# Cost of KONG



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

A new version of "King Kong" to be released for the holiday season, from New Zealand director Peter Jackson, is reportedly the sixth most expensive film in Hollywood history. The adventures of the giant gorilla are shown through special effects costing 207 million dollars, compared with the 10 million dollars, in today's money, spent on the original by Merian Cooper in 1933, according to the New York-based business magazine Forbes. 

Forbes said Hollywood spent an average of 64 million dollars per film in 2004. 

The most expensive ever was "Cleopatra," with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, directed by Joseph Mankiewicz in 1963, for 286.4 million dollars (in 2005 money). 

Second was "Titanic," by James Cameron (1997) for 247 million dollars. 

Two years later, "Waterworld," directed by Kevin Costner, cost 229 million dollars. 

And "Terminator 3," the latest film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger before he become California governor, cost 216 million dollars in 2003. 

"Spider-Man 2" was made in 2004 for 210 million dollars, "Wild Wild West" with Will Smith for 203.8 million dollars in 1999 and "Speed 2" in 1997, cost 198.8 US dollars. 






Speed 2?!?! :googly: :googly: WTF?!:xbones:


----------



## Dr Morbius (Sep 21, 2004)

Sandra Bullock...

Hmm..

I can't reply on that..I had no idea..

I 

I...am speechless.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

After his many failures at the box office, I wonder how much studios are willing to pay Mr. Costner for his services now?

Oh, just got back from watching *King Kong.* I'm telling you that it is an experience. I truly felt sorry for the poor creature and had no sympathy at all for the people he was laying the smack down on in New York City. They all deserved it to a man. The effects were great and this is something coming from me when it comes to CGI. There were a few spots that it really didn't work (the part where Anne Darrow was kidnapped by the Aboriginal Natives is the most notable. I feel safe giving away this mild spoiler, because everyone should have seen the original and know what happened, if not then shame, shame.) Great scenes featuring Kong fighting various dino's and re-vamps of well known scenes were very well done. I give it a four out of a possible five stars. Definitely worth the three ass numbing hours we had to sit and watch it.


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Looks like our pal Sinister might be the ONLY one who dug KONG. This is from Foxnews.



'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office

What's happened? Peter Jackson's "King Kong" — a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza that wowed advance screening audiences — is a catastrophe in the making.

On Thursday, Kong's take was a measly $6,295,755 — off $35.5 from Wednesday's weak $9,755,745 opening day. Kong ranks now as the 21st best Wednesday opening ever — a dubious distinction.

Something is certainly wrong. It could be the movie's daunting length, or even a slow middle section that would have benefited from cutting. The leads are all solid actors — Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black — but none of them is a star attraction. That might be the trouble, but I doubt it.

In fact, Kong seems like a no-brainer. Great special effects, and a main character — the ape — that is more three-dimensional than a lot of humans in movies this winter.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

What the **** does FOX News know? I agree that the flick could have been trimmed. The first hour where they were in New York could have stood some editing. By rights, this could have been only 2.5 hours and that would have been just fine.

Also take into consideration that this came out on Wednesday, middle of the week, school is in, people at work, etc. In other words, it didn't debut during the Christmas/Winter break or in the summer, so this probably had something to do with its poor showing.

The truth of the matter whether or not it will make back it's 300 Mil. will be known after Sunday. FOX News was probably upset that something came along during the middle of the week that took away from their decidedly biased-in-favor of news featuring the shenanigans of Duh-bya.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

My brother saw it and says it's outstanding. I think I'll try to take it in this weekend myself. Might wait a week or so for the crowds to die down some or even wait until after x-mas for my week off to see it during the day where I won't be elbow to elbow with the knuckleheads in the seats next to me.


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Wait for the crowds to die down? What crowds? It's a bomb. :zombie:


----------



## claymud (Aug 21, 2005)

It was okay, at some points you wanted to yell 'C'mon!' at the screen because it seemed to be dragging on. Even the end seemed pulled out at parts. But it was a pretty good movie.

Can't feel my butt now though...


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

RAXL said:


> ...a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza...


...and not a boring minute among them. Excellent on all counts! I don't care how long a movie is as long as it's interesting (and those seats were pretty comfortable). Too many movies these days are too short to adapt the intended work. I don't think I've felt sympathy for a monster this much since Karloff's *Frankenstein* - that ape was so sad! Sirkus deserves a nomination for playing him! Terrific on every count. One of the best pictures of the year.

It's about time to start compiling our "best of the year" lists.


----------

