View Full Version : New "Kong" 3 hours long!
phantomstranger
10-27-2005, 11:14 AM
better find a comfortable seat:
King Kong Clocks in at Three Hours
Source: The New York Times
October 27, 2005
The New York Times reports that Peter Jackson's King Kong is substantially longer than Universal Pictures had anticipated and the extra length (mostly due to the special effects) has helped increase the budget by a third, to $207 million. The studio paid Jackson and Fran Walsh $20 million to create the film.
Universal executives got to see a version of the film in late September in New Zealand and now with seven weeks to go, they have agreed to release King Kong at a length of three hours. Each of the three "Lord of the Rings" films had a length around the same time.
"This is a three-hour feast of an event," said Marc Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, who described the film as a tragic love story between the ape and Naomi Watts, who plays Ann Darrow, an actress. "I've never come close to seeing an artist working at this level."
"I anticipated it would be long, but not this long," added Universal chairwoman, Stacey Snider. As recently as late September, she expected about two hours and 40 minutes, she said. But on Wednesday she expressed delight with the picture she's got: "This is a masterpiece. I can't wait to unveil it."
King Kong will be released on December 14.
doctor satan
10-27-2005, 11:18 AM
whats the matter with Jackson? Can't he make films 90 mins long any more?
think i'd rather sit thru a double bill of Bad Taste & Brain Dead than sit thru that!
slasherman
10-27-2005, 11:30 AM
...not gonna see it at the cinema...maybe on dvd
Maerlyn
10-27-2005, 02:46 PM
I look forward to seeing this movie, and P. Jackson is the main reason that i will see at cinema...
ItsAlive75
10-27-2005, 09:54 PM
After the Lord of the Rings movies, I hate Peter Jackson.... what ever happened to making straight gory horror movies?
The_Return
10-28-2005, 12:37 PM
I prefer watching long movies in theatres than at home, so I guess Ill probably check this out pretty soon.
flabby_man22
10-28-2005, 02:29 PM
lets hope it doesnt suck balls so it wont be 3 hours wasted
Soloman Kane
10-28-2005, 06:30 PM
I've seen the trailer & it looks good. For me Kong is one of those sacred movies that you hope never gets made but I'am going to see it on a Saturday afternoon. Theres nothing like watching something like this. Is this going to be a winner or something three hours long which will suck the air out of the theater? We'll see.. :D
psiren
10-29-2005, 09:55 AM
i think when it hits the UK it'll be a must-see even if it's just curiosity.
btw- your new avatar actually looks like you!:D
Soloman Kane
10-29-2005, 09:59 AM
Kong likes blondes & you do scream like Fey Ray.. :D But seriously I happen to be a huge King Kong fan. So this is a natural for me. How does everyone else feel?
phantomstranger
10-29-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Soloman Kane
I happen to be a huge King Kong fan. So this is a natural for me. How does everyone else feel?
I'm a life long fan of "Kong" so i'll be there on opening weekend for the new one. Three hours may be a bit much, but if the movies good it will be worth it
psiren
10-30-2005, 01:02 AM
that's a 'two bucket of popcorn and a cigarette break' movie!:p
If they're gonna keep making movies this long (How did this story get so much longer?) then they need to bring back the intermission. That 36 pz Diet Coke ain't gonna just sit there for THREE HOURS. I couldn't stand the LOTR movies for the same reason. I love Kong, but I am afraind this will be an overbloated, overrated, like it or be an outcast, Peter Jackson can do no wrong, abomination.
I will reserve judgement until seeing it though. :D
stubbornforgey
11-02-2005, 06:14 PM
aint it fucking hilarious..!!
Like the lotr sequels..shot in new zealand..
wellingtonians got to see the cast n crew..
special showing for the prime minister and a selected few..n the rest of nz'ers had to wait a few more months or so..by the time it got to us..half the fucking world had already seen them..n the same goes with
king kong!!!!!
Well fuck you Peter fucking fat ass..4 eyed..fucking country hick who cant even tie his own shoes up prick!!!!!
I aint even gonna bother with this one..you ruined the shit out of lotr...and now you got your fat little stubby hands on another classic.
em gonna take my $$s n spend it on your rivals movies..HAH!!
scouse mac
11-06-2005, 06:19 AM
Lord of the Rings is the best trilogy of films ive seen, they are long but they do justice to books (for the most part) and if king kong is similar in scope and skill to lord o' then it will be a film well worth seeing.
stubbornforgey
11-06-2005, 10:11 AM
aint seeing it ..!!
ItsAlive75
11-15-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
Length of sitting time shouldnt be a factor with Cinema Lovers.
There's no such thing as cinema lovers anymore. Movie theatres suck, everybody's an asshole. I aint sittin through 3 hours of people bein' assholes.
scouse mac
11-16-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by ItsAlive75
There's no such thing as cinema lovers anymore. Movie theatres suck, everybody's an asshole. I aint sittin through 3 hours of people bein' assholes.
If the film is any good the time sat in the theatre is irrelevant, im hopeful for this film.
ItsAlive75
11-20-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by trippin_the_rif
Matinees my friend, MATINEES only have 10 people tops.
Ma.... Manatees?
http://www.webbwiz.com/bayviewbb/manatee.gif
horrifying
11-21-2005, 05:59 PM
i will probably wait until it comes out on dvd
PR3SSUR3
12-12-2005, 09:00 AM
Is anyone else looking forward to seeing Jackson fall flat on his face? Who does he think he is, with all this 3 hour-plus shit?
Bored of the rings, wanna see him lose some weight and facial hair instead.
Plus I'm not happy about what he allegedly got up to at his fantasy ranch.
slasherman
12-12-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by stubbornforgey
aint it fucking hilarious..!!
Like the lotr sequels..shot in new zealand..
wellingtonians got to see the cast n crew..
special showing for the prime minister and a selected few..n the rest of nz'ers had to wait a few more months or so..by the time it got to us..half the fucking world had already seen them..n the same goes with
king kong!!!!!
Well fuck you Peter fucking fat ass..4 eyed..fucking country hick who cant even tie his own shoes up prick!!!!!
I aint even gonna bother with this one..you ruined the shit out of lotr...and now you got your fat little stubby hands on another classic.
em gonna take my $$s n spend it on your rivals movies..HAH!!
ehhh he is not fat anymore....but I agree on everything else...:D
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/slasherman1971/peterthin.jpg
The STE
12-12-2005, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by ItsAlive75
After the Lord of the Rings movies, I hate Peter Jackson.... what ever happened to making straight gory horror movies?
Maybe he wanted to grow as a flimmaker? You can't just make the same type movies for your entire career.
PR3SSUR3
12-18-2005, 01:55 PM
ehhh he is not fat anymore....but I agree on everything else...
By jove, you're right!
Skinny bastard!
:p
The Mothman
12-18-2005, 08:58 PM
im still gonna see this, because i am a devoted Peter Jackson fan. just saw Bad Taste for the first time a few weeks ago. what a masterpiece!!
doctor satan
12-19-2005, 11:02 AM
saw Kong at the weekend, my kids loved it. Personally, i liked the film, but the film felt a bit flabby. he could have easily trimmed the first hour of the film down to 20 minutes & it would have been a better film. Don't think i'll be buying the 4 hour directors cut......
but i heard there are lots of scenes with Kong taking massive dumps and scratching his enormous hairy butt - surely that's worth an extra hour or so???
:D
The STE
12-19-2005, 09:15 PM
Unfortunately, they decided to go the Teen Comedy route for this Director's Cut. Of the extra 45 minutes, 15 of them show Giant Monkey Penis, 25 minutes of random lesbian makeouts, and a 5 minute scene where Jack Black tricks Adrian Brodey into accidentaly drinking his own semen
evil_blonde
12-20-2005, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Bored of the rings, wanna see him lose some weight and facial hair instead.
Because that kind of thing matters so much, right? It's not like he's successful or anything, obviously.
Well - i finally saw Kong yesterday and my review is similar to others. I thought it dragged horribly during the first hour or so - and even the action sequences (dinosaur stampede - giant bug attack etc. were over done, too long and too ridiculuous).
That said, I thought Kong was AMAZING and there was such a chemistry between the giant Ape and Naomi Watts (which is really weird to say) - Watts is amazing in the film (if a bit too watery-eyed in the first hour or so. The film really only works when the watts is with Kong, then its pure movie magic.
Confession time: i actually got teary-eyed at the end.
All that praise aside: JACK BLACK SUCKS! Oh my god, why would you cast a hack wannabe comedian in a major role for a $200 million film????? He is so wooden, has three facial expressions, and literally sucks the life out of the film everytime he pops up. I can almost see the other actors (who are all good-to-excellent) cringing when he's in a scene. And, he delivers the final line of the film - BADLY! God what a mistake. If they can digitally remake the film, edit the first 90 minutes down to 20 minutes and replace Jack Black with someone (ANYONE) who can ACT! They'd have a fabulous film.
phantomstranger
12-20-2005, 11:41 PM
Simply amazing. One of the best movies I've seen. As a big fan of the original I was a little nervous about this movie. (the '76 film still causes pain) But Jackson and crew pulled it off wonderfully.
scouse mac
12-22-2005, 12:47 AM
Thought the first hour of the film set the scene nicely. I hate it when films rush in and start the action without setting some sort of background to the characters. Andy Serkis should be given an Oscar for his Kong role, I dont care if its CGI all the expression and movement and empathy we get for Kong comes from his performance.
PR3SSUR3
12-25-2005, 05:40 AM
Because that kind of thing matters so much, right? It's not like he's successful or anything, obviously.
Lose some weight and facial hair, baby.
;)
hypnocil addict
12-29-2005, 02:12 AM
i loved this movie, but i felt that some parts were drawl out way to long, it took her like 5 minutes to just put one foot on the boat, then the bug fighting scene was just over kill. but all in all it was good. pretty sad too if you ask me.
Angra
01-09-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Zero
All that praise aside: JACK BLACK SUCKS! Oh my god, why would you cast a hack wannabe comedian in a major role for a $200 million film?????... And, he delivers the final line of the film - BADLY!
LOL
I´m not sure it´s as much Jack Black´s fault as it is the line itself. It´s a HORRIBLE last line, that is more fitting in a bad overacted theater play than in a b-movie.
And speaking of overacting, I actually thought Watts was too much. You say that Black had only 3 different facial expressions. Well, i say that Watts was nothing BUT facial expressions. When she started with that "Beau-ti-ful" shit, i felt the urge to puke...
My favorite moment in this movie was the meeting with the cannibals. Damn, they were well made and scary as hell. I wished the story could just be about the crew trying to survive the cannibals, and then to hell with King Kong.:D
Prelude95Si
01-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Overall I thought this film was great.
Cons:
1) Didn't like Jack Black, all of his lines were very Jack Blackish, something that he would say. Like when he kept saying that he would finsh the film for the people that died.
2) CGI sucked except for Kong, big surprise, I mean yeah Kong is going to look good b/c he's the focus of the film, but the dinos and the bugs looked very animated. I didn't really care for the over exagerated teeth on the T-Rex like and the Raptor like predators (I say "like" b/c I used to be into dinos hardcore when I was little so I noticed a few things about the dinos that made them not true dinos).
3) I think that the musice during the bug scene could have been better. Maybe like a crawling sound that you get from string instruments played at high notes really fast. Otherwise the score was awsome!
Pros:
1) Really liked the first part of the movie, really set the tone for teh rest of the film. I really liked how they showed the depression, and actually showed what it was like then b/c most movies set during the depression don't really show the bad side and then most people have this image that during the depression everything was bad, but as we saw in Kong, not everyone had it bad, some were rich and some were gutter poor.
2) Really felt that they made Kong a character in the film and not just the moster that everyone is routing for. Like when they were trying to capture Kong that was a preety emotional scene and it was magnifed by the girl's acting as well.
Great movie, will probably buy it on DVD.
Thorns_demon
01-16-2006, 03:56 AM
I went to see it and didn't know it was that long and we didn't get a pause so everyone was glad the movie ended, but it was worth to see it on a big screen, thou I don't think the movie was worth the title: horror it's more like a thriller or fantasy, it's one of the best movies I ever seen.
hammerfan
01-16-2006, 04:26 AM
Saw this yesterday. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Loved Kong, loved Adrien Brody, loved Naomi Watts, loved Andy Serkis. I think Peter Jackson could have made a better pick than Jack Black for that role. But then, I'm prejudiced - I've never liked Jack Black.
I liked everything about the movie - the acting, the effects, the emotions it raised (I got a little teary-eyed at the end), just everything!
Originally posted by Prelude95Si
. I didn't really care for the over exagerated teeth on the T-Rex like and the Raptor like predators (I say "like" b/c I used to be into dinos hardcore when I was little so I noticed a few things about the dinos that made them not true dinos).
Actually I read somewhere that they made the dinos different on purpose. If they had been isolated on that island for 60 million years without dying out, they might have evolved, so the designers used that as a way to take liberties with the dinos. They referred to the T-rex adaptation as a V-Rex instead.
urgeok
02-10-2006, 08:07 AM
i didnt mind Jack Black in the roll .. a desperate fast talking hustler is always a part he can do well ..
the only fault i had was the horrible delivery of that last line .. but again - i dont blame him... Jackson must have wanted it that way.
Its not like they didnt have the budget to do another take ??!!
as far as the dinos went .. they were fucking awsome ...
the dino CGI was fantastic.
the only time i saw bad CGI was the natives pole vaulting over to the ship ...
even then, who gives a fuck .. this movie was a major achievement. it was definately NOT Jackson's 'titanic' as i feared it would be.