POSTED IN MEDIA...

October 26, 2005

King Kong: one expensive, long-assed movie

According to an NYT article, King Kong clocks in at over three hours and cost $207 million. If it were anyone but Peter Jackson, I'd be REALLY worried about an insanely expensive remake with such a long running time. As is, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece, if not the best set of epics to come down the pike this generation, so I'll cut our Kiwi friend a little slack. But $200 million? For a movie about a giant monkey? Yow.

3 comment(s) so far (Post your own)

1

On October 27, 2005 5:38 AM, Steven said:

I think that PJ has to realize that just because he gets a woody over King Kong doesn't mean that the rest of the world want's to spend three hours watching it. I am a Star Wars freak and I would never want to spend that long watching any Star Wars film.

2

On October 27, 2005 8:58 AM, Warren Frey said:

Except that we spent about 6.5 hours watching the prequels, which we didn't even realy like that much. :)

But I agree, and the other thing is no matter how much better the effects are, you just can't beat the 1933 original for sheer coolness. It's impossible...it's a total product of its time, like Wizard of Oz, or Star Wars for that matter.

3

On October 28, 2005 11:08 AM, Steven said:

I agree. Some originals will forever stand the test of time.

Post a Comment

Note: Your browser must have Javascript enabled to submit comments.