Funny how some films polarise opinion... and blind it.
EYES WIDE SHUT did the same thing. Loveed, hated it. Not a lot in between.
KING KONG was not a "bust". It made a fortune, and it won the Oscars for
which it was nominated. No, not successful at all. But for some reason,
people either hated it or loved it.. or liked it, but those who hated it
did what they usually do. They disparaged everything about it and it's
director. After LOTR, anything Jackson did was going to be a victim of
tall poppy syndrome.
And a lot of people hated KONG long before they saw it. They were
always going to hate, no matter what it was like. Heck, don't you go
RE-MAKING a "classic", ya hear? Spielberg copped the same thing over WAR
OF THE WORLDS, except that wasn't as MUCH of a "classic" as KONG, so he
only got half the bucket tipped on him.... and also made a thoroughly
modern and disturbing version of Wells' book, and like Wells (if not
George Pal) utilised the SF genre for social comment.
Jackson planned KING KONG long before LOTR, but Disney came out with
MIGHTY JOE YOUNG and put big gorilla pictures on the nose. Jackson put
KONG on the backburner and then Jackson had to fight (initially) to get
LOTR made as he wanted it to - as a trilogy - He proved he knew what he
was doing. And that let him make KONG the way he wanted. Like LOTR (each
chapter) Jackons' "version" suffered a fatal "flaw". The amount of mylar
film coud not fit on a single platter at a multiplex, and he was under
the usual pressure to deliver a shorter film so more sessions (even
staggered over multiple print bookings) could be run to make the candy
bar receipts flourish. Film is an art/entertainment medium that is
dictated by the size of platter on the projectors... and how many times
a day exhibitors can get people past that candy bar and buy that 2000%
marked-up crap.
I suspect Jackon's new film will hark back to something like HEAVENLY
CREATURES, which remains the "forgotten" Peter Jackson film. And that's
full of SPFX, except unless you know where to look, or for the obvious
fantasy scenes, they serve the plot and characters.
People who have a big success are always headed for a "fall". Why do you
think James Cameron hasn't directed since TITANIC? How do you follow one
of the biggest films ever - a film that generated huge repeat business -
and is now thought as "uncool" by all those who loved it then, saw it
2-3-4 times.... It's called GWTW-itis.
I guess the thing that I find disappointing is the way people can be so
openly contemptuous of the talent and success of others in the film
making arena. I'm sure there are a few silent MOPO members who actually
work in film making in some capacity, and actually know how hard the
whole process is.
As for $207 million budget.... if you don't know how studio accounting
practices work....
Phil
JR wrote:
koose,
Even though I personally rated Jackson's KONG to be a 7 out of 10 when
it hit the theaters (on IMDb some 62,252 votes put it as 7.8 out of
10), I don't see how it can be considered a bust. Heck, IMDb places
it at #36 on the list of all time top money makers world-wide. Box
Office Mojo reports its production budget at $207 million and the
world-wide box-office take (not counting DVD sales) at $549,216,896 --
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingkong05.htm
... heck, even if they spent another $100 million on promotion,
everyone involved did much better than just "break even" (except
perhaps by Hollywood accounting standards). If you figure in the DVD
money, I think they probably did very well, maybe getting 3 bucks back
for every 1 they spent. Only in today's Hollywood, where if you don't
make back at least 5 bucks for every dollar spent can a movie that
brings in over half a billion dollars at the box office be somehow
considered a "bust". People have got awfully greedy recently.
I'm not about to be suckered into popping for no 3-disc set, but I'll
definitely Netflix this extended edition when it comes out. I'd love
for the added material to be good enough to allow me to bump my rating
up to at least 8 out of 10 if not higher. That was certainly the case
with Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS films... the extended DVD versions
are definitely superior to the theatrical releases.
-- JR
----- Original Message -----
*From:* David Kusumoto <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, August 05, 2006 22:59
*Subject:* [MOPO] "King Kong" gets an extended cut
*Sure enough, this might be old news to most, but it was news to me.
At the San Diego Comic-Con last month, Peter Jackson talked about yet
another "extended cut" he plans to put out on DVD later this year of
his box-office bust, "King Kong." (A bust only because it "broke
even" worldwide). *
*Well at Amazon.com, it showed up.
**http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H30B2C*
*There will be 13 minutes added to an already LONG-a** film, plus on
extra discs will will be sixteen deleted scenes totalling 40 minutes.
A three disc set. Ridiculous.*
*Peter Jackson's next project is the "small, intimate" adapation of
Alice Sebold's 2002 monstrous USA best seller (4 million copies), "The
Lovely Bones," which was narrated by a murdered teenage girl who
watches how "life goes on" with her friends and family and a killer
who's never caught. I've read the book and my fear is Jackson will
turn a "little" story set in American suburbia -- that could probably
be made for $15 million tops (the budget for this year's "United 93,"
which more than doubled its return) -- into an $70 million CGI fest
filled with ghosts.*
*-koose.*
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.
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.
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.
