One Radical Dude
12-17-2005, 04:43 PM
Could King Kong become the biggest bomb of the 2005 box office? (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml)
Peter Jackson's "King Kong (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)", took in $9.8-million (U.S.) domestically in its first day, solid for a Wednesday debut but far below the king-size premieres of other action epics, reports the Globe and Mail (http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=43a24911883d7ae5&ei=LRyiQ-7dJqmQFoDj7e0F&url=http%3A//www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051215.wkong1215/BNStory/Entertainment/&cid=1102996794). MCA Universal, the film's distributor, called it a good beginning that will generate audience word-of-mouth on top of stellar reviews for "King Kong."
Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)" film, "The Fellowship of the Ring," opened on a Wednesday in December 2001 with $18.2-million, nearly double the take of "King Kong."
His second installment, "The Two Towers," debuted on a Wednesday a year later with $26.2-million, while Jackson's final offering, "The Return of the King (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)," opened with $34.5-million the next year, a record for a Wednesday debut until "Spider-Man 2" broke it later that year with $40.4-million.
The hardly 'Kong' like number of $9.8-million gross puts "King Kong" at No. 21 on the all-time list of best Wednesday debuts, just behind "Catch Me If You Can" and ahead of "Armageddon." The knock on the film seems to be the length. Moviehole (http://www.moviehole.net/reviews/20051216_king_kong.html) has this to say about it: "Why, oh why, did Jackson think that the remake needed to be twice as long then? It most certainly doesn’t. For all intents and purposes, it tells exactly the same story, just more indolently, and the first 75 minutes or so? As uninteresting as watching paint dry."
Analysts say "Kong" could follow the steady pattern of "Titanic," which had a comparatively modest $28.6-million opening weekend but stayed alive long enough to become the biggest-grossing modern film at $600-million domestically and $1.8-billion worldwide.
Boxofficemojo.com, which is known for tracking movie grosses, estimates a $58-million opening weekend for "King Kong." Variety counters with a reports that says industry expectations see the film's prospects at a bit less than the $65.6-million debut of last weekend's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.I see that when Titanic first premiered, it started off slowly, but it managed to become the biggest movie in ticket sales. So, what do you guys think? Could it happen for this film? Is anyone surprised?
Peter Jackson's "King Kong (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)", took in $9.8-million (U.S.) domestically in its first day, solid for a Wednesday debut but far below the king-size premieres of other action epics, reports the Globe and Mail (http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=43a24911883d7ae5&ei=LRyiQ-7dJqmQFoDj7e0F&url=http%3A//www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051215.wkong1215/BNStory/Entertainment/&cid=1102996794). MCA Universal, the film's distributor, called it a good beginning that will generate audience word-of-mouth on top of stellar reviews for "King Kong."
Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)" film, "The Fellowship of the Ring," opened on a Wednesday in December 2001 with $18.2-million, nearly double the take of "King Kong."
His second installment, "The Two Towers," debuted on a Wednesday a year later with $26.2-million, while Jackson's final offering, "The Return of the King (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121993.shtml#)," opened with $34.5-million the next year, a record for a Wednesday debut until "Spider-Man 2" broke it later that year with $40.4-million.
The hardly 'Kong' like number of $9.8-million gross puts "King Kong" at No. 21 on the all-time list of best Wednesday debuts, just behind "Catch Me If You Can" and ahead of "Armageddon." The knock on the film seems to be the length. Moviehole (http://www.moviehole.net/reviews/20051216_king_kong.html) has this to say about it: "Why, oh why, did Jackson think that the remake needed to be twice as long then? It most certainly doesn’t. For all intents and purposes, it tells exactly the same story, just more indolently, and the first 75 minutes or so? As uninteresting as watching paint dry."
Analysts say "Kong" could follow the steady pattern of "Titanic," which had a comparatively modest $28.6-million opening weekend but stayed alive long enough to become the biggest-grossing modern film at $600-million domestically and $1.8-billion worldwide.
Boxofficemojo.com, which is known for tracking movie grosses, estimates a $58-million opening weekend for "King Kong." Variety counters with a reports that says industry expectations see the film's prospects at a bit less than the $65.6-million debut of last weekend's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.I see that when Titanic first premiered, it started off slowly, but it managed to become the biggest movie in ticket sales. So, what do you guys think? Could it happen for this film? Is anyone surprised?