Kong: $397,059,825

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:37:52 -0800, "John Doe II"
<firsTraveler DeleteThis @centurytel.net> wrote:

>Yep, big flop.

No, but if it tops out at less than 600M, the beancounters will consider it
only a modest success, and we may actually see some of their complaints in
print in the trades. From what I've read elsewhere, a movie must return
three times its original cost to be considered an unqualified success. Kong
has a way to go ..
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825 

MFalc1 wrote:
> John Doe II wrote:
> Yep, big flop.
>
> It will be quite profitable once all the revenue streams have trickled
> into NBCUniversal and Peter Jackson's coffers.
>
> My guess is that Jackson and New Line will have a very specifically
> structured deal once Jackson (or a director designated by him) gets
> around to making THE HOBBIT.

Hopefully this will rescue Hobbit from the current legal hell it's
entangled in. If they don't get it ironed out soon, I'm not optimistic
that Hobbit will ever get made. Ian McKellen ain't gettin' any younger.

The two studios involved (one owning the film rights, the other the
disttribution rights, or something liike that) have been trying to
hammer out a deal for a couple of years now, and it doesn't seem like
they're any closer to resolving it. Sigh!
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825 

Calvin Rice wrote:
> Susan Bartholomew wrote:
>
>>If they don't get it ironed out soon, I'm not optimistic
>>that Hobbit will ever get made. Ian McKellen ain't
>>gettin' any younger.
>
>
> Surely you don't think Ian McKellan or anyone else is necessary for
> The Hobbit. I'd rather see a new cast, and also a conception other
> than that of Jackson/Walsh/Boyens. Let's see someone else's
> take on Tolkien. Their's was ok, but not considered definitive, I
> hope.<<

While I certainly don't think it's impossible to make Hobbit without
Jackson or McKellan, I'm sure New Line wants them both, since that
version has a good chance of making more money than a whole new version.
As another poster pointed out, if you're going for continuity, you want
it to look as much like Jackson's LotR as possible. If it weren't for
those films, I doubt there'd even be any serious discussion about making
The Hobbit into a film. They'll go with what they're sure will make money.

But what with all the legal wrangling, I'm not all that hopeful that
Jackson or anybody will ever get to make The Hobbit. So, maybe someone
else will after all!
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825 

MFalc1 wrote:

> John Doe II wrote:
> Yep, big flop.
>
> It will be quite profitable once all the revenue streams have trickled
> into NBCUniversal and Peter Jackson's coffers.
>
> My guess is that Jackson and New Line will have a very specifically
> structured deal once Jackson (or a director designated by him) gets
> around to making THE HOBBIT.


All I know is that if Jackson loses any more wait while making movies
Stephen King is going to have to do the documentary.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825 

Calvin Rice wrote:

> Susan Bartholomew wrote:
>
>>If they don't get it ironed out soon, I'm not optimistic
>>that Hobbit will ever get made. Ian McKellen ain't
>>gettin' any younger.
>
>
> Surely you don't think Ian McKellan or anyone else is necessary for
> The Hobbit. I'd rather see a new cast, and also a conception other
> than that of Jackson/Walsh/Boyens. Let's see someone else's
> take on Tolkien.


Bring on Mel Gibson, I say!
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825 

On 4 Jan 2006 10:02:34 -0800, "Jerry at the Movies" <Faust668.TakeThisOut@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>George Peatty wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:37:52 -0800, "John Doe II"
>> <firsTraveler.TakeThisOut@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Yep, big flop.
>>
>> No, but if it tops out at less than 600M, the beancounters will consider it
>> only a modest success, and we may actually see some of their complaints in
>> print in the trades. From what I've read elsewhere, a movie must return
>> three times its original cost to be considered an unqualified success. Kong
>> has a way to go ..
>
>I don't know what you've read but my understanding has always been that
>a film has to make about 1 1/2 times its original cost to break
>somewhat even, not three times its budget.

Two things

That's an old model, from the days when promotional budgets didn't hit
eight figures.

Second he offered triple budget to be an unqualified success, which is
different from breaking even.

>Depends on who you ask of
>course considering that FORREST GUMP is still considered to be in the
>red.

That depends on which bookkeeeping model is in use -- remember, on
films where people have gross point participation, Hollywood adds
their profit participation to the budget -- Zemeckis and Hanks each
collected about 35 million on Gump, which was immediately added to the
budget.


> And don't forget worldwide grosses in addition to domestic. KING
>KONG will ultimately be considered a big success but, once again, it
>depends on who you ask.

Kong will certainly be a profitable film before it gets to DVD -- It's
in profit now under any normal bookkeeping system. (with a production
budget of just over 200 million and promotion in the neighbourhood of
$50 million, $400 million should put it into profit on any rational
bookkeeping system.

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Kong: $397,059,825