King Kong in Trouble?- Page 3

[Sho-Tunes-R-Us]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 3:27am

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.  

[NYCblurb]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 6:27am

The show is awful. A fail. 

It's not the puppet's fault. 

It's not the theater's fault.

It's not the city's fault.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 8:55am

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.

[thedrybandit]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 9:02am

Sho-Tunes-R-Us said: "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."

Phantom Vegas only closed because Cameron Mackintosh was planning the 25th anniversary tour, and wanted his name associated with the show around the country. He pulled the rights for the Vegas production, which was actually doing pretty well financially. It hadn't made it's money back yet, but it was on track to do so eventually. Kong could potentially do very well in Vegas. There are no real Broadway shows out there currently, so if they trimmed it and made it a spectacle show, it's a great fit for that city.

[John Adams]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 9:54am

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]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 10:27am

John Adams said: "I wonder if the creators of the physical Kong puppet have patented or copywritten any of its design or mechanisms."

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.  

[John Adams]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 12:32pm

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]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 12:37pm

John Adams said: "There was no reference to intellectual property, nor mention of patenting puppetry in my post."

?? Did you not say "I wonder if the creators of the physical Kong puppet have patented or copywritten any of its design or mechanisms"? If that was not a reference to intellectual property, what was it? (Unfathomable...)

[JSquared2]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 12:38pm

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?   

 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 1:24pm

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

I take it you did not actually read what I wrote since there is no condescension or pretentiousness in it. Questioning the foundation of someone's post is neither; it's called a discussion. I take it you made no resolution about not sounding like the content police. (Oh, and to answer your question, no. There was nothing to prompt such.)

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 2:27pm

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.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 2:29pm

NYCblurb said: "The show is awful. A fail.

It's not the puppet's fault.

It's not the theater's fault.

It's not the city's fault."

 

Well, we all have our opinions but I found myself enjoying the show despite its flaws. Reading the comments on these boards, I thought KING KONG would enter the ranks of IN MY LIFE, MOLLY, THOU SHALY NOT and KELLY. Actually it's much better than those shows. KONG was actually quite moving in parts and the special effects were incredible.

Yesterday's audience was 3/4 full and we gave the puppet a well-deserved standing ovation.

 

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 1/3/19 at 2:58pm

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.