In the movie King Kong, the giant ape takes out a slew of dinosaurs in dramatic fashion. Too bad he didn't have a chance to tussle with the Lion!
The storyline in this box office battle is great fun when it comes to pitting the mighty death-defying lion with the seemingly invincible great ape, and it no doubt includes a bit of the culture wars. The Los Angeles Times' R. Kinsey Lowe pontificates:
The end of the year played out with a resurgent "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" taking in $32.8 million on its fourth weekend to conquer "King Kong," which grossed an estimated $31.6 million over the four-day New Year's weekend.
It does not come as news that Hollywood closed the year with box office down on the order of 5% and attendance off by about 7%, according to tracking service Exhibitor Relations Co. (See related story, E1). But the box office drop of nearly $400 million, to $8.8 billion, is one of the biggest decreases on record, according to rival tracking firm Nielsen EDI. Exhibitor Relations calculates the drop in revenue is even bigger, from $9.4 billion to $8.9 billion.
Disney's bid to establish a bankable family movie franchise on the order of the "Harry Potter" series appears to have succeeded, as business for "The Chronicles of Narnia" increased enough to beat the newer "Kong," which opened to much weaker numbers than anticipated.
"King Kong" surpassed "Narnia" over the four-day Christmas weekend with a Sunday-Monday boost, but the Disney movie directed by "Shrek" veteran Andrew Adamson outperformed Peter Jackson's extravaganza on every day since then.
I've seen both films and enjoyed both immensely. I would say that a major reason people aren't seeing Kong as much is due to its length. It's arguably the better film cinematically, but Narnia appeals to a broader viewing audience and isn't three hours long (no exaggeration).
Ross Douthat, a regular blogger at the American Scene blog, a reporter at the Atlantic magazine and a recent guest blogger for Andrew Sullivan, has an excellent roundup of the movie box office battles. Here are some of his thoughts on the future of the Narnia series on the big screen:
I'm a little surprised by this turn, in part because in spite of being smack in the middle of the target demographic for Philip Anschutz's big project, I actually preferred Kong to Narnia (my complaints about the latter are here), though both were miles from perfect. (Steve Sailer has it right -- there were two hours of a great movie in Kong, but unfortunately the film was three hours long.) But it's still gratifying that Narnia's doing well, if only because it means they'll film the later books -- and hopefully, as with the Harry Potter movies, the adaptations will get better as they go along.
Unfortunately, the one they've started on, Prince Caspian, is one of the weakest of the seven -- and the one after that, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, is pretty dull as well. (If there's any Narnia book where the religious allegory gets in the way of the story, it's Dawn Treader.) And it would be a shame if audience interest dries up before they get around to The Horse and His Boy, or The Magician's Nephew, or my personal favorite, The Silver Chair. (I'm hoping for Jeremy Irons as Puddleglum . . .)
Can the Chronicles of Narnia adapted by Hollywood match the hype and the popularity of the Harry Potter movies? I wouldn't be able to judge Potter because I haven't read or scene any of the movies, but I'll be looking for articles making that type of comparison.