A $500 million film ain't what it used to be
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
Can a film that's going to rake in more than $500 million be a disappointment?
Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody in King Kong, which has been called a box office disappointment by some.
Universal Studios
Depends on whom you ask.
King Kong, the three-hour Peter Jackson opus that swung into theaters last month amid a publicity campaign that would make a monkey blush, is already the eighth-biggest film of 2005 with $195 million in North American ticket sales. Worldwide, it has taken in $465 million and will likely break the half-billion mark by this weekend.
But "compared to expectations, it was a disappointment," says Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo. "But that's what's going to happen when you spend $200 million on a movie that stars an ape."
Indeed, Kong became the latest in a string of Hollywood action films that couldn't live up to the hype — or budget. Kong cost a reported $207 million, which doesn't include Universal Studios' ubiquitous ad campaign.
Before the movie opened, Entertainment Weekly hailed it as the "blockbuster of the year." Pundits projected the film's special effects and computer-generated ape would propel it to at least $300 million and could give Titanic a run as box-office king. That film took in $600 million in North America alone, $1.2 billion worldwide.
Now, Kong has become a cautionary tale about overselling big-budget fare.
"We saw King Kong as a panacea that was going to solve the box-office problems for the year," says Russell Schwartz, marketing chief for New Line Cinema. "But we're putting too much pressure on a movie to perform. And we're going to have to ask ourselves if we're trying too hard to turn movies into 'events.' "
Universal Studios executives would not comment beyond saying that the film will be profitable. Peter Jackson did not respond to requests for an interview.
Some analysts and executives say Kong's struggles — along with high-priced action flops like Stealth and The Island— could change the landscape for selling costly films.
Where did Kong go wrong? Analysts see several missteps:
•Too loud. The Chronicles of Narnia, which has taken in $250 million, likely will outperform Kong with a quieter ad strategy that included showing the film to churches and schools. "Word of mouth is your best tool," says Chuck Viane, head of distribution for Disney. "Studios can't just tell people to like a movie."
•Too long. At 3 hours and 7 minutes, Kong "is a major time investment," says David Poland of moviecitynews .com. "That's asking a lot."
•Too special-effects driven. "You're not going to make a smash live-action movie when your lead character is a special effect," says Gray. "Especially one that doesn't even speak
11 comments:
'At 3 hours and 7 minutes, Kong "is a major time investment," says David Poland of moviecitynews .com.' What the hell? people watch TV for 6 hours at a time.
Too true, but at no point did they contemplate getting in their car or climbing over someone to get to the bathroom (unless they lived in one of those hoarder houses).
Here's the real problem: "We saw King Kong as a panacea that was going to solve the box-office problems for the year." Good GOD am I sick of the Plight of Hollywood, whining about how crappy all their movies are. Spare us already.
The most annoying part, to me, is how much fun the naysayers are having with their cracks about ape movies being lame. Oh, sorry...sorry the movie only made HALF A BILLION DOLLARS before it even made it to dvd. Fuckers.
Well, Jackson probably never wanted to make Halo three hours long anyway.
Hollywood has only itself to blame for its loss of money. I'm so sick of hearing that the reason is because, "the quality of movies have been poor" or some shit like that. What doesn't Hollywood get? Movies are too goddamn expensive, the consessions are too goddamn expensive, teenagers are not policed and they ruin the experience, commercials before the previews ("pre-show entertainment" my ass!), and the DVDs come out 3 months later. I mean, I've probably seen more films in the theater than most will see in a lifetime and even I don't go to the movies anymore for all the above-mentioned reasons. I find the whole experience to be aversive.
I haven't seen the movie but it seems like people like it and it's certainly very successful by any reasonable standard.
The idea that they were expecting higher profits doesn't bother me, though. Going back to at least 1977 (When Spielberg was forced to release Close Encounters early to cash in on Star Wars frenzy), this is the way these people think. If I were a studio executive, I would have expected more box office for King Kong, and it would be my job to analyze why it's fallen short of those expectations.
People like us (who like the kind of movies we like) are constantly seeing our favorite stuff ACTUALLY flop or ACTUALLY be misunderstood or ignored or hated. This isn't so bad in comparison.
Why haven't I seen it? I don't know. Maybe because it's three hours long, and it's not based on the "greatest novel of the 20th century" unlike other three-hour Peter Jackson movies, so I don't have a pre-conceived notion of what all the praise could mean. I'm actually more interested in seeing "Munich."
I should add that I've carefully avoided reading anything about King Kong (including Octopunk's rave postings here) until I've seen the movie. Everyone I know who's seen it says it's absolutely incredible and I believe them; it's just that I pretty much only see movies by myself these days and "Munich" is more my kind of thing, so that's my next solo theater outing.
I haven't seen Munich yet but I've only heard good things about it - let us know when you see it. I love going the movies alone.
I saw Munich last night. It's incredible; the movie of the year.
Interesting that the director responsible for a certain amount of bullshit "violence" in his more cartoonish movies (Indy shooting the swordsman etc.) has become the absolute master of brutally shocking us, surpassing Clockwork Orange, Godfather, maybe even Peckinpah.
What's also amazing is how fast Spielberg is able to churn out films. I mean, he shot War of the Worlds and Munich pretty much at the same time. I remember hearing that he was going to do Munich and then it seems like it was in the theaters just months later. I pretty much like everything he's done, even the less popular stuff like A.I.
2005 (War of the Worlds in May, Munich in December; overlapping post-production and pre-production) was basically a repeat of 1993 (Jurassic Park in May, Schindler's List in December; etc).
The two 2005 movies correspond to each other in a similar way; but these newer movies totally resonate with 9/11-related sadness and fear.
I'm beginning to come around on AI, myself. I'm basically a total fan of everything he's done since Schindler's List; the earlier stuff is more problematic for me. Re-seeing Raiders recently, I noticed it felt more like a Zemekis movie than a Spielberg. I'm much more into sci-fi than "adventure" so Indy's never really been my thing anyway.
I think "The Lost World" was terrible, because, basically, his heart wasn't in it; once you "put aside childish things" it becomes very difficult to force yourself to get interested in them again. War of the Worlds marks a similar advance beyond Close Encounters and E.T.; he's not re-telling Pinoccio or Peter Pan any more. (I'm aware that AI re-tells Pinoccio; maybe that's why I have trouble with it.)
Munich has messed with my head in a way that the very best movies do. You know; when the world looks a little different as you walk home. I just had a bad dream about it.
Jordan, that's interesting info about his production schedules. It might be worth reading George Jonas’ Vengeance, the book Munich was based on. Regarding the Indiana Jones films, I still enjoy Raiders, but I can't watch the two sequels,they just don't do anything for me. I agree with you about Lost World. I can't get excited at the prospect of a 4th. I've never seen The Terminal, but I heard it was a clunker.
One of my favorite observations about AI is one I heard from Jordan first: that he grafted the plot of Pinocchio onto it -- not just the story idea, but the exact same story with the Blue Fairy and everything.
I don't think I'll ever give AI the break it needs to work for me. Not as a movie, anyway. As a string of connected episodes of Amazing Stories, it works.
Post a Comment