Topic: 'King Kong' sixth most expensive Hollywood film

[Clive]

Forbes
Sat Dec 10,12:33 PM ET
 
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A new version of "King Kong" to be released for the holiday season, from New Zealand director Peter Jackson, is reportedly the sixth most expensive film in Hollywood history.

The adventures of the giant gorilla are shown through special effects costing 207 million dollars, compared with the 10 million dollars, in today's money, spent on the original by Merian Cooper in 1933, according to the New York-based business magazine Forbes.

Forbes said Hollywood spent an average of 64 million dollars per film in 2004.

The most expensive ever was "Cleopatra," with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, directed by Joseph Mankiewicz in 1963, for 286.4 million dollars (in 2005 money).

Second was "Titanic," by James Cameron (1997) for 247 million dollars.

Two years later, "Waterworld," directed by Kevin Costner, cost 229 million dollars.

And "Terminator 3," the latest film starring     Arnold Schwarzenegger before he become California governor, cost 216 million dollars in 2003.

"Spider-Man 2" was made in 2004 for 210 million dollars, "Wild Wild West" with Will Smith for 203.8 million dollars in 1999 and "Speed 2" in 1997, cost 198.8 US dollars.

LINK

[GillE]

Having seen the trailers for King Kong when I went to see the latest Harry Potter film the other night, I hope Peter Jackson's not relying on my attendance to help him recoup this massive investment.  Never mind giant apes, it looked like a massive turkey to me.

Gill

[Simon]

Well, he's never going to better the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, so compared to that, everything he does is likely to be a turkey!  I have to agree, Gill, KK is not one I would rush out to see, but what did you think of Harry Potter?  Going by most reports, it's supposed to be the best yet.

[GillE]

I liked the latest HP film very much; it's well made and worth seeing but it isn't as complete as The Prisoner of Azkaban. However, the book is so massive that it would be very difficult to encompass all aspects of the story, so I'll forgive the shortcomings. On the whole, the film works very well and the special effects really are quite special, especially the dragon scene. When it's released on DVD, I'll buy it; although I think it's time the director took a leaf out of Peter Jackson's book and released a special extended DVD version. We need more focus on the house elves and SPEW!  It's difficult to say too much about the film without the risk of spoiling it for people who don't know the story.

Although the stories are getting darker as Harry grows older, this film isn't as dark as the book. Nevertheless, I can understand why the parents of children younger than 8 (or thereabouts) would be cautious about letting their sprogs watch it.

I'm really looking forward to the next film and seeing who is chosen to play Tonks.

Gill

[Simon]

I'm absolutely sure that 'Special Edition' DVDs will surface for the films at some point (perhaps when #7 is complete?).  When Philosopher's Stone came out, it was mooted that there were many scenes filmed but not included, notably, the omission of Rik Mayal as Peeves.  I'm sure the same must be true for the other films.