| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Is King Kong being underpredicted? http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10059 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ___Emperor___ [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
Id say the average prediction for this movie is about 220 million domestic. But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. I am not sure how Narnia will affect its gross though. But i have a feeling Narnia will disappoint financially (like Peter Pan, but not as bad i presume). In fact, i think Narnia might have some difficultly reaching 100 million. C.S. Lewis is just not that popular as Super Bitch Rowling, Tolkien, and the story of Peter Pan. Im not sure how audiences will embrace the concept of a Lion being the hero of a movie. Anyway, I think King Kong is being underpredicted, because people are OVER predicting some other movies, such as fantastic four, War of the Worlds. I think Batman will continue to do well, and could surpass the original Batman. But I am quite sure War of the Worlds will not repeat the success of ID-4. Of that, I am quite certain. King Kong might well rival Revenge of the Sith, especially internationally. I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. This is one of those movies that is being heavily UNDERpredicted in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | zingy [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
___Emperor___ wrote: But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. A director's name never guarantees anything. ___Emperor___ wrote: I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. Why would this outgross all the Lord of the Rings films? 
|
|
| Author: | ___Emperor___ [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
Zingaling wrote: ___Emperor___ wrote: But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. A director's name never guarantees anything. ___Emperor___ wrote: I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. Why would this outgross all the Lord of the Rings films? Why did spiderman and Shrek 2 outgross all the LOTR films (domestically)? I could ask you the same question... |
|
| Author: | baumer72 [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
___Emperor___ wrote: Zingaling wrote: ___Emperor___ wrote: But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. A director's name never guarantees anything. ___Emperor___ wrote: I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. Why would this outgross all the Lord of the Rings films? Why did spiderman and Shrek 2 outgross all the LOTR films (domestically)? I could ask you the same question... Because their running time was shorter. :razz: |
|
| Author: | STEVE ROGERS [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
___Emperor___ wrote: Zingaling wrote: ___Emperor___ wrote: But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. A director's name never guarantees anything. ___Emperor___ wrote: I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. Why would this outgross all the Lord of the Rings films? Why did spiderman and Shrek 2 outgross all the LOTR films (domestically)? I could ask you the same question... Because SPIDERMAN II and SHREK II weren't as damn boring and overly long as the LOTR movies and were just better all the way around.. GASP!!  :mrgreen:
|
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I say that this film has the POTENTIAL to become a 400+ million grosser. But really it's impossible to say at this point. 200 million is a lock, and 300 million a strong possibility. I really do think that the flick has everything going on for it. |
|
| Author: | choubachou [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
King Kong is being underpredicted by those who are tired of seeing Jackson put on a pedestal and who can't help but nitpick every tiny thing in the teaser trailer. Their judgement is blinded, if you ask me. And I agree that Narnia will disappoint. Even if it is good, it targets the same audience as HP4, which comes out, what, 3 weeks before? |
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
choubachou wrote: King Kong is being underpredicted by those who are tired of seeing Jackson put on a pedestal and who can't help but nitpick every tiny thing in the teaser trailer. Their judgement is blinded, if you ask me. Very true. |
|
| Author: | Snrub [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kong will definitely be huge. But how huge depends on how good it is. If it's pooh, $200-$220 million. If it's the best film in the history of mankind, as I suspect it might very well be, $700 million. |
|
| Author: | ___Emperor___ [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Is King Kong being underpredicted? |
baumer72 wrote: ___Emperor___ wrote: Zingaling wrote: ___Emperor___ wrote: But the name "King Kong" coupled with "Peter Jackson" almost guarantees a 300 + movie. A director's name never guarantees anything. ___Emperor___ wrote: I predict 410 million domestic, 560 overseas. I firmly believe "From the director of Lord of the Rings" followed by cuts of Monsters and Monkeys and what not, will be enough to catapult this into the number 1 movie of the year. Why would this outgross all the Lord of the Rings films? Why did spiderman and Shrek 2 outgross all the LOTR films (domestically)? I could ask you the same question... Because their running time was shorter. :razz: What about Titanic? And ALL the Lord of the rings films outgrossed both spiderman films and 2 of them outgrossed Shrek 2 (worldwide). So thats not much of an argument. 
|
|
| Author: | insomniacdude [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nazgul9 wrote: choubachou wrote: King Kong is being underpredicted by those who are tired of seeing Jackson put on a pedestal and who can't help but nitpick every tiny thing in the teaser trailer. Their judgement is blinded, if you ask me. Very true. I personally loved what Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy. All three movies sit comfortably in my top 5. And I'm still predicting a bit under $200 million for this movie. |
|
| Author: | insomniacdude [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
choubachou wrote: And I agree that Narnia will disappoint. Even if it is good, it targets the same audience as HP4, which comes out, what, 3 weeks before? I think Potter 4 will be far too dark to have traditional holiday/family legs. Sheer numbers will propel it to $260 million (a 4000 TC a week before Thanksgiving is almost guarunteed a big number, especially with a huge built in fanbase). But I think it'll drop hard after Thanksgiving and the very dark tone that might turn some families away from the franchise (or if it's marketed as a dark film, they may not see it at all) they may opt to see a much lighter and friendlier family movie like Narnia. Seriously, the fanbase is just a bit smaller than The Lord of the Rings, which opeend to $75 million in it's five day. Plus it has Disney marketing. I'd be surprised if it opens to less than $50 million, frankly. If Lemony Snicket can get $120 million, there's no way in hell that this doesn't. |
|
| Author: | MGKC [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Few people actually know or even remember who Peter Jackson is. King Kong still should do well nevertheless, but I think it's being overpredicted. |
|
| Author: | Tyler [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All they need to do is put somewhere in the marketing, "From Peter Jackson, the director of Lord of the Rings", and that'll solidify PJ as a draw. |
|
| Author: | MGKC [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jon Lyrik wrote: All they need to do is put somewhere in the marketing, "From Peter Jackson, the director of Lord of the Rings", and that'll solidify PJ as a draw. That would help, but obviously they think "Academy Award winning Director" is a better draw. |
|
| Author: | A. G. [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. |
|
| Author: | choubachou [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Archie Gates wrote: I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. I've seen some of your posts in other threads and they approach anti-KingKong/Peter Jackson status; you have your toolbox next to you and you're all set to nail the film on a cross. You seem to base your judgement soelely on this teaser trailer, which I think is good, but not great. Even at this point in time, with KK so far away and so little being revealed, there are other factors to consider than just this trailer. |
|
| Author: | neo_wolf [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
insomniacdude wrote: choubachou wrote: And I agree that Narnia will disappoint. Even if it is good, it targets the same audience as HP4, which comes out, what, 3 weeks before? I think Potter 4 will be far too dark to have traditional holiday/family legs. Sheer numbers will propel it to $260 million (a 4000 TC a week before Thanksgiving is almost guarunteed a big number, especially with a huge built in fanbase). But I think it'll drop hard after Thanksgiving and the very dark tone that might turn some families away from the franchise (or if it's marketed as a dark film, they may not see it at all) they may opt to see a much lighter and friendlier family movie like Narnia. Seriously, the fanbase is just a bit smaller than The Lord of the Rings, which opeend to $75 million in it's five day. Plus it has Disney marketing. I'd be surprised if it opens to less than $50 million, frankly. If Lemony Snicket can get $120 million, there's no way in hell that this doesn't. Narnia isnt that light,Infact its darker than HP IMO. |
|
| Author: | A. G. [ Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
choubachou wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. I've seen some of your posts in other threads and they approach anti-KingKong/Peter Jackson status; you have your toolbox next to you and you're all set to nail the film on a cross. You seem to base your judgement soelely on this teaser trailer, which I think is good, but not great. Even at this point in time, with KK so far away and so little being revealed, there are other factors to consider than just this trailer. LOL I loved Fellowship of the Ring if that makes you feel any better, I thought it was amazing. But I do think he has steadily lost his way since then, he has becomg too effects oriented. I watched that trailer for KK several more times and it wasn't just the CGI, the CGI was alright, wasn't great but was ok, but the story and acting just seemed...ordinary. Like I said, not bad, but not great. But you dont have to worry about me trying to nail him to any cross, when I don't care for a film I tend to just ignore it and not post about it much that's all. |
|
| Author: | misutaa [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am having the hardest time with this film, it is really unpredictable. I think that it would do excellent but also could bomb. I think that the safe bet is 200m, because I can't see this grossing less than 170m due to the holidays. |
|
| Author: | redspear [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
choubachou wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. I've seen some of your posts in other threads and they approach anti-KingKong/Peter Jackson status; you have your toolbox next to you and you're all set to nail the film on a cross. You seem to base your judgement soelely on this teaser trailer, which I think is good, but not great. Even at this point in time, with KK so far away and so little being revealed, there are other factors to consider than just this trailer. At the moment only SW can carry a 300 million dollar gross on name and director alone as can be seen by the OK SW:RoTS's BO performance. I think HP comes in a close second as guarenteeing 200 million. To the above poster Titanic is the only film in recent memory to carry all demographics. SW, LoTR have huge fan bases but still a limited demographic. To those complaining Kong is too short he wasonly about 25 feet in the original and looks about the same height here. The CGI needs work here adn I don't think they have time or desire to fix it. We all remember the Hulk fiasco and the CGI. Although The Hulk is my second favorite Comic Book movie behind Batman Begins. |
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
redspear wrote: choubachou wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. I've seen some of your posts in other threads and they approach anti-KingKong/Peter Jackson status; you have your toolbox next to you and you're all set to nail the film on a cross. You seem to base your judgement soelely on this teaser trailer, which I think is good, but not great. Even at this point in time, with KK so far away and so little being revealed, there are other factors to consider than just this trailer. At the moment only SW can carry a 300 million dollar gross on name and director alone as can be seen by the OK SW:RoTS's BO performance. I think HP comes in a close second as guarenteeing 200 million. To the above poster Titanic is the only film in recent memory to carry all demographics. SW, LoTR have huge fan bases but still a limited demographic. To those complaining Kong is too short he wasonly about 25 feet in the original and looks about the same height here. The CGI needs work here adn I don't think they have time or desire to fix it. We all remember the Hulk fiasco and the CGI. Although The Hulk is my second favorite Comic Book movie behind Batman Begins. Have you seen the KK trailer in theatre? Because after seeing it on the big screen I would say that the CGI is some of the best I have ever seen. The low resolution quicktime files don't do it justice. |
|
| Author: | redspear [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tuukka wrote: redspear wrote: choubachou wrote: Archie Gates wrote: I used to think it was being underpredicted but not after the trailer. It should do decently, it doesn't look bad, but it also doesn't look like anything memorable or different. Kind of paint by numbers but still should be a fun evening out. I've seen some of your posts in other threads and they approach anti-KingKong/Peter Jackson status; you have your toolbox next to you and you're all set to nail the film on a cross. You seem to base your judgement soelely on this teaser trailer, which I think is good, but not great. Even at this point in time, with KK so far away and so little being revealed, there are other factors to consider than just this trailer. At the moment only SW can carry a 300 million dollar gross on name and director alone as can be seen by the OK SW:RoTS's BO performance. I think HP comes in a close second as guarenteeing 200 million. To the above poster Titanic is the only film in recent memory to carry all demographics. SW, LoTR have huge fan bases but still a limited demographic. To those complaining Kong is too short he wasonly about 25 feet in the original and looks about the same height here. The CGI needs work here adn I don't think they have time or desire to fix it. We all remember the Hulk fiasco and the CGI. Although The Hulk is my second favorite Comic Book movie behind Batman Begins. Have you seen the KK trailer in theatre? Because after seeing it on the big screen I would say that the CGI is some of the best I have ever seen. The low resolution quicktime files don't do it justice. |
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
These links give you an idea of how good it looks. I think the amount of detail on KK is amazing, considering how difficult it is to do hair with CGI: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/images/kkt/kk2b.jpg http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/images/kkt/kk1b.jpg If for some reasons your browser doesn't open them in full size, then simply scale them. The pics are HUGE. Roughly 2200 x 1500 pixels. |
|
| Author: | Maximus [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, but Kong isn't a lock for 200, either. Sure, it might pull in something in the low or mid 200s. But that's best case. I see something in the mid 100s. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
