Jackson Defends Kong Length
Peter Jackson, director of the upcoming King Kong remake, defended the movie's length—three hours and seven minutes—and told SCI FI Wire that it could have been even longer. By contrast, the original 1933 film, which served as the template for Jackson's remake, ran only 100 minutes.
"Three hours," Jackson said with a sigh during a news conference in New York last week. "Ah, the three-hour question. Yes, ... I know. I've got a problem. I feel like I have. No, we thought that movie would be about two hours 10 minutes, two hours 15 [minutes].
That's because the filmmakers are entering uncharted waters of Big Gayness.
You've taught me well enough that I couldn't find any words either.
Huh. I just heard from a friend that a mutual friend of our who HATED the Firth/Ehle P&P due to it's unfaithfulness to the book LOVED the new film verson -- thought it captured the book perfectly.
What.
Ev.
Er.
I just heard from a friend that a mutual friend of our who HATED the Firth/Ehle P&P due to it's unfaithfulness to the book LOVED the new film verson -- thought it captured the book perfectly.
Gah-buh? I mean, I liked both the series and the movie, but.... it didn't, really.
I know!
I have to think that basically she just wasn't feeling the Firth/Ehle -- but don't get up on your high horse about the adaptation when you mean that you think it was cast incorrectly!
I FINALLY watched Bride and Prejudice last night -- that was so much fun!
So....
Kong.
Is good. A little light and fluffy, given its length, but is good. Go see it.
Kong.
Is good. A little light and fluffy, given its length, but is good. Go see it.
I saw an ad last night during one of the shows I was watching that I could only term the "TITANIC" ad for KONG. Down to the psuedo-Dion/Horner music over it. Doesn't mean I won't see it, but I was amused as hell by the blatant targeting (not sure if that's the right word for what I mean) of it.
Plus I kept picturing TITANIC with a 50 ft tall gorilla in the DeCaprio role.
