The Kong is dead...

at least on opening day.

Peter Jackson's "King Kong" (2005) opened to $9.8 mil. I remember hordes of Jackson acolytes lamenting the fact that, after "LOTR 3", there wouldn't be any more December Jackson movies. Well, Jackson gave his fans their wish, but only a handful of people opened their present.

Before anyone tells me that box-office gross shouldn't matter and that only the quality of a movie counts, let me remind you that people have to see these kinds of mega-budget movies for them to be greenlighted in the first place.

All I'm hearing from people is "I had no idea it opened yesterday!"

I'll bet Kong still blows out the roof over the 5-day weekend.

I agree with Chris.

I'm interested in seeing how much of a tear-jerker this film will be.

There's no way people didn't know that the movie opened already. The trailers have been everywhere, the marketing has been everywhere, and the reviews--the vast majority of them positive--were everywhere on opening day. The 1933 and 1976 versions were released on DVD a few weeks ago.

Something odd happened. I'm not a fan of Peter Jackson, but I expected $15-$20 mil (and that was a low guestimate!).

eh, Eddie, the weekend is not over yet. I don't feel the film had an overwheling advetizemnt for being released early but the big weekend my prove you wrong; so let's just see what happens.

Tim,

I didn't make any predictions about the weekend. I merely commented that the first day gross fell short of expectations. Look around the Internet--EVERYONE is wondering what happened.

Eddie

The "LOTR" movies were also released on non-holiday Wednesdays.

The movie cost $207 million, with prints and advertising costs running between $40 and $80 million.

$200 million domestic would be disappointing (ala "Godzilla" (1998 )).

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Dec 17, 2005]

"It is only after 70mins we see Mr Gaint Kong"

Isn't that how it is in the original as well, maybe not 70 minutes, but it's not Kong smashing stuff as soon as the movie begins.

It's a non-holiday Wednesday opening. Don't be beating your chest just yet. This weekend will be huge, and this will make a lot of money in the next couple of weeks. The week between Christmas and New Year's is one of the most popular vacation weeks of the year. Kong will have a long theatrical run, ending up will $200 domestic box office.

You also have to remember big action movies are the biggest things in foreign markets. Kong will be a monster hit all over the world.

Depression -

I used my point about first 70mins to indicate that the journey leading up unveiling Mr. Kong might not be worth after all. This can be due to irrelevant stuff, erratic acting etc. I am not looking for King Kong to smash things around.

Eddie -

Right on! Then I guess that this movie should make over $300 million to be profitable. I guess I don't see that happening:)

--Ranjan

Fellas -

Remember this is a 3 hour long movie to watch the hairy dude kick some ass!!! Lot of people freaked out thinking that the only thing they will see is a 1000lbs hairy hero. Wall Street Jornal ran has a contrarian view on the this movie (in today's paper). It is only after 70mins we see Mr Gaint Kong. The movie could have been shortened by 30 mins. Alas Mr Jackson thinks that by providing 3 hour of special effects feast, he is satisfying the hungry fans of King Kong. Maybe miniseries on King Kong would have been a fitting tribute.

--Ranjan(You might wonder why Jackson sticks to 180mins LOTR, KK):)

For some reason, I thought that initially Kong was supposed to open today, December 16th until just a couple of weeks ago when I saw the ads touting the December 14th release date. Did this change from the 16th to the 14th at some point, or am I just losing my marbles?

Sean (...oooh! cat's eye! found one!...)

By the way: Has anyone seen this yet? Any thoughts and feelings from your personal viewing experience?

Chris,

I didn't think that the "LOTR" movies were any more personal than any well-made mega-budget pictures. If anything, the "LOTR" movies were more impersonal than Jackson's previous works.

"Industry man"? Ha!

Eddie

Personally, I have nothing against long movies per se. I loved the extended versions of all three "LOTR" films, just as I have enjoyed "GWTW" and "Lawrence of Arabia." But I did find "Kong" overly long (and "Brokeback Mountain," too, for that matter). And just a little over an hour and half with "The Family Stone" was enough to set my teeth on edge. So I think you have to look at these things film by film.

John

Eddie's an industry man. He can't stand the fact that Jackson is the first director to bring a personal voice into blockbuster filmmaking in the past two decades. He wants more Uwe Bolls.

LOL @ the festering Toldjasos in this thread.

Ranjan,

Universal wanted something that was about 2 hours long. Instead, Peter Jackson showed the execs a three-hour movie and talked the execs into releasing something that long.

The vast majority of movies are longer than they need to be. While I enjoy long epics or mini-series that deserve their lengths, sometimes, even 2-hour movies are too damn long!!!

Eddie

Eddie -

This movie was doomed from the word go. Mr. Jackson makes everything as a 3 hour snooze fest. I just don't believe that Universal actually approved 3+ hours for this movie. Jackson is better off creating a mini-series on King Kong. Maybe starting from birth of King Kong to the end when he is old (alternative ending!!):).

--Ranjan

"King Kong" (2005) grossed about $66 million in five days. That's weak compared to "Narnia 1", with a $65 million three-day opening.

Not even Naomi Watts's legs can save this one now.

A friend of mine came up with a maxim:

No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.


I don't really agree with the first part of that, but I darned sure agree with the second!

In the Chinese language, Feng does mean Doomsayer.

Tim :D

Titanic had a 18 million dollar opening weekend. Not saying Kong will have those kind of legs, but I'm just saying... Eddie's doomsaying predictions may be a little premature.

Hey, I called it like I saw it.

I don't know, Eddie. You're the industry man. I'm just the artsy-fartsy type.

Tim,

You didn't answer my question. ;)

Eddie

Eddie,

If 50.1 million dollars falls onto a forest, does anyone hear it? :D

Tim ;)

Chris,

Did "King Kong" gross less than industry hopes and expectations?

Eddie

I thought Feng meant "He who talks loud, saying nothing."

Oh wait, that's Gary Farmer's character from "Dead Man." Still, close enough.

Roger, you're such a wuss :@

A rumor has been going around saying that Peter Jackson's King Kong will be released on a 2-disk DVD in April 2006. I just can't wait to own this film on DVD. It was one of the the best films I've seen this year and one of my top 10 favourite films of all-time. The first movie to make me cry since the age of 13.[:.(]

As Dr. Evil would say, "You gonna' squirt some? You gonna' squirt a little?"

The following is from - EXTERNAL LINK -

King Kong ranks as the fourth highest-grossing first weekend on record for a December release, behind the last two Lord of the Rings movies and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

On top of the domestic haul, King Kong raked in $83 million from 8,123 playdates in 55 foreign markets, which Universal said was the ninth biggest overseas launch on record. That brings the five-day worldwide tally to $149.2 million. "What we're seeing internationally is what we're seeing domestically," said Schmuger. "We went from a $15.5 million Friday to a $24.5 million Saturday. The movie's momentum is building."

December is less about opening weekends than it is capitalizing on each day of Christmas vacation.

dead? doomed?
...not dead yet!
I say its future rests on word of mouth now.

:p

Wednesday estimates from - EXTERNAL LINK -
1. The Chronicles of Narnia - $4,940,386
2. King Kong - $4,870,320

24 Dec 2005 Estimates:

1) "Narnia 1", $4,840,000
2) "King Kong", $4,815,000

Friday 12/23 estimates:
Kong .... $8,025,000. . :p
Narnia .. $7,990,000

So, Kong isn't really doing that bad eh?

Nevertheless, I have to agree with John's review of the film. While it is spectacular to look at, it is still not the grand illusion that most critics have made it out to be. I had fun with it but at the same time there were parts that almost put me to sleep. However, it is a visual treat but the whole substance and meat of it was lacking and had more work to satisfy the senses. I too would have rated a 7/10 for this film, but that's not saying it was bad by any means. It is a remarkably good film, just not the masterpiece that many are saying.

Tim ;)

Eddie,

Don't be a hater. I don't rag on your boy Spielberg, do I?

Ranjan,

Well, if a re-make offers a very different take on the same material as the original, then it might be worth watching for its own merits. From what I've heard, the sights in the 2005 version of "King Kong" mostly mimic the sights in the original version, and the amount of action becomes repetitive and monotonous. That may be why even fans of Peter Jackson are complaining about the three-hour length.

Eddie

Eddie -

Other thing to look at the figures is - how many remakes have grossed incredible amount of $$. I don't even remember any good remakes. Maybe there is one.

--Ranjan.

"King Kong" dipped 58% in its second weekend, and "Narnia 1" dipped 36% in its third weekend. True, "Narnia 1" dipped 51.4% in its second weekend, but its third weekend numbers were basically identital to the numbers for "King Kong" in its second weekend.

Where are all those Peter Jackson fans who wanted a December Peter Jackson movie?

Every hubristic move (like Peter Jackson's "King Kong") that splats on arrival deserves to be given a thrashing. (y)

It was pathetic from the very first post. :D

This is getting pathetic.

If the normal flow of flim doesn't drag, then who cares. Each LOTR film could have been 5 hours, and no one would have minded. Kong dragged. And I got the feeling PJ was feeling very self important while making it, almost feeling as though he had to justify the $20 million paycheck

Tim,

I guess you weren't reading what I was reading, then. People and "experts" were stating that "King Kong" would outgross "Titanic" and that it would win lots of Oscars. Now, we're looking at a movie that was seriously over-rated by the critics and does not justify its length. "Brokeback Mountain" won awards prior to its U.S. opening, "Memoirs of a Geisha" was simply over-sold by its studio without anyone really buying the hype, and "Munich" was directed by Spielberg. What did "King Kong" have other than a big budget and a long running time? A whole lot of gas...

Eddie

And just what movie is not overhyped; especially any Oscar contenders or what any given studio thinks will be the next blockbuster? Every add I see on television for just about any film out this winter is taged with "One of the Best Films of the Year" or some other type of phony "must see" tag line. Half of them are quoted from critics I've never even heard of. In my opinion, King Kong has not had anymore hype than Cronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Munich, Brokeback Mountain, etc..

Tim :@ ..!..

One of the reasons why I put off on watching KONG on its first and second week was because of its hype. Felt like their marketing team is trying to brainwash me or bash into my brain that King Kong is THE film to see. Which is exactly the thing that made me not want to see. Should've used a little reverse psychology there.

But anyway, now that I've seen it, the film wasn't that big of a deal. Naomi Watts was so beautiful, but some parts are just too corny for my taste. Not gonna get the DVD either.

Tuesday, 27 Dec 2005:
1) "Narnia 1", $9,224,127
2) "King Kong", $7,919,225 --Eddie

Oh-oh, $9 mil for "Narnia" and $7 mil for "Kong." In my reviews, I rated "Narnia" a 9 and "Kong" a 7. Is this some kind of Puccio curse or what?

John

Ranjan,

Prior to their openings, "Narnia 1" was not a sure bet. On the other hand, "King Kong" was proclaimed the new box-office champ before it even opened(!).

I love it when hype implodes so dramatically. (y)

Eddie

Is there some kind of competition going with the box office numbers? We have Spielberg who created 2 awful duds - WoW and Terminal. Lucas on the other hand creates duds but still makes money. Personally, I don't care if KK makes money or not. I never expected anything from this remake.

--Ranjan:)

its opening day was certainly a splat. everyone heard it, and those who didn't didn't even know that the movie opened!!! :D

Tuesday, 27 Dec 2005:
1) "Narnia 1", $9,224,127
2) "King Kong", $7,919,225

Q-->>>"Where are all those Peter Jackson fans who wanted a December Peter Jackson movie?"<<<
A--Waiting for "The Hobbit" (and the 23:59hr Silmarillion);)

>>>"Every hubristic move (like Peter Jackson's "King Kong") that splats on arrival deserves to be given a thrashing. (y)"<<<
Splats? Maybe not the best grossing movie of all time, ...but......"splats"?

$60 million over budget AND 40 minutes over budget.
Yes, actors were going on TV before opening day saying how big the movie is!
The older I get, the more marketing/advertising I see in **everything**.
(If you don't believe me, just see the article on my web site);)
12/26
KK $12,015,360
CN $11,914,333
>>>Just wait. Wait till the film reveals its worth<<<
What if everyone did that? No one would see it!:x
Peter Jackson only deliverd half of the last rings movie on time and delivered
the rest of the reels a bit at a time. So they doubled-up copy production on
the first half, while the others were being completed.

OK, so it's all Lucas' fault.

Chris,

Bollocks--even you acknowledge the fact that "Jaws" is one of the all-time greats. Plus, Spielberg never worked with a budget that exceeded $150 million. With the exception of "Jaws", Spielberg has always been on budget and ahead of schedule. On the other hand, Peter Jackson was almost late in delivering "King Kong", and he went at least $60 million over budget.

Eddie

"Kong" had a great director and the same team that had produced one of the most successful franchises in movie history. And it was better than 95% of the films that get this kind of hype so I don't see what the problem is. Sure, the amount of time and energy expended talking about "Kong" is ridiculous and I'd say that even if I thought it was the best film of the year. That's why we all have to fight the system. Down with Hollywood. Death to the capitalist pigs!

And remember, Eddie. This is all Spielberg's fault.

Ranjan,

Why would Spielberg lie about his budgets? He's very cost-conscious, in part because he's been a producer for so long and in part because he ran a studio for a little more than a decade. For example, he squeezed costs on "Amistad" until he could shoot a historical drama for $40 million, which is difficult considering that you have to spend a lot of money to get the details right.

Also, I've never claimed that Spielberg is perfect. I gave a basically negative review of "The Terminal", and I thought that "War of the Worlds" had one of the worst second halves of any movie ever. I've never been able to watch "Hook" from beginning to end, and I don't even want to watch "Always".

Every movie is defined by their logistics, their budgets, and their scope (how much material is being tackled). This is especially visible with mega-budget movies like "King Kong", "Titanic", "Pearl Harbor", etc. You can't divorce a movie from how it was made; after all, without $207 million, without a three-hour running time, without everything that's in it, Peter Jackson's "King Kong" wouldn't be the same thing it is today.

Eddie

P.S. "War of the Worlds" cost an estimated $132 million.

" I'm interested in monetary facts related to "King Kong", not the movie's artistic merits (which are good/bad in the eyes of the beholder). " -- Eddie

What is the point of this thread if you are only interested in monetary aspect of KK. One can read articles at hollywood.com or movies.yahoo.com to see the daily earnings for KK. I believe PJ is a very talented director. And numbers don't justify his talent. KK could have never been profitable alone in the US. The movie was made for over $300M. There are still chances that KK might recover its costs from overseas. That given, Mr. Spielberg has also created his fare share of duds. Look at his last movie WOW which garned $230M at box office but it was profitable because of overseas earnings. Terminal was another disaster for Steven. But talent does not stop if you create duds. PJ has a long way to go & he is certainly headed in the right direction.

Numbers not define a particular director. Hence it is stupid to compare Spielberg vs. PJ. I don't agree with Eddie's statement that Spielberg never worked with a budget over 150M. I think WoW exceeded $150M in budget. Spielberg for last few years has created more dramas then actual special effects movie - Terminal, CMIYC, Minich. However, movies like JP, AI, MR were made few years ago, and if we re-evaluate the budget now, it will exceed $150M.

--Ranjan

Chris,

That is depressing, and the world does suck. However, what's the alternative? State-funded movies in communist countries are subject to censorship (makes sense since the government was paying for it). State-subsidized movies in socialist Europe are not seen by their home audiences (i.e. Europeans want to watch the same garbage that Americans do).

Eddie

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Jan 1, 2006]

"Notice how I started this thread to observe how "King Kong" is doing at the box office. I haven't seen the movie, and I won't see the movie. I'm interested in monetary facts related to "King Kong", not the movie's artistic merits (which are good/bad in the eyes of the beholder)."

Hah. I really don't care what you think about the movie (I don't think I'm gonna watch it either) but saying that you're merely interested in the "monetary facts" related to King Kong is quite the lie. Anyone who can read between the lines can tell from this thread what you really think of the movie (and Peter Jackson), despite your not having seen it.

Yes, just like the "LOTR" movies were "indies".

<<"War of the Worlds" cost an estimated $132 million.>>

Move over Robert Rodriguez, Mr. Spielberg is the true low-budget, indie auteur...

<>

Geez, you go to China for a few months and now you're a rabid capitalist.

By the way, Fantastic Four made $330 mill worldwide. I know this is a random observation but it is just profoundly depressing. Everyone associated with that movie is getting a pat on the back and is guaranteed work for some time to come. The world sucks.

Ranjan: I haven't said anything regarding the "LOTR" movies. I've been talking about "King Kong".

Chris: Oh, please, you know the real issue is whether or not a movie can turn a profit. This goes for even people like Jim Jarmusch and Werner Herzog.

Eddie

"Always" was a cute movie. I thought it was good. If you look at it in terms of "it's a Steven Spielberg film" then its awful, but otherwise... its so so.

Eddie -

The point is not that Steven sticks to under $150M. However, I have read link on imdb that the budget for WOW was about $182M. But I will rely on your information as you are the industry man and I am artsy-wartsy type;). Having said this, one should still give credit to PJ for sticking under $300M for all the 3 LOTR movies. Don't jump to conclusions just because KK is not able to rake enough dough at the box office.

--Ranjan

Well, each of them was made for less than "War of the Worlds." Ha, take that, Fenghis!

My answer: Forced sterilization for anyone who goes to see a Michael Bay movie on opening weekend. That should make the next generation of movie-goers much fitter.

I blame GLOBAL WARMING! [shakes fist menacingly at sky] Or something like that...

it looks like "narnia 1", in its fourth weekend, will beat "king kong", which is in its third weekend. "king kong" will plateau around the $250 million mark. (y)

>>>one should still give credit to PJ for sticking under $300M for all the 3 LOTR movies.<<<
...well um...that's because it was so much cheaper to make movies in New Zealand AND because much of the work was done all at once saving more money.
They were "really" $200M each. They were also less risky because of the built-in fan base. I am guessing there is a bigger Narnia fan base than KK too.

Actually, mra, the LotR films were a huge gamble - a make or break deal for New Line who put the entire future of the studio on the line with a director who had absolutely no previous record of box office success. Other studios had passes on the project (most notably Miramax who would obviously have had to get funding through Disney). New Line also had to scramble to set up distribution deals in various global market since they didn't have any of the infrastructure of the multinationals. LotR only seems like a "sure thing" in hind sight.

mra "less risky"

....luss tisky
....luser thisky
....suser thinsky
....surs thingy

CL "sure thing"

Is that how you did it?:D;)

mra,

Actually, Chris is right on this count. Because the "LOTR" books were a "geek" thing, that actually made the movies riskier than similar projects. Remember, for every "Star Wars" you get ten things like "Wing Commander".

Eddie

Chin,

Or, perhaps, the man rarely responded to. I seem to be able to clear out a topic pretty quickly!

Sean (...'course, Tombstone makes some pretty good pizza...)

Sean, your tombstone will read "the man with the last word"

Eddie,

What are you trying to say about Wing Commander? Such a bastion of cinematic genius should be lauded, not defamed!

Sean (...I don't even know what that last sentence means...)

I had some of their pizza, and as long as you don't burn the bottem they're pretty good.

ranjan: i didn't resurrect this thread--sean did. :)

sean: "ryan's daughter" is worth seeing to witness how a great director can use the exact same methods that he used on his great movies and make a bad movie.

Eddie -
"Not too long ago, John and I were talking on the phone about the good old days when movies were as long as they needed to be--no more and sometimes less ". Nice point. In the good old days you can watch movies at home on a 17 inch TV or goto a theater, now people are not satisfied with a 65 inch TV. People want more:). To some extent same goes for movies. The length of movies is increasing without realising if it is good or bad.

You have made enough points why KK tanked at the box office. Can you we please move on?:)

--Ranjan

Eddie,

No, I've not yet seen Ryan's Daughter, so I couldn't speak to that one in my last post.

It's like John said in his review, if I may paraphrase: Epic does not necessarily have to mean long.

Scale and length are two very differnt things. For me epic refers to the universal and encompassing tale told. Sometimes long is just long.

I don't want to begrudge long films, because there are many out there that are entralling from start to finish. A couple that I just happen to have watched again lately are Heat and Das Boot. Both teriffic 3+ hour films that get you from the word go, but the reason they are good is the depth of the characters and the inclusion of the viewer in the experience. Without that, they would just be lots of useless celluloid.

While Kong is far from useless, it was much less effective than I ever expected it to be. Let's hope Jackson picks it up his next time out of the gate!

So, Ryan's Daughter, is it even worth seeing for the contrast of Lean's work?

Sean (...move over bacon, now there's something LEANer!...) :D

Sean,

Have you seen "Ryan's Daughter"? You'll see what I mean when I referred to David Lean. The guy made a couple of three-hour movies, and he thought that EVERY one of his movies should be three-hours long. Sound like anyone we know today? :)

Eddie

Eddie,

My concern is that Jackson is going down the wrong road too early in his career. That he's starting to lose sight of the intended audience which constitutes more than an audience of just himself. I think this is where Lucas has ended up.

Perhaps the disappointing (though not meager) box office take of Kong will refocus him, something Kevin Smith did following Mallrats. I know Smith seems to have lost his way yet again, but perhaps Jackson can dodge that pothole in the road.

I would say the main difference between someone like Lean and Jackson in this particular instance of King Kong, is that Lean drew me in and I was completely enthralled by the epics he created. I certainly consider "Brige on the River Kwai," and "Lawrence of Arabia," are superlative films that caught me from the outset. However, many times during Kong, I felt like an observer not a participant. I simply was not invested in the film.

It's as though Jackson simply made the Kong film he wanted to make, not necessarily a film he should make. The studio requested 2 hours, he gave the 3 hour ride he wanted.

Film is just so different from other mediums of art. While subjective in nature due to its audience, it's still a very personal medium. The artist has to try to say what he or she wants to say while still keeping the intended audience in mind. That's simply maddening. Such a fine line to walk, but I guess that's the price of living out your dream.

Sean (...my dream is a Empire State-sized banana split... that would be cool...)

Sean,

Not too long ago, John and I were talking on the phone about the good old days when movies were as long as they needed to be--no more and sometimes less (which is good because you want the audience to want more). Comedies used to be between 70 and 90 minutes, and dramas used to be between 90 and 120 minutes. Now, we have comedies that are more than two hours long ("The 40-Year-Old Virgin"), and every dramatic effort wants to be an "epic" (150-minutes-plus).

To be fair, successful directors have always ended up making movies that were too damn long. David Lean is an obvious offender. "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia" were great. "Ryan's Daughter" was horrendously overdrawn.

The problem with movies like "Ryan's Daughter" and Peter Jackson's "King Kong" is that the material doesn't deserve the three-hour treatment. It doesn't help that the protagonist in "King Kong" is not capable of expressing the range of intellect and emotions that a human being can. Yes, I've heard about how expressive Kong's face is, but the character, in and of itself, is limited by evolution.

Eddie

John,

Finally saw this last Friday, and the very word you use in your review was the same I had when I exited the theater: Bloated.

A good movie to be sure, but one that could have cut 20 minutes in the jungle, and a good 10-15 minutes in the city. Too many peripheral characterizations were put forth that ended up being frivolous as their plotlines were never explored. Of course, exploring those plotlines would have added another hour or so, so maybe it's good they weren't!

It's as if Jackson doesn't remember how to make a 2 hour movie anymore. Heck, I think I coulda hung in there for 2 1/2, but when I look to some of his better-paced earlier films, I wonder if he's slipping into the Lucas phase where he's so enamored with the process, he can't see that the end product doesn't fully hold up.

I would like to see it again to see if I'm more fogiving of its flaws now that I know what they are, but that will more than likely occur once it hits DVD.

Not the experience I was hoping for, but certainly above some other recent outings.

Sean (...but one of those outings was to the local police precinct, so...) ;)

>>> It's as though Jackson simply made the Kong film he wanted to make, not necessarily a film he should make. <<<
PJ did say he makes the films the way he wants to see them.
Then again, trying to guess what "they" want to see can backfire too.

mra,

Specifically, I used the studio's initial request for a 2 hour cut simply as an example of the contrast two parties can have in wanting the best for the project. I wasn't trying to intimate that the studio was right and Jackson was wrong. More than likely the studio's want of a 2 hour cut was money motivated, but it's still up to the director to tell an engaging story, especially at 3 hours.

Jackson made the film the way he wanted to see it: Great. Only problem is that he is not the only audience. When it comes to releasing a major motion picture, a director's vision has to encompass not only his personal desires, but those of a general audience's. Can anyone actaully bat a thousand? Likely, no, but screenwriting and filmmaking is bigger than any one person's vision, and if you go with yours while rejecting alternatives, then get ready for the criticism. Even the best filmmakers who make nary a misstep feel the critical hammer quite often.

I personally feel that Jackson was so close to the film that he couldn't see the forest for the trees. He didn't acknowledge bloated scenes, needlessly extended shots, etc. While I don't think Jackson should have made the Kong other people wanted, I don't think he was necessarily the right person to bring this update to the screen in the first place due to his proximity to the material. It's not his filmmaking prowess I question, it's his involvement with this specific project.

Who could have done it? I don't know. Perhaps no one. I think Jackson is a good filmmaker, but at some point you have to objectively look at your own work and excise the fat. The saying is, "Kill your babies," meaning be ready to get rid of even your favorite parts of a film for the sake of the whole. From what I could tell, Jackson kept them all, and is now expecting grandkids.

Sean (...now if only his nieces and nephews could get in on it...)

On the whole length issue and the director liking all the material he shot:

The Kill Bill movies annoyed me the same way. Thank God for David Carradine.