Re: KONG hindsight
- From: John Harkness <jharkness@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:14:08 -0500
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:44:23 -0500, "The Capt" <thecapt@xxxxxxxxx>
>"John Harkness" <jharkness@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> On 20 Dec 2005 14:46:57 -0800, "Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421@xxxxxxx>
>> It's only a folly if it loses money -- and that's notgoing ot happen.
>> (Itwil be close to break even in theatrical world, and the DVD will be
>> pure gravy.)
>> But it should be half an hour shorter.
>Excellent analysis. I'm not a professional in the business but surely
>someone close to Jackson or the studio could have told him to lose the "fat"
>in this film. It's at least a half hour too long.
>It's not "Heaven's Gate" but Jackson drifted dangerously close to that kind
>of edge in an otherwise fine film.
When your last picture(s) make as much money for everyone as The Lord
of the Rings trilogy, nobody ever tells you you're wrong.
- Prev by Date: Re: KONG hindsight
- Next by Date: Re: What are the Worst only, most disappointing 2005 release fims you saw ?
- Previous by thread: Re: KONG hindsight
- Next by thread: Re: KONG hindsight