The Movie News Thread!

[Mundi]

King Kong isn´t a film, it´s a chore classified under the same as cleaning your room.

You know what´s going to happen and even though you pretend it´s fun, it´s not.

[Girly hiyaz!~ Gamer]

so they are making a prequel to "I Am Legend"....

 

i don't know what to think of it really. i think im interested, i loved the 2008 version.

[Dan_Dare]

i predict gubbins. the worst bits of the original were the action scenes, so a film presumably made on the grounds of having an action packed virus break out will, eh, suck.

[david.dakota]

whereas King Kong, a worse film, was the definition of indulgence on the part of the director given far too much leeway by his studio.

 

But you gave The Lord of the Rings (incorrectly, i feel) as an example of poor editing. You never mentioned King Kong at all. I'm saying 'proper editing', as you put it, is not exclusive to short films.

 

Here's some examples of longer films which i believe have outstanding editing- Schindler's List, Ben Hurr, Dances With Wolves, Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Magnolia. To name a few.

[Tellyn]

so they are making a prequel to "I Am Legend"....

 

i don't know what to think of it really. i think im interested, i loved the 2008 version.

 

A prequel? I thought it was enjoyable, can't they just leave it at that?

[Girly hiyaz!~ Gamer]

since when does Hollywood leave ANYTHING alone...

[Oxigen_Waste]

whereas King Kong, a worse film, was the definition of indulgence on the part of the director given far too much leeway by his studio.

 

What exactly was wrong with it? It was the perfect remake. It updated the original into today's generation perfectly. Wasn't better. Wasn't worse. It was just what it set out to be. A remake.

 

Ben Hurr

 

Didn't know there was a cavemen prequel.

[Hellfire]

But you gave The Lord of the Rings (incorrectly, i feel) as an example of poor editing. You never mentioned King Kong at all. I'm saying 'proper editing', as you put it, is not exclusive to short films.

 

lol what?

 

Totally agree with O_W (Ben Hurrrrr), King Kong is a perfect remake, very good acting, everything's well done, it's loyal to the original, etc... I mean, let's face it, everyone knows whats going to happen and it's a movie about a big ape with a girl on his hand. It's impossible to get blown away by that now.

The scale of the movie and the efficiency with which they conveied feelings made the movie great too watch though. Not to mention the fx and whatnot

[david.dakota]

Ben Hurr

 

Comedy typo seems to give much joy.

 

Anyway, for the record, my opinion of King Kong is that, yes, Jackson was riding high on Rings success, Hollywood loved him, and yes, he had nothing to hold himself back. Perhaps it was a little self-indulgent, but in all honesty it does exactly what it says on the tin, its a flawed but an enjoyable popcorn poor. Ultimately i've nothing against it.

 

Dan Dare made the argument that long films are poorly edited, and thats plain wrong. Complain a film is too long by all means, but you can't argue that its poorly edited just because a running time is longer than your attention span.

[Dan_Dare]

You've all misunderstood me. I don't mean the technical editing is poor, just that the studio's have lacked restraint in sticking to a decent running time because they're trying to emulate the success of the LOTR trilogy. I mean, 3 hour Harry Potter Films, the ridiculous excesses of The Matrix sequels etc can all be attributed to this.

 

and King Kong is way too long. half of the action scenes should have stayed on the cutting room floor and the first hour should be half that. I mean, I enjoyed it but it's pretty overblown stuff.

[fex]

Pan's Labyrinth is on Sunday, C4 @ 9pm. Amazing film, if you haven't seen it tune in!

 

If you have seen it..... watch it again!

[david.dakota]

just that the studio's have lacked restraint in sticking to a decent running time

 

My understanding is that only only the director and editor have a say in the final cut. Exceptions exist (like Bond, where the producers have the final cut, incidently thats something established by Cubby Broccoli), but they're few and far between.

 

Honesty, i don't think there are many directors who would deliberately make a film long just for the sake of it- its the content that drives it.

I'd agree that there are films that are unnecessarily long, but there are long films which simply couldn't be cut any further.

[Dan_Dare]

I read an article in this week's Guardian film supplement that had a good section on the editing process, and basically defended the role of producers who know more about proper film craft than most directors ever will. The perception that any one individual has complete control over the process at any given point is, largely, a misconception.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Well, King Kong is a funny one. I've only seen it the once, which was only a matter of weeks ago, and I watched it together with my brother.

 

It's a long film, and not everybody has the patience to sit down for long periods of time to watch just one film. Not everybody has enough time, either. It was very long, and they did seem to spend forever on the Island. If I recall, about 2/3's of the film was spent on the Island, and about a third (if that) was spent in New York.

 

Now, that's fine, but given the running time, it was probably too long. Also given that the majority of the time on the Island was used as action scenes and set-pieces. These were not short either, and many of them didn't seem that integral to the film, but merely as a "Hey, look at what Cgi can do!"

 

For me, I think I probably enjoyed the last quarter of the film more than the rest. The final scenes with King Kong were great, and the ending was pretty decent, too. But, the question is, would you watch it again? Ask the millions of Movie Buffs out there whether they watched any of the Lord of the Rings films more times than King Kong, and you'll find the answer. I enjoyed King Kong, but have no desire to see it again anytime soon. But, I've seen The Two Towers barely a week ago, and want to watch it again.

[Coolness Bears]

I'm probably one of the few but I loved every minute of King Kong. I didn't feel it was too long and my attention span is short. The problem is I do have too much time on my hands. :p

 

I just liked the Epic fell of the whole movie!

 

Everyone I talk to though fall into the catergory of I watched it once and it was great but waaaaaay too long for me to bother watching it again!

 

Lord of the Ring s are my favourite movies and I could watch them endlessly and the same with King Kong infact the week it was on ITV 1 I'd only watched it 3 days before hand! and I could easily watch it again today! ^_____^

 

The final Part of King Kong is what makes it. magical.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I'm probably one of the few but I loved every minute of King Kong. I didn't feel it was too long and my attention span is short. The problem is I do have too much time on my hands. :p

 

I just liked the Epic fell of the whole movie!

 

Everyone I talk to though fall into the catergory of I watched it once and it was great but waaaaaay too long for me to bother watching it again!

 

Lord of the Ring s are my favourite movies and I could watch them endlessly and the same with King Kong infact the week it was on ITV 1 I'd only watched it 3 days before hand! and I could easily watch it again today! ^_____^

 

The final Part of King Kong is what makes it. magical.

 

It's not really just the length, mind. With something like The Fellowship of the Ring, there were new characters being introduced, new locations, and the pace of the film was just a hell of a lot better. King Kong, I dunno, I think they spent a bit too long on the Island. Or getting to the Island. The set pieces with the T-Rex('s) were awesome, but I think it is quite easy to just grow tired of the Island.

[Coolness Bears]

It's not really just the length, mind. With something like The Fellowship of the Ring, there were new characters being introduced, new locations, and the pace of the film was just a hell of a lot better. King Kong, I dunno, I think they spent a bit too long on the Island. Or getting to the Island. The set pieces with the T-Rex('s) were awesome, but I think it is quite easy to just grow tired of the Island.

 

I agree, that is true and that's why Lord of the Rings is vastly better!

 

Also, Lord of the Rings needed to be 3 hours long to tell the whole story otherwise it would have been awful! and I can see how you grow tired epecially ion the island as there are times when you aren't even watching real actors on screen and just watching a load of CGI (which is very cool) do its thing.

 

King Kong didn't need to be 3 hours long but I throw my hat at Peter Jackson's face (or whatever the phrase is... :p) For being able to do so, it's no mean task to add an extra 1 and a half onto the original film!

 

I'm really in the mood to watch Lord of the Rings now! : peace:

[Fierce_LiNk]

I agree, that is true and that's why Lord of the Rings is vastly better!

 

Also, Lord of the Rings needed to be 3 hours long to tell the whole story otherwise it would have been awful! and I can see how you grow tired epecially ion the island as there are times when you aren't even watching real actors on screen and just watching a load of CGI (which is very cool) do its thing.

 

King Kong didn't need to be 3 hours long but I throw my hat at Peter Jackson's face (or whatever the phrase is... :p) For being able to do so, it's no mean task to add an extra 1 and a half onto the original film!

 

I'm really in the mood to watch Lord of the Rings now! : peace:

 

Ahh, that's true. With Lotr he was basically cutting it down to reach 3 hours, and he did a pretty good job at that. With the content from the books, it could well have reached over double that!

 

With King Kong, I guess it was the opposite. He fleshed it out more. I think it could've been a lot shorter, and maybe even better paced had it done that, although the finished product is still pretty good.

[Coolness Bears]

Ahh, that's true. With Lotr he was basically cutting it down to reach 3 hours, and he did a pretty good job at that. With the content from the books, it could well have reached over double that!

 

With King Kong, I guess it was the opposite. He fleshed it out more. I think it could've been a lot shorter, and maybe even better paced had it done that, although the finished product is still pretty good.

 

Yes! I feel what he chose to leave out were good choices as I didn't miss much in the film. even though I'd love to have Tom Bombadil in it I can see why he wasn't essential.

 

Though only thing which I still think is missing (and I say this too much) is the scouring of the Shire which I was waiting for in Return of the King but it never came...

 

Still it doesn't detract from the film at all really, when I think about it.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Yes! I feel what he chose to leave out were good choices as I didn't miss much in the film. even though I'd love to have Tom Bombadil in it I can see why he wasn't essential.

 

Though only thing which I still think is missing (and I say this too much) is the scouring of the Shire which I was waiting for in Return of the King but it never came...

 

Still it doesn't detract from the film at all really, when I think about it.

 

Yeah, as far as editing goes, he did pick and choose the best bits from each of the books to go in each of the films.

 

Looking back on it, I don't think there's anything I would have wished was not there. Also, The Return of the King was a pretty long movie anyway, and adding those scenes would really have killed it, unless they were added in the extended version. The ending was so sweetly done. I was in floods of tears when I was at the cinema, and still cry when watching it on Doovde.

[Coolness Bears]

Yeah, as far as editing goes, he did pick and choose the best bits from each of the books to go in each of the films.

 

Looking back on it, I don't think there's anything I would have wished was not there. Also, The Return of the King was a pretty long movie anyway, and adding those scenes would really have killed it, unless they were added in the extended version. The ending was so sweetly done. I was in floods of tears when I was at the cinema, and still cry when watching it on Doovde.

 

I have yet to see the extended DVDs!

 

Also at the time when I was 13 and watching the ending of return of the king, I was like "sentimentality in my Lord of the Rings LAAAAME!" as I didn't like any of that stuff. Just action.

 

but having matured and watched it many MANY times since then! :p I've become more (or less of) a man and the last scenes bring tears to my eyes!

[Dan_Dare]

Well, King Kong is a funny one. I've only seen it the once, which was only a matter of weeks ago, and I watched it together with my brother.

 

It's a long film, and not everybody has the patience to sit down for long periods of time to watch just one film. Not everybody has enough time, either. It was very long, and they did seem to spend forever on the Island. If I recall, about 2/3's of the film was spent on the Island, and about a third (if that) was spent in New York.

 

Now, that's fine, but given the running time, it was probably too long. Also given that the majority of the time on the Island was used as action scenes and set-pieces. These were not short either, and many of them didn't seem that integral to the film, but merely as a "Hey, look at what Cgi can do!"

 

For me, I think I probably enjoyed the last quarter of the film more than the rest. The final scenes with King Kong were great, and the ending was pretty decent, too. But, the question is, would you watch it again? Ask the millions of Movie Buffs out there whether they watched any of the Lord of the Rings films more times than King Kong, and you'll find the answer. I enjoyed King Kong, but have no desire to see it again anytime soon. But, I've seen The Two Towers barely a week ago, and want to watch it again.

 

 

see that's what I think. Scenes like the T-Rex fight and the bug cave go on for soooooo long, and could have but half the length they were, and more effective for it.

 

gotta love the bit where he snaps the thing's face in half though, and bites it's tongue out. that was awesome.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I have yet to see the extended DVDs!

 

Also at the time when I was 13 and watching the ending of return of the king, I was like "sentimentality in my Lord of the Rings LAAAAME!" as I didn't like any of that stuff. Just action.

 

but having matured and watched it many MANY times since then! :p I've become more (or less of) a man and the last scenes bring tears to my eyes!

 

You'll probably be forgiven for enjoying the action set pieces more than the sentimentality, as battles like the Fight for Helms Deep were really, really fucking awesome. It felt like a battle, and it didn't feel at all like a CGI-fest. Really superbly done.

 

Especially in an age where story probably comes second to action, I think Lotr managed to strike the balance really, really well. And to keep with the pace and content of the books, it really is a superb piece of work. I don't think anything could have been done any better.

 

see that's what I think. Scenes like the T-Rex fight and the bug cave go on for soooooo long, and could have but half the length they were, and more effective for it.

 

gotta love the bit where he snaps the thing's face in half though, and bites it's tongue out. that was awesome.

 

I'd agree with that. There are moments that are really well done, but I have no doubt in my mind that they could have been a lot shorter.

 

I did like that bit, too. Haha. I remember me and my brother chuckled at that.

[Cube]

It felt like a battle, and it didn't feel at all like a CGI-fest. Really superbly done.

 

That's one of the reasons as to why I haven't watched the films recently. I'm worried that the CGI will now be very noticeable.

[Retro_Link]

That's one of the reasons as to why I haven't watched the films recently. I'm worried that the CGI will now be very noticeable.

I think the CGI is quite noticable at times now in LOTR; but it doesn't really do anything to detract from the awesomeness.

 

The benefit LOTR has is that it's set in a completely fantasy world. So even if to us a few CGI things look a little ropey, you can't argue, because you don't have a reference to what things should actually look like in that world!