[MOPO] The King of Hollywood Accounting

[JR]

OK, I'm getting confused...   Peter Jackson's KING KONG was reported originally budgeted at $100 million.   Then, it was revealed just before it was released that it was $34 million over budget and that Jackson put up the extra cash out of his own pocket. That puts it at $134 million.   Then, about a week after it was released I read a review that talked about how it should make back it's $145 million dollar cost.   Now, today, in the Studio Briefing at www.IMDB.com, the article on the current box-office opens with:   "Box-office trackers are continuing to predict that, in the end, King Kong will justify its $220-million production cost."   So, it seems that the "reported cost" of KING KONG keeps rising. Is this just standard Hollywood Accounting reasserting itself in a Big Way, or is this the real cost? If so, then it would appear that this 3-hour film cost more than Peter Jackson's epic 11-hours of all three LORD OF THE RINGS films. If that's what happened, then we have another tragedy beside Kong getting his hairy self blasted off the Empire State Building...   -- JR   ----- Original Message ----- From: Rod Morgan To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 5:45 Subject: [MOPO] Comprehensive Collection, 3000 Titles---MX Cinema, 1930's-1980's http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7575992326 __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/          Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com    ___________________________________________________________________               How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List        Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]             In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L     The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.