• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Weekend Box Office Estimates (King Bomb?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eel O'Brian said:
I haven't even seen the movie, so you can stuff that "Fanboy" business right up your ass, but a film that makes back 2/3 of its budget on opening weekend is not a bomb.

It's amazing. You heard it hear first, folks. Overseas dollars don't count. Their bills are like funny-colored monopoly money.

*Daffy duck crazy laughter begins off in the distance*
 
R-User! said:
Because I am a optimist at heart, I will predict that King Kong will make between 250-370 million. I know, I know. That's a "pretty big margin", but I don't care. I think that KK will make at least 250, and at most 375.

-Disclaimer- I reserve the right to say that I thought that King Kong would magically become (if indeed it does become) the first movie to earn 500 million+ since Titanic all along. :p :D
(Not likely, but if it were to happen, I would not be entirely surprised; being that a formula similar to that of what it would take for KK to make that kind of many has happened before during the same period of the year. i.e. TITANIC... read below...)

p.s. what do you all think that KK will make during the Valentine's day weekend?


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=titanic.htm

Weekend Breakdown Overseas Breakdown Similar Movies

1997
Date(Click to view chart) Rank WeekendGross % Change Theater Count/Change Average Gross-to-Date Week #
Dec 19–21 1 $28,638,131 - 2,674 - $10,709 $28,638,131 1
Dec 26–28 1 $35,455,673 +23.8% 2,711 +37 $13,078 $88,425,009 2

1998
Date(Click to view chart) Rank WeekendGross % Change Theater Count/Change Average Gross-to-Date Week #
Jan 2–4 1 $33,315,278 -6.0% 2,727 +16 $12,216 $157,467,971 3
Jan 9–11 1 $28,716,310 -13.8% 2,746 +19 $10,457 $197,881,813 4
Jan 16–18 1 $30,010,633 +4.5% 2,767 +21 $10,845 $236,745,003 5
Jan 16–19 1 $36,014,544 +25.4% 2,767 +21 $13,015 $242,748,914 5
Jan 23–25 1 $25,238,720 -15.9% 2,771 +4 $9,108 $274,599,886 6
Jan 30–Feb 1 1 $25,907,172 +2.6% 2,853 +82 $9,080 $308,100,203 7
Feb 6–8 1 $23,027,838 -11.1% 2,956 +103 $7,790 $337,355,666 8
Feb 13–15 1 $28,167,947 +22.3% 3,002 +46 $9,383 $371,562,244 9

-----Can anyone see Kong making that kind of money on it's 9th/10th weekend?
Just wondering... :|

Not unless people go to it because it's so romantic. That was millions of people out on Valentine's Day dates.
 
GDJustin said:
$66.2M in five days is not a bomb. Period. Movie will have strong legs, hit over 240M domestically.
I don't think most people are arguing that, but that figure still falls well below pre-release expectations. Calling it a bomb still seems to be pushing it.
 
All AP Movie News
'Kong' Grabs Unremarkable $50M in Debut
Sunday December 18 8:48 PM ET

"King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.



=Bomba.
 
jamesinclair said:
All AP Movie News
'Kong' Grabs Unremarkable $50M in Debut
Sunday December 18 8:48 PM ET

"King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.
You could at least attempt to make a post that actually provided some kind of new information or insight.
 
jamesinclair said:
All AP Movie News
'Kong' Grabs Unremarkable $50M in Debut
Sunday December 18 8:48 PM ET

"King Kong" was less of a box-office brute than Hollywood expected, taking in $50.15 million in its first weekend, a sturdy start but unremarkable by Hollywood blockbuster standards.



=Bomba.

Now that I think about it, I think that your right. It IS a bomb! O_O

=Bomba!!
 
Everyone raving about how good a 50-60 million dollar opening is, is forgetting to check the movie's budget.

Whenever a movie has a crappy opening, the first thing that happens is a flood of people talking about worldwide take, as if that means just as much as domestic take. Worldwide is a totally different ballgame, with different cost structures and distribution fees, etc. etc. Hollywood companies want a big domestic take when making back their money. Whatever sum they manage to take in worldwide or on DVD release is icing on the cake. It's the nature of the industry. I don't know why this concept has to be re-explained every time a movie opens below expectations.
 
I dunno, a lot of people asked me about this movie, its one of those where you won't know how good it is unless you hear it from someone else. That's how it's more like Titanic then any big "blockbuster" movie for a while.
 
It's a bomb. Period. Yeah it made over half it's budget back. Nice. It will have to make 600 to truly be a massive hit for the studio. This better have legs. No need for damage control, since nobody is attacking. Why be defensive? The opening weekend bombed. 200 was the production costs. Take a wild guess about the marketing budget. The person mentioning Worldwide being different is correct.
 
Saw the movie tonight. It was pretty great. No tears, though.

The rest of you should go wrap some presents or something. Damn. :lol
 
Did you all see the production budget on King Kong vs the LOTR movies? DAMN!!! Makes King Bomb even more of a bomb!! :lol
 
I think people are only seeing black and white in this thread. Believe it or not, there are shades of gray between a blockbuster and a bomb, and believe it or not, most movies fit between the two.

Kong is in no way comparable to a true bomb the likes of Pluto Nash or Howard the Duck, but since it didn't match up to lofty expectations, and will probably still make a profit (even if its outside the opening weekend *GASP*), its a bomb after the first weekend?

Personally, I don't give a shit one way or the other, I haven't seen it yet, but since it wasn't panned and its a 3 hour movie, I am willing to wait and see labeling it as a bomb, hit or meh.

I wonder what a thread like this would be like when Titanic opened with only 28 million and a 200 million dollar production budget.
 
I doubt peter jackson gives a shit. He's probably going "Can't believe they gave me all that cash just to make my childhood wetdream come true lol!"

The movie is reviewing well and it should turn a profit, I'm sure the movie studios aren't going to kill the guy and he should be able to find work. Yawn. I haven't seen it yet, really want to as well.
 
I'm also looking at it from the perspective of this generation which didn't grow up with Kong like previous ones did, not like how they've grown up with Harry Potter, Narnia or LOTR (the latter two being timeless anyways).

People know what Kong is in the sense that its a big fucking monkey that climbs and even bigger building...but thats about it

I'm sure this film just needs to find its audience which, judging from intial opening, hasn't yet (just like another film with a big boat that wouldn't float :) )
 
AdmiralViscen said:
Everyone raving about how good a 50-60 million dollar opening is, is forgetting to check the movie's budget.

Whenever a movie has a crappy opening, the first thing that happens is a flood of people talking about worldwide take, as if that means just as much as domestic take. Worldwide is a totally different ballgame, with different cost structures and distribution fees, etc. etc. Hollywood companies want a big domestic take when making back their money. Whatever sum they manage to take in worldwide or on DVD release is icing on the cake. It's the nature of the industry. I don't know why this concept has to be re-explained every time a movie opens below expectations.

Hmm, I don't how much you have to pay for the cinema in the USA, but I'm quite sure it's less than in Germany (on weekends 7-8 Euros + 0.50/1 Euro for movies over 120/150 minutes) and therefore I think movie companies will atleast make as much profit from the revenue from most european countries (and probably also Japan) as they do in the USA.
 
Its a bomb, plain and simple. Will it be profitable? Yes, of course. Holidays and the DVD market will see to that.

But when looking at the film's budget, and how poorly it has underperformed (remember $100M over 5 days? :lol ), it is a bomb. Plain and simple.
 
Wafflecopter said:
It's a bomb. Period. Yeah it made over half it's budget back. Nice. It will have to make 600 to truly be a massive hit for the studio. This better have legs. No need for damage control, since nobody is attacking. Why be defensive? The opening weekend bombed. 200 was the production costs. Take a wild guess about the marketing budget. The person mentioning Worldwide being different is correct.

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
 
gollumsluvslave said:
Titanic says you don't know dick.

It may turn out to be a bomb, but we don't know that yet. Depends on the legs.

Spin it any way you want. Guess what? No film has performed like Titanic since... Titanic.

Non-rose colored glasses says you don't know dick.
 
What I don't understand is why so many people in this thread seem to be enjoying the movie's relative lack of success. Doesn't make any sense.
 
Non-rose colored glasses says you don't know dick.

Couldn't care how King Kong does at the box office, but calling any movie a bomb after it's 1st weekend is premature.

My point about Titanic is that at this point there were no doubt many people like your self stating how Titanic had bombed hard because Big Budget plus low Opening Weekend = Bomb.

No film has performed like Titanic since... Titanic.

This much is true, so i'll amend my statement:

Pirates of the Carribean says you don't know dick

Pirates did $46mil opening weekend yet still went on to break $300 million ($305), it also had a sizable $140 million budget and had the same calls of bomb early on.

The chances of Kong being a bomb are high at this stage, but that does mot make it so.
 
Go check out Titanic again. It had 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 15th, etc. weekend grosses that were un heard of before, or since. Anyways, I am done. Kong is a bomb to me, not so much to you. Yippee.
 
People love tragedy. I thought that was well-established by now.

Anything that's making more money in days than I could in decades of work is not a failure. Go see some Kong, people.
 
I don't understand how king kong is considered a bomb.. while it didn't hit what people were predicting, it still made a shitload of money and saw a huge 40% increase from friday to saturday which is even bigger considering it opened on wednesday.

it may have not had the biggest opening of all time, but those figures point to this movie having some serious legs. people who were predicting Titanic numbers were just retarded. But this movie hitting over $300M certainly seems a given at this point. how that can be considered a bomb is beyond me. and with as well as it is doing internationally $700-800M worldwide is definitely possible.
 
Kong opens modestly in North America
19 December 2005

LOS ANGELES: King Kong sold a relatively modest $US66.2 million ($NZ96.44 million) worth of tickets in its first five days of release across North America, according to estimates issued on Sunday by its distributor Universal Pictures.


The studio said it was thrilled with the opening of director Peter Jackson's action-adventure given its running time of more than three hours, but some rivals said they had expected the movie to open nearer to $US90 million.

For the three-day period beginning Friday, King Kong earned $US50.1 million, Universal said, enough to place it at No. 1 for the weekend.

The movie, which cost a reported $US207 million to make, earned a disappointing $US9.8 million on its first day Wednesday, little more than half of the comparable $US18.2 million haul of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, the 2001 film being used as a yardstick by Universal. The first entry in the Rings trilogy went on to earn $US75 million in its first five days.

Universal Pictures is a unit of NBC Universal, which is owned by General Electric Co.

Last weekend's champion, Walt Disney Co's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, also directed by a New Zealander, Andrew Adamson, fell to No. 2 with $US31.2 million, taking its 10-day total to $US112.5 million.

Thats right Hollywood, NZ Challenges YOU
250px-Haka-008-manut.jpeg
 
borghe said:
I don't understand how king kong is considered a bomb.. while it didn't hit what people were predicting, it still made a shitload of money and saw a huge 40% increase from friday to saturday which is even bigger considering it opened on wednesday.

it may have not had the biggest opening of all time, but those figures point to this movie having some serious legs. people who were predicting Titanic numbers were just retarded. But this movie hitting over $300M certainly seems a given at this point. how that can be considered a bomb is beyond me. and with as well as it is doing internationally $700-800M worldwide is definitely possible.

...how is 300 million a given? I'll be surprised if it reaches 200 domestically.
 
teiresias said:
I'm more impressed how Brokeback Mountain broke into the Top 10 with only something like only 64 theaters playing the movie.

Has it angered the Christians perhaps? Angered Christians = bank.
 
jett said:
...how is 300 million a given? I'll be surprised if it reaches 200 domestically.
a 40% surge from friday to saturday sales indicates legs. a modest 24% (if estimates hold) drop from saturday to sunday also indicates great legs. not to mention it's second and third weekend frames also fall on holidays.

if you honestly will be surprised if it makes it to $200M, you really need to stay out of the boxoffice gross prediction business/threads.

edit - and $300M a given may be a bit optimistic, but in no way is $300M out of the question at this point. depending on awards it could go even further than FotR which was relatively subdued when it came to awards.
 
borghe said:
a 40% surge from friday to saturday sales indicates legs. a modest 24% (if estimates hold) drop from saturday to sunday also indicates great legs. not to mention it's second and third weekend frames also fall on holidays.

if you honestly believe it will be lucky to make it to $200M you really need to stay out of the boxoffice gross prediction business/threads.

Just as some of you say that the naysayers are too quick to call it a bomb, you are too quick to say that the film has good legs. :P After a 50 million opening weekend...300 is completely out of the question for me. Saying that goal is "a given" is ridiculous.
 
jett said:
Just as some of you say that the naysayers are too quick to call it a bomb, you are too quick to say that the film has good legs. :P After a 50 million opening weekend...300 is completely out of the question for me. Saying that goal is "a given" is ridiculous.
I edited my post. though saying that is a given is definitely less ridiculous than saying $200M will be surprising.

Titanic (not to draw comparisons) opened with a 3 day weekend of ~$35M and went on to gross $600M.. opening gross means nothing, it is all about legs.

as for being too quick to say a movie has legs, the more you type the more you seem to not know about these trends. a movie declines from friday to saturday, it typically has no legs. a movie that increases modestly (10-25%) from friday to saturday is pretty typical for a decent running movie. 40% or more between friday to saturday is typically pretty indicative of good word of mouth and long legs. as with everything in tracking, obviously you can't say "the movie has good legs" at the first weekend, but movies that tend to do the weekend ratios that kong did GENERALLY have excellent legs. next week will be telling, but if you follow how movies typically trend, everything right now points to kong having excellent legs.
 
not to mention LOTR did have a significant builtin audience on top of being great movies, so it isn't completely unusual that it did better up front than kong. king kong is a property generally associated with monster movies and camp. it could very well take longer to get some people into the seats who would otherwise be wary of it being "another godzilla". these people could significantly alter the backload of the movie's grosses.

another take on it:

"I think the industry and the media did not understand how a three hour movie performs," said Marc Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal. "Take Lord of the Rings out because that comes with the Tolkien nuts, and there aren't any examples. It's not surprising that we didn't understand it. As crazy as it is, the only one you can point to is Titanic. [King Kong] is writing its own pattern."

Shmuger noted how Kong enjoyed a bigger Saturday bump over Friday (40 percent) than any of the Lord of the Rings pictures or Titanic. "It suggests growing momentum behind the numbers," he added. "I'm feeling incredibly bullish."

Universal's exit polling on Saturday indicated that Kong's demographics skewed slightly male (53 percent), allaying concerns that it wouldn't play to women, and over 25 years old (55 percent). The "story," the "action" and the "special effects" were the top reasons people saw Kong, while, in reaction-tracker CinemaScore's surveys, moviegoers gave the picture an overall grade of "A-."
 
Frankfurter said:
Hmm, I don't how much you have to pay for the cinema in the USA, but I'm quite sure it's less than in Germany (on weekends 7-8 Euros + 0.50/1 Euro for movies over 120/150 minutes) and therefore I think movie companies will atleast make as much profit from the revenue from most european countries (and probably also Japan) as they do in the USA.

You'd be wrong. Sry :(
 
AdmiralViscen said:
You'd be wrong. Sry :(
Mind explaining why? I'm sure you are right, since i know dick about it, but how much do the Americans "lose" on a European ticket compared to an American sale?
 
catfish said:
Mind explaining why? I'm sure you are right, since i know dick about it, but how much do the Americans "lose" on a European ticket compared to an American sale?
$6.75 for matinee, $8.75 for evening for me. and this is a regular theater (not dining or anything)
 
The movie definitely didnt need to be 3 hours. Im not a big fan of the overuse of slowmotion. Also the whole Jimmy/"random black guy who has to sacrafice himself" story was fucking stupid and a huge waste of time.
 
AdmiralViscen said:
You'd be wrong. Sry :(

Why?

"$6.75 for matinee, $8.75 for evening for me. and this is a regular theater (not dining or anything)" is (a bit) less than we pay (although I have to admit that I'm surprised that the american prizes are nearly equal to the european) if we calculate with an average of ~€7.5 on weekends vs. $8.75.
 
I am also in midwest. I know other parts of the country are even more at $9 and possibly $10.. basically our prices are huge considering what we pay for other stuff in relation to the rest of the world. we get no break on movies. :(

interesting factoid. when I saw Star Wars: SE it was $5.75 for an evening showing. The oldest movie I can remember the price of is TMNT which was ~$3.something for matinee and $4 (IIRC) for evening. that and Three Amigos were probably the first movies I ever paid for and went to myself. and Batman (burton). but that was midnight and I think we paid a little bit more.
 
teiresias said:
I'm more impressed how Brokeback Mountain broke into the Top 10 with only something like only 64 theaters playing the movie.

It's currently playing at two theaters in Seattle, and every single showing Friday through Sunday was sold out with huge lines around the block. I'm sure the situation was similar at the other 67 theaters across North America.
 
borghe said:
I am also in midwest. I know other parts of the country are even more at $9 and possibly $10.. basically our prices are huge considering what we pay for other stuff in relation to the rest of the world. we get no break on movies. :(

Don't worry, you hit the jackpot on game prices.
 
Anyone seen the new shots of Kate Winslet.

She's gone from curvy, full WOMAN...to another fucking Lohan LA stick insect.

Oh the humanity.

:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom