Maybe this will change your mind

Click Me

Narnias total oblitation of the ape can not be stoped by some giveaway

Well, Kong just seems like a more stylized and adult-oriented flick than Narnia. That has its plus and minuses. The more generic appeal of Narnia is going to mean it turns off no one initially, but Kong will certainly have more legs through repeat viewing. Whom it does appeal to, it most certainly will do so in such a way as to warrant multiple viewings. It's the age-old arguement of kids/family fare vs. adult fare. I do see Kong being darker, quirkier, and having a higher pmaa rating. So I guess it depends on what people think in terms of depth and breadth.

Kong will have deep apeal, but less wide appeal. Narnia will have wide appeal, but I'm not sure if it will have deep appeal. Depth or Breadth?

I'm leaning towards depth. Front-loading is proving to not work well as far as total cume, and movie like Wedding Crashers, Batman, and Walk the Line are performing much better (in comparison to budget and expectations) than some of the severely front-loaded films. I see Kong coming out on top. But it will be close, and Kong will need strong legs through January assisted by Oscar nods.After seeing the Potter performance, I don't know if it will reach 300 though. But it certainly won't be dwarfed by narnia, who's total cume continues to plummet in my estimations.

<hands Dolce a Kong-sized cookie>

I'm in.

naria will DIE. D.I.E. DIE. ill say it again. kongs 5 day will be bigger then narnias ten. on december 18th, the film thatwill have abigger u.s. total is kong.

Out of the big "winter" movies (Potter, Kong, Narnia) Kong will make most money.
Kong reign supreme!!!!!!!

Oh fuck it.

I'm back in for 300 mil.

Well duh, I mean Lord of the Rings wasn't a PJ film really, yes, he directed it but it was an adaptation of a very popular book and basically a lock for $300 million. King Kong may hit $250 million but $300 million is unlikely:

1. Fun With Dick and Jane AND Cheaper by the Dozen 2 are opening next weekend.

That's all I can think of for now but it's still a good reason.

Hahahahaha.

Sorry, I had to laugh at the thought that Cheaper by the Dozen 2 would have even a little effect on King Kong. So, I guess Cheaper by the Dozen is the reason Return of the King didn't make $400 million, eh?

Well Cheaper by the Dozen was not a sequel, and sequels tend to be more front loaded. So yes it may cut off Kong PLUS with the power of Jim, Kong's second weekend fall might be really bad. I mean like how can you compare Cheaper 1's opening weekend to Cheaper 2's?

And plus this isn't a sequel to a popular film - it's another stupid remake. King Kong? Come on! He's a shitty character to begin with. And now they are making a remake? BOOORING. It will be a big hit but expect it to fall flat its second weekend.

Because Cheaper 2 won't have a bigger opening weekend than first one.

I doubt it as well but it will still effect King Kong because it also as Fun With Dick and Jane, especially with a Wed. opening.

Bollocks...

But only partially.

LOTR was a lock for $200 million, with any director. I mean the first Harry Potter movie was not exactly brilliant and a well-beloved adaptation and yet it passed $200 million.

No, it wasn't a lock. Would it have been a generic, run of the mill movie, i doubt it would have grossed $200m. Maybe not the best comparison but in case you have forgot, the cartoon in the seventies flopped hard (that happens when only book fans watch it). And don't make the mistake of comparing Potter with LOTR, the former being a hugely hyped and phenomenally successful contemporary book series, the latter being an old fantasy novel...

If all LOTR fans saw the movie, it would have already made $200 million with ease. Movies like LOTR are locks for $200 million to begin with, you can hardly deny that.

Yes i can, proof being Bakshi's adaptation...

You mean the one that cut the book somewhere in the middle and was an animated flick which certainly doesn't count? I promise, an animated Harry Potter would have made much much much less as well.

It does count. Cut or not (it wasn't known whether there would be a sequel or not, they could have still made one had it been successful), i assure you, a lot if not most LOTR fans watched it. Heh, a CG animated Potter would have probably made even more...

It would not have. Even I as a fan would not see it.

Well, we'll never know, won't we.

I'm myself a big fan of LOTR book. I've been since I read it at the age of 10. Yet I had never any interest in seeing the Bakshi version, until it came out on TV and I saw if for free. The reason? Everyone had said that the version wasn't any good.

By your logic all movies based on Bible should always be enourmous hits - After all Bible has an even bigger and fanatic fanbase than LOTR. Bible is the biggest selling book of all time. But yet succesful movies based on the Bible are very rare, even if there have been a lot of adaptations over the years.

The quality of the movie matters a great deal. If FOTR would have been made by a much lesser filmmaker and the film would have had much worse buzz, and it would have been a much worse film, I wouldn't have seen it in theatres. Despite the fact that the book is in my top 3 of all time. I might have checked it out on DVD out of curiosity, but that's it.

In comparison, I was a big time D&D player when I was a teenager. And I would love to see a good D&D adaptation some day. But to this day I still haven't watched the utterly terrible looking Dungeonds & Dragons which was made a few years ago.

You might not remember, but when FOTR was coming out a lot of people said that it would flop. The reason? "Fantasy movies don't do well". And up to that point, it had been true with the exception of Wizard Of Oz some 50 years earlier.

You are forgetting the original run of FotR. FotR was not the product of frontloading, it was the product of VERY FAST WOM. Yes there were some visible fans, but many many many fans had a wait-and-see attitude, myself included. Many more were waiting for the reviews. When stellar reviews came out, more fans were willing give it a try. And within 24 hours of opening day, WOM spread like wildfire and the floodgates opened. I first saw FotR on the Friday, two days after it was released, and the folks sitting next to me on all sides were on their second viewing already. Fans went nuts and dragged their friends. It wasn't due to the anticipation any more. It was pure WOM.

If WOM were not good, then "every LotR fan" would NOT have seen it.

(gotta run)

yup. one must remember that FOTR made only 46 million (which is huge for december and for a 3 hour flick) in its first weekend ... but no where close to what it should have made to reach even a 200 million total. if one looks at batman begins, it had an almost similar start as FOTR and it just reached 200, yet we still say that it had good legs because of the way it's numbers worked out.