that into a 4 or 5 trips to the can kinda movie (especially if he got one of the super-jumbo sized Cokes to drink while watching).


And finally, because this movie is yet again a sign that Hollywood has no creativity left. They keep turning out the same crap, and what little new and different crap they do turn out winds up including some "envelop pushing" message trying to convince me yet again to accept lifestyles that I don't feel I need to be preached about.


Gid brought up in the comments above, and even Little Whip's comments to some extent lean in that direction, that some movies that are at least more mainstream and more family friendly can do well in the theatres. Hollywood has forgotten that, in favor of sending messages of all kinds, and in favor of offering vehicles to some of the most disgusting liberal mouthpieces they can find. They honor pathetic individuals like Sean Penn, cheer when Whoopie Goldberg or Chris Rock take swings at the President when hosting the Oscars, and again, seem inclined to heap praise on a film about a same sex relationship between two "manly" guys.


Perhaps they will eventually return to making better quality movies, at a reasonable cost to the studios. Perhaps they'll even make more family friendly movies instead of turning out more of the same old crap. You know it's gotten bad when even the movies lampooning movies are lampooning other movies that did the same thing. (Not another teen movie, anyone?)

Foxnews is now saying it is closer to $300m. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179068,00.html

Either way, taking in right around $50 million for the first 5 days out isn't good, especially considering many of those that saw it came out saying they wouldn't see it again as it was too long and perhaps a bit too intense also.

It'll probably get back the cost and a bit more above it, but it may need the DVD revenue to do it. If so, then it was for all intents and purposes a bust, and if that is the case, some studio execs really could wind up losing jobs over it (and probably should).

I would say it's safe to say we are on the precipice of a serious tightening of the belt for the movie makers in Hollywood. With the continued "slump" at the box office, and the burgeoning costs of making movies, something has to give and it's likely to be the mega budgets that are making it difficult for Hollywood to make their money back without a serious reliance on DVD revenue which is really supposed to be pure gravy on top of the profits made while movies are in wide release. If so, we better all start saving our pennies as a few Hollywood stars may have to start holding out tin cups and begging for meal money.