Mundi Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 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 Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 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 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 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 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 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 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 since when does Hollywood leave ANYTHING alone...
Oxigen_Waste Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 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 Posted September 28, 2008 Posted September 28, 2008 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 Posted September 29, 2008 Author Posted September 29, 2008 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!
Recommended Posts