Ooops, well I garbled that one. "King Kong" IS considered a box office bust (and I'll stand by that) -- only because it "struggled" to make back its $207 million in the U.S.A., where it barely broke even and where, despite its "down under" roots, it remains the "country of origin" or as they say in the film and book business, "country of first publication."
In fairness, overseas box office and DVD sales have changed the economics of the film business, as in the case of Ridley Scott's box office bust, "Kingdom of Heaven," which still made money because it was better received in Europe. But in crazy Hollywood, the unfair stigma of a film performing "below expectations" sticks -- if your picture CANNOT break even in the U.S.A, a nation of nearly 300 million which continues to matter to the bean counters in Hollywood who plan budgets and what not. "Overseas" box-office continues to be viewed as a "safety net" that p.r. "spinners" invoke when a film financed in the U.S.A "underperforms" in the U.S.A. Jackson earned his right to make the picture he wanted, but I think he himself was a little embarrassed that his film took weeks and weeks to make money (which may explain why he's chosen to assume complete financial risk for his next project, see below).
Secondly, I re-read my note and while I dismissed the film's length, people have forgotten that I praised "King Kong" and enjoyed it. I found it too long, but not enough to knock it out of the top 5 favorite films I saw last year. Yes, it was all action and people rightly carped about all the excess CGI, the apparent "padding" of scenes, but it was also quite amazing for me as a movie-goer -- to get all worked up over an ape. I was surprised how touching and tender it was amid all the spectacle. I got into "King Kong" film more than Jackson's LOTR films, the latter being steeped in classic Tolkien mythology that's a bit dense for novices like me -- but obviously not to film goers, many whose first introduction to Tolkien was through these films, who made ALL 3 stratopheric successes and Jackson a millionaire many times over. I just think it took too long to get to the ape and frustrating to see a magnificent personality like Jack Black "strapped in." But those were small quibbles because I felt I got my $10 worth.
During the winter, I remarked how disappointed I was that "King Kong" was not nominated for Best Picture, how I felt it was unduly snubbed by an Academy that picked five other films, most of which have zero replay value and will be forgotten within 5 years. Jackson IS a genius and you guys are right, this is the man, who before he successfully tackled and delivered his visionary "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, also brought us "Heavenly Creatures," a remarkable little film that introduced most of us to a then unknown Kate Winslet.
Finally, about "The Lovely Bones," Jackson's next project. There is actually a welcoming feeling I have about Jackson being attached to this project, despite my fears he might "over do" it. So many best sellers I like are unable to "cross-over" to film in a big-time way without an established name. Before Jackson, Scottish director Lynne Ramsay was attached to it, she of "Morvern Caller" and "Ratcatcher," art films few people saw, and I worried "Bones" would get lost in the "Landmark Theaters" circuit, if it EVER made it across the Atlantic.
But Peter Jackson is a world-wide name. And like George Lucas before him, "The Lovely Bones" will be 100% financed by Jackson himself. He's using his own money. "The Lovely Bones" is delicate material, yet controversial because it was dismissed as being too sentimental, too rough, too open-ended and w/o spirituality, despite its "ghostly" theme and a dead protagonist who speaks from a heaven that has no basis in theology. But it resonated in a way that defied belief, especially with young women, who helped (w/o Oprah's hands on it) publisher Little, Brown move more than 1 million copies in less than four weeks and almost two years before it finally appeared in paperback. It wasn't the "Da Vinci Code," but it was a sensation for first-time novelist Alice Sebold, who was better known to journalists for her 1999 memoir, "Lucky" -- about surviving an attempted murder and rape when she was a student at Syracuse University.
Oh BTW, off the subject -- but have you guys seen Peter Jackson lately? My wife now thinks he's tremendously handsome. He no LONGER looks like a hobbit. He lost so much weight, changed his hair style, etc., that he now has what she describes as a "dashing" look to him (no kidding, this is what she says).
Peter Jackson
-koose.
