Box Office Reports - KoH

[caseymochridh]

According to Box Office Mojo - KoH ranked #54; Elizabethtown ranked #84

[Ancalime]

Originally Posted by Leggybelle

I just watched my DVD again last night, and still feel that it was one of the better movies of 2005.

I definitely agree with you there, Leggybelle.

I also strongly agree. Just last week in a local newspaper in Adelaide, Australia, KOH was named one of the worst movies of 2005. You gotta be kinding! Maybe the film had a couple of flaws. What movie, good or bad hasn't? That definetely doesn't make it the worst movie of '05 or for that matter any year. I'm not being bias or anything, but it was a great movie, and I can't wait until the Director's Cut is released next year.

[mamakidd]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Goddess

I also strongly agree. Just last week in a local newspaper in Adelaide, Australia, KOH was named one of the worst movies of 2005. You gotta be kinding! Maybe the film had a couple of flaws. What movie, good or bad hasn't? That definetely doesn't make it the worst movie of '05 or for that matter any year. I'm not being bias or anything, but it was a great movie, and I can't wait until the Director's Cut is released next year.

Truly, Heavenly Goddess, just proves there arre nitwits everywhere in this world, and Adelaide is apparently no exception. I still get hot under the collar when I think of the American reviewer (male) who said he hated KOH because nothing ever happened. Who could watch KOH and actually believe that nothing happens in it? What a moron!

[Leggybelle]

I'm mad again. Kingdom of Heaven gets no respect !

This week's Entertainment Weekly magazine has a list of The Top 100 -- the top box office movies of 2005. On their list, Kingdom of Heaven ranks 58, with domestic box office of $47.4, foreign box office of $164.2, for a total of $211.6.

HOWEVER, it's obvious that they are ranking movies based solely on domestic box office, and ignoring total box office. If they had ranked Kingdom of Heaven according to total box office (which does not include DVD sales, etc.), Kingdom of Heaven would have ranked 15th !!! Not bad for a movie that US critics called a box office flop.

Kingdom of Heaven was right up there with movies like Robots and Chicken Little, and did better than The Pacifier, The 40-year old Virgin, Flightplan, Saw II, and Monster-in-Law. Granted, domestic totals for these movies was higher than KOH, but since when is foreign money tainted?

Obviously, there were movies like Star Wars III, Harry Potter, Narnia, War of the Worlds and King Kong that did better (way better) domestically and internationally than Kingdom of Heaven. But so far, the Oscar favorites like Good Night & Good Luck, A History of Violence, Brokeback Mountain, The Constant Gardner, Munich, Pride & Prejudice and Syriana have fared poorly in total box office. It remains to be seen if their figures will improve given more time. In the case of The Constant Gardner and A History of Violence, they have pretty much run their course, and most likely results for them will not change.

I am very annoyed that Entertainment Weekly would ignore foreign box office results when listing the Top 100 movies of the year. It's not fair !!

[Malene]

Originally Posted by Leggybelle

But so far, the Oscar favorites like Good Night & Good Luck, A History of Violence, Brokeback Mountain, The Constant Gardner, Munich, Pride & Prejudice and Syriana have fared poorly in total box office. It remains to be seen if their figures will improve given more time. In the case of The Constant Gardner and A History of Violence, they have pretty much run their course, and most likely results for them will not change.

I am very annoyed that Entertainment Weekly would ignore foreign box office results when listing the Top 100 movies of the year. It's not fair !!

Award nominations and critical praise is why the Oscar favorites are counted as succesful.They are rarely huge box office hits.
I agree,it seems strange how they ignore the international numbers for KoH.Do they do the same with other films? If not,that is strange,to say the least.Or is it a list over the Top 100 movies in the US,not the world?

[Serein]

Did you guys read this whole thread about box office numbers and the fact that Hollywood isn't really losing money even though there's a poor showing at the box office. I find it very interesting. It's also interesting to know that since US is still the major market, overseas figures don't mean squat. A shame really.

[Leggybelle]

From Malene's post:

I agree,it seems strange how they ignore the international numbers for KoH.Do they do the same with other films? If not,that is strange,to say the least.Or is it a list over the Top 100 movies in the US,not the world?

It is a list of American movies, ranked in order of US box office only, but they also show totals including foreign box office. However, my point and why I am so peeved is that they do not weigh the foreign box office figures the same as the US box office. If they included the foreign box office, and ranked the movies in order of TOTAL box office, then, as I said, KOH would rank #15.

15th in total box office for 2005 is NOT A BOX OFFICE FLOP !!!

[Malene]

Originally Posted by Leggybelle

15th in total box office for 2005 is NOT A BOX OFFICE FLOP !!!

Actually that's VERY good!!
In light of that I cannot believe how the US media has treated this film.A terrible shame.
I've seen US media say that PoTC made 305 million in the box office,not mentioning that it is only domestic figures.It made a total of over 600 million.They keep doing the same to lots of films,as if you americans are alone in the world.

[Llyneth]

Malene, when your news agencies talk about movies and how well they are playing, wouldn't they give totals for Norway instead of what they made in the states? I think that's probably why US agencies give US figures. Not saying it is fair, since some films do better in foreign markets than they do domestically, but that's probably why it happens. They figure Americans want to know how many other Americans saw the film. *shrugs*

[Malene]

Originally Posted by Llyneth

Malene, when your news agencies talk about movies and how well they are playing, wouldn't they give totals for Norway instead of what they made in the states?

Yes.But we know we're not an important market,so it is always mentioned how well a film is doing internationally to measure it's succes.This is the difference between the us and US.
The US market is the biggest,yes.But there is also the world.I don't understand how the rest of the planet gets reduced to nothing when they talk numbers.Especially since many US films are marketed very heavily internationally too.But perhaps as you say americans may not be interested in international numbers. Sad that they get the wrong impressions of facts,then,Like Leggybelle points out.

Anyway,we have discussed many times how FOX screwed up the marketing of the movie.IMO,it should never have been released as a Blockbuster type movie.
It's message and themes are as just as deep as the one's of Brokeback Mountain and other award contenders.
If it had been marketed and released as what it really is,alongside these films and at the same time,it might not have had much bigger numbers in the US,but would have gotten more respect,I think.( But I'm clearly no expert. )

[gilraen]

I looked at sorting movies by genre, and in the genre of Medieval Age, KOH is the second most succesful movie of all times!!!

[livdh]

Originally Posted by gilraen

I looked at sorting movies by genre, and in the genre of Medieval Age, KOH is the second most succesful movie of all times!!!

Oh that's very good !!! I'm glad this movie is finally praized.

[LSA]

Originally Posted by gilraen

I looked at sorting movies by genre, and in the genre of Medieval Age, KOH is the second most succesful movie of all times!!!

Hmm, and this was considered a flop by Hollywood standards? Maybe it's high time that those standards get out of the dark ages and try to get up to par with what is internationally acceptable.

KOH deserves every bit of its success and recognition. It's just unfortunate that its initial threatrical release was so butchered by Fox.

Thanks for the info, Gilraen.

Originally Posted by Malene

Anyway,we have discussed many times how FOX screwed up the marketing of the movie.IMO,it should never have been released as a Blockbuster type movie.It's message and themes are as just as deep as the one's of Brokeback Mountain and other award contenders.
If it had been marketed and released as what it really is,alongside these films and at the same time,it might not have had much bigger numbers in the US,but would have gotten more respect,I think.( But I'm clearly no expert. )

That's a very good point.

I must confess to having not seen KOH when it came out, because of the comparison to Gladiator and the bad press here in the US. I didn't particulaly like Gladiator, and I didn't see Orlando in the Russell Crowe type of role.

I have since seen it on DVD and found it to be far superior to Gladiator, which is your typical Blockbuster -- fuelled purely by vengeance and testosterone. KOH has excellent battle scenes as well, but it is much more insightful and thought-provoking; I don't always agree with Balian's choices, but I understand his reasons for making them. That's the kind of movies that I like.

Had Fox marketed the movie for what it really is, I would have gone to see it. I doubt I am alone in this.

With no disrespect to Russell Crowe (whom I like), Balian is a far more complex character than Maximus. While Maximus's motivation is fairly straightforward, Balian is a tortured soul who is presented a plateful of lousy choices. I think Orlando did a good job portraying a warror of conscience, an introspective, conflicted hero. It's a shame that the critics kept barking on Orlando's apparent lack of intensity -- it's not that kind of role, people! -- or even go so far as commenting his lack of "heft" -- aren't they the same people who always criticized him for "coasting on his good looks"? What hypocrites!

[DMW3]

The problem is this KOH cost over 200 million to make 10 times more than Brokeback, so it had to marketed at the mainstream or blockbuster audience to get ticket sales.

However, the way it was marketed was a mistake, yes initial trailers should have said 'from the director of Gladiator' but after that the film should have been marketed on its own merits, rather than as some king of Gladiator two.

I do think promoting the film for what it is, is problematic, err the Tagline 'KOH a compelling medieval political drama that explores the importance and meaning of religion and place as seen through the eyes of a reluctant participant' isn't exactly catchy...

[Liriel]

I actually think KOH would have done much better if 1)it hadn't been marketed as another Gladiator, which it clearly wasn't and therefore failed to deliver on the expectations of those people who went to see it expecting that, and then told their friends that it sucked. and 2) if Fox hadn't been so retarded that they released the star wars movie two freaking weeks after KOH! Yeah, okay, they're not really the same genre, but people who enjoy battles of any kind are going to go for the star wars over something they're not familiar with (even though I thought the star wars movie stunk massively and yes, I'm still very annoyed with Fox for doing that )

[Ireth]

it hadn't been marketed as another Gladiator

,

I soooo agree!!

(

even though I thought the star wars movie stunk massively

Even being a hardcore Star Wars fan, I have to agree on that as well!!
I bought it on DVD and I never watched it, but I had to have the collection complete!

I saved money to go to both movies more then once, but after seeing SW3 once I had enough and ended up going to KOH 7 times and buying more popcorn then was good for me!!

[Pirate Lass]

A recent article from "Scribble King" web site about "So Called" "Movie Flops":

"Before we go ahead with this article, let's define the term flop. Many people, when they hear the word flop, assume that the movie in question is a bad movie. This, however, does not necessarily have to be the case. There are plenty of movies that made no money at all, but which were a lot of fun to watch regardless. There are even some pretty good, well made movies that are relegated to the flops list because of bad marketing, bad timing and just plain bad luck.

Lately, it has become more and more difficult for a studio to make a movie that flops. Moviegoers outside America have elevated recent movies like KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and The Island from potential bombs into big hits, turning them into nice moneymakers for the studios that released them. In other words, you really have to botch up the release of a movie for it to reach that legendary status that no filmmaker really aspires to, but which does raise the awareness people have of your movie (meaning that many flops are able to clean up after all, when they are released on DVD!)."

http://scribbleking.typepad.com/movi...n_biggest.html

[N-Nan]

Forgive me, in advance, because I've popped in here without reading every page, but in my opinion KOH flopped for two reasons.
1. Horrible editing. The theatrical release was chopped to the point of not making sense as a story. They left the battle sequences intact, as if that was the only thing of importance in the film. Orlando is a precise actor, and editing in this way is his worst enemy that is continually picked at by critics as "a lack of intensity" when actually half the scene was removed. (embellished there a little)

2. KOH was released on the heels of Alexander. That movie, imo, was one of the top worst movies I've ever seen. I don't think the general public was willing to lay down money on another period movie with epic battle scenes after that one.

How can anyone say Orlando lacked intensity? It was quite intense when he shoved his murdering priest into the fire, when he and his knights rode into battle knowing they would be slaughtered, when he recognized and knighted the gravedigger in Jerusalem, even the quiet exchange in the King's chamber was intense.

Ridley Scott's work is not always appreciated until later. Bladerunner was dubbed a huge flop, but even now people rave about how fantastic it is. Sometimes, a movie is released before its time.

Oh, and I just found this out a couple days ago. Orlando won BEST EUROPEAN ACTOR for KOH. He must have done something right.
http://www.europeanfilmacademy.org/2008/09/04/2005-2/

[Clayra]

The director's cut is much more better. The story makes sense and you fully understand the story, the characters like Sybilla, for example. I agree with you, N-Nan, Orlando didn't lack intensity. Maybe they thought Balian was too perfect. Ok he committed murder but he became that perfect knight who even refused to marry Sybilla, the woman he loves. As for me, it didn't bother me at all !

I still agree with what you say about Alexander, N-Nan.

[Beriawen]

^Well... critics made the mistake to compare "KoH" to "Gladiator" too much and Orlando to Russell Crowe... Two completely different stories and types of men. They haven't given KoH much chances just because Orlando starred in it who - in their opinion - was far too boyish to convince as Balian and some even said Russell Crowe would've been the better choice. *shrugs* Then, KoH would have been just another Gladiator indeed and I bet, it would have gotten better reviews.

[racegirl]

Originally Posted by Beriawen

^Well... critics made the mistake to compare "KoH" to "Gladiator" too much and Orlando to Russell Crowe... Two completely different stories and types of men. They haven't given KoH much chances just because Orlando starred in it who - in their opinion - was far too boyish to convince as Balian and some even said Russell Crowe would've been the better choice. *shrugs* Then, KoH would have been just another Gladiator indeed and I bet, it would have gotten better reviews.

Thanks Beriawen I've been telling people that very thing and I agree with you 100%!
racegirl