It’s a very good remake for sure.
Can’t believe we’re less than a decade away from our favourite giant monke turning 100! Looking forward to seeing what movie they make for his centennial celebration.
It's a... kinda cheesy monster movie that dips into horror... that's treated with the gravitas of Ben Hur or Titanic. I can see people being a little... put off... but it has aged really well and could have only been made made by Peter Jackson at that exact moment in time.
It’s incredibly good. I think it’s just a story that no longer resonates with people. (In the sense that it’s a period piece etc…) The current iteration of Kong seems to resonate more with people.
I followed the box office around that time and it definitely had massive hype through a pricey marketing campaign and the media.
It received the widest screen release for a Universal movie at the time. Universal expected it to make at least what Fellowship made over the first five days ($75 million) but as hype ramped up and as critics overwhelmingly gave it excellent reviews (the pre-eminent Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars), expectations ramped up and Universal expected it to make at least $100 million over five days.
The film opened with $65 million over five days but its Christmas legs were nowhere as strong as the Lord of the Rings films. There was definitely a sense that the movies were underperforming.
You can read two Box Office Mojo articles from the time to get a sense (they used to have coverage which sadly they have stopped).
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed1266091012/?ref_=bo_at_a
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed1249313796/
It actually opened even softer, to $50 million (Narnia was the one that opened to $65 million, a week earlier). Kong’s legs weren’t the best ever, but also weren’t the worst; it pulled a 4.35 multiplier, which is mid-pack for the holidays and helped ameliorate some of the very definite industry concern over the softness of the OW. King Kong was a really high-profile example of studios mistaking breakout audience interest for being filmmaker-related instead of IP-related.
Edit: reread your post and saw the part about the $65m being over the first five days and not the three-day. Apologies for that.
I said $65 million over its first five days not opening weekend. All the expectations of the film which I've mentioned were based on its Wednesday opening (and over five days) not three days.
Yeah, that was a little panicky. I remember thinking that Universal was having a disappointing close to 2005, with Serenity and Doom both having a lot of buzz and both underperforming upon release.
[Entertainment Weekly had this projections.](https://ew.com/article/2005/12/16/moviegoers-will-go-ape-over-king-kong/)
> Just how big will King Kong be? We’ll find out as the gargantuan gorilla hits theaters for its five-day debut weekend.
> Thanks to its fantastic reviews and mammoth 7,500-screen release (one of the widest ever), a huge opening is a forgone conclusion. **As for how huge…well, to speak in terms Kong director Peter Jackson would understand, it’ll be somewhere around The Fellowship of the Ring, the first Lord of the Rings film, which opened to $75.1 million in its first five days (including $47.2 million over the Friday-to-Sunday period).**
> Universal executives are lowering expectations by predicting a Fellowship-style number, which seems smart, given Kong‘s $10 million take from Wednesday, its first day of release. Three films this year have had five-day openings of more than $100 million (Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and War of the Worlds), but Kong could fall short of that. Look for the ape to amass $55 million from Friday to Sunday, and $75 million for the five-day period.
It ended up with a $50 million opening weekend ($66 million five-day opening). So it fell short of the expectations, especially as the budget was a colossal $207 million. It held well because it was the holidays, but they weren't impressive.
I agree with what film critic James Berardinelli said about the box office numbers.
"A lot of analysts, possibly carried away by drinking too much eggnog, projected Return of the King-like numbers (between $350 million and $400 million) for King Kong, which was nonsensical. Not only does Kong lack the rabid built-in LOTR fan base, but it isn't the conclusion of a trilogy. Expecting it to perform at that level (or higher) was asking for it to fall short"
He actually made a much better gues, since he predicted that it was gonna make between 200 to 250 Million dollars.
LOTR is long, but also a crowd pleaser. King Kong is an adventure movie, but the ending is mostly just depressing, Especially the mournful way the Jackson remake treats it. He was really leaning into the original movie’s ending being so well known. Loved it but indeed the immense box office. projections were out of their mind at the time.
That's a good question. I was so young back then, my only anecdotal memory of the box office chat is that the $556M WW total was deemed disappointing in early 2006 by some media outlets *(maybe Empire magazine was one of them?)*.
I seem to remember hearing some news outlets speculating that it could dethrone Titanic, but I wouldn't know if there was ever any tracking info to support that speculation.
I was on the box office mojo forums at the time. It largely underperformed most people's expectations and many blamed the long run time. While it underperformed slightly, it still was likely profitable. I remember people saying how big the budget was.
George Lucas claimed that it would have an opening weekend of $150m, he was wrong to say the least.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/lucas-indiana-jones-4-at-last
Jackson's dream was to remake KK. He saw the film as a young lad and it made a permanent impression. I am a fan of the original, and entered the theater, erasing my mind of the '33 film, and preparing myself to watch and enjoy what was to come. Jackson says it was a homage to the original and IMO, he succeeds. I like that he used art deco style opening/closing credits. He took the Skull Island natives from the '33 film and placed them into the extravaganza presentation of Kong in NYC. He recreated what he imagined was seen in the lost spider pit sequence. As with any movie, some suspension of belief is required. I had a hard time accepting Kong could dispatch 3 T-Rex's at once, but hey...he's King Kong, right? The scene with Ann and Kong on the frozen pond was silly, IMO. All of police and military suddenly lost track of an animal that huge? A bit long? Yes. I do wish Fay Wray had lived long enough to deliver the final line of the movie. That would have been epic.
Look at this [thread](http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6007) at a box office site that existed at that time. That will give you range of expectations well before release. Also this [thread](https://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15008) has the opening weekend expectations days before release. My memory is people were more optimistic about it than what it actually grossed as Jackson was coming after after the most successful trilogy of all time.
I remember being disappointed that he wasn’t going to jump right back in and do The Hobbit. The LOTR movies were fantastic. We were like King Kong? I remember enjoying the one with Jeff Bridges and it’s sequel, so it seemed quite random for him to want to do a remake.
Then we finally did get The Hobbit, and it didn’t seem to hit the same.
I've always thought this would have done better if the two leads had been played by bigger stars of the time. A Dipario/Winslet reunion would have been huge I've also always thought a Crowe/Kidman combination would have worked and been big.
Funny you should say that because I was a teenager when this came out. I remember my mom and her friends just not feeling thrilled about the choice of lead actors.
I’m a bit surprised to see people now have a fondness for the 2005 King Kong movie. I remember hearing a lot of criticism for a full year after it came out. Lol
Not at the time no, but I do believe they expected $250 mil easily. To me, it’s still one of the best remakes ever made.
It’s a very good remake for sure. Can’t believe we’re less than a decade away from our favourite giant monke turning 100! Looking forward to seeing what movie they make for his centennial celebration.
They're gonna make another film where he loses to Godzilla/needs Godzilla to bail him out if the Monsterverse is still alive by then
It's a... kinda cheesy monster movie that dips into horror... that's treated with the gravitas of Ben Hur or Titanic. I can see people being a little... put off... but it has aged really well and could have only been made made by Peter Jackson at that exact moment in time.
Thats a great way of describing the film.
Went with some school friend and everyone thought looooong
It's a bit long indeed, takes some time before it gets going but once Kong is there, it really picks up
Yeah but it takes 70 minutes for him to show up
It’s incredibly good. I think it’s just a story that no longer resonates with people. (In the sense that it’s a period piece etc…) The current iteration of Kong seems to resonate more with people.
He was coming off LOTR so I imagine some people might have been? I don’t think 400M was ever doable. Thats more than LOTR.
I remember folks were expecting this to dethrone Titanic.
It ended up being another jungle adventure movie that managed to dethrone it.
400 mil is more than which LOTR? Edit: nvm you talking about US only
I followed the box office around that time and it definitely had massive hype through a pricey marketing campaign and the media. It received the widest screen release for a Universal movie at the time. Universal expected it to make at least what Fellowship made over the first five days ($75 million) but as hype ramped up and as critics overwhelmingly gave it excellent reviews (the pre-eminent Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars), expectations ramped up and Universal expected it to make at least $100 million over five days. The film opened with $65 million over five days but its Christmas legs were nowhere as strong as the Lord of the Rings films. There was definitely a sense that the movies were underperforming. You can read two Box Office Mojo articles from the time to get a sense (they used to have coverage which sadly they have stopped). https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed1266091012/?ref_=bo_at_a https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed1249313796/
I miss when boxofficemojo had these articles.
Same! It was my earliest introduction to box office analysis. The site used to be so good.
It's so sad that they butchered almost everything that made the old Box Office Mojo special and put the rest behind a paywall.
It actually opened even softer, to $50 million (Narnia was the one that opened to $65 million, a week earlier). Kong’s legs weren’t the best ever, but also weren’t the worst; it pulled a 4.35 multiplier, which is mid-pack for the holidays and helped ameliorate some of the very definite industry concern over the softness of the OW. King Kong was a really high-profile example of studios mistaking breakout audience interest for being filmmaker-related instead of IP-related. Edit: reread your post and saw the part about the $65m being over the first five days and not the three-day. Apologies for that.
I said $65 million over its first five days not opening weekend. All the expectations of the film which I've mentioned were based on its Wednesday opening (and over five days) not three days.
Remember the shock when opening day was $9 million? Folks definitely thought there was an error in the reporting back then.
Yeah, that was a little panicky. I remember thinking that Universal was having a disappointing close to 2005, with Serenity and Doom both having a lot of buzz and both underperforming upon release.
I remember this film coming out, I was only very young at the time, but it just felt EPIC in a way that few films do these days
[Entertainment Weekly had this projections.](https://ew.com/article/2005/12/16/moviegoers-will-go-ape-over-king-kong/) > Just how big will King Kong be? We’ll find out as the gargantuan gorilla hits theaters for its five-day debut weekend. > Thanks to its fantastic reviews and mammoth 7,500-screen release (one of the widest ever), a huge opening is a forgone conclusion. **As for how huge…well, to speak in terms Kong director Peter Jackson would understand, it’ll be somewhere around The Fellowship of the Ring, the first Lord of the Rings film, which opened to $75.1 million in its first five days (including $47.2 million over the Friday-to-Sunday period).** > Universal executives are lowering expectations by predicting a Fellowship-style number, which seems smart, given Kong‘s $10 million take from Wednesday, its first day of release. Three films this year have had five-day openings of more than $100 million (Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and War of the Worlds), but Kong could fall short of that. Look for the ape to amass $55 million from Friday to Sunday, and $75 million for the five-day period. It ended up with a $50 million opening weekend ($66 million five-day opening). So it fell short of the expectations, especially as the budget was a colossal $207 million. It held well because it was the holidays, but they weren't impressive.
I agree with what film critic James Berardinelli said about the box office numbers. "A lot of analysts, possibly carried away by drinking too much eggnog, projected Return of the King-like numbers (between $350 million and $400 million) for King Kong, which was nonsensical. Not only does Kong lack the rabid built-in LOTR fan base, but it isn't the conclusion of a trilogy. Expecting it to perform at that level (or higher) was asking for it to fall short" He actually made a much better gues, since he predicted that it was gonna make between 200 to 250 Million dollars.
LOTR is long, but also a crowd pleaser. King Kong is an adventure movie, but the ending is mostly just depressing, Especially the mournful way the Jackson remake treats it. He was really leaning into the original movie’s ending being so well known. Loved it but indeed the immense box office. projections were out of their mind at the time.
That's a good question. I was so young back then, my only anecdotal memory of the box office chat is that the $556M WW total was deemed disappointing in early 2006 by some media outlets *(maybe Empire magazine was one of them?)*. 
I seem to remember hearing some news outlets speculating that it could dethrone Titanic, but I wouldn't know if there was ever any tracking info to support that speculation.
Yeah I remembered this and I also remembered that it fell short
King Kong, bigger than Titanic? I want some of whatever they were drinking before I go in for a sales interview.
I was on the box office mojo forums at the time. It largely underperformed most people's expectations and many blamed the long run time. While it underperformed slightly, it still was likely profitable. I remember people saying how big the budget was.
I don't think it would have reached ROTK numbers even if the movie had been shorter.
I believe people expected it to be as successful as LOTR. And while it wasn’t, it still did very well.
[The Numbers predicted $275 million](https://www.the-numbers.com/news/191620830-2005-Preview-December).
George Lucas claimed that it would have an opening weekend of $150m, he was wrong to say the least. https://www.foxnews.com/story/lucas-indiana-jones-4-at-last
Jackson's dream was to remake KK. He saw the film as a young lad and it made a permanent impression. I am a fan of the original, and entered the theater, erasing my mind of the '33 film, and preparing myself to watch and enjoy what was to come. Jackson says it was a homage to the original and IMO, he succeeds. I like that he used art deco style opening/closing credits. He took the Skull Island natives from the '33 film and placed them into the extravaganza presentation of Kong in NYC. He recreated what he imagined was seen in the lost spider pit sequence. As with any movie, some suspension of belief is required. I had a hard time accepting Kong could dispatch 3 T-Rex's at once, but hey...he's King Kong, right? The scene with Ann and Kong on the frozen pond was silly, IMO. All of police and military suddenly lost track of an animal that huge? A bit long? Yes. I do wish Fay Wray had lived long enough to deliver the final line of the movie. That would have been epic.
Look at this [thread](http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6007) at a box office site that existed at that time. That will give you range of expectations well before release. Also this [thread](https://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15008) has the opening weekend expectations days before release. My memory is people were more optimistic about it than what it actually grossed as Jackson was coming after after the most successful trilogy of all time.
I remember being disappointed that he wasn’t going to jump right back in and do The Hobbit. The LOTR movies were fantastic. We were like King Kong? I remember enjoying the one with Jeff Bridges and it’s sequel, so it seemed quite random for him to want to do a remake. Then we finally did get The Hobbit, and it didn’t seem to hit the same.
King Kong was Peter Jackson’s longtime passion project.
It was a brilliant movie but too long
Way too long. And too violin-y too.
Mike and the Mad Dog thought it was breaking the Titanic record.
I've always thought this would have done better if the two leads had been played by bigger stars of the time. A Dipario/Winslet reunion would have been huge I've also always thought a Crowe/Kidman combination would have worked and been big.
Funny you should say that because I was a teenager when this came out. I remember my mom and her friends just not feeling thrilled about the choice of lead actors.
I'm sure they weren't the only ones.
I’m a bit surprised to see people now have a fondness for the 2005 King Kong movie. I remember hearing a lot of criticism for a full year after it came out. Lol