King Kong 4K UHD (2005) (Ultimate Edition)

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

With all due respect to those who prefer “tighter” cuts - less is not always more.

Indeed, more films have been horrifically compromised over the years in the name of “good theatrical pacing” than I could even begin to list in a single day. I’m not saying Kong 2005 is one of those (far from it) but I do notice many of same people consistently rallying against director’s cuts, extended cuts and classic roadshows on here to the point of exhaustion. The extended version of this film is the furthest thing from horrible and no more of an endurance test than the already-lengthy version screened theatrically. Maybe it’s my love of longer epics speaking here, but it’s beyond me as to how any version of this spectacle could leave even the most casual viewer feeling bored. IMO the added narrative tissue here is of great value and I’m glad PJ saw fit to reinstate it for home release.

I think the "problem", such as it is, lies with the perception that good pacing means brisk pacing. In my view, it just means what we're seeing on screen is valuable to the experience: snappy or meaningful dialogue, fitting action sequences, whatever. While there are doubtless New York and ocean scenes which could've been shortened or cut, the movie works well for me overall.

The swamp scene was fun, and the triceratops was a nice reference to the original film. In all, it enhances the experience for me. Regardless, if I really enjoy a movie I am curious about much longer versions just as an experiment, such as the supposed four-hour version of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or the super-long cut of Titanic which we shouldn't expect to be released any time soon.

[Geoff D]

For me pacing isn't about speed, it's about redundancy and that applies just as much to a breezy 90 minute flick as it does to a lengthy "epic". I get it, people just want more more more, it's what we're conditioned to be like, but sometimes they did actually get it right the first time with whatever movie and to think of many theatrical cuts as "horrifically compromised" is hyperbollox. For me there have been few worse filmic tortures than, say, the TV cut of Superman The Movie, I don't need to have every scrap of footage shot to enhance my enjoyment of whatever film. There are some extended editions that I enjoy, sure, because they add something unique to my appreciation of the film, but all too often they take two scenes to explain what one can do and that's what I mean about redundancy.

PS

Peter Jackson told Ian Nathan that if he were to return to Kong today he'd make a shorter cut.

[Zillamon51]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Better yet, the rival team with the dinosaurs intentionally sabotages Kong's restraints in order to embarrass the Kong team, thus leading to Kong's disastrous escape and rampage, and then they have to intentionally let their dinos out in order to stop Kong!

I was thinking Team Rex would be more cruel with their animal, while Team Kong has Ann to help pacify Kong. Enraged, the T-rex would break loose, and only when Ann was threatened by it, Kong would break loose to protect her. His restraints would actually be an asset. He could block the dino's bite with his arms w/o taking damage because of his wrist cuffs, and he would have chains to choke it with.

Yes, I've thought about this for years. Long before the 2005 version, let alone Skull Island!

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

[Show spoiler]For me pacing isn't about speed, it's about redundancy and that applies just as much to a breezy 90 minute flick as it does to a lengthy "epic". I get it, people just want more more more, it's what we're conditioned to be like, but sometimes they did actually get it right the first time with whatever movie and to think of many theatrical cuts as "horrifically compromised" is hyperbollox. For me there have been few worse filmic tortures than, say, the TV cut of Superman The Movie, I don't need to have every scrap of footage shot to enhance my enjoyment of whatever film. There are some extended editions that I enjoy, sure, because they add something unique to my appreciation of the film, but all too often they take two scenes to explain what one can do and that's what I mean about redundancy.

PS

Peter Jackson told Ian Nathan that if he were to return to Kong today he'd make a shorter cut.

I'd be down for a KING KONG CODA: THE DEATH OF A GIANT APE cut!

Chris

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For me pacing isn't about speed, it's about redundancy and that applies just as much to a breezy 90 minute flick as it does to a lengthy "epic". I get it, people just want more more more, it's what we're conditioned to be like, but sometimes they did actually get it right the first time with whatever movie and to think of many theatrical cuts as "horrifically compromised" is hyperbollox. For me there have been few worse filmic tortures than, say, the TV cut of Superman The Movie, I don't need to have every scrap of footage shot to enhance my enjoyment of whatever film. There are some extended editions that I enjoy, sure, because they add something unique to my appreciation of the film, but all too often they take two scenes to explain what one can do and that's what I mean about redundancy.

PS

Peter Jackson told Ian Nathan that if he were to return to Kong today he'd make a shorter cut.

I don't think anyone here is advocating for movies in general to just be longer. In fact, it seems to me that in the last decade or so, a lot of mainstream movies have been getting unnecessarily lengthy when they really don't have the scenes needed to justify the runtimes. What I'm saying (speaking for myself) is that King Kong justifies its runtime in my opinion. And frankly, I was quite skeptical of the TV edit of Superman, and I ended up loving it despite walking into it with a biased view (or maybe it was low expectations?). But this isn't my opinion of every extended version. The 1976 King Kong's TV version is too much. It just depends on what movie we're talking about.

I'd totally be interested in a tightened edit of King Kong (2005) though! Like I said earlier, the first hour in New York and the ocean journey both probably could be sharpened and I'd be curious of the result.

[HeavyHitter]

As time goes on, I have a very hard time sitting through this movie. It hasn't aged kindly for me, but I think a shorter/edited version down to about 2 to even 2 1/4 hours would have worked so much better. For me, if a movie is three or more hours, there better be some damned good substance and lack of redundancy or anything too drawn out. It's just hard to do that with King Kong as it ain't no LOTR.

[RalphoR]

I'm also in the extended cut group. I think there's a lot to like but it is somewhat a hodgepodge of action sandwiched between slow parts. What I really wish is that Kong was more prehistoric as the rest of the island creatures and not just a big gorilla.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

As time goes on, I have a very hard time sitting through this movie. It hasn't aged kindly for me, but I think a shorter/edited version down to about 2 to even 2 1/4 hours would have worked so much better. For me, if a movie is three or more hours, there better be some damned good substance and lack of redundancy or anything too drawn out. It's just hard to do that with King Kong as it ain't no LOTR.

Even with LOTR I think the theatrical cuts are absolute bangers. The EEs add some good stuff as well as redundant bloat, like practically every extended cut ever, but crucially the good stuff outweighs the bad so I’m happy to watch the EEs spread over several nights. The pacing ends up shot to hell - which Jackson himself lamented, again to Ian Nathan for his book - but it becomes a different experience in the process. I can’t says that for Kong, it took me three nights to finish and not in a good way!

Originally Posted by RalphoR

I'm also in the extended cut group. I think there's a lot to like but it is somewhat a hodgepodge of action sandwiched between slow parts. What I really wish is that Kong was more prehistoric as the rest of the island creatures and not just a big gorilla.

Actually, that’s a *far* betterer explanation of pacing than my other bollox above: for “pacing” substitute the word “rhythm” and that’s much closer to my thinking of it. It’s not that movies cannot have different tempos within them, but Kong is indeed a hodgepodge of ultra-hectic action (indeed, action after action after action in that blasted extended cut) surrounded by talky stuff and it’s such a jarring change-up. Someone might go “aha! I’ve caught you out there, you must think Saving Private Ryan is terrible because it keeps going from talk to action!” but, well, no. That movie STARTS with an amazing action scene then settles down, you get another action beat, then it settles down, and so on - which is exactly what I mean about rhythm. SPR has a definable beat while Kong’s is an unholy mess.

Length is not the issue. It’s all about rhythm, said the bishop to the actress.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even with LOTR I think the theatrical cuts are absolute bangers. The EEs add some good stuff as well as redundant bloat, like practically every extended cut ever, but crucially the good stuff outweighs the bad so I’m happy to watch the EEs spread over several nights. The pacing ends up shot to hell - which Jackson himself lamented, again to Ian Nathan for his book - but it becomes a different experience in the process. I can’t says that for Kong, it took me three nights to finish and not in a good way!

I agree 100% about LOTR theatricals. Kong took me several nights to get through and I even drifted off to sleep one of those nights!

[KingMinger]

Watched this last month, have not seen it since it came out back in 2005. The CGI effects have aged somewhat(Looking at you Kong) but it was great to watch it again. I know this is unrelated but did anyone else play the official video game adaptation for this movie? Now that was a blast!

[motorheadache95]

I actually watch the extended King Kong the same way I watch the extended Lord of the Rings films— in 2 parts like an extended miniseries rather than a single film. The original DVD release was split across 2 discs, but unlike Lord of the Rings, the Blu-ray and UHD version is uninterrupted. I still have that break point burned into my brain though, so I’ll stop the film there and hit the second half next time. Does wonders for the pacing, for me even better than sitting through the entire shorter theatrical cut.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I actually watch the extended King Kong the same way I watch the extended Lord of the Rings films— in 2 parts like an extended miniseries rather than a single film. The original DVD release was split across 2 discs, but unlike Lord of the Rings, the Blu-ray and UHD version is uninterrupted. I still have that break point burned into my brain though, so I’ll stop the film there and hit the second half next time. Does wonders for the pacing, for me even better than sitting through the entire shorter theatrical cut.

Where was the break on the DVD set? I might try watching the extended cut that way myself.

Chris

[happydood]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I actually watch the extended King Kong the same way I watch the extended Lord of the Rings films— in 2 parts like an extended miniseries rather than a single film. The original DVD release was split across 2 discs, but unlike Lord of the Rings, the Blu-ray and UHD version is uninterrupted. I still have that break point burned into my brain though, so I’ll stop the film there and hit the second half next time. Does wonders for the pacing, for me even better than sitting through the entire shorter theatrical cut.

Between work and my kids I watch most movies this way, sadly, but I also have that intermission point burned into my brain and for the same reason.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

Where was the break on the DVD set? I might try watching the extended cut that way myself.

Chris

It’s just about at the 80 minute mark— it’s the scene with the dialog “Heart of Darkness isn’t an adventure story, is it?” And they set off into the jungle. On the DVD, there is a cut to black and some intermission music plays before the video ends and prompts you to put in disc 2. I wish they had left this intermission sequence as part of the extended cut on the Blu-ray but they sadly don’t. I like that kind of thing for these longer versions of movies and it was a nice touch on the last release of Kingdom of Heaven.

[Geoff D]

Oh, yeah, love that on KoH (one of the few extended cuts that does actually transform the movie into a masterpiece).

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For me pacing isn't about speed, it's about redundancy and that applies just as much to a breezy 90 minute flick as it does to a lengthy "epic". I get it, people just want more more more, it's what we're conditioned to be like, but sometimes they did actually get it right the first time with whatever movie and to think of many theatrical cuts as "horrifically compromised" is hyperbollox.

I’d actually argue the opposite. People of all ages are increasingly being “trained” (mainly within the abyss of social media) to digest their entertainment in small bites. Anything resembling delayed gratification increasingly represents a challenge, especially long-form theatrical outings. If the likes of Marvel and Star Wars weren’t packed to the gills with constant, obnoxious humor and overcooked dopamine-inducing action sequences they’d likely be losing money just like the majority of traditional two-hour dramas- the ones that actually receive a theatrical release of any kind, that is.

No, when I say “horrifically compromised” for the sake of good pacing what I mean is the undue cutting away of narrative tissue to overall detriment of the film. There are countless examples of this throughout the last 100+ years of filmmaking going all the way back to the silent era. From Greed (1924) all the way up to Batman vs. Superman (2016) studio heads have seen fit to either mandate or personally step in and trim away footage at their pleasure because: pacing, more showings per day, or even cold feet after a bad test screening.

Now obviously Kong 2005 wasn’t subject to that sort of situation. Quite the opposite. PJ basically had carte blanche to do whatever he pleased after the insane success of ‘Rings and clearly the version we received in theaters was his preferred cut. For theaters. Home viewing though is, of course, another matter altogether. Personally I could take or leave the the extended Kong as I don’t find the extra 13 minutes to be drastically impactful. Certainly nowhere near LOTR in terms of either enhancing character arcs or overall added narrative substance. The extra creature bits are fun though.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For me there have been few worse filmic tortures than, say, the TV cut of Superman The Movie, I don't need to have every scrap of footage shot to enhance my enjoyment of whatever film. There are some extended editions that I enjoy, sure, because they add something unique to my appreciation of the film, but all too often they take two scenes to explain what one can do and that's what I mean about redundancy.

This is such an extreme apples-to-oranges example. As we all know the TV cut of STM was assembled by the producers specifically to pad out the running time for “event” airings and subsequently maximize profit. Unlike Kong 2005 or especially ‘Rings, there was no consideration whatsoever as to whether or not the inserted material actually added substance to the overall narrative. For the most part it quite literally was just “more more more” as you put it, and I 100% agree that it’s both a total slog and by far the weakest cut. Ironically though it also sports the best looking transfer of the film on home video to date.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

PS

Peter Jackson told Ian Nathan that if he were to return to Kong today he'd make a shorter cut.

That’s fine. Even if he chooses to trim it it down one day I’ll still have the original version(s) on beautiful physical media. Torch mode HDR grade and all

[Geoff D]

Yeah but I mentioned STM as someone mentioned a three hour cut of x and a four hour cut of y, it all gets lumped in together: there’s narrative tissue, then there’s fifty pounds of blubber that needs siphoning off, and to lots of folks - if not people at large then movie fanatics who are sad enough (ahem) to haunt forums like these, though the wider public with their apparently diminishing attention spans think nothing of binge-watching an entire series in one go - it’s all the same thing: more is more, and there’s no appreciation for the art of editing. There’s no law saying that people have to appreciate it, but I’m not one of those persons who thinks a film to be “butchered” (I hate that term with a PeterTHX-style zeal) just because it’s been shorn of a few minutes. BTW I actually enjoyed the theatrical of BvS, no joke

And to go back to the attention span thing, we’re in a golden age of television right now so something somewhere doesn’t add up. Yes, the movie-going experience in itself has largely been reduced to the infantile crash-bang-wallop of blockbuster mayhem but that’s where cinema is at during this cycle. It’s always a reaction to what people are viewing elsewhere; when TV first took hold they had to go big and wide to entice them back, and I dare say the same thing is happening now: only on the big screen can you see what $300M worth of CG looks like! When people tire of it - and they will - then cinema will have to think of something else. We’ve already gone back to squarer screens being the special sauce - again, reactions - so smell-o-vision is our last hope!

[motorheadache95]

I’m still dubious about the whole “modern movies suck!” thing. I get being sick of Marvel Studios, and there is something to be said about the state of theaters right now versus home viewing habits. But… I think it’s all nostalgic tricks, where you just remember the classics and forget everything else. Watch old Siskel and Ebert episodes on YouTube: there was a TON of garbage movies coming out constantly. I grew up in the 90s and I’d say the late 90s disaster/Roland Emmerich era was a way worse period for movies, where something like Lost in Space with Joey from Friends was the big summer movie coming out.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I’m still dubious about the whole “modern movies suck!” thing. I get being sick of Marvel Studios, and there is something to be said about the state of theaters right now versus home viewing habits. But… I think it’s all nostalgic tricks, where you just remember the classics and forget everything else. Watch old Siskel and Ebert episodes on YouTube: there was a TON of garbage movies coming out constantly. I grew up in the 90s and I’d say the late 90s disaster/Roland Emmerich era was a way worse period for movies, where something like Lost in Space with Joey from Friends was the big summer movie coming out.

You just reminded me of when I went to see LOST IN SPACE theatrically opening weekend with a good friend, and after the movie ended, he turned to me and said in the most deadpan and sincere way you can imagine, "Akiva Goldsman must die." I concurred.

Chris

[raptors661]

I prefer the extended cut. I think the special effects hold up really well, with the exception of the stampede scene. That had to have been rushed to meet a deadline or something. If they ever were to do a 4k remaster, I wouldn't mind if they finished that scene or something.