king kong

[margot]

while everyone thought King Kong would hit theaters like a hurricane,

it has instead landed like a soft snowflake,

and it will ultimately collapse like an old building,

before it goes under in a sea of metaphors.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Lindsay

[Arcane]

I thought it was pretty damn awesome. Though I was surprised I was able to get a ticket 10 minutes before it started at 8:30 PM on opening weekend. (This was after I lost the 2 tickets I bought an hour earlier.... God I was pissed.)

[stranger]

I saw it last night with 2 friends, we went to the 10:45 PM showing, and it was us and a handful of people in the theater. Most of the people were of Hispanic decent and were what you would call "ghetto", I heard a few people yell out "I paid $8.50 for this?!"

I loved the movie

[Battle_Pope]

he really paid $8.50?

I wouldn't pay $8.50 for any movie.

[darkon]

I thought it was great. The problem is that with the exception of Star Wars and Harry Potter most people aren't going to the movies and instead waiting a few months for it to come out on DVD and then renting it. I think that people were overestimating how much people wanted to pay the money necessary to get in.

[margot]

It's also over 3 hours, can you honestly stand watching one movie for that long?

Also people are busy with finals, christmas shopping, ecttt but even Cat Woman had made more in 3 days than King Kong has.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Lindsay

[Gundampilotspaz]

I don't think box office number can be used to determine how good a movie is. Mostly because people are stupid.

[margot]

xD well duhhhhh but it's strange how poorly it's doing.

[Gundampilotspaz]

That is ture, I haven't seen the numbers and I don't think we should make any judgements untill the weekend numbers are in. I myself don't plan to see it in theaters, and I choose Nardia over King Kong last night.

But the ticket prices here are out of control, $9 a movie.

[Arcane]

Man am I glad I live in a place where it's only $6 to see a movie (provided you're a student).

[Baltar]

King kong was pretty good, and it was pretty empty for an 8:30 show as arcane mentioned.

[TeleportSandwich]

while everyone thought King Kong would hit theaters like a hurricane,

it has instead landed like a soft snowflake,

and it will ultimately collapse like an old building,

before it goes under in a sea of metaphors.

Best post in the history of mankind *hands echan an award of some kind*

[ashlee]

I was under the impression that King Kong was doing well. It's a shame to hear it's not.

Last night I went to a 5:45 PM showing and the theater was sold out. :O

[darkon]

It's not doing poorly, it's just not doing as well as expected... or as well as it would've done a year ago.

The movie industry is seriously heading towards a big collapse I think. Fans have seen everything that it has to offer, and then what they haven't has already been done so they're stocking up on those in DVDs.

Lindsay: I love long movies. But I would prefer an intermission.

[FatFree]

I was under the impression that King Kong was doing well. It's a shame to hear it's not.

Same here.

Well, in any case, I'm probably going to see it this Friday.

[margot]

no, it is a bomb. It's only made 30 million so far. It'll finish the weekend at 45 if it's luckyy.

[Gundampilotspaz]

no, it is a bomb. It's only made 30 million so far. It'll finish the weekend at 45 if it's luckyy.

"A glimmer of hope appeared for Universal on Friday, as King Kong's daily box office inched up to $14.4 million, according to The Number's estimates. That's more than double its gross on Thursday, and the best day it has had so far. More significantly, it's slightly more than Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring made on its first Friday, back in 2001. That suggests a weekend of around $45 million for the ape caper, and the studio will also point to a steady growth in box office through the weekend as signs of strong word of mouth."

It should MAKE 45 this weeked, which will bring it up too 60 mil.

Just because a movie doesn't make $100 million its first few days doesn't mean that the movie is going to fail.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Grand Magus Salvarus

[Wind]

Well, lindsay is just a stupid extremist who likes to push for the most extreme conclusion possible.

[darkon]

People honestly weren't anticipating this movie, none of my friends had any interest in it. Then Wednesday rolled around. Reviews were positive, and those that did see it were blown away.

Word of mouth is very important to a movie's success. Titanic anybody?

[Cleese]

I loved it. Who the fuck cares if its 3 hours, take your ritalin.

[darkon]

From Yahoo:

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer 15 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - "King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.

ADVERTISEMENT

Universal Pictures' action spectacle about a giant ape took over the top box-office spot from Disney's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which slipped to second place with $31.2 million and lifted its 10-day total to $112.5 million, according to studio estimates released Sunday.

Premiering at No. 3 with $12.7 million was 20th Century Fox's ensemble comic drama "The Family Stone," featuring

Sarah Jessica Parker,

Diane Keaton,

Luke Wilson and

Claire Danes in a tale of an uptight businesswoman meeting her fiance's relations during a holiday visit.

The cowboys-in-love drama "Brokeback Mountain," which led the Golden Globes with seven nominations, broke into the top 10 with $2.4 million playing in just 69 theaters, compared to 3,568 for "King Kong."

Hollywood analysts generally expected "King Kong" to have a debut weekend at least in the $60 million range. Though it came in lower than expected, "King Kong" led Hollywood to a solid weekend, with the top 12 movies grossing $121.2 million, up 22 percent from the same weekend last year.

That was good news heading into the holidays, when studios are counting on a strong finish to help snap a prolonged slump in which movie attendance has fallen 7 percent compared with last year.

Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong" did out-gross the opening weekend of his "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," the first of his J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy trilogy that debuted with $47.2 million. But factoring in a 12 percent rise in admission prices since that 2001 film's release, "King Kong" sold about 7.9 million tickets, 450,000 fewer than "Fellowship of the Ring."

And "King Kong" did not measure up to the first five days of "Fellowship of the Ring," which debuted on a Wednesday and had grossed $75.1 million domestically by Sunday. Also opening Wednesday, "King Kong" got to $66.2 million in its first five days.

Still, distributor Universal was high on the long-term prospects for the film, which received rave reviews both as a visual-effects spectacle and as a drama about a majestic ape that falls for a woman (

Naomi Watts).

Along with its domestic haul, "King Kong" took in $80 million overseas in its first five days.

The studio hopes "King Kong" follows the long-term pattern of another three-hour epic, "Titanic," which opened with a modest $28.6 million weekend then sailed on to become the modern box-office champ with $600 million domestically.

"The expectation or the guessing or hypothesizing of what it was going to do is based on a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance over how a three-hour movie plays that doesn't come with legions of fans," said Marc Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, who brushed aside suggestions that "King Kong" had not lived up to expectations. "This is not Tolkien. This is not the `

Harry Potter' fan base."

Grosses for "King Kong" jumped 40 percent from Friday to Saturday, a huge increase for a non-family film and a sign that good word-of-mouth was pulling in audiences, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

"A movie like `King Kong' just automatically creates an expectation that it will break all kinds of box-office records," Dergarabedian said. "But much like `Titanic,' which started very slow, sometimes it's not always about opening weekends. Sometimes, it's how the film plays in the long run."

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Monday.

1. "King Kong," $50.15 million.

2. "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," $31.2 million.

3. "The Family Stone," $12.7 million.

4. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," $5.9 million.

5. "Syriana," $5.5 million.

6. "Walk the Line," $3.6 million.

7. "Yours, Mine & Ours," $3.4 million.

8. "Brokeback Mountain," $2.4 million.

9. "Just Friends," $1.95 million.

10. "Aeon Flux," $1.7 million.

___

Universal Pictures and Focus Features are owned by NBC Universal, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Vivendi Universal; DreamWorks is a unit of DreamWorks SKG Inc.; Sony Pictures, Sony Screen Gems and Sony Pictures Classics are units of Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news).; Paramount and Paramount Classics are divisions of Viacom Inc.; Disney's parent is The Walt Disney Co.; Miramax is a division of The Walt Disney Co.; 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures are owned by News Corp.; Warner Bros., New Line and Warner Independent are units of Time Warner Inc.; Lions Gate is owned by Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.; IFC Films is owned by Rainbow Media Holdings, a subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corp.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Marcus Aurelius

[amy]

speaking of movies, i want to see harry potter again

[margot]

New numbers just in!!!!

In the last half hour: 789.1 Billion!!!

Take that, "Yours, Mine and Ours," you are going down. Because Kong is crushing you so much now!

Yes! (Fist-pumping action.)

Not since George A. Romero's "Monkey Shines" has a simian rampage film gone at the box office with a straight razor in such a loose and inadvisable wrecklessness. This a great day for le Cinema du Singe!!

Edited December 19, 2005 by Lindsay

[Ceraziefish]

For the record, I love long movies, but I didn't think there was enough content in King Kong to justify it being that long.

I mean, so many shots of King Kong's sad face as he was incapacitated/dying/mildly interested in something/walking somewhere. The movie could have done without all that and probably have been significantly shorter.

[Belial]

I for one loved this movie. Jackson stayed true to the original, but at the same time was able to really flesh out the story and characters.