That’s cuz politics is pure marketing.
It works astoundingly well.
Fast food these days is targetted primarily at “families”, by which we mean they try to convince children to drag their parents along. Kids will buy (or intimidate their parents into buying) a burger with a giant monkey because giant monkeys themselves are cool. Free toys of the giant monkey are also great sweeteners.
Fast food advertising that doesn’t target children is aimed primarily at convincing people to buy one product rather than a competitor’s.To do that the burger joint needs to keep its name in the public eye just to foil the competitors. Associating their name with a popular movie is of far more benefit to them than to the movie. A sizable number of people who see the movie will be associating that name with the burger joint, which keeps their name above their competitor in the customers mind.
Pardon? Naomi Watts at my door?
How do I get this edition?
Actually, she doesn’t need to bring the DVD
Well, Naomi Watts in the way that it was Anne Darrow on stage with Kong.
Erek
Oh man, what a letdown. You really know how to hurt a guy.
I hear she’s chasing off with whatshisface from RKO 281 anyway.
I don’t even know what that is.
RKO-281 was the production number given to the film that would become Citizen Kane. It was also the name of a TV movie about the making of Kane. (For the record, Kong was RKO production 601.)
Just saw King Kong for a second time, and I brought two people with me; so if it doesn’t make enough at the box office, it ain’t my fault.
Actually liked it even better the second time; noticed a lot of details I hadn’t before. And I think they did a fantastic job with Kong’s face; at times he has a look of such deep longing and loneliness (not to mention looking like a 100% guaranteed badass when he’s facing down that last T-Rex).
Just read an op-ed piece by Edward Jay Epstein in last Thursday’s (12-29) Wall Street Journal. He says:
Blockbuster movies, like Kong, may well do better than the 15% average, but also make more money from merchandising rights than most movies.
So if Kong can make $150 million on ticket sales ($300 million gross ticket revenue), it’s potential take is $1 billion. Since I estimated that it will do a minute of $250 million worldwide (on $500 million in total ticket sales), that’s $1.7 billion in revenue.
Movies do not lose money for the studios. Flops are few and far between. Blockbusters hardly ever fail.
The real issue is that studios have trained people to look only at the first week’s box office gross as an indicator of success, when that first weekend is nothing more than advertising for the future real revenue. This allows the studios to cry poor even while they rake in the big bucks.
Like three card monte, it’s a suckers’ game. Don’t fall for it.
According to this article in the Hollywood Reporter, King Kong will probably hit $400 Million, worldwide, today. And my guess is it won’t be leaving the theaters anytime soon.
Pretty good for a “flop”.
Kong’s lost to Narnia for 5 straight days, and 8 of the last 10.
Way to go, Monkey Man.
http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/daily/film_daily.php?id=894
Flop? Doubt it.
Way below what they expected from it? Unquestionably.
Kong should NOT be losing to a relatively unheralded movie (relative to Kong) that was released 5 days before it, especially on a per-screen basis.
Perhaps the fewer showing times are contributing it. Or perhaps it’s the 10 minute dino stampede followed by the 10 minute T-Rex fight followed by the 5 minute bug fight followed by the 5 minute bat fight that’s contributing to it.
Do they still do that stuff? You’d think that eventually word would get out and people would quit signing contracts for a percentage of a phony number that always turns out to be zero or less…
Narnia unheralded? Not on the planet I’m living on.
Would you agree that it was relatively unheralded compared to Kong, which was actually what I said?
Totally subjective, but I personally heard a lot more Narnia hype than Kong hype.
Regardless, this thread and this topic have become plain silly. No matter how a movie performs (unless it’s Titanic) you can always say it’s “below expectations”. Let it go.
People did wise up, so now they sign on for the gross instead of the net. It’s the net that gets jiggered around to show a loss.
Titanic was not “star driven”. It made stars, not cast them. Leo Di wasn’t a “brand name” when the movie was cast, having three decent roles under his belt (Gilbert Grape, Quick and Dead, and Basketball Diaries), none of which made him a star. Even Romeo and Juliet was still shooting when Titanic was cast, meaning that Fox and Cameron still wasn’t aware of how he would affect the teenage set.
Just setting the record straight. Y’all can carry on now.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
Leonardo DiCaprio was already a star from “Romeo and Juliet” the previous year.
Winslet was a star from “Sense and Sensibility”.
[QUOTE]
Yes, but not when Titanic was cast.
And “Sense and Sensibility” didn’t make Winslet a star. It made her a name, but not anything special.
Don’t be disingenuous.
Were the stars of Narnia on Letterman and Leno the week leading up to it?
Was the star of Narnia hosting SNL?
Did Narnia get a Wednesday opening with midnight showings?
Were Narnia trailers all over the web in the middle of July?
Were there prime-time shows promoting their commercial breaks with “never before seen trailers” of Narnia?
Was American Movie Classics showing a week of the previous versions of Narnia leading up to it?
Was HBO doing “Making Of Narnia” promos?
How many commercials have you seen for the Narnia video game compared to Kong?
The promotion for these two movies wasn’t even in the same universe.
I’m sure the amount of advertising dollars could be found for a comparison there. I’m guessing that King Kong had a much higher advertising budget. Personally, I saw more trailers for Narnia. I saw just as many “Makings of …” for Narnia as Kong. This goes back to my reply. Narnia was far from unheralded, relatively or directly in regards to the hype that was reaching me.
I also feel that Narnia is getting a serious push due to the combination of the religious allegory and the holiday season. This may be especially true since the churches seem to be on a campaign to “get Christ back in Christmas.” I don’t know how this could be quantified though.
Going back to the OP, I don’t think there is any way to call King Kong a flop. Sure money is merely pouring in instead of flooding in like the studio probably hoped. I think disappointment would be as strong of a word as you could use, probably too strong. Kong is not a flop.
I would still be willing to bet a soda that Jackson will have his choice of projects going forward.