Jackson's King Kong Running 3 Hours!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:42am

The original was 90 minutes. Three hours of King Kong? Are you freaking kidding me?
King Kong Super-Sized

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:43am

According to imdb today, it's running at OVER 3 hours. Even the first remake was "only" 134 minutes.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:45am

Ugh lord. How can King Kong be 3 +++ hours?

[mominator]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:47am

The original did have a few scenes cut after the First few screenings audience got too scared. It was when the men were on the log and Kong rolled them off. They fell in to a spiders lair and the rest I will leave to your imagination. Sounds like Mr. Jackson has put that back in. (EWWWW I so hate spiders)

Updated On: 10/28/05 at 10:47 AM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:48am

Who knows? I am sort of intrigued at how the hype has completely died off and Jackson fired the composer with just weeks to go until its premiere.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 10:49am

It cost 207 million to make. Wow.

And I can't imagine sitting through a 3 hour movie starring Jack Black.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:06am

well, won't see that then.....way too long

[MyDreamsRecurring]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:27am

oh, peter jackson :)
definitely still seeing it though, just because of the wonder he brought to my life through lord of the rings

and i'm also an avid andy serkis fan.

[RobbO]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:31am

christ. get that man an editor!!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 11:36am

It's not like King Kong has a million plot points that woule elicit at 3+ hour running time.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 12:16pm

Well, if it's a fantastic 3 hours, I won't mind in the least!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:02pm

I was just about to post something about this. I'm a huge admirer of Peter Jackson (besides his RINGS masterpieces, his earlier work is wonderful -- DEAD/ALIVE is a riot), but even I'm a little worried about this extravagant running time. When the project was announced, Jackson said it would be two hours long. KING KONG has a simple storyline, so there's very little to justify 180 minutes, especially if we're all waiting for the famous climax. I just hope the pacing will be good, and not boggled down by over-elaborate fight sequences and unnecessary exposition. It also came as a shock to me that he fired composer Howard Shore so late in the game, considering Shore had been working on the score for months. I just hope Jackson's boyish excitement over this project doesn't cloud his judgment.

Then again, I've never seen a Peter Jackson film I didn't love, so I'm waiting for KING KONG with anticipation!

Updated On: 10/28/05 at 01:02 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:05pm

And, I'm sure there were people who dreaded Titanic's run time. And though I'm sure there are plenty of people who hated Titanic or just its run time, we all know what legacy that film ended up with. And, I would have been happy if Titanic had been even longer!

Perhaps, Jackson has created a glorious epic out of what we thought was a simple story. And, if it sucks--well, there ya go!

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:10pm

The original King Kong is already a glorious epic.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:11pm

Well, if he cuts the scenes depicting Kong's life when he was just a Prince he might be able to get it down to a reasonable running time. There is a very long scene between the teen Kong and his parents where he tells them he doesn't want to be King. I think it adds to Kong's character, but we really don't need it because he obviously DOES become King.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:11pm

My main worry is that the film won't be financially or critically successful, which would devestate Peter Jackson (and, as a fan, I worry about his personal well-being!). It's such an important project for him, a work of real love, that it'd be a real pity if it didn't do well.

It's been a weak year for film, and the 3-hour running time is going to scare a lot of people off (case in point: Elphaba). I think the movie was already a risk (do people really want to see a movie about an oversized gorilla?), and this just makes it harder for the film to recoup, much less turn a profit. I think the film is banking on Jackson's name only.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:16pm

A Peter Jackson film about King Kong? Unless it ends up being a Godzilla, it will be a HUGE hit--especially overseas.

Sueleen--I wonder if Kong will scream out, "I'm the King of the world!!"

And, John Popa--you are right. I didn't mean to eclipse the original. And, because I saw the Lange/Bridges version as a kid--I LOVE that one, too!

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:23pm

My biggest concern -- and don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the movie -- is I hate that Kong's just a digitized actual gorilla now. I don't want a National Geographic giant gorilla, I want a MOVIE MONSTER. I hate how suddenly we have technology to make our wildest imaginings come true and all its doing is making filmmakers do everything LITERALLY, just because it can be 'more realistic.'

Give me a Harryhausen or Geiger designed ape any day of the week and remind me that movie MAGIC is about being creative and original, not being the most 'realistic.'

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:27pm

I hope it's not another Hulk. That was the worst special effect I have ever seen.

I understand that a giant monkey or a giant green man would never exist in the real world, but if it takes you completely out of the movie...something is wrong.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:32pm

THAT was a disappointing turn on Ang Lee's part. It wasn't even the special effects for me, it was the storytelling. So why does his father turn into a huge tornado again? Or how is it even plausible to have the Hulk bounce around the south-west like a ping pong ball?

I'm happy with the new look of Kong (what we've seen of him, anyway). He can't be too over-the-top weird. Believe me, Skull Island looks fantastical enough.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:34pm

See I loved the acting in Hulk, and thought the screenplay was fine. But Hulk's look just took me out of the movie every time he appeared.

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:36pm

"do people really want to see a movie about an oversized gorilla?"

As we're talking about one of the most recognizable and famous icons in American pop culture, I'd say yes.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:39pm

Remember...alot of people were saying the same thing before LOTR came out. It was by no means certain that people were going to sit through more than three hours of that either. Let alone come back for two sequels. My bet is that he can pull it off...but we'll see.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:43pm

But LOTR is impossible to do in 90 minutes. King Kong could easily be a short movie.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/28/05 at 1:51pm

"do people really want to see a movie about an oversized gorilla?"
As we're talking about one of the most recognizable and famous icons in American pop culture, I'd say yes.

Sorry, what I meant was: do people want to see a three-hour remake of a story they already know?

I'm hoping yes, but I'm a bit worried.