well that description guarantees i'm not going to check out this show... not going to listen to John gloat about the runtime of a movie hurting its box office receipts, as if box office is a true gauge of the quality of a film.
remember when you complained that not enough people saw the Island? i dont remember you guys talking about the runtime of THAT movie, which was around 2 and a half hours....

sorry guys, but honestly: the box office stuff you guys get into stuff is almost always annoying... unless you want to bring up that a movie is doing bad in the context of encouraging others to see something, or complaining that something absolutely atrocious is doing too well, theres no point bringing it up.

seriously, use this time to talk about some other movie, something udnerground or something old like you did about Death to Smoochy...

Good as always guys! It is to bad that Kong didn't do as well. I am sure it will have legs and the DVD will be a top seller.
Donna A.

I could have sworn Doug said 'knowwhatimean' and forgot to chug.

Anyway...

1) King Kong.
While I was not one of those who said 'You idiot John Campea!' I will say this: in my area south of Canada (Michigan USA), there were two screens for Kong in one theatre. On both screens there were more than one showing -four on each. I am counting matinees. On the other side of the city the same theatre chain (they own the monopoly) also has Kong on two screens with multiple showings. If you sign up for a MasterCard, or at least fake it, you get a free shirt. At least I did. I don't know why...I just...I just wanted the damn shirt, okay?

There does seem to be this false anticipation that Kong's modest take means trouble.
There are other possiblities:

"Universal blamed the three-hour length of the film for the diminished returns. But other analysts pointed out that women were avoiding the film, apparently repelled by its damsel-in-distress plot. (The Wall Street Journal reported that on Saturday, when attendance suddenly jumped, 47 percent of the audience was female.) Others noted that the lower-than-expected take could have been predicted if online ticket sales had been more closely examined. "

-"Monkey See, Monkey Don't" http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-12-19/#2

2) Sin City/FX contenders
I predict the three will be: Star Wars, Batman and Narnia. Everyone's happy. I don't think Sin City belonged there, for the same reason "Sky Cap'n" wasn't there last year.

3) So...what about the theatres who will block cellphones but show commericials for Sprint wireless before the movie?

Okay. Wrong question. Sorry.

:(

-Sealer out.

I can sorta see where you're coming from in regards to special effects, but I don't entirely agree. Maybe this isn't how they judge films for the Oscar, but I don't see why Sin City shouldn't be in the running, or perhaps even win for that matter. Sure, the effects might have been simple, but does that really matter? It doesn't matter how simple or how complicated the effects are. What matters is how they contribute to the film and how they impact the audience. Do they distract the audience and pull them out of the film? Do they suck the audience into the movie even more?

Sure, I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and Episode III had some great special effects. But some shots had some pretty bad compositing. It wasn't perfect, and often little things would jump out at me and annoy me (not to mention the lightsabers, which look like something out of MS Paint rather than actual sources of light).

And hey, Narnia had some great effects, but it also had some glaring flaws at times. Compositing, for one. Also, some characters looked a lot more fake than others. Take the beavers for example. They nailed the movements and physics 100%, but I thought on the whole they were the most cartoony of the bunch. And if the goal is realism, then cartoony isn't a good thing.

Same with Kong. Awesome effects at times, but very poor ones at others.

The thing about Sin City is that I never once was pulled out of the movie because of the effects. They were in many ways the foundation of the movie. You might argue that when a film is so completely stylized, it's hard to mess up. I disagree. Sure, Sin City was a world completely different than ours in nearly all aspects. But I still think they could have made mistakes and distracted people. For example, in the compositing, but that was extremely well-done. The color effects all looked fantastic. And even the small little details, such as the rain, looked just like something from that world. There were no moments where I found myself thinking, "That's too realistic looking for the style of the film" or "That's going overboard on the fakeness factor." It was quite possibly as perfect at incorporating visual effects into a film as you can get, if you look at the overall picture and ignore how easy they might have been.

It's not the difficulty of the effects that matter, it's how you use them.

The only way the theory of the amount of showings holds up is if Kong still makes alot of money in the long haul. I can understand for opening weekend, but not form here on out. If its a good movie, one that people want to see, there'll be plenty of time for them to go.

Titanic was three hours and it did just fine because it had great legs. My guess is Kong won't do all that well in the long run. I estimated 175 million or so months ago because I felt, along with the runtime, it seemd too much like Jurassic Park, it had no big name stars, and it was a story people had already seen done two times before.

Im curious to see its numbers during this week and next weekend. If it loses to Narnia then I think any hopes of this movie bringing in big money is over. And I do like the film and would like to see it do well.

You fucking missed a 'Do you know what I mean'. I pissed myself laughing though.
Sin City for best movie and I see your point about the visual effects issue John, although the visual effects, simple or not, were wonderful to watch in the theatre if only for their originality.
That wank-fest that is Star Wars can go and take a jump for the visual effects oscar; The movie was such a betrayal of Star Wars fans that I really don't care how great the visual effects were - I just didn't enjoy them because of the rest of the crap.
Give the Oscar to Batman I say because the visual effects sucked you into the dark and gothic world with a totality that was spell-binding.

The Oscar for best VFX is not for the movie with the most technically proficient VFX. The Oscar is for the VFX that best serve the movie. That is why the Matrix beat the TPM. This is why Kong will end up winning this year.

Otherwise VFX shops would just send in demo reels.

I have actually never been in a theater when someone's phone has gone off.

I don't really like the idea of theaters blocking cell phone signals. I just don't like the idea of companies making decisions for you.

With respect to Kong, what are you gloating about? You didn't prove the run length caused the modest take. We went to the movies on Friday night and saw Narnia and guess what...most everyone else was also seeing Narnia. The Kong line, even though the theater had one setup, was empty. So, people weren't being turned away in this major city at a popular theater which means the 40 million wouldn't have improved had the movie been on more screens.

I work for the railroad and am on call 24/7, I can usually make a good guess about when I'm going to work but sometimes I go to work an hour or as much ten hours earlier than I expected. So I have my cell phone on me at all times. But when I am in the theater I always put it on vibrate. But to have to worry about me missing my call and not got to work for the next couple days just because I went to see a movie is ridiculous.

King Kong was a great movie although some of the visuals were a little crappy. But I can see it making it into the top three for visual effects. How can it have only made 50 Million in the first weekend true they could have chopped the first hour down to 25-35 minutes and yeah it may have hurt it in the long run but it was probably one of the best made films this year.

okay, i still hold true to my rant, but bear with me:

look at this list: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/month12.htmlsince...

LOTR:ROTK had around 73 million in its opening weekend, which was in December, and it had several hundred more screens running it. and thats the record of all time (despite its 3 hour length). frankly, anyone who thought Kong could beat the final LOTR movie is nuts. the final LOTR movie sold itself, and the anticipation levels for it were through the roof.

Kong has the 5th highest December weekend gross of all time, behind all three LOTR movies, and Narnia.

take a look at some of those other movies on that list: some very big movies, some very big hits - toy story 2, cast away, and oh... TITANIC.

December box office is almost never as big as the summer ones, regardless of the movie. In other words, proof you shouldnt pay so much attention to this sort of crap, or at least understand the proper context before you rant and rave. :P as recent as 1996 the record for December was just over 20 million. audiences are still being trained to go to the theater in December.

Hey Goon,

Look man, I see what you're saying... but you're missing the point entirely. You're arguing against a point I never made. This whole thing started when I put up the post about WHY studios prefer to not have films 3+ hours in length. The reason... because less screenings of the films. PERIOD. THAT'S ALL I SAID. THAT'S the point I've been making here over and over and over and over again. I never said anything about quality, or preference. I never said films SHOULD be less than 3 hours. EVER.

My whole point from day 1 is that the studio don't like their films (in general) being 3+ hours because it reduces the # of screenings and overall potential for revenue. This is fact... not opinion.

You're whole point about "the quality" of the film is well made... but is totally irrelevant to the whole purpose and point of the first post.

The fact that King Kong was only able to play (in general) once per screen per night lowered it's overall income potential. Had it been able to show twice per screen it would have made more. Period. Now, we can debate and argue how much more it would have made... and that would be a neat debate to have... but how much more it would have made is never something I stated... because I have no idea.

Is King Kong a better film because it was 3+ hours. No... it wasn't. But that's besides the point of my original post. The origianl post looked at the question "WHY DID THE STUDIO WANT KONG TO BE LESS THAN 3 HOURS"? And I answered that.

You're responses about quality and comparisions are all well made (as are most of your comments), but totally outside of the scope of what my original statements were all about... and therefore you were arguing against points I never made.

As always, you raise some excellent points... I just don't think i ever said anything that suggested i disagreed with them.

Good discussion.

Cheers.

Goon is right about this one. plus, Box office numbers are very misleading. Don't forget that studios have to share a portion of their money with the theaters. 50+ million dollars for this weekend doesn't go directly to the studios. we don't know how much the percentage the studio needs to share. the best way to judge a movie should be the number of tickets sold which isn't shared with the public. also, don't forget about inflation. a movie that made 200 million last year made more than a movie that makes 200 million this year. ticket sale figures won't be affected by inflation, and would tell us better how many people watched it.

Kong could possibly break even domestically. Who knows with this kind of thing. An example would be Titanic (3hr+ running time) which debuted with 28 million opening weekend, but became the biggest hit of all time. Batman Begins opened with 50+ million, but broke the 200 barrier. But i disagree with you, John, that the length of the movie was the reason for the 50+ million on this weekend. After all, people here have pointed out Jackson's own LOTR trilogy as a counter to your argument.

forgot to add.. the sfx on Star Wars: ROTS suck ass. yoda and the rest of the cgi creatures can all go to hell. i hope people will stop making these cgi based movies.

I respect John's opinion 99.9% of the time, but I'm still think he isn't getting the point with regards to cell phones in theaters.

Cell phones are not the problem. Rude people are. I'm annoyed by "Fity Cent" ring tones when I'm in Walmart, much less the movie theater. Cellphones shouldn't have ring tones, ring tones are rude. They should all default to "vibrate/manner" mode. But, I'm also annoyed by the by the teenagers goofing off in the theater, as I am by kids climbing the displays at Walmart.

When I was a kid, we were kicked out of a movie for causing a disturbance, as we were kicked out of the grocery store (where we played Asteroids) for same. Most people only needed this to happen once to them, or someone they knew, and behavoir changed.

If ushers enforced polite behavior at movie theaters as they do at live theater, in a matter of time, the behavior would change.

Seven years ago, I didn't have a cellphone for the babysitter to get in touch with me...but I had a pager. Ten years ago I didn't have a pager, but I, and the babysitter, weren't conditioned that I would be able to be contacted in an emergency. Ten years ago, my son would have been rushed to the hospital for his allergic reaction, but because I was able to be contacted...he was spared that ordeal.

I used to go to the cinema 2-4 times a week...now go 10-12 times a year; this is also true for several people I know. The reason is that the industry treats us like crap. The movie has a 10% chance of being worth the price of admission. The cost of 1 ticket, 1 popcorn, and 1 soda is the same price (or less) than the cost of the DVD (which looks great on my 65in TV). I am forced to sit through 10-20 minutes of the same damn commercials. I could go on, but this is already at 'rant' status.

Don't get me wrong, I understand it is the right of a business to refuse to allow me to enter with a cellphone. I'm just saying that it will turn away many more people than you think.

Either Jack didn't listen to the show... or he just ignored everything I said.

The Lord of the Rings does not disprove that more showings increase the revenue potential for a movie. Yes, LOTR made tons of money... but it COULD have made more with more available showings in the same time period. How much more is up for debate... but the principle stands.

you're right john, but King Kong had about the same # of theaters as all of the LOTR series did on opening weekend (in fact more than LOTR:FOTR did for opening weekend). Therefore, if there was LOTR level of demand, KK should've earned just as much.

and as for you, xgdfalcon, you repeated much of John's argument's against theaters and studios. you're right too, this could have the potential of backfiring on the studios, and costing them more customers. i'm with you on this cell phone issue.

Hey jack,

I don't disagree about that... but it doesn't change my one simple ascertion... that if Kong had been able to screen twice per screen per night... it would have made more. How much more is up for debate certainly... but more nonetheless.

That's all i've been saying this whole time.

Cheers.

I'm with John, the customers you'll lose because they can't live without a cellphone for 90 minutes will be less than those who come back to cinema going because they know there's less chance of a ruined screening.

Being so dependant on something that isn't a vital part of your minute-by-minute life to the point where you can't go a limited amount of time without it or without an alternative arrangement in place to substitute for it is normally called obsession and isn't considered healthy.