It's funny you mention KoH since I thought of that movie when reading this story. It's seemed to me that it could have made a good 3 hour movie, and I wouldn't be suprised if there was a 3 hour version out there that got hacked down to the final release. I'm glad King Kong won't suffer a similiar fate.

same here, and the current rumour is an extended edition is in the works with all the character expository scenes reinstated back in the film.

I'd imagine this Oscar labeling is being done based upon what type of film these are, not based upon anybody actually seeing them. One's a dramatic real life story, one's about a giant ape. It's obvious why one is getting the real Oscar talk.

Can't wait for this one! I was hoping for more than 2 hours from this one.


Awesome news.

since the IMAX release was nixed, I can't wait to see this on the next best screen - Washington DC's huge Uptown theatre screen.

Hopefully this movie will be an ever bigger success than lord of the rings. Then maybe the studios will learn to trust the director. I loved the EE's of the lord of the rings trilogy and cant wait to see what he has done with King Kong

Wow I can imagine the DVD release is going to be nice as well. Yep PJ has not let us down yet

Have you seen what PJ and Co. have done for the "Production Diaries" of this movie? Great packaging just for the making of the movie, so I can only wonder what they will do with the actual DVD.

1 1/2 hours long.. 3 hours long.. it didn't matter, I'm seeing this regardless of runtime.

And I hated the Hulk. Hulk smash vs hulk dogs is not the same as Kong smash vs a t-rex. If there had been the introduction of Abomination, Lo the Leader, hell, even Doc Sampson, it would have made it more enjoyable.

Yeah! God forbid it has a plot like the last three Star Wars movies.

I'm sorry folks, Kong does not require anywhere near 3 hours for it's story to be told. How Jackson is going to stretch out a thin story into 3 hours is beyond me. There is absolutely no need for that amount of time. The original Kong timed in at about an hour and 40 minute. Any longer than 2+ hours and you're talking about a bloated film with a ton of filler.

Obviously, the final film will be the judge. PJ, it's okay to make some 2 hour films. Not every film has to be three damn hours.

Exactly the statement I was looking for, but I know my opinion would be in the minority before I even let it be known.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up Star Wars. It never fails, even when the thread is completely unrelated.

Since none of us has seen the film, I find it difficult to understand why you need to start assuming that there isn't enough story to be told in 3 hours. Just because the original was much shorter doesn't mean there isn't more plot and character time (human and giant ape alike) to fill the remainder. And if you look at Peter Jackson's other films, the average running time is just around 2 hours; I think the LOTR trilogy (and this one apparently) just needed a lot more time to tell the story, and I agree with the choices I have seen.

If we can bitch about, it deserves a thread.

[QUOTE=Terrell]

Exactly the statement I was looking for, but I know my opinion would be in the minority before I even let it be known.



QUOTE]

Flattered to get quoted, but I hope I am wrong. While I think three hours is a bit much, I think you can agree that PJ worked wonders with that running time in the LOTR movies. Then again, that was based on a lengthy book with multiple characters that needed exposition. Unless PJ really wants to build to Kong's appearance, this could not be a good thing. My guess is we get: 45-50 minutes getting to Skull Island. A little over an hour on the island. About 45 minutes of Kong in New York. My impression from seeing a lot of the post-production work on kongisking.net is that Kong spends a lot of time rampaging through the city.

I can see the complaints now..Kong doesn't show up for a whole hour!

Kind of faulty to compare to the original Kong with it's thin story...unless someones seen the script.

No reason they can't add a lot in and make it pretty much an entirely new and longer storyline.

I think I will probably be their within the first week or so, im intersted enough which is quite enough.

You guys think $207 million is too much for a flick? Word is that SUPERMAN RETURNS just soared past the $250 million mark. So does that mean it has to make over $750 million to warrant a sequel? God, I hope not!

It seems that since Titanic studios aren't as public with how much their movies cost, even though Titanic was a monster hit. My guess is that several movies may have been made since then that are more than Titanic, but studios don't want word to get out about how much they blew on it if it's a piece of crap that underperforms. I heard that Godzilla '98 had a budget bigger than Titanic about the time Godzilla was supposed to open and be the "major hit" everyone predicted. Needless to say after it opened the budget started to shrink. I also heard Troy cost in excess of $200 million, but nobody ever labeled it the most expensive film in history as they seem to be doing with Kong.

The nature of the accounting practices used by motion picture studios makes any discussion of a movie's budget an exercise of the imagination. The expression "creative bookkeeping" comes to mind...with emphasis on the adjective "creative."

Though we'll probably never get the real number, I still think "Armageddon" is probably in the top 3 or 4 most expensive films of all-time.

I think another Bay flick might rank in there as well. I remember reading that Bad Boys II cost about $120 million to make, but with all of the stuff they destroyed and the amount of destruction they caused, I speculate at north of $160 million.

Peter Jackson didn't earn one of the freest hands of any Hollywood director so he could make a movie about a monster breaking things.

The problem with Hulk wasn't that it was too slow. It was that the character development was stupid, the script was stupid, the conflict was stupid, the visual gimmick of setting up the movie like a comic book page was stupid. Hulk was just a bad movie. Hulk was not a movie that was too smart for its audience. It was a movie that was dumber than its own aspirations.

If Peter Jackson feels a 3 hour run time is needed, well, i bet you 3 hours is needed. I doubt he is padding for whatever reasons or another, or being too tedious. whether it works or the masses will appreciate it remains to be seen, but for now i'm gonna bet on Jackson. I may not see in the theater (theaters fault) but i am really looking forward to seeing it.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/univer...ng/lookinside/

Mostly a generic EPK with Jackson and the actors, but a lot of new awesome looking footage too.

(In HD too, for those with QT7: http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/hd/)