Bomb? No chance. Where can I bet my mortgage on this?

For those who think running time can't kill the quality of a film, I give you exhibit A:

Quentin Tarantino

No doubt.

"Titanic" is the definition of word-of-mouth.

18 STRAIGHT WEEKS! with at least $10 million in weekend earnings.
Opened to "only" $28 million.
#1 at the box office for 17 STRAIGHT WEEKS!
6 weekends consisting of an increase from previous weekend. That just doesn't happen. Most big movies open huge and fade quickly, save for something like Spiderman, Star Wars, or LOTR.

No movie coming out should ever be thought of to beating "Titanic's" box office records.

Uh....your point being? Aside from Jackie Brown, I can't think of any of his movies being killed by the length, and Jackie Brown was quite good IMO. Plus comparing A QT movie with something like this is apples and oranges.

And also with TITANIC, the media was bashing this movie during the summer.
When it was finally released I didn't hear any " I'm sorry for bad mouthing a movie we haven't seen" from the media.

I can't believe nobody has bumped this thread after Drudge's headline today. I still don't think it will bomb, but maybe I should feel bad about going to the early $4.50 show

Also, Titanic came out before dvd had its breakthrough. People just don't go to see a movie that many times in a theater anymore.

I think we can stop feeling sorry for the rich Hollywood people now. King Kong won't be a bomb. It may make 300 million. It may make 200 million. It may make less. It'll make a hell of a lot more overseas, and they won't be losing any money on this film.

Now let's just enjoy the movie itself.

I think it will do well, but may not do well enough to warrent the huge pricetag

I think it will do well. It won't flop like the hulk...but as far as the length of the movie. I'm quite sure a few thousand Lord of the Ring fans will tell you that if the movie is good...they won't mind sitting for 3 hours.

Just wondering if theaters still have intermission for movies three hours long, or more? or do you have to remain seated until the entire movie is over? and if not, that will be tiresome. I didn't go and see Titanic, or any Lord of the Rings movies at the theater.

Nonstop any LOTR ive ever been through.

I don't think modern audiences would know how to handle an intermission. It would be a real mess. Kong could have used one between Skull Island and Broadway. It would have been a completely different experience.

It would have been a worse experience...completely killing the momentum of the film.

intermissions=bad

See I think a movie like Kong needs a breather. Just my opinion.

9.8 million on its opening day wednesday is not a great start. this year batman begins 15.1, war of the world 21.3 on thier opening wednesday.
this movie is going to be a mega budget word of mouth movie along the lines of titanic, terminator 3 and batman begins to some extent. movies that kept playing, even though they did not open overly huge they did not get the huge drop off after the first weekend. i am one of the people who are on the fence of seeing this movie, 3 hour running time and critics overly loving this movie, aka the hulk, makes me very uncertain. also king kong has been done twice before and i honestly didn't think that the story was all that compelling.
under 150 million in the us would be and extreme dispappointment for 207 million dollar movie. under 100 million would be a disaster. i think the movie will do the 150 dollar range.

remember.... that was in the summer

Pulled down 6.2 million on Thursday. KK is underperforming thus far.
It should be an interesting weekend.

Return of the King opened up on a Wednesday about the same time two years ago, and made about $124 million through it's opening weekend. Compare King Kong's performance through Sunday and you'll probably end up with a decent estimate of what it will make overall.

How can I sit and enjoy a movie unless I'm sure that the filthy rich people are getting filthier rich?

CHIMP CHANGE: Peter Jackson's King Kong remake opened with a smaller roar than expected, drawing "just" $9.8 million on Wednesday, its first day of release. (In comparison, Jackson's The Fellowship of the Ring, considered a relevant benchmark, netted $18.2 on its first day.) Although the lumbering ape is saddled with a few box-office liabilities — such as its three-hour running time, which reduces the number of showings theaters can stage, plus what some say is limited appeal for females — Kong is expected to "perform well" this weekend and "generate great audience reaction," an industry expert tells the Associated Press. And if not? Well, I'd avoid the Empire State Building on Monday

I wish they'd change the movie rating system from $$$ to Tickets-Sold. It just doesn't make sense to compare movies from 20 years ago which cost $5 to get in to movies which now cost $10 or more (hell, it costs $7.50 for a fricken matinee!!!). What happens in 20 more years when it costs $25 bucks to get in? Movies will be breaking the $100 million mark all the time.

If a theater can count $$$, it can count tickets. I guess the fact it makes sense means we will never see it happen.

Considering inflation, Titanic is number six on the all-time money makers list.

-JP

what's #1?

Gone With the Wind, IIRC.