Looks like ROTS will be the 2005 BO king.

Why do you say King Kong wont be forgotten? No one was there to see it in the first place.

 

KK is a bomb considering what was spent to make and hype it. It'll have to do well on DVD sales and rentals to make it up. Before it came out they said it needed to make 6 million to be worth it. It's not gonna sniff that.

 

King Kong is not an artisitc vision...it is a remake. A second remake. The original film wasen't event hat great. It was a slash em gash monster movie with a bit of heart. Peter Jackson is trying to make puppies out of Allegators. Trying to make a masterpeice out of an average film which main suceess was its unreal special effects (at the time) And the fact that no one knew what the moster looked liked, so it had an air of suspense...nowadays, EVERYONE even little children know exactly what the giant ape looks like...Why waste an hour on character development for a remake based on a movie whose general plot outline is simply:

"Giant ape carries blonde up skyscraper."

A true artists creates his own work.

LOTR was so great because of Prof. Toilken. I watched the special features for the LOTR EE DVD's..Peter Jackson acts like a marketting exetective who focuses on audience intial reactions, what with all the character SEEMINLY dying but coming back (Aragorn in TTT), and many other OOO AHH moments that have NOTHING, NO emotion on repeated viewings (Ask many people why they love LOTR movies..they won't say the themes and morals..they will tell: The battle scenes were AWESOME!)..The only thing LOTR has is the acting, Music and Toilkien's wonderful books as its backdrop...For a look at Peter Jackson's true talents, one must look at Braindead and his other earlier movies.


So yeah..I have high hopes ROTS will be BO king of 2005!

King Kong will flop. IMHHO.

 

"A true artists creates his own work. "

Well, even if you take a story that has already been told you still create your own work and your own vision by choosing HOW to tell it, where to put the emphasis etc. Do you really believe the story of Star Wars is original? It has been told countless times but Lucas made it his own by creating something unique

But if you really seriously believe that one isn't a true artist if one doesn't come up with the story then please tell that to Mr Hitchcock, Mr. Kubrick, Mr. Lean, Mr. Coppola and all the other "non-artists" that don't come up with their own stories. And while you're at it - why not slam Leonardo daVinci, Auguste Renoir, Salvador Dali, Rubens, Rembrandt and all the other dilettants that simple paint objects that others have already painted like the last supper or Mary with Baby Jesus. You cannot seriously defend your point of view.

 

Using the same themes and unlining story frames is unavoidable. WHat I mean is using the TITLE and the GROUNDWORK of something that has already been made is a cop-out.

A remake is differnt from something that is original but with the same old theme.

 

since we are on the topic of original ideas and a true artist creates his own work. lucas idea was very origianl and he admits it comes from verious ideas of the early movies at his time. but star wars was very original to the point where he created an entire universe of original ideas and we can honestly say no other director has done that where he is able to create an entire idea like this in years. what other movie or trilogy still holds up after 20 years of fresh ideas and stories where it keeps readers entertained, come on now. noone else has been able to create something like lucas has in a long time.


i like jackson's work but they are not original ideas, they are so far based on books or old movies. the only director who i think is able to rival lucas is speildberg besause atleast speildberg is able to create fresh ideas from time to time.

 

ROTS got just as good reviews as KK has, and destroyed it at the box office.

In fact, it destroyed every other movie this year at the box office.
It's just that Lucas haters like to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that ROTS wasn't the best reviewed SW movie of all time in it's initial release and that it wasn't a huge blockbuster.

ROTS is the real monster here, not Hackson's lame "Queen" Kong.

 

Apparently, the themes that are touched on in the story of King Kong were over your head.

Sure. Now what if an artist creates something that is actually derived from dozens of other sources that came before him, not just in terms of story, but in terms of characters, images, costumes, and even stunts, and is then brought about through the hard work and imaginations of entire teams of artists and craftsmen...

...as was the case with Star Wars?

In spite of that, does Lucas still qualify as a 'true artist'?

 

Narnia overtakes Kong. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-21&p=.htm 4.9 million versus 4.8 million.

 

Better reviews? Are you kidding? This movie had some of the best reviews of all time and don't give me the excuse that its length is the reason it's failing at the Box Office. There have been 3 hr movies that have excelled at the Box Office.

 

Better reviews? Are you kidding? This movie had some of the best reviews of all time and don't give me the excuse that its length is the reason it's failing at the Box Office.
Yep.

There have been 3 hr movies that have excelled at the Box Office.


LOTR for one.

 

don't give me the excuse that its length is the reason it's failing at the Box Office. There have been 3 hr movies that have excelled at the Box Office.

No one wants to go see a 3 hour King Kong. that's why it's failing. some movies people will pay to sit for three hours and watch. King Kong isn't one of them. that's why the length is a mistake.

 

ROTS the 2005 BO king? I didn't think it stunk that bad - in fact I thought it was pretty good.

Now KK is another matter. Did you see all the flys and bugs buzzing around him? I'm sure his BO was something else - and those natives? They should get a group nomination for BO King of the year.

And the movie itself wasn't so good either. Parts of it were downright stupid, including all the endless, sad, weepy-eyed stares. The movie's so called "senstivity" juxtaposed oddly against Jackson's fondness for bizarre and goulish images. There were so many unnecessary scenes - and I kept asking myself, "if they were being chased by all these creatures while traveling into the island, why were they similarly chased on the way out?" In some ways, the 1976 remake was better, and that's not saying much either.

 

Very true. Some 3 hr+ films do succeed. LOTR worked due to the fact that the Tolkien books were so dense-and even some of those works didn't end up on the movie screen (just the overly long extended DVD versions). The original KK got it's story told in what--90 minutes or so? Even the crappy '76 remake managed to make it's point in roughly 2 hrs. Don't get me wrong, PJ's KK was a good flick. It would have been a great one if he had cut 30-60 minutes out and maybe spent 6 more months polishing up some of the FX. KK could have been the biggest summer movie of 2006 if he had done that instead. But that's probably not PJ's fault. My guess is that Universal wanted to get this giant money-suck they had invested in out to theaters ASAP in order to get Oscar notice and be the saviors of what the media considers a financially weak year at the box-office. The media hype that claimed KK was going to beat Titanic was ridiculous. It's gonna be a long time before a movie comes along that has that big of a cross-cultural impact to beat the sinking ship's $600 million+. Not even a SW film was gonna do that.

 

The LOTR films were good, but they had a huge fanbase that guranteed good business. Not only that, but there was hype for it. It was a long time coming. King Kong didn't have all that. Peter Jackson's fanbase is smaller when compared to LOTR. Theaters cost too much. The DVD will be out in April, at least. The three hour runtime might've played a factor, but it was what ruined the film. 2 hours might not have even helped it. It's hard to determine.

 

I really hope RotS is the king at the b.o. internationally.
But Harry Potter seems that it is doing better overseas, sadly.
I think since May, RotS made like $858,000,000. Goblet of Fire is already at $712,000,000 a month after its release. Harry Potter could very well de-throne RotS.

But one thing to consider is that RotS made $380 million domestically and no other movie this year has come close to that. The $380 million seems like $700 million.

And while Kong doesn't appear to pose a threat to RotS at b.o., I'm afraid SW while once again get snubbed at the Oscars in the special F.X. department. And Kong will get that award. ILM used the first and last name in f.x. That WETA has given it a run for its money, sadly.

 

Looking at BOM's incomplete Thursday list makes me think:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-21&p=.htm


Universal must be horribly embarassed about Kong's Thursday numbers if they won't release them.

 

Looking at BOM's incomplete Thursday list makes me think:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-21&p=.htm


Universal must be horribly embarassed about Kong's Thursday numbers if they won't release them.

It was Narnia on top, 5.7 to 5.5 million. Fridays estimates of Kong on top by $15000 is the suspicious part.

 

Looks like Narnia has a good shot at beating Kong this weekend.

 

BOM has some weekend numbers up:

3-Day
King Kong: $21,313,000 (-57.5%)
Narnia: $20,379,000 (-36.0%)

4-Day
King Kong: $31,433,000 (-37.3%)
Narnia: $30,102,000 (-5.5%)

 

Not exactly wiping the floor the with competition, is it?

 

Why are some of you saying that it's the 3 hr run time that's hurting it? Lest we forget Titanic was 3 hrs and the ending wasn't exactly a shocker either. It's hurting because it's nothing more than the '33 version with CGI.

 

Quite a big box office drop for Hackson's overrated "Queen" Kong. Good to see. Too bad the academy will give his cut-rate effects the Oscar over the much more deserving ROTS.

 

thechozen1 - i agree -
if you've seen the 1933 version it defines the story actually and is more of an accomplishment creating what they did with what they had 72 years ago.

 

i dont know what have you been drinking this days but your post are just perfectly on the spot (being serious here, i totally agree )