King Kong Extended Edition officially announced.

Kevin Roegele said:
Longer?! :eek:

Don't get me wrong, I love the movie and own the DVD, but I believe you could make it better by cutting 45 minutes.

Yeah, I know there's lots of people that would have liked this to be shorter.
I actually loved everything about it and cannot wait to see a longer version :(
 
Gammy v.2 said:
Yeah, I know there's lots of people that would have liked this to be shorter.
I actually loved everything about it and cannot wait to see a longer version :(

I'll certainly see the new version and am intrgued to see what it comprises of.
 
Leto Atrides said:
Everybody loved this movie when it came out and it was huge :confused:.

And seriously, how is Jackson a money-grubber or anything? Tons of movies have special editions. I've seen many DVD sets with less than that for more money.

But the point is, most special editions and director's cuts expand movies that didn't have enough time to tell their stories originally, or were hampered by censors or studio interference. Take the director's cut of Daredevil, or Terry Gilliam's Brazil, or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

With King Kong, Jackson was given free reign to do exactly as he wanted the first time round. The movie has been criticised for not even having enough storyline for 3 hours, let alone a longer version. So it's hard to believe there's anything worthy than Jackson removed from the film.
 
AWESOME
I've been waiting for this!!!! :)
I always felt there were a few scenes that could have been expanded on. =) Love this film. Really is a masterpiece in the old school classic style of film-making he's best known for.

I realize some of the short-attention spanned americans may hate it...but I thought it was FANTASTIC. :)
 
Personally can't wait. This was one of my favorite films. And my favorite Peter Jackson films, yeah- I liked this way better than the LOTR films.

Right now, just hoping they announce it will have been commentaries. Which knowing PJ and extended editions, it probably will. :up:
 
Spidey-Bat said:
Worldwide: $549,216,896
- Budget: $207,000,000
- Marketing: $???,???,???
= > $342,216,896.

The marketing was definately heavy, so in the end, it made about the same amount of money as its budget give or take. That's horrible considering this was supposed to be one of the biggest grossing movies of all time.

It makes it much lower than expectations, hence a disappointment, but they still made plenty off of it overall.
 
Stormyprecious said:
It makes it much lower than expectations, hence a disappointment, but they still made plenty off of it overall.

It's still a flop in the sense that it failed to meet expectations.
 
Spidey-Bat said:
It's still a flop in the sense that it failed to meet expectations.

That's a difference between a disappointment and a flop.

A flop just plain fails, a disappointment succeeds, just not as much as it was anticipated to.
 
I'd say Kong was closer to a flop than a disappointment.
 
this was a movie that's one major critisism was being too long... why would you want to make it longer? that is like putting more explanation scenes in the matrix reloaded... if anything, add the 'action' scenes (raft, more t-rex stuff, etc.) that were supposedly cut, and cut most of the first hour and the boat "characterization" stuff... and i use that term "characterization" loosely.
 
Yeah...I really think I'd enjoy KK more if it was a 2-hour action movie rather than the 3-hour epic it was.
 
CConn said:
Yeah...I really think I'd enjoy KK more if it was a 2-hour action movie rather than the 3 and a half hour "epic" it was.

hope you don't mind, i fixed your post for you.

;)
 
no, sorry. Kong was crap.

the only good thing about it was the special effects, which weren't even that good in most parts.
 
No, sorry Kong was great.

The relationship between Kong and Ann was more powerful than the action/effects were, which were phenominal in every part other than the CGI to human integration during the bronto stampede.
 
Stormyprecious said:
No, sorry Kong was great.

The relationship between Kong and Ann was more powerful than the action/effects were, which were phenominal in every part other than the CGI to human integration during the bronto stampede.

well, that's subjective... and i thought that part of the movie (what should have been the biggest part, in my opinion) was more like a girl and her pet monkey... and poorly treated. i think the only reason people thought it was so "well done" is because they knew it was supposed to be.

and nearly every special effect with an actual human interacting with a cgi creature in this movie was poorly done.
 
That's all subjective. Other that one scene I found the interaction nigh perfect.

As for a girl and her pet, you have a very warped sense of perception if that's what you saw (you might as well watch Jason and Freddy's fight and interpret it as an act of friendship); and I wasn't so moved by it because I 'knew I was supposed to be' I found the attempted love story in the original film as well as the '77 film laughably uneven.

I know women that have pets, the look in Ann's eyes when she's with him isn't even close to that of a girl with her pet.
When the atmosphere goes from a very loud rampage and suddenly goes quiet into a beautiful musical cue when Kong finds her as everything else but them disappears so that they can have this one moment in time where it's nothing but them...
When Kong tries to touch her one last time as the planes blast him in the back and she rests her head on his finger while he slides off hanging onto him for every last second that she can while she pours her heart out(with nothing to act to but a blank green screen, a fake ape hand, and a guy in a suit)...
I could go on and on, I've never been more moved by a relationship between two characters before.
 
Stormyprecious said:
No, sorry Kong was great.

The relationship between Kong and Ann was more powerful than the action/effects were, which were phenominal in every part other than the CGI to human integration during the bronto stampede.

No, sorry. That's subjective.


I personally felt the movie had too many parts that weren't needed or were drawn out. The whole thing with them in the park was unnecessary (we already got it they had a connection when they were on the cliff). IMO, Jurassic Park had better CGI than King Kong.
 
Spidey-Bat said:
No, sorry. That's subjective.

Yes, it is. I never said it wasn't.

I personally felt the movie had too many parts that weren't needed or were drawn out. The whole thing with them in the park was unnecessary (we already got it they had a connection when they were on the cliff). IMO, Jurassic Park had better CGI than King Kong.

I thought there were a few, not nearly as many as the films detractors make it out to be though.

I didn't even think JP did the T-Rex's better, and they weren't the primary effect in Kong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"