Was King Kong a relative Box Office flop?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
did it underachieve? did it overachieve?

did it meet expectatkions or exceed them?

or is it what the box office numbers show? $200million.
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
A flop in the idea it cost a LOT but did not make back as much. \\Yea it broke the golden 100mill mark. But it cost so much, yea I have to say flop.
 
K

kamranziadar

Banned
Aug 20, 2004
5,483
0
0
No it is not a Flop the only reason it did not opened near $100 million mark or so was the length of the Movie.
Last week it topped the $200 Million mark, and that much it cost them to make it, so what ever earnings after that is their profit.


 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,086
47,213
136
It didn't meet the studio's expectation for domestic gross (likely 250-300) but it should end up around 220 when it is done. Add in the international gross and the total theatrical run is worth around 550-600.

They still have video, cable, and tv to go yet.

It made Universal plenty of money.
 
SKORPI0

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,500
2,426
136
King Kong hits $US200m mark

King Kong earned an estimated $US7.3 million at the weekend to reach $US202.8 million, passing the double century mark in its 33rd day of release.

By contrast, another New Zealand-filmed fantasy epic, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe, reached the $US200 million mark on its 22nd North American release day.

Narnia, directed by Andrew Adamson of Auckland, fell two places to No4 with to $US10.1 million, taking its total tally to $US261.4 million.

King Kong, which had a $US207 million budget, had been predicted by some Hollywood observers to gross $US1 billion worldwide ? something only Titanic and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King have done, according to the Internet Movie Database.

However, recent predictions suggested its international gross would be more like $US600 million. It had reached $US433 million as of last week. Narnia was at $US471 million around the world by last week.
Click to expand...
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: kamranziadar
No it is not a Flop the only reason it did not opened near $100 million mark or so was the length of the Movie.
Last week it topped the $200 Million mark, and that much it cost them to make it, so what ever earnings after that is their profit.
Click to expand...


Wow, I hope you never go into business. You think the movie as a WHOLE was only 200mill? That was JUST production. Now take into account that 200mill is BEFORE the box, stars, directors, etc... get their cut. Then subtract all teh promotion money. And you can see it is far from profit level. It will take many DVDs to break even after all is said and done.

 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,086
47,213
136
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: kamranziadar
No it is not a Flop the only reason it did not opened near $100 million mark or so was the length of the Movie.
Last week it topped the $200 Million mark, and that much it cost them to make it, so what ever earnings after that is their profit.
Click to expand...


Wow, I hope you never go into business. You think the movie as a WHOLE was only 200mill? That was JUST production. Now take into account that 200mill is BEFORE the box, stars, directors, etc... get their cut. Then subtract all teh promotion money. And you can see it is far from profit level. It will take many DVDs to break even after all is said and done.
Click to expand...

It is true that the studios obfuscate the real costs so much it is almost impossible for anyone outside the company to know the truth with much accuracy, but this is standard procedure out there.

I can pretty much guarantee though that Universal didn?t spend 600 million in production, P&A (prints and advertising), and salary. The film didn?t have a ton of costly actors (Black and Brody being the top end). Jackson most likely got the biggest check of all (percentage of gross).
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
i think the key word is "relative"

i'd say it has avoided the absolute flop region, but it still seems to be to have significantly underperformed.

 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
On an unrelated topic, which movie is considered the biggest loss for Hollywood?
WaterWorld by chance?
 
C

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: kamranziadar
No it is not a Flop the only reason it did not opened near $100 million mark or so was the length of the Movie.
Last week it topped the $200 Million mark, and that much it cost them to make it, so what ever earnings after that is their profit.
Click to expand...


Wow, I hope you never go into business. You think the movie as a WHOLE was only 200mill? That was JUST production. Now take into account that 200mill is BEFORE the box, stars, directors, etc... get their cut. Then subtract all teh promotion money. And you can see it is far from profit level. It will take many DVDs to break even after all is said and done.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof to support this comment? When I hear XXX movie had a $207 million dollar budget, I would assume that includes a lot of the promotion already. I would think that only a few of the bigger actors in the movie get some sort of small percentage of the profits, but the majority are paid up front and accounted for in the budget.

At the very least, I would think that budget remarks like this already take into account any future costs.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,086
47,213
136
Originally posted by: shortylickens
On an unrelated topic, which movie is considered the biggest loss for Hollywood?
WaterWorld by chance?
Click to expand...

Stealth captured that title.

Sony lost in excess of 100M.
 
jiwq

jiwq

Platinum Member
May 24, 2001
2,036
0
0
it did pretty well considering that it had to compete directly against narnia
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
i think it didn't do well at all. it seems to me the numbers reflect a LOT of people seeing but only 1 time. all the huge blockbusters had multiple viewers. lots of people saw Star Wars, Titanic or such many many times in the theater.

i guess one of the main reasons i think it is a flop is, it didn't do that well considering my much a lot of people were anticipating this film coming out.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
Originally posted by: shortylickens
On an unrelated topic, which movie is considered the biggest loss for Hollywood?
WaterWorld by chance?
Click to expand...
This is from wiki, so don't cite this on your term paper or anything..
List of films generating losses.
Click to expand...
Actually thats a good link, thanks.
Showgirls is no suprise since it was R in the theaters and NC-17 on DVD.
But they dont even have Waterworld up there and I know damn well it lost money.
The fvcking thing cost something like 400 Million to produce and I know they didnt make it all back.

EDIT: Does anyone wonder about those movies where they spend twice as much on marketing as production?
Can we get a definition of "desperation"?
 
dainthomas

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,939
3,919
136
Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
Originally posted by: shortylickens
On an unrelated topic, which movie is considered the biggest loss for Hollywood?
WaterWorld by chance?
Click to expand...
This is from wiki, so don't cite this on your term paper or anything..
List of films generating losses.
Click to expand...

Why is revenue cut in half when calculating a "loss"?

(Edit: never mind! I read the reasoning)

How could Stealth do bad? Fast planes + aircraft carriers + explosions + Jessica Biehl = WINNAR!

Other movies I liked: Sahara and Hidalgo.
 
Q

Qwest

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
3,169
0
0
IMDB does not take into account inflation nor does it count # of tickets sold, but Kong so far is #62 All Time for US Box Office sales. That's pretty respectable, regardless of how much it cost to make.


link
 
T

TheTony

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2005
1,418
1
0
Originally posted by: shortylickens
But they dont even have Waterworld up there and I know damn well it lost money.
The fvcking thing cost something like 400 Million to produce and I know they didnt make it all back.
Click to expand...

Waterworld cost $175 million to produce. A lot, in it's time, but not $400 million. That kind of figure would be a record, even today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom