Movies Features

'Kong' can't save U.S. box office

By Andy Goldberg Dec 20, 2005, 10:13 GMT

Los Angeles - He was the invincible gorilla that was meant to save the U.S. cinema industry from one of its worst years on record. Chelsey Crisp sits on the hand of the 6,000-pound, 20-foot-tall 'King Kong'' gorilla arrive at Universal Studios for the theme park's holiday celebration and release of the new 'King Kong' film on Wednesday 14 December 2005. EPA/ARMANDO ARORIZO

Chelsey Crisp sits on the hand of the 6,000-pound, 20-foot-tall 'King Kong'' gorilla arrive at Universal Studios for the theme park's holiday celebration and release of the new 'King Kong' film on Wednesday 14 December 2005. EPA/ARMANDO ARORIZOBut then 'King Kong' hit reality head on. The blockbuster movie about a giant ape who falls in love with a Hollywood actress debuted over the weekend with a less than stellar box office take of 66.2 million dollars. Not peanuts for sure, but far less than the 100 million dollars that many insiders were predicting. Their hope had been that the 206-million-dollar spectacular by Peter Jackson, director of the stunningly successful 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, would bring back the movie-going crowds that seem to be forsaking the multiplexes in ever increasing numbers. In 2005, North American attendance will total about 1.4 billion tickets, down more than 6 per cent from last year, and marking the first time in history that the U.S. film industry has recorded three years of consecutive decline. Total box-office receipts should be about 8.7 billion dollars, down from 9.2 billion dollars in 2004, according to tracking firm Nielsen EDI Inc. 'This was one of the films that was supposed to help get the business back to last year's levels, and clearly it didn't happen,' Richard Greenfield, a media analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners, told the Los Angeles Times.' 'The bottom line is that this is a surprisingly low figure.' Executives at Universal Pictures, which produced 'King Kong', are putting on brave faces and betting that the movie will defy recent box office patterns and continue to draw large crowds long after the opening weekend. Prior to the lack-luster opening, some even privately dreamed that the seemingly broad attraction of the movie - a classic tale reinterpreted with modern technology by a supremely gifted and successful director - could make it the next 'Titanic'. On Sunday, the Hollywood elite was reduced to noting that even the best selling film of all time barely failed to beat the James Bond movie 'Die Another Day' on its opening weekend. 'I'm incredibly encouraged by where we are right now,' said Marc Shmuger, Universal's vice chairman, adding that positive word of mouth could make 'King Kong' a box-office monster for weeks to come. 'I couldn't be more bullish.' The thinking is that people were simply too busy on the last Saturday before Christmas to spend three hours and seven minutes watching a movie, never mind the time to queue for tickets and popcorn and sitting through the commercials. 'I think we're going to do better as a movie with sustained playability, rather than a typical blockbuster,' Shmuger said. If that prediction proves to be less than totally accurate, Shmuger will join a long list of film executives with egg on their faces in 2005. Among the high-powered flops of 2005 were Ridley Scott's 'Kingdom of Heaven' and Ron Howard's 'Cinderella Man', while the failure of 'XXX: State of the Union', 'Stealth' and 'The Island' caused executives to wonder whether the entire action-movie genre was dead. More likely is that audiences now have more choices than ever to avoid mediocre cinema, especially if they know that within three months they will be able to see the same movies in the comfort of their own homes. But Hollywood's true believers still argue that audiences will return for quality fare. 'The initial reaction was, 'Wow, we thought the box office would be more,'' said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, which monitors box office results. 'There were high expectations placed on this movie. The bottom line is, it's going to do more, but it's going to take longer. This is a must-see movie that people have to find the time to see.' © 2005 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

On the Web

Blowing Up Blogs

Place your ad here
Loading...

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in Movies

Older Talkback

page: 1

Too damn longDec 20th, 2005 - 22:35:43

The middle of King Kong was the best part. They should've cut out most of the beginning and end - would've probably got them to a standard 2 hour movie. I suspect that blind deference to Jackson's 'artistic vision' cost the studio tens of millions of dollars.

Report this comment

ZachDec 21st, 2005 - 18:58:23

this really had nothing to do with the movie but i think that the reason people are not going to the movies is because the tickets are too damn expensive!

Report this comment

QuadDec 21st, 2005 - 22:29:41

I disagree. If you cut the first 1 hour out of the movie then the film would have been all special fx and action with no story line. Don't you want a good story to go along with the action? Wouldn't you like to indentify with the actors and get to know them first? Those early scenes were essential so that the audience would recognise the vulnerability of Naomi Watts and Jack Black's cold ambition.

The 1 hour wait before Kong appears makes it even more dramatic when he finally does show up.

If anything, I wish they added another 1/2 hour and showed how they actually transported Kong to New York. I am not convinced that it would have been possible - even in the make believe world of the movie.

Report this comment

WipeDec 23rd, 2005 - 02:48:24

This sounds just about right. Hollywood is hoping that a remake of a 1976 remake of a 1933 hit movie will get the public to stampede to the theaters. Hellooooo..... Reality to Hollywood. Reality to Hollywood. These people are so out of touch with actual people that I believe there is no hope for them anymore. People will continue to look for and find alternatives to their brand of entertainment. Remember Vaudeville anyone?

Report this comment

mark BenderDec 27th, 2005 - 23:57:46

i liked the movie a lot and was extremely happy with their achievment re the effects shots. I think the real problem here may be that the film is basically a tragedy and that does not generally make for blockbuster material. I think the studio and Jackson forgot the nature of the film in their enthusiasm for it. I only spotted it myself afer going and then remembering what a powerfully sad story it really is. Christmas maybe is not the right time for such a sad film.

Report this comment

page: 1

Movies Features

'Kong' can't save U.S. box office

On the Web

Your Talkback on this Story

Latest Headlines in Movies

Older Talkback

Like M&C on Facebook

Viral Web

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print