Retro Throw Back: 2005's King Kong- What Went Wrong?

[ExcelFTW]

[CJohn]

Automatic generated messageThis topic has been closed by a moderator.Reason: wtf?If you disagree with this action, please report this post and a moderator or administrator will reconsider it.Kind regards,BoxOffice® Forums Staff

[CJohn]

Bump.

[baumer]

Interesting thread.  I don't have much to add, but interesting nonetheless.

[kowhite]

Movie did $500M worldwide.

 

Pretty good for something that went wrong.

 

That being said, the film was sluggishly paced, and the casting was simply off IMO.

 

Watts was good, but Brody was a misfire in his role.  They had no chemistry.  Jack Black was...fine in my book, but not sure people took a shine to him in that role either.

 

Quite frankly...I think Jackson took the serious drama bit too far...in what should've been a little more faster paced adventure/monster film.

 

At the end of the day, despite all that, it still made a decent chunk of change.

Edited December 15, 2013 by kowhite

[Leyla]

oh now we're moved from bashing DoS to another PJ movie 

[Jawa]

I can't add much since I wasn't following box office back then, but sweet mother of Willis O'Brien was that movie unnecessarily long...

[ban1o]

I don't really know how a movie that 550 million WW in 2005 "went wrong" 

[kowhite]

I don't really know how a movie that 550 million WW in 2005 "went wrong" 

 

Ha yes, but I suppose we don't have a generalized term for "underperformed expectations".

[CaptainJackSparrow]

One of my favorite movies.

[SchumacherFTW]

I remember changing my mind in the queue at the cinema on my birthday to go and see Kong as opposed to Narnia way back when. I thought Kong was amazing, and couldn't understand why Kong was making less at the box office.

[Leyla]

the film def wasnt unnecesary imo

 

 

that chem between Kong & Ann was worth it

as a huge fan of romcoms & romantic dramas I'd rank it up there with the greatest couples' chemistries

& considering 1 half was a cgi gorilla thats saying smth

Andy & Naomi did a terrific job 

Edited December 15, 2013 by Leyla

[Films]

Can you do more of these, these are interesting. As we're talking about 2005 films, I am running a 2005 movie competition in the speakeasy if you want to sign up. Please sign up

[grim22]

I remember just not being interested in this movie. It wasn't hate, it was that I just did not care about this movie - still haven't seen it to date.

[LexJoker]

Nobody has answered the question. How the fuck with all the hype did it only open to $9M?

[Fancyarcher]

It only underperformed on its opening weekend. It actually had a good gross overall, specifically thanks to Christmas.

[Dragon]

i thought it did decent money.

[Cochofles]

I loved KK. Sure, it could've been shorter (it had a lot of padding), but the fx and cinematography was spectacular, the action was breathtaking, and the relationship between the beauty and the beast was beautiully rendered, in no small part thanks to Naomi Watts's heartbreaking performance. Watching the last ten minutes of KK made me bawl like a madwoman, and to this day, I can't even watch a Youtube clip without tearing up.

[Hatebox]

I can't remember if I saw this at the theater. I know that everyone thought it was too long though.

[a2k]

LexJoker is not talking about the final gross and worldwide bo.

The question is why would a movie with so much going for it open to only 9 million.

 

(1)

For one, compared to summer December is not known for massive openers. I think it's the 'wait for the holidays' patience that people have. Especially if people know it's going to be a long movie.

 

I think King Kong was a summer movie head to toe.

 

(2) 

I think setting the movie in 1933 kept some people away. 1933 King Kong was not set in 1863. Should have been set in the modern world and been with the times. That helps people imaging "what if it happens to me", and they can relate to what happens if the beast moves in their city.