King Kong Extended Edition

Ok, with all the respect to mr. PJ. and universal.
Why would you want to extend a 3 hour movie which, note, is twice the size of its original classic and that drags for about 1 and a half hour in the middle?
What can you add? More "Starving actress" scenes, more "jack black" trying to make it? More "ape"? I mean, there is no more room for developement in there (story or characters) infact, there is stuff to go out, not room to add.

Well, I like the extended editions mainly because of pure curiosity. I'm interested in seeing what the director truly intended before the studio executives jump in and tell the director to start chopping for time. This, also, seems to becoming a trademark for PJ as he has pulled it off very successfully with his LOTR trilogy.

However, in the case of KK, I too would have to agree that it does seem rather pointless to extend on something that needed at least 30 more minutes cut. As much as I enjoyed PJ's effort, I also felt it was a tat-bit too long. Coaster makes some very good, relevant points, and considering the substance, it makes little sense to extend the story. If there is some deeper interesting development in the plot that we are all unaware of, and it IS something that we might enjoy, then great! Bring it on! However, we all know we have a film with a damsel in distress, a giant ape for eye-candy enjoyment and the rest of the film is filled with A-holes for characters. So to extend it does seem rather pointless.

Nevertheless, I will explore in viewing the extended edition out of pure curiosity. As I said, I enjoy seeing what the artist truly intended to present. My honest feelings tell me it probably won't make any improvements, but being I did enjoy the film, I think it will be worth a look.

Tim :x

Throw a third vote in for a "slimmed down" KK instead of an extended edition. I was sorely disappointed with this one when we went to see it at an advance screening. All my criticisms have already been mentioned.

All of this to just milk a little more money out of a movie that, IIRC, underperformed...much like Superman Returns.

Jason,

But I thought you really liked Superman Returns? :o

Tim ;)

I see these Extended Editions as a great way to give true fans more time with their beloved characters and a insight in moviemaking. Questions like why do you have to cut things for the theatrical release? A process that is hard for the filmmakers. These Editions gives you an idea to why they need to cut.

However, there are a big difference in how they are made. The cases where they add like 3 minutes of footage where you have to really look to find it is not the way to go. It seems like a way for the studio to reissue the film and make people buy it twice. But when it is done right like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings it is all worth it and a great experience for the fans.

---

[Post edited by Henning on Jul 19, 2006]

"Why do you have to cut things for the theatrical release?" --the boss

Because more is not always better. Most films are cut, edited, extensively before their theatrical release, sometimes leaving out two or three times as much material as was filmed.

John

1) few people have time to spend four, five, six hours in a movie theatre. at home, you can divvy up a movie into various brief sittings.

(before anyone brings up "gone with the end", please bear in mind that that movie was exhibited when business conditions were different from today's. in the 1930s, the 1940s, and the 1950s, first-tier movie palaces would play one movie at a time for months or more than a year, and tickets were relatively expensive compared to b-movies that were shown in second- and third-tier theatres that charged less than a nickel per ticket.

plus, there was no such thing as home video in any guise.)

2) longer running times = fewer showings per day = less revenue (both in tickets sold and in concessions sales)

3) few movies justify going over the three-hour mark. i'm watching "once upon a time in america" right now, and it is horribly over-long at 224 minutes.

4) unless the director paid for a movie by himself, it's not unreasonable for a financier to make requests. after all, the director is spending someone else's money. would you let another person spend your money with no questions asked?

Tim,

You know I'm on record with how much I enjoyed Superman Returns. That does not, however, mean that the box office supports my opinion. In fact, based on the numbers I've seen, the movie has underperformed...though, in relation to last year's Batman Begins, it is keeping pace (AFAIK).

I was speaking from a strictly financial standpoint, not a critical one.

I personally think the Extended LOTR editions were better, because of more character development and scenes translated pretty directly from the books. (though I wouldn't mind shorter battle scenes in some places).

But when it comes to Kong, it's already twice as long as the original work, and I really think that even the theatrical cut is way longer than it has materials for. Sign me up for the trimmed down version;)