Is Bomb Spelt K-O-N-G?

Only in Hollywood would making $146 million over five days be seen as a failure. But that's exactly what the makers of King Kong are facing after their debut this weekend.

I try not to get sucked into the false economies of major moviemaking and it's spread into entertainment journalism, but when I see headlines like "Hollywood moguls beat their chests as Kong takes a dive," I just can't help myself.

The budget for the film was kingly on its own - a whopping $207 million -- but it has already recouped close to three quarters of that worldwide after its first weekend. Now box office often, almost inevitably, drops the following weekend as new films open and the massive multiplexes have satiated the publics pent up desire to see the film.

But Kong's three hour running time, which has been cited as one of the reasons for the "low" numbers, is a reason that the movie could keep growing, as those who couldn't make one of the showings last week head to the theatres on the good word of mouth. And who decided that three hours is too long for a movie anyway? Seems more of an economic decision than an artistic one. I think there should be more, while a few should probably have a half hour or more edited out of it. Either way, it should be based on the content, not how many screenings can be squeezed into an evening.

As a film fan, that all I really care about. Is the flick any good? I'll leave the rest to the economists and the statistic obsessed.

No comments:

Post a Comment