Badmovies.org Forum

The '05 King Kong is a great movie, it's just too damn long.  I got the DVD today so ...

Gonna rip it to my computer and edit out that 90 minutes or so of unnecessary footage. :)

(I'm not going to sell it to anyone or make it available for download, so please don't sue me if you work for Peter Jackson.  This is just for my own amusement.)

What movies would you like to take the axe to in order to improve them?

Ninja Death 1, 2 and 3.  I've got a plan to edit them down into arounda 2 hour movie, combined otherwise it runs 4.5 hours or so.  Lots of dead weight, but it could be great.

I didn't think King Kong was long at all.
It moves at such a fast pace that I didn't realize that I was already an hour into it while watching it.
King would have sucked if it had been shorter.

You want a really long movie that feels like a really long movie?

The Last Emperor (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093389/)

ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't think King Kong was long at all.
> It moves at such a fast pace that I didn't realize
> that I was already an hour into it while watching
> it.
> King would have sucked if it had been shorter.
>
> You want a really long movie that feels like a
> really long movie?
>
> The Last Emperor

What I'll cut out is mainly in the voyage to Skull Island.  We didn't need to see it in the '33 version, we don't need to see it now.

I will agree with you that The Last Emperor feels even longer than it really is.  And it isn't short.

Gigli...it was about 90 minutes too long.

Titanic...I was forced to watch this bloated crap years ago and recall wishing that I had the balls to pull my eyeballs out so I didn't have to endure it anymore.

I will catch hell for this I am sure but...all LOTR movies...I just can't stay awake for them...they bore me.

odinn7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I will catch hell for this I am sure but...all
> LOTR movies...I just can't stay awake for
> them...they bore me.

I gotta agree with odinn on the LOTR bit.
I want to get into them...I really do.
But they do bore the s**t outta me!

So ok, a few great scenes are in each.
It's all the in between crap (any scene with Frodo & Sam) that puts me to sleep.

odinn7 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I will catch hell for this I am sure but...all
> LOTR movies...I just can't stay awake for
> them...they bore me.
>


I'm with you on that.  Although I'm a bit fond of the LOTR films, it's all I can do to stay awake while watching one.



Akira,

As for ripping King Kong, be ready for some bad sector protecion on that disc.  I recommend using "AnyDVD" if you aren't already.  :)

You guys aren't in LOTR or you could easily sit through them. There are actually whole subplots left out of them.  Not a single bit of them is boring, you guys aren't into it or something like that.


As far as King Kong, the trip was necessary for the story Jackson was telling. I do believe there were about 20 minutes on the island that could've been whacked without affecting anything.

trek_geezer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys aren't in LOTR or you could easily sit
> through them. There are actually whole subplots
> left out of them.  Not a single bit of them is
> boring, you guys aren't into it or something like
> that.

Something like that.  I tried to read TFoTR a long time ago ... couldn't get into it.  The movies just felt too rushed while also being too long.  They skipped over all that silly plot and just gave us action scenes, most of which were people running around shaking swords and going "Ahhhhhhhh!"

> As far as King Kong, the trip was necessary for
> the story Jackson was telling. I do believe there
> were about 20 minutes on the island that could've
> been whacked without affecting anything.

The story he was telling isn't necessarily the story I wanted to see. ;)  Or, rather, it is but it's buried under a lot of other stuff and I need to dig it out.

Concerning King Kong,
I could've cared less for any of the ship's crew except the captain.
(he was cool AND he saved their asses!)

Jackson spent time too much time focusing on the kleptomaniac kid that Hayes found in the cargo hold and their relationship.
I disliked both characters and felt that the screen time devoted to them were a waste.

"Moonwalker".

I think the opening segement, "Man in the MIrror", wasn't really necessary. I mean, it didn't have a story or MIchael doing anything cool, it was just him in a concert, singing. And that is not exactly one of his best songs.

I would also cut out the wole introduction in the "Smooth Criminal" segement, and just open it with Michael running from Mr. Big's henchmen.

Five hideous words:  "The Trial of Billy Jack."

Deanzille, aka "Godzilla" (1998) is also padded all to heck.  I could have done without the "Jurassic Park" raptor scene ripoff with the baby Godzillas.  

Oh, and "Jungle Hell" could have cut out one or two scenes where Sabu beat up Kumar without losing anything.  I would not cut any elephant footage out of that one though, it really makes the film.

Man, your review of "Jungle Hell" made me p**s my pants with laughter.


"I know what he's poiinting at: STOCK ELEPHANT FOOTAGE!"

David Lynch's DUNE comes to mind.  Of course, I probably would have hated that movie even if it had been cut down to 88 minutes.

Ang Lee's HULK would be better (but still disappointing) if they chopped about 15 - 20 minutes out of it.

 

On another note, what about films that sorely lack some parts, despite being a full length film?  Or even a shorter film that could have done with a bit of extra time?  Or maybe you were just really enjoying the film, and was so into it that you were dissappointed it ended so quickly, despite having, say a two hour running time [Scarface, I'm looking at you here...]  

From what I've heard, Daredevil is [marginally] better in the extended director's cut version of the film.

First thing that comes to mind is the Anime short film 'Blood: the Last Vampire.'  I bought it on a whim, and sat down to watch it only to have the movie end 45 minutes into it [I didn't pay attention to the running time.]  It basically ended the film right when I was starting to get into it, and I felt there was a whole half missing from the movie.  The half that was there though was pretty good.

Also I agree on the [new] King Kong call, though I'm not complaining by any means [I just enjoyed it, even though the Skull Island plot went on for quite a while too long.]

The first time I watched the TERRIBLE movie THE AVENGERS starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman, it seemed as though there were scenes missing.  Sure enough, I saw the screenplay in a book store and I read a few sections of it.  There were scenes in the screenplay that did not end up in the final cut of the film, and some of them were important parts of the story!  In particular, the entire opening scene in the screenplay is missing from the movie, and it helps to set up the character of Emma Peel.  The movie probably would have stunk anyway, but I think it would have been better (and easier to understand what the hell was happening) if they had not left these scenes on the cutting room floor (or maybe they never even filmed them to begin with).

If a movie is truly awful, then if it's long it's even worse.

The Burgomaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The first time I watched the TERRIBLE movie THE
> AVENGERS starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman

Dude!  I made the mistake of taking one of the hottest girls I've ever been with to The Avengers.
She fell asleep halfway through it.
No joke!

It was our second date and I remember being bored as s**t watching it and hearing faint snoring to my right.
I looked over and her head was tilted away from me, her eyes were closed and her mouth was open.
She was f**king sleeping!

I ended up seeing Mandy for about 6 months longer after that flick before we finally broke it off.

Her head wasn't in it.

Well, for my mileage, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING is a much better movie in the extended edition.  The theatrical cut was basically non-stop, with one intense scene followed up by another.  Still a great movie, but it wears you out after a while.  The extended edition gives some breathing room, allowing a break in between the amped up parts.

Of course, I watched all three extended editions in one sitting, so you can probably guess my opinion on the movies.

I think most movies are too long these days anyway.  Seems like every movie is two hours plus, even if they don't deserve it.  It gets worse if the director is a "name" director.  Scorsese's THE AVIATOR is one of the best movies in recent history, in my opinion, but it certainly did not need to be three hours long.  WEDDING CRASHERS I did not particularly enjoy, and for some reason the movie is over two hours long.  It's a comedy, not GANDHI.

My advice, hire an editor.  Directors tend to fall in love with their own material, and if they have clout, like Peter Jackson, nobody steps in and says anything.  Like the klepto kid and the ship steward.  I realize they are in there for thematic purposes (mainly so Jackson can have an extened HEART OF DARKNESS quote), but they are otherwise unnecessary and should have been cut.  Don't even get me started on Tom Hanks' kid.

Seriously, on the length of 'King Kong' - I have only 1 opinion now - That some of the characters and plot devices could have made a much better episodic dramedy misadventure film. No King Kong though. And no other extinct creatures or whacked out natives either.

That one of the things wrong with Wong Kar-WAi's "2046": it has no plot, yet it still needs to stretch the ryunning time to nearly 5 hours.

Bambi meets Godzilla is way too long.  They could cut out that whole section on character development of second & third string characters.

raj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bambi meets Godzilla is way too long.  They could
> cut out that whole section on character
> development of second & third string
> characters.


LOL!

Larry Buchanan's "It's Alive!" (1969) probably would've made for a good episode of Night Gallery, or Tales From the DarkSide, or something, rather than a feature length TV movie. It seems that the story it'self was just too short for the runtime, so each scene is stretched long & drawn out far beyond what is acceptable.

I think It's Alive could've worked, even with the cheesy "Guy in a bugsuit that we're supposed to assume is a forty-foot prehistoric beast", if they tried to tell the story inside of twenty or thirty minutes.

Also, I've alway felt that The Entity (even the editted for television version) was way too long.

Considering that everything about this movie was constantly way over the top, I can't help but feel like they made it too long on purpose. My theory is based on the assumption that Sidney J. Furie probably started out with what could've been a good idea, but got nervous about how the subject matter, as well as it's graphic depiction, would be percieved by fundamentalist groups, or misunderstood as schlock, so they decided to keep piling stuff on until the result was a movie that was overlong, overacted, & overdirected, with a very annoying soundtrack.

Oh, my.

"Meet Joe Black"  !!!

That movie was SO SO LONG.  AND.   SLOW.

Could have cut the middle 178 minutes out and it would have been an infinitely better film.

I think Bambi vs Godzilla screams for a sequel.


"They killed his mother.

They burned his forest.

They even sicced Godzilla on him.

Now he's mad and he's fighting back."

RAMBI: FIRST BUCK


I can just picture a buff Bambi in a head band, armed with a rocket launcher and with a bandalero of shotgun shells around his neck....

First thing that comes to mind is the Anime short film 'Blood: the Last Vampire.' I bought it on a whim, and sat down to watch it only to have the movie end 45 minutes into it [I didn't pay attention to the running time.] It basically ended the film right when I was starting to get into it, and I felt there was a whole half missing from the movie. The half that was there though was pretty good.

My understanding was that what was released was the middle part of a three part series that ws never finished

Shame too...what was there was awesome

> My understanding was that what was released was
> the middle part of a three part series that ws
> never finished
>
> Shame too...what was there was awesome

I thought it was supposed to be one of those "media onslaughts", with a movie, manga, television series. . .

I picked up one of the mangas a while back, but I think the whole BLOOD thing eventually went nowhere.

I think Pendragon's War of the Worlds is too long and too bad. It's not bad enough that the movie is so terribly made (I'm talking bad and not laughably so), but it lasts three friggin' hours, 1.5 of  which are of the guy walking around. I could only finish the movie by fast forwarding through all the damned walking.

I don't know if this one has been mentioned yet, because I didn't read all the answers: Michael Mann's "Heat" is a wonderful film, but the mid-section is plain booooring. The movie could have worked as well if they had cut the failed assault to the matal deposit (the moment were Hanna's men think of capturing the band but fail to do it because they reveal themselves) and that coffee table dialogue between Hanna and DeNiro's character.

trek_geezer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Pendragon's War of the Worlds is too long
> and too bad. It's not bad enough that the movie is
> so terribly made (I'm talking bad and not
> laughably so), but it lasts three friggin' hours,
> 1.5 of  which are of the guy walking around. I
> could only finish the movie by fast forwarding
> through all the damned walking.
>
> --------------------------------
>
>


I don't know why, but I found Pendragon's WOTW to be strangely bearable, even at an excruciatingly gratuitous three hours. My usual argument is to compare it to The Wizard of Mars (1965), which in my opinion has ten times more walking around scenes than WOTW, even at a lousey eighty minutes.

Still, I think WOTW has it's moments, and I would have to disagree on the laughability of it's shortcomings. Anthony Piana's pushbroom makes for an 'adequate' running joke, and I found the exchange between Ogilvy & the Potsman, the dancing skeletans, & the voodoo doll Barbi pretty funny.

The only thing that really bugged me was Anthony Piana's incoherant mumbling as he narrated, but then the audio in A Certain Sacrifice (1985) was way worse.

I suppose that ultimately, I've become desensitised to Tim Hines' level of ineptitude after suffering through the werkz of Larry Buchanan, Tom Laughlin, and more recently, the Polonia brothers.

In case anyone's interested, I finished with my editing of Kong.

I started with 3 hours, 7 minutes and finished with 2 hours, 16 minutes.  Not as much bloat as I thought!  Rarely did I omit a huge swath of footage at once; I found myself trimming almost every individual scene.

Whew!

It was difficult (and kinda pointless, I'll go ahead and admit that) but it was FUN!  Editing was always my favorite and strongest subject in my film and video classes.

Andrew Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Five hideous words:  "The Trial of Billy Jack."
>
> Deanzille, aka "Godzilla" (1998) is also padded
> all to heck.  I could have done without the
> "Jurassic Park" raptor scene ripoff with the baby
> Godzillas.  
>
> Oh, and "Jungle Hell" could have cut out one or
> two scenes where Sabu beat up Kumar without losing
> anything.  I would not cut any elephant footage
> out of that one though, it really makes the film.


Bambi Meets Godzilla is as long as the "Deanzilla" movie should have been. In regards to Jurassic Park, I could have done without either of the sequels- the Spinosaurus was nice, but otherwise, a complete waste of my time. Another complete waste of time was the Quatermass movie with Brian Donlevy in it. You could trim that to about 10 minutes. The Gappa movie was pretty long, too. It should've been about 45 minutes, not 90. Also, for some reason, just about any movie dealing with Yeti, bigfoot or the like could lose about 20 to 40 minutes. Snow Creature in particular could be reduced to about 25 minutes. I dare you to watch it from beginning to end- I swear I thought time had stopped about halfway through...

I thought the second LOTR movie just dragged and dragged.  Its just one long battle.   Of course, so is the source material.  Speaking of LOTR, take a look at this, by David Brin.  
http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html
Whether you agree or not, its an interesting take on the story.  I read this, re-read the series, and got really annoyed at those eleves, hiding away while the useless Hobbits did all the work.
-Ed

lilcerberus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Buchanan's "It's Alive!" (1969) probably
> would've made for a good episode of Night Gallery,
> or Tales From the DarkSide, or something, rather
> than a feature length TV movie. It seems that the
> story it'self was just too short for the runtime,
> so each scene is stretched long & drawn out
> far beyond what is acceptable.
>
> I think It's Alive could've worked, even with the
> cheesy "Guy in a bugsuit that we're supposed to
> assume is a forty-foot prehistoric beast", if they
> tried to tell the story inside of twenty or thirty
> minutes.
>
> Also, I've alway felt that The Entity (even the
> editted for television version) was way too long.
>
> Considering that everything about this movie was
> constantly way over the top, I can't help but feel
> like they made it too long on purpose. My theory
> is based on the assumption that Sidney J. Furie
> probably started out with what could've been a
> good idea, but got nervous about how the subject
> matter, as well as it's graphic depiction, would
> be percieved by fundamentalist groups, or
> misunderstood as schlock, so they decided to keep
> piling stuff on until the result was a movie that
> was overlong, overacted, & overdirected, with
> a very annoying soundtrack.
>

Oh God, I forgot about the Entity... That was a piece of crap; they should have gone straight from the title sequence to the scene where "it" gets frozen in ice. The whole film is like if Lifetime Network made Poltergeist. I'll be honest, every Adam Sandler movie I've seen feels like it's an hour too long... but maybe it's unfair for me to judge, since Happy Gilmore is the only one I've seen from start to finish. Also, does anybody else think Steven Segal movies should just consist of fight scenes, nothing more? Having to watch people act around him just makes me sad.