King Kong in Trouble? — Page 3

AEA AGMA SM said: "Sho-Tunes-R-Us said: "If ever a show needed to play Vegas KONG is the one. And I don't mean that in a bad way. The spectacle could be enhance five times over with a Vegas budget and the show cut to a tab version, ala Phantom: The Spectacle. That show ran at Paris LV for many years...as did Mamma Mia! (the first time 'round). The tourists would eat it up and the Big Guy would continue to RRRRRRROOOOAAAARRRR for many moons."

Phantom: the Las Vegas Spectacularclosed at a loss at the Venetian despite running for just over 6 years, so not really a model of success."

But it ran. As did Mamma Mia and Jersey Boys. And it was certainly more lavish than the Broadway version. I believe that the "mothership" chandelier alone cost a million dollars.

No clue what their advance sales are like, but the show just raked in $1.8M last week, so... not sure it is circling the drain just yet.

Shows don't close because they're bad as long as people keep buying tickets.

Sho-Tunes-R-Us said: "If ever a show needed to play Vegas KONG is the one."

The difference between the Vegas Phantom and King Kong is that Phantom actually had strong elements to pare down into an abbreviated Vegas show (i.e., a strong score and and interesting book). Kong has neither of those - just the marionette.

A better home for Kong would be Universal Studios because of the movie tie-in and the existing ride/attraction (which could use an update). Updating the attraction to include the puppet and LED screen offers lots of opportunities, especially if enhanced by the Disney imagineers. As only one example, what if the "guests" could be face to face with the Kong puppet, and when he roared, you could feel the warmth of his breath and catch a little mist of spray in your face.

If the Broadway Kong proves anything, it's that punters will pay to see the spectacle of the puppet - even when it's residing in a forest of dreck.

Given the above, I wonder if the creators of the physical Kong puppet have patented or copywritten any of its design or mechanisms. If there's one thing I learned from Mr. Wonderful on Shark Tank, it's that if there's nothing proprietary about its design or mechanisms, there would be nothing stopping Disney/Universal from creating their own, better version - and the Broadway Kong has kind of proven proof of concept.

Updated On: 1/3/19 at 09:54 AM

HogansHero said: "I'm not sure what intellectual property you are referring to. [...] You cannot patent puppetry any more than you can patent acting."

There was no reference to intellectual property, nor mention of patenting puppetry in my post.

HogansHero said: "I'm not sure what intellectual property you are referring to. The are a zillion extant patents on animatronics, many owned by Disney. You cannot patent puppetry any more than you can patent acting. (I am curious what you would describe your patent as covering.) And if you are suggesting Disney could make a show with King in it, well no, there are obviously extant copyrights on that likeness."



I take it that "stop being so condescending and pretentious" was NOT one of your New Years resolutions?

JSquared2 said: "I take it that "stop being so condescending and pretentious" was NOT one of your New Years resolutions? "

I doubt you were the only one... you'll find others.

John Adams said: "A better home for Kong would be Universal Studios because of the movie tie-in and the existing ride/attraction (which could use an update). Updating the attraction to include the puppet and LED screen offers lots of opportunities, especially if enhanced by the Disney imagineers."

One small correction - Disney Imagineers work only for Disney; Universal Studios is not part of The Walt Disney Company.