Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 15  

post #421 of 814
10/26/05 at 9:33pm
That's interesting to hear, but it makes me aniticipate the film a little more for some reason. The article seemed to oversimplify the matter, I doubt that an extra 20 minutes of movie is the sole reason for it going over budget.
post #422 of 814
10/26/05 at 9:51pm
If it's as great as "Lord of the Rings", bring on the 3 hours I say.
post #423 of 814
10/27/05 at 9:08am
Wonderful news. Bring it on! Another big Christmas present from Peter Jackson!
post #424 of 814
10/27/05 at 11:16am
If the happy-joy quotes from the Universal executives are to be believed, it looks like what happened on 'The Fellowship of the Ring' is happening again: The studio expects a 2.5 hour movie, gets shown a three-hour version, and agrees to release it as is.

My bladder protests but my heart says hell yeah.

If only they'd bring back the old days of the Intermission. Sure, it adds another 15 minutes or so, but what difference does that really make when you're talking about a three-hour movie? Gives everyone a chance to urinate and then purchase more drinks to make more urine with. Everybody wins, you'd think.

--Jefferson Morris
post #425 of 814
10/27/05 at 11:34am
Quote:
If only they'd bring back the old days of the Intermission. Sure, it adds another 15 minutes or so, but what difference does that really make when you're talking about a three-hour movie? Gives everyone a chance to urinate and then purchase more drinks to make more urine with. Everybody wins, you'd think.


I'd bet the theaters would like that, but the studios would lose big time. And they're the ones making the decisions.
post #426 of 814
10/27/05 at 12:11pm
Quote:
I'd bet the theaters would like that, but the studios would lose big time.
But this is what I don't understand. How would a 15-minute intermission make a whit of difference to a studio? It's not the difference between four showings per day and five showings, if you're talking about a three-hour movie. Where's the harm?

I mean, clearly you're right, they don't want to do it for some reason. I've just never been clear on what the reason is. With long movies in resurgence, one would think the whole intermission concept would get a revisit.

I mean, my God, do I have to wear this to every Peter Jackson movie now?

--Jefferson Morris
post #427 of 814
10/27/05 at 1:48pm
Well, Wells' bashing of Jackson has started up again:

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archi...do_kongo_1.php

Tho he does have a slight point in asking what exactly is Jackson going to add with the extra 80 minutes.

I'm also wondering if the theatrical cut may end up being a little shorter. I'm sure Universal is trying to negotiate...

Jason
post #428 of 814
10/27/05 at 2:13pm
I actually agree with Wells here. 3 hours for Kong is an indulgence. I'd bet most of those extra 80 minutes are going to be spent on Jackson's patented miniature and helicopter shots. No doubt they will awe us, but really, how can you justify 3 hours for King Kong?

Even at 2:20, the '76 remake felt padded and dragged, though that movie certainly had bigger problems.

I'll still see it. I'll probably still enjoy it, but 3 hours gives me pause.
post #429 of 814
10/27/05 at 2:34pm
Quote:
but really, how can you justify 3 hours for King Kong?
Proof of the pudding is in the eating. We won't know whether it's "justified" until the film comes out. Even from reading the abandoned early '96 draft of the Kong script, I can tell you that Jackson et al have much more in mind than just a blow-by-blow re-telling of the original film's story beats. If they were doing that kind of remake, then I'd also be curious as to how it could be padded to three hours. But they aren't - they have a lot more up their sleeve.

I'm going to be an optimist and say that Universal's agreement to release the film at 3hrs is a sign of faith in its quality (versus a sign that they've been utterly cowed by a mad, Oscar-winning director and his unstoppable clout).

--Jefferson Morris
post #430 of 814
10/27/05 at 3:12pm
Quote:
We won't know whether it's "justified" until the film comes out.


Very true, but I think there's good reason to question whether or not it will be justified. Kong just doesn't come across as a story that needs or can even support 3 hours, though I can imagine a 3 hour version if Jackson allows his penchant for spectacle to overwhelm the runtime.

If the movie comes in feeling lean at 3 hours like the theatrical Lord of the Rings installments or Titanic, then great. I'm just afraid it'll end up being an over-indulgent labor of love. Most great filmmakers seem to have at least one in their filmography.

If I lower my expectations now, Jackson has the opportunity to really blow me away. I still can't wait to see it.
post #431 of 814
10/27/05 at 3:39pm
You mean three hours of a giant monkey, dinosaurs and a rampage of said giant monkey through a city? This is a problem?
post #432 of 814
10/27/05 at 8:34pm
Um, yes, if the movie ends up buckling under own girth.
post #433 of 814
10/27/05 at 10:58pm
A piece from yesterday's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/mo...tml?8mu&emc=mu
post #434 of 814
10/28/05 at 6:14am
From what I've seen of the trailer, the film looks MIGHTY intriguing and incredibly sumptuous, and I'm really looking forward to it. I agree that the 3 hour running time gives me pause as well, but hopefully this will consist of a good lot of character development, which too often gets short shrift in films of this type. Generally speaking, I don't mind a three hour running time, if the pacing is such that I barely notice it.
post #435 of 814
10/28/05 at 6:24am
Obviously, the 3 hours is needed so that he can fit in approximately twenty instances of slow-motion fake-out deaths of Kong and the various characters.

1) Kong falls off a cliff in slow motion, appears motionless on canyon floor, cut to Jack Black weeping in corner, cut to Kong's fingers twitching - YAY he's still alive!!

I'm sure we'll get a few emotional slow motion deaths of the dinosaurs and spiders too.
post #436 of 814
10/28/05 at 8:36am
post #437 of 814
10/28/05 at 8:45am
Three hours for the remake? Does that mean it'll be twice as good as the 90 minute original?
post #438 of 814
10/28/05 at 9:05am
Dances with Wolves, Titanic, and all three LOTR films... When the end credits started to scroll, I recall thinking with all of them... "Has it really been three hours? Wow! That went by FAST!"

I'd sooner sit through a FOUR hour Jackson masterpiece than much of the 90-120 minute dribble we got from Hollywood this year.

And, BTW, I'll do it without dancing around in my seat waiting to get to the restroom! And that's because I won't be drinking any beverages within 1-hour of the movie and I sure as heck won't be buying a $7 super-size soda at the theater either.

Mark
post #439 of 814
10/28/05 at 9:27am
Paraphrasing Mr. Ebert, with regards to longer films. If the film is good, why wouldn't you want more?

I'll judge the film on its merits, not its run time.

- Walter.
post #440 of 814
10/28/05 at 9:33am
Quote:
You mean three hours of a giant monkey, dinosaurs and a rampage of said giant monkey through a city? This is a problem?


A man with my own tastes.

Quote:
And, BTW, I'll do it without dancing around in my seat waiting to get to the restroom! And that's because I won't be drinking any beverages within 1-hour of the movie and I sure as heck won't be buying a $7 super-size soda at the theater either.


Good to see I'm not the only one who adopts this strategy (when possible). I actually did make it through FotR with no bathroom breaks - quite the feat for me, the man with the smallest bladder on earth.
post #441 of 814
10/28/05 at 9:47am
Quote:
If the film is good, why wouldn't you want more?

I'll judge the film on its merits, not its run time.
Agreed. If the film is engaging for three hours, it's very much worth it. I can't remember the last time I had to take a bathroom break at the movies.
post #442 of 814
10/28/05 at 9:56am
Quote:
You mean three hours of a giant monkey, dinosaurs and a rampage of said giant monkey through a city? This is a problem?
You mean there's a giant monkey in this film and not just a giant ape?
post #443 of 814
10/28/05 at 10:09am
Quote:
You mean there's a giant money in this film and not just a giant ape?

Giant money? You didn't hear that the budget was over 200 Million?
post #444 of 814
10/28/05 at 10:18am
Quote:
Giant money?
D'oh!
post #445 of 814
10/28/05 at 10:28am
Quote:
Paraphrasing Mr. Ebert, with regards to longer films. If the film is good, why wouldn't you want more?


List any number of inferior, bloated director's cuts here:

I believe Ebert's quote is, "No good movie is too long." There's a big difference between that and your paraphrasing.

That said, I'm not prejudging the film. I won't know if it's too long until I see it. As I said before, if the film feels lean and engages for the full 3 hours, that's great. I hope it does. I'm still looking forward to it.

I'm just saying that if you look at it objectively, 3 hours seems to indicate there might be some padding when the original film only ran an hour and 40 minutes.

Remember Meet Joe Black?
post #446 of 814
10/28/05 at 11:00am
Quote:
List any number of inferior, bloated director's cuts here
You definitely have a point there. Longer certainly isn't always better - I don't prefer any of James Cameron's longer cuts to his shorter ones, and feel that only one of the LOTR films really benefitted significantly from being extended past its theatrical length (TTT, to be precise).

I'll admit, part of me thinks, "Three hours for a King Kong remake?!?" But another part of me thinks "Three hours for a King Kong remake!!!"

Descriptions of the new trailer have surfaced on www.aintitcool.com. The description of the final money shot with Kong on the ESB has me rather excited.

--Jefferson Morris
post #447 of 814
10/28/05 at 11:40am
I don't see any worry with the 3 hrs running time. Jackson hasn't disappointed before with his running time and even the longer Extended Editions seemed to move faster than the theatrical editions. I think the people who are not going to enjoy this film are those that dislike "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Already I can tell you that if you hate Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", you're going to hate "King Kong".
post #448 of 814
10/28/05 at 11:46am
Quote:
Already I can tell you that if you hate Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", you're going to hate "King Kong".
You're probably right. Both are period pieces with "old" costumes and technology, with a certain style.
post #449 of 814
10/28/05 at 11:51am
I was more excited about KK than I am now. Not sure why. I loved LOTR. Maybe as we get closer I will feel the anticipation more. The early previews do look rather cool though.

I'm ready for another out of body movie experience. It's been since summer.
post #450 of 814
10/28/05 at 11:54am
It will be interesting to see how Jackson fills out the running time. I suspect the film will open "slower" giving us more time to meet the main characters. After Ann is "sacrificed" to Kong, I would expect that they will have a much longer period of her in jeopardy while the fellowship, er, the crew chases after her. Kong's rampage in New York will be more longer and more elaborate.

Whether this amounts to a "richer movie-going experience" or just "padding" will probably be a subject of a long and somewhat acrimonious debate in a couple of months.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
This thread is locked  
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong