Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "King Kong" will be three-hours.

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » "King Kong" will be three-hours. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: "King Kong" will be three-hours.

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 10-30-2005 01:45 AM

Perhaps Snakes on a Plane will go for this lengthy run time towards the same effect...

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 10-30-2005 01:39 AM

What I meant by the comparison is this: Cimino made "The Deer Hunter" which was a long, unusual, and brilliant film, and a great success. Desperate to get a new big production by a certified genius, he was given completely free hand by United Artists in the production of "Heaven's Gate", and the production went completely out of the rudder (or do you say "off the rudder"?) resulting in a very long, very expensive, and very unsuccessful movie.
The comparison is not very good, I agree, but some of the stuff in the quoted article just reminded me massively of what I read in Steven Bach's book "Final Cut" which chronicles the Ciminogate.
"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."
Wishful thinking on an epic scale with a very strong smell of desperateness about it.

I have to admit though that I am obviously biased because I didn't like "The Lord of the Rings" at all. I applaud the enormous determination and energy Jackson had to put together this vast project, but I think the movies failed completely in bringing the richness of the original story across. I think the scripts were just bad copy and paste jobs, and the visuals had nothing very imaginative about them, it was just a lot of standard kitsch blown up to a very large scale.
But because there is so much in that story, so many characters and events which in themselves are interesting, the movies still ended up having enough in them to interest a lot of people.
But the King Kong thing doesn't have much potential, and I just can not see Jackson making it any more interesting.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 10-30-2005 06:30 AM

If it's going to work, it'll have to have a decent script. The original film was a masterpiece because (i) it satirised the exploration documentary genre that Cooper & Schoedsack pioneered in the '20s (indeed, the two of them were parodying themselves), (ii) it was an ironic response to the depression (i.e. we may be in the midst of an economic crisis with 'nice girls' in the world's most advanced city forced into prostitution, but at least we don't wear grass skirts and worship a gorilla), and (iii) the special effects were new and spectacular. The 1976 version worked because it satirised the '70s oil crisis ('This'll beat the shit out of 'We'll put a tiger in your tank'!') and updated the symbolism quite cleverly, for example with the final shoot out featuring the World Trade Center.

Jackson's version is going to have to have some topical ideas worked into the script if his reinvention of the story is going to work. Just relying on CGI won't be enough: the 'wow' factor that sold Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 has had a decade to wear off, and it'll no longer sell a film by itself. We've all been there and seen that now. Given Jackson's hilarious sideswipe at the film archive community in Forgotten Silver, he might just be able to pull this one off.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-30-2005 06:36 AM

Has anyone noticed that Peter Jackson is an extremely large individual who does not believe in personal hygiene?

| IP: Logged

Andy Summers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 10-30-2005 07:41 AM

Yeah I’ve heard those rumours too, the set must be Pen & Ink, hate to image setting in at the Kodak Theatre at the Oscars with lots of people, and the one that stands out the most is Peter “Pen & Ink” Jackson man “King Pong”

| IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-30-2005 09:47 AM

Really Joe? Last time I checked he was quite skinny.

| IP: Logged

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-30-2005 10:21 AM

I have to agree with Dustin: "But three hours? What in the King Kong story warrants three hours of film time? If Jackson pulls it off I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong but honestly three hours is way to long for this type of film."

This is the type of movie that's supposed to be a "popcorn" movie. Its suppose to be short and cheesy, bad on purpose... I mean, who will see a cheesy 3 hour movie twice?

Instead, it seems like it will be a serious love story between a woman and her ape.

C'mon Jackson, you can't just always use the same formula for every film and think that your [bs]

won't/doesn't stink.

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 10-30-2005 01:16 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Has anyone noticed that Peter Jackson is an extremely large individual who does not believe in personal hygiene?

Mike is right. Jackson has lost a great deal of weight. I didn't recognize him in those taped testimonials for George Lucas in that AFI tribute.

Don't know if his hygiene is any better. His hair still seemed like a rat's nest.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Jonsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 216
From: Bromolla, Sweden
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 10-30-2005 03:14 PM

I doubt people are interested in an over-sized ape these days.
Maybe the name Peter Jackson will do the trick, but I´m not sure.

With King Kong 3 hours, Narnia 2 hours 20 minutes and Harry
Potter 2 hours 37 minutes there will not be much room left for
other films this Christmas. They better work.

With such long films, no wonder attendance are declining. They
each are long enough for two normal films.

Thomas

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 10-30-2005 06:12 PM

quote: Michael Schaffer
he was given completely free hand by United Artists in the production of "Heaven's Gate", and the production went completely out of the rudder

...as has been pointed out a few times in this thread, the same can be said of James Cameron with Titanic. Also Coppola's Apocalypse Now has similar elements in it's production. Cimino had only directed two films before Heaven's Gate, whereas Coppola & Cameron had directed many. Jackson seems to fit the Coppola/Cameron model more than the Cimino model ... if Kong is a huge failure, I believe he will come out better than Cimino came out from Heaven's Gate. BUT ... of course, we'll all just have to wait a few months & see.

As far as the running time is concerned, I'm surprised this is still up for debate (well, among studio people, I understand ... I mean that's their job, but I mean it's surprising to me that it gets press like this). When Titanic, over three hours, broke all sorts of box office records, all three LOTR films were over 3 hours, they all did big numbers, sure you can say those films warranted a longer running time ... but how about those that said that kids movies can't go over 2 hours, yet the first couple Harry Potter films did massive business too, both well over 2½ hours. Sure it makes programming showtimes a bit more tricky, but come on ... isn't this what the theatre industry has been asking for all year? A film with a lot of buzz and broad appeal.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-30-2005 06:30 PM

quote: Thomas Jonsson
With such long films, no wonder attendance are declining. They each are long enough for two normal films.

I think the audience decline may have more to do with an over-abundance of crap quality to mediocre quality films. Do we really need anymore TV series turned movie type shows? "The Dukes of Hazzard" or "Miami Vice"? Do we really need anymore sequels of movies that probably weren't good enough on their own to be made?

For the past few weeks box office business has really been slow. This is the kind of lull I'm used to seeing in traditionally slow periods (January, April, late August). Normally October has some good, significant releases. Right now the only movies I want to see are in limited release in large cities.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-30-2005 06:31 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Do we really need anymore TV series turned movie type shows?

Yes. I can't wait for Sanford and Son starring Morgan Freeman and Jamie Fox!

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 10-30-2005 09:45 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
For the past few weeks box office business has really been slow. This is the kind of lull I'm used to seeing in traditionally slow periods (January, April, late August). Normally October has some good, significant releases. Right now the only movies I want to see are in limited release in large cities.

The last couple of Octobers have had some box office hits (Shark Tale and The Grudge last year, Texas Chainsaw the year before, and a few others), but for the most part October traditionally sucks ass. This weekends Saw 2 opening (30 mil) is the fifth largest October opening ever.

Slow periods are traditionally January, April, and late August through the end of October.

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-30-2005 11:01 PM

quote: Thomas Jonsson
With such long films, no wonder attendance are declining. They
each are long enough for two normal films.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think the audience decline may have more to do with an over-abundance of crap quality to mediocre quality films.

Why no one has made this comparison yet I am not sure. In fact I am unsure why I missed it until now.

The reason that attendance is down, is because gas prices are high. When prices in gas spikes, theater attendance goes down. When the prices start to drop, attendance goes up.

We have had prices going up for 18 months, and during that time attendance has been going down. Now prices are going down, and a movie like SAW II gets 30 mil.

Now all we need is someone to do the research on gas prices vs. theater attendance for the last 20 years and see how right I am.

Ciao

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-31-2005 12:27 AM

Didn't "Star Wars" hit theaters during some of the Arab oil embargoes? The late 1970's wasn't exactly a great time for gas prices. And that's when the so-called "summer movie" model was born.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.