KONG' S SO SO BOX OFFICE

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 7:35pm

KONG so so performance has the suits worried

It should have done much more. My wife & I went & even with me getting in as a senior & full price for her & small popcorn & medium soda, it still cost $ 30. To pay this amount for commercials & 15 minutes of trailers shows show why many people stay away. A pictures imminent release on DVD after it does its run is another reason. We go to less & less. My wife wanted to see Harry P but she said when it comes on pay per view view put it on DVD & we will watch it at our leisure

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 7:39pm

Very true, Roxy.

The times they are a-changin'.

[DAME]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 7:44pm

I agree Mr Roxy. It is just out of hand. And other movie goers are just getting louder and ruder by the second. Who wants to spend $30.00 to deal with all that.

[Jon]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 7:53pm

Two reasons:

1. It's three hours long. My butt cant take that without an intermission.

2: There may be a backlash against CGI "lead characters". Spiderman and the Hulk were less than convincing. I'd rather see Rick Baker in a gorilla suit stomping on miniature cars, as opposed to what is essentially a fancy cartoon.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 7:59pm

I still say that the expectations surrounding KONG's box office returns were grossly inflated (did anyone really think a remake of a monster movie would challenge TITANIC, no matter how good?).

But you're right, it's been an abysmal year at the box office because people are fed up with paying for a ruined cinema experience. I wonder when the industry will finally be forced to lower ticket and concession prices, take product advertisements off the screens (why pay to watch commercials when you can watch them for free at home?), show fewer trailers and start the movies on schedule. As for shutting up those rude theatregoers, I think they need to have ushers present in the screening room to ensure that any disruptions are taken care of.

ETA: I don't think there's a backlash against CGI characters - look at the much-beloved Gollum from LOTR. THE HULK failed because it received negative reviews, and the SPIDERMAN movies were huge successes, no backlash there. Besides, at least Gollum and Kong have a human actor behind them, governing the character. I think KING KONG was marketed improperly, and people are staying away because (besides the running time) they think it's another GODZILLA or MIGHTY JOE YOUNG.

Updated On: 1/3/06 at 07:59 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:03pm

It is still a great movie. My wife thought she would hate it & wound up loving it - a similar feeling she had for Million Dollar Baby . The spider pit sequence was gross out city

I will get this on DVD a few months after it comes out

By the way, I was right He has an Alhambra Theater near where the Palace would be. There was no ALhambra in Times Square. This aside, the recreation of Times Square was great but there were many bloopers in the film

Updated On: 1/3/06 at 08:03 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:03pm

How ironic, this statment coming as it does from the man who laments the disappearance of the picture palaces. Many believe that the days of the movie theater are numbered. And that will be a damn shame, because we'll lose another sphere of interaction with strangers in public as well as the ability to check our reactions to ideas with those of the people around us.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:06pm

I'm not sure if New York City has a place like this or not...

But there is a movie theatre complex in L.A. called the ArcLight. It's the old Cineramadome on Sunset Blvd. They have commercial-free, ad-free movies, and the ushers stay in the theatre during the film and take care of any and all "issues." They also have reserved seats, just like live theatre.

Of course, the cost of these percs is passed on to the ticket buyers. ArcLight tickets are generally $2-4 more expensive than any other movie theatre in town. I'm not usually willing to pay it myself, but I know people who won't go to the movies any place else.

(They're also rich... or at least in the industry.)

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:08pm

This movie would go thru the roof if it were in IMAX 3 D. Imagine the spider pit sequence in 3 D ?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:11pm

Toronto's Varsity Cinema also has "VIP Screening Rooms," with La-Z-Boy seating, sidetables for concession items, and an usher on hand to take food orders. The prices used to be inflated, but they've lowered them to the regular rate. Unfortunately, the screening rooms are tiny -- too small for these "event" movies anyway -- otherwise I could see it being more popular.

James Berardinelli has written an insightful article on what theatre-owners should do to reinvigorate the cinema experience (most points have been covered here):

James Berardinelli

[jasonf]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:19pm

I wouldn't be able to handle the spider pit scene in 3D imax! It's making me get Fear-Factor shudders just thinking about it!

Honestly, are the commercials REALLY what's keeping people away from the theater? I mean, they're annoying, yes, but I never think "wow, I don't want to watch commercials so I'm not going to go to the theater!" I do try to avoid showings where there are going to be a lot of kids or (sorry if this offends anyone) a lot of senior citizens (I live fairly close to three retirement places and I always end up in front of the couple who need to explain the whole movie to each other), but I'm not going to let that ruin a movie for me.

I was a little taken aback when my ticket to The Producers cost me nearly 10 bucks during a matinee, but I think they inflated the price for Christmas Day at the theater I went to. I think if anything the rising prices and the less than stellar movies that have been coming out on a regular basis are what's killing it. Let's face it people, America is full of morons - how else do you explain (on a tangent) the downfall of one of the greatest comedies ever to be on tv (Arrested Development) while complete dreck and nonsense like "Deal or No Deal"- total mindless garbage gets huge ratings (triple the average for AD) and is being brought back as soon as March?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:22pm

Deal or No Deal sounds a lot like the 50's game show Traesure Hunt with 50 pirate chests & a scantily clad treasure girl. It was revived in the 80's, I believe , with Geoff Edwards

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:26pm

And once again Mr. Roxy demonstrates why it's not a good idea to drink and post.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:27pm

For me, to start a "movie experience" by trying to sell me something, while I'm trapped in my seat with no channel changer or mute button is only slightly this side of torture.

So, I'm already soured as the "main attraction" starts to play. Why should I always have to begin my movie-going experience with a frown on my face before the film has even started?

Honestly, if I hadn't been to the ArcLight once or twice, I probably wouldn't react as badly. But I had completely forgotten what it was like to watch 1 or 2 trailers and have the movie begin... AND THAT'S IT. It made much more of a difference than you think.

So, yes... I would say it's a big deal. It's an assault on our senses that we shouldn't have to be subjected to... particularly with today's ticket prices.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:36pm

I am old enough to remember seeing a newsreel, cartoon , coming attractions & the movie. Sometimes there would be a double feature

I remember:

1. 3 D
2. Cinerama
3. Cinemascope
4. Picture Palaces
5. Reserved Seats
6. Religious Epics
7. William Castle & his gimmicks
8. 3 Stooges shorts

[DAME]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 8:51pm

I love the Arclight. And even if it is $2.00 more a ticket.. their point reward system is very good. One free film for every 5 you see. Or you can use the points at concessions.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 10:29pm

Look, the problem is KONG costing $200 million. Seriously, it's NOT on the screen. There's absolutely no reason the exact same movie shouldn't have cost half what it did, other than production budgets ballooning for no real reason other than to line money peoples' purses. It's the one thing George Lucas is right about: the technology should be making movies easier and cheaper, not making them so bloated and so expensive that an eventual $300 million box office will still see a movie wind up in the red.

This movie should be hemorraghing money given its box office.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 11:27pm

This King Kong is an amazing CGI creation. I believed it as a character completely.

I think this film will be a huge hit--just slowly. We forget that films used to make money the way it is doing--over time.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 11:33pm

Look, the problem is KONG costing $200 million. Seriously, it's NOT on the screen.

I don't agree, considering that the entire movie was pretty much shot in a studio, in front of a bluescreen. The jungle of Skull Island, almost all shots of Manhattan, the Empire State Building, any scene with Kong....all had to be created through CGI.

I actually think KING KONG looks a lot more expensive than $200 million, when you consider that NARNIA was made with $180 million, and SPIDERMAN 2 with $210 million.

Updated On: 1/3/06 at 11:33 PM

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 1/3/06 at 11:34pm

Well... I just saw the movie and was bored to tears, as was my friend I saw it with. I thought the special effects were great, Naomi was great, but the movie just bored me. Maybe that's why the box office is so-so.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:02am

"And other movie goers are just getting louder and ruder by the second. Who wants to spend $30.00 to deal with all that."

Dame... you said a mouth full! Throughout the entire 3-hour film I had to endure the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of the pompous ass sitting directly behind me as he delivered a running commentary (to his girlfriend, but loud enough for all around him to hear, of course) on the plausibility of every scene. Can you imagine??? Ruminating on THE PLAUSABILITY OF A GIANT MONKEY WHO FALLS IN LOVE WITH A BLONDE NEW YORK ACTRESS!!! What an ass!!!

Updated On: 1/4/06 at 01:02 AM

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:09am

The money wasn't spent on CGI, those effects don't cost that kind of money. Ropbert Rodriguez is doing entire movies with CGI tech for 20% of that. There's no legitimate reason on the screen in terms of effects or tech that creates a $200 million dollar budget. The effects look great, no question and George Lucas made 'Star Wars' look just as good using just as much tech (probably more) for $100 million, simply because he knows how to budget a movie better.

[birdlives]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 2:34am

if you think "the suits" are worried about Kong's box office take, then you're not looking at the whole picture. first of all, it's made nearly $180 million domestically. it will at the very least...atleast make another 50 million here. but, worldwide, it's already made $400 million, twice its budget and plenty to cover the advertising costs.

that's not bad for a movie that can only run three times a day in most theaters, because of the running time. if he'd cut it down to two hours and fifteen minutes (which would have made it a much better movie in my opinion) he might have made another hundred million by now.

the other thing is, the movie release is really just an add campaign for the dvd these days. and, Kong is already making money from dvd's, by releasing the making of documentaries on the same day as the movie. the LOTR dvd's were gigantic sellers, and this will be the same. when it's all said and done, this movie will make a billion dollars. show me some suit who's worried about making only five or six hundred million and i'll show you a guy i'd like to punch in the nuts.

and, i agree with the guy who said Robert Rodriguez makes fx heavy movies for a fraction of the price, but the problem is, as much as i love the guy, his movies look like they cost a fraction of the price when it comes to fx. he'll get there, but he's not anywhere near George Lucas or WETA standards, yet.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:04am

Basically echoing what has already been said -- the early predictions for the film were just grossly over estimated. I'm not sure who-on-what-planet thought the film would outgross TITANIC or even STAR WARS. Just a crazy notion.

But the film is doing fine for a three hour "epic." It will easily cross the 200 Million border in the next week or ten days and if it garners major Oscar nominations -- it could put on another 60M-100M on top of that.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:36am

Heh. I guess the theatres in the areas I've lived in are cheap, because I've never seen an usher escort someone out. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen an usher in an actual screening room. Otherwise the bitch who brought her yammering 2-year-old to my viewing of Narnia would have been gone so fast her head would still be spinning as we speak.

That said, I do remember the days before 52 commercials were considered a necessity before every frickin' film. I love trailers, but the other ads have got to go.

My motivations for persisting in paying way too much for movie tickets are twofold:

One is to see movies as early as possible. The collapsing video window is slowly making that purpose less and less compelling.

The other is related to the reasons why I love live theater- it's the experience of watching something with a large audience. Reactions are heightened- jokes seem funnier, action more compelling, and movies just flow better when you're watching them with a good crowd.

So really, my demands are simple- I want floors that aren't sticky, no ads, and for rude patrons to be promptly clubbed over the head and removed from the premises. Is that too much to ask?