Jackson's 'KING KONG' - 3 hours long (reviews merged)
#26
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by FinkPish
This was a problem I had with Kingdom of Heaven; the character development sections felt really rushed and hammered together so we could get on to the action.
#27
Moderator
Originally Posted by FinkPish
This was a problem I had with Kingdom of Heaven; the character development sections felt really rushed and hammered together so we could get on to the action.
Originally Posted by wmansir
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.
#28
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
I too hope PJ delivers, but three hours and a budget of $200+ millon for a movie about a giant ape seems kind of pretentous. I could have sworn that PJ said after LOTR his next movie would be around two hours or two and a half at the most. I guess my concern is that we get another Hulk movie, which overall I liked but got tired of the whole subplot about family relations. My understanding is that Kong is not Oscar caliber in quality and that critics are gushing over Munich. Then again, I don't know when they had screenings for either for them to draw those conclusions.
#31
DVD Talk Special Edition
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
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Fok
Wow I can imagine the DVD release is going to be nice as well. Yep PJ has not let us down yet
#34
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 34,034
Received 709 Likes
on
517 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by devilshalo; 10-27-05 at 01:41 PM.
#35
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Leandro/San Francisco
Posts: 7,422
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by resinrats
That 3 hours better have extra cgi-monkey footage in it and not just human scenes. People aren't going to want to go to King Kong to see long stretches of people taking. They want to see a giant ape go, well...apeshit on everything. That was the main problem of Hulk. The movie tried to be some serious drama when everyone just wanted to see a big green guy smash stuff. Lets hope this doesn't happen with Kong.
#36
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
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.
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.
I too hope PJ delivers, but three hours and a budget of $200+ millon for a movie about a giant ape seems kind of pretentous.
Yeah! God forbid it has a plot like the last three Star Wars movies.
#37
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Terrell
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.
Personally, I think PJ has become obssessed with the 3 hour time limit as if that's an arbiter of greatness. A tight 2 hour film is better than a bloated 3 hour film. 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.
Personally, I think PJ has become obssessed with the 3 hour time limit as if that's an arbiter of greatness. A tight 2 hour film is better than a bloated 3 hour film. 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.
#39
DVD Talk Legend
[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.
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.
#41
Retired
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.
No reason they can't add a lot in and make it pretty much an entirely new and longer storyline.
#43
DVD Talk Legend
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!
#44
DVD Talk Legend
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.
#45
DVD Talk Gold Edition
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."
#46
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
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.
#47
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema
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.
#48
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
That 3 hours better have extra cgi-monkey footage in it and not just human scenes. People aren't going to want to go to King Kong to see long stretches of people taking. They want to see a giant ape go, well...apeshit on everything. That was the main problem of Hulk. The movie tried to be some serious drama when everyone just wanted to see a big green guy smash stuff. Lets hope this doesn't happen with Kong.
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.
#49
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#50
DVD Talk Limited Edition
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/)
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/)