At 03:52 PM 12/28/05 -0500, JR wrote:
>"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...
>
Where does the idea come from that all three LotR movies
cost $100 million? More like $100 million each. Probably
more than that. (I also don't know where the information on
the cost of King Kong is coming from. The numbers do
seem to rise magically.)
Craig.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Miller Wolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
