King Kong (2005)

Started by SpyCspider26 pages

http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsh-m/kingkong1933.htm

Turner’s version does not, however, contain two more scenes that were supposedly filmed, but which were cut out before the film’s original release. According to the story, Denham and Driscoll’s search party was to have been attacked by a Triceratops, or maybe several such animals, during their pursuit of Kong. Later, during the scene in which Kong kills most of his human pursuers by dumping them into the ravine, there is a reaction shot of Driscoll recoiling in horror at something he sees at the bottom of the chasm. What Driscoll is reportedly looking at is a herd of giant spiders and man-sized lizard things devouring the bodies of his fallen comrades; the creature that later climbs up the vine to get at Driscoll is supposed to be one of these beasts. Both of these scenes, it is said, were judged to be too graphically violent to be shown in theaters, and they were removed. The spider scene certainly was shot and edited out-- Stephen Jones’ The Essential Monster Movie Guide features a still from it, and Forrest J. Ackerman reports that it was included in prints of King Kong that were exported to the Philippines during the movie’s initial release. (Of course, since Ackerman is also the original source for the erroneous story of an alternate ending to King Kong vs. Godzilla in which the reptile wins, we should probably take anything he says about the Asian editions of old monster movies with a grain of salt.) Perhaps the Triceratops scene is legit, too. But in any case, it’s been a long time since any sign has been seen of this footage. As I said, it does not appear in Turner’s restored version, nor does it appear in an even more comprehensive restoration that made the rounds of American theaters in 1990. Periodically, rumors of foreign prints containing the missing scenes will surface, but if you can’t detect the smell of bullshit wafting from them, you need to go see your allergist. If you want my opinion, I think the 1990 restoration is the most complete version of this landmark film that we’ll ever see.

Originally posted by Talking_Owl
I think the idea's of purists are flawed, IMO. You can't come in to anything hoping it will be exactly like the origional, because no matter what, you will be disapointed.

"King Kong" didn't need to be improved upon. It was a landmark in filmmaking that someone decided to make their own, and added nothing to other than a bunch of time wasting filler to expand on their penchant for epic films.

Originally posted by Mando
They didn't make it 3 hours just because. They made it like that so it would make sense. If they cut out the beginning we would have no idea why in the world they were on that island or who carl denham was and what his purpose was. If any part of the movie was cut up the rest wouldn't make sense. That is the glory of editing.

They could have sped the beginning up. How many people walked out of the movie theatre half way thru the movie where you were?? And why did they do it? Because the movie was so boring and slow in the beginning. We could have gotten the purpose of everything in 30 mins.

But like I said ....to each is own.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
They're V-Rexes,not T-Rexes. 😄

fine , whatever

i thought it was really good and the beginning was good, the bit i thought was way too drawn out was the scene witht he dinosaurs, i mean that went on FOREVER n it really didnt need to, then the stuff actually back in the sates was llike all squashed in at the end.

overall v good tho

Originally posted by Prince Nauj
fine , whatever

I was just joking around,lighten up a bit.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
I was just joking around,lighten up a bit.

I am to buddy 😉

King Kong Lives was on TV yesterday,I watched it,it was okay.

I saw this movie the day after Christmas and I thought it was great. Some parts of the first half seemed to drag on for a while, but it was worth it. Graphics, acting, story, and action were all great. Peter Jackson did an excellent job!

I heard that Kong bit one of the V-Rexes tongues out.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
I heard that Kong bit one of the V-Rexes tongues out.

Sure did. It was pretty wicked. 👆

My sister said she saw the movie yesterday and she thought it was pretty good.

Are you inferring you haven't seen the movie yet?

Originally posted by Mando
Sure did. It was pretty wicked. 👆

That was pretty cool ✅

I really could have done without the scene with all the bugs. I was about to throw up, and I'm the kid who does all the zoology dissections without gloves on. Ug!

Otherwsie, it was ok, but far too long. Jack Black was cast perfectly.

I thought the beginning was great, but it went downhill once they got on the boat. I found the natives to be cheesy, and although the dinosaur scenes were cool at first, they got way too repetitive.
I didn't like how Jack Black's character was turned into sort of the villain of the movie, and the ending was way too dragged out.

Originally posted by SpyCspider

Turner’s version does not, however, contain two more scenes that were supposedly filmed, but which were cut out before the film’s original release. According to the story, Denham and Driscoll’s search party was to have been attacked by a Triceratops, or maybe several such animals, during their pursuit of Kong. Later, during the scene in which Kong kills most of his human pursuers by dumping them into the ravine, there is a reaction shot of Driscoll recoiling in horror at something he sees at the bottom of the chasm. What Driscoll is reportedly looking at is a herd of giant spiders and man-sized lizard things devouring the bodies of his fallen comrades; the creature that later climbs up the vine to get at Driscoll is supposed to be one of these beasts. Both of these scenes, it is said, were judged to be too graphically violent to be shown in theaters, and they were removed. The spider scene certainly was shot and edited out-- Stephen Jones’ The Essential Monster Movie Guide features a still from it, and Forrest J. Ackerman reports that it was included in prints of King Kong that were exported to the Philippines during the movie’s initial release. (Of course, since Ackerman is also the original source for the erroneous story of an alternate ending to King Kong vs. Godzilla in which the reptile wins, we should probably take anything he says about the Asian editions of old monster movies with a grain of salt.) Perhaps the Triceratops scene is legit, too. But in any case, it’s been a long time since any sign has been seen of this footage. As I said, it does not appear in Turner’s restored version, nor does it appear in an even more comprehensive restoration that made the rounds of American theaters in 1990. Periodically, rumors of foreign prints containing the missing scenes will surface, but if you can’t detect the smell of bullshit wafting from them, you need to go see your allergist. If you want my opinion, I think the 1990 restoration is the most complete version of this landmark film that we’ll ever see.

You know your stuff SpyC, if anyone wants to learn all about the missing scenes, get the original King Kong DVD with 2 discs or the box set with the 2 discs. The 2nd disc is filled with great extras. A great bio on Cooper, commentary by Harryhausen, and best of all, Peter Jackson and his LOTR special effects crew actually FILM THE ORIGINAL CANYON SCENE. Or at least as best as they came based on the stills on Ackerman and other notes left over from the original. They made a Kong model with 1933 hair (from a 1933 fur coat) just like the one Obie used. I highly recommend this 2 disc King Kong for any old Kong lovers!

Originally posted by ToMacco
Okay, how many times have they made King Kong?

No one cares anymore, Jackson. Do something else.

for real i mean if they make another kk Im gon be mad come on they can do something better than remaking the same movie 2000 times don't they have a life it was good and all but make up your own idea

Originally posted by NewJERU
They could have sped the beginning up. How many people walked out of the movie theatre half way thru the movie where you were?? And why did they do it? Because the movie was so boring and slow in the beginning. We could have gotten the purpose of everything in 30 mins.

But like I said ....to each is own.

I agree the movie did not have to be that long 30 min whould have help out I didn't leave the movie thearter until like around 2 in the mornin and got there at 9 or 10 o'clock the begining was verry boring

oh my goodness I really liked this movie it was fantasic ✅