"King Kong" Vs "Narnia" and Perception Vs Fact

USA Today reports on the belief that "Kong" will gross $500 million worldwide but is a disappointment.

But here are the facts. "Kong" cost a tremendous $200 million. Less widely acknowledged is that "Narnia" cost $180 million. "Kong" is grossing half a billion dollars worldwide. "Narnia" is definitely grossing more...about $70 million more it seems. That's a victory, but hardly a crushing one. "Narnia" got glowing reviews in the UK. "Kong" (to my surprise) got rave reviews virtually across the board here in the US.

In short, "Narnia" cost slightly less and will make slightly more. "Kong" is the third highest grossing film overseas in Universal Studios history and could become the second-highest before all is said and done. "Narnia" is the second-highest live action movie in Disney history and might overtake "The Sixth Sense" to become the highest. Isn't it a little crazy to raise the bar so high that "Kong" is a flop if it doesn't become the biggest hit in a hundred years for a studio?

Once you add in the hundreds of millions to come from cable, DVD, pay per view and so on, "Kong" will easily gross $700 million worldwide. (That's a very conservative figure since movies like "Kong" tend to do well on DVD and Jackson is great about including compelling extras.) There isn't a studio in the world that wouldn't jump at the chance to spend $200 million and get that return.