Off Topic Messages
Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:55 pm
re: time length, I always felt the 1976 version (being a more realistic storyline) was too short and rushed after he escapes in New York
I don't know about adding all the dinosaurs - why bother bringing back an overgrown ape when you can bring back and display long-thought-gone prehistoric animals. ?
I think the dinos have always distracted from the giant ape.
Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:48 pm
Pete Dube wrote:
By the way have you seen the recent photos of Peter Jackson? He's lost a lot of weight!
No,Pete,that was Michael
Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:52 pm
I saw King Kong last night. It was very good, but I can't say excellent. 4 stars out of 5. It was a bit too long (although it didn't drag), with probably a bit too much character development in the early New York sequences and during the voyage to Skull Island. There were also some sequences that might be too intense for kids (my 2 kids were frightened by the scenes with the natives). And a scene with giant carnivorous worms rubbed me the wrong way as being too gratuitous for a film of this type.
Special effects were terrific! Action sequences impressive.
Acting was good, with Naomi Watts excellent.
In my judgment Peter Jackson should have trimmed it down to 2-1/2 hours or so for theatrical release, and saved this version for an extended dvd release.
But by all means see it on a big screen!
Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:55 pm
You know, I always thought the original didn't really begin..till the arrived at the island. The sappy romance absolutely held nothing for me.
The 1976 version is a joke compared to the original.
Why didn't they make the new version modern? Cell phones would have been a gas.
As for the dinosaurs. Without them, I can't imagine it! That is what made the original so great...well at least part of what made it that way.
Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:25 am
I'm glad they kept it in the 30's. Can anyone really imagine that an island in today's world would have dinosaurs, a giant ape and other giant creatures? At least 70+ years ago it could almost be imagined.
I will be seeing it in about 13 hours. I simply cannot wait.
Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:28 am
The original "King Kong" is very deliberately constructed. The buildup is what gives the relentless action in the second half of the movie its punch.
The dinosaurs are an essential part of the story. They provide conflict and give that extra of level of surrealism to Skull Island. When Kong beats the sand out of the dinosaurs, there is no question why he is King.
Just the idea of an uncharted island is almost unthinkable in 2005 with cameras that can take pictures of the entire world from outer space. Plus, the period setting helps the movie retain a sense of mystery. In a 1933 mindset there's less knowledge of dinosaurs, less knowledge of world cultures. It makes everything just that much more amazing to the characters involved.
You really can't set aside the 70 years in between now and the original film. I recall watching "Count Yorga" awhile back and one of the characters doing battle with Count Yorga is reading up on vampires. It just doesn't work. Did anybody in 1970 not know that you defend yourself with a crucifix, that vampires drink blood, and only rise at night. To set "King Kong" in a modern context is just too difficult and fraught with contradiction. Just think of the climb up the Empire State Building. The iconography of that scene is so great that Kong and the building are so tied together in the public mind. Most people know the building as New York's tallest the one King Kong climbed in the movie. When you take the tour it's even mentioned.
Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:53 pm
I looked at some more previews, and I was quite impressed, perhaps you guys are right. Hell we already had it anyway with the absolutely HORRIBLE Godzilla. So nuff said.
As for the sappy love interest in the original(1933 version). The only merit I can see is that it gives Kong alot more credit! You actually want him to stay with her after that wimp at the end.
You can't help but feel sad that Fay will have a utterly boring life with that loser.
How fast did he tell her he loved her anyway.
Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:52 am
I agree with LTB.........I was relieved to find that the film was set in 1933. Too many elements become problematic if set in the future(as he mentions). I mean really.......how much trouble could a modern army or police force have dispatching a 40 foot ape???
But mostly, it loses too much of the romance and iconography if set in another time. Kudos to Jackson for recognizing this.
Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:31 pm
I can't say I completley agree. Jurrassic Park works..yet it is set in a modern time. With the right story it is believable.
Still from the clips I have see, Jackson looks like he pulled off a very interesting movie. One which I am anxious to see!
Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:43 pm
Does Peter Jackson think every movie he makes must run 3 hours?
Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:25 pm
I just saw the new King Kong yesterday afternoon. I liked it a lot. I thought it had a lot of great action sequences and a couple stretches for about 30 minutes each were relentless.
My wife hated it. I thought she would but she was sweet enough to sit through it with me.
The problem with her and with my thinking was that there was too much violence. They went over board with it. I also felt the same way with Lord Of The Rings. Too much excessive violence. I really can't understand how it got away with a PG-13 rating.
I couldn't help but hear from small children in the theatre. One child was crying through the whole movie. I can't believe so-called parents would take pre-school children to a movie like this. Some scenes were quite terrifying. Should have been R-Rated for the violence and language.
Over all I really liked it. A lot of it was pretty hokey and some was very obviously done with CGI but I will buy it when it comes on DVD in Spring just to watch certain scenes over and some in slow-motion.
The film is a must for horror and action fans. Also, for those who aren't offended by beastiality. My wife made a comment about it after it was over. I didn't see it as I thought Kong and the girl just had affection for each other like I do for my cats. I wouldn't want anything to happen to them either. I guess the one scene I didn't care for in their "relationship" was when Kong went through the city trying to find her. She was then seen walking down the middle of the street in some strange lighting. They made that scene look a bit sexual. It was the middle of winter and here she is strutting down the street in a slink, sleeveless outfit. It sure must have been cold up on the Empire State Building.
Also, I wasn't bothered by the 3 hours running time. I thought it moved along quite well. To me, it actually could have gone on longer. I wasn't ready for it to be over. I was really caught up in it.
Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:29 am
Is King Kong a racist story?
The giant ape is given black girls...
he eats them/kills them, whatever, they're expendable
but when he's given a white girl...
Kong's fascinated! In love! He protects her! Values her!
a Hollywood classic.
Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:24 am
Some people have argued that. I don't think the claim has substance. Anne's lack of color and blonde hair make her different than the women on the Island- the only blonde that Kong has ever seen. It's even pointed out in the script. Many people have argued with not little justification that one of the things that makes the movie so great is that you can pull so many ideas out of the basic themes and manifestations presented in the picture.
"Jurassic Park" is not "King Kong". It's whole idea was centered around modernity and technology. It's a different story.
Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:31 pm
Likethebike IMO Jurrassic Park is very much King Kong except the final chase scene turns the tides and make the people the hunted ones.
My comment still stands.
But like I said, I relent because from what I see and hear it works. Hopefully I will see it this weekend.
Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:55 pm
Graceland Gardener wrote:The giant ape is given black girls he eats them/kills them, whatever, they're expendable but when he's given a white girl...Kong's fascinated!
That's the same thing that I do, but it does not mean I'm a racist.
Last edited by Rob on Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:59 pm
That's the same thing that I do, but it does not mean I'm a racist.
--- Jurassic Park 2 THE LOST WORLD
is like King Kong
(not really the first film)
Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:08 pm
Jurassic Park is a rehash of Westworld, both written by the same author I think, personaly, Im all for the long running time, I like the epics that take their time.
Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:33 am
Eddie wrote:Jurassic Park is a rehash of Westworld, both written by the same author I think.
Michael Chrichton (sp?)
Westworld was a good film - saw it again not too long ago.
Futureworld was its sequel -
so fast forward 20 years.....
Jurassic Park caps the Chrihton themepark trilogy
Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:17 am
Well rehash or not...it was done in a decent way.
Keep in mind that the twist is the people are hunted instead.
Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:50 am
Pete Dube wrote:King Kong is going to be the biggest box-office success since Titanic. I've just got a gut feeling this film is going to explode!
I think that you are absolutely right. I haven't seen it yet, but I am SO there this weekend.
Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:13 am
i find it pretty interesting that a film with quite a laughable subject, a giant gorilla, has met world acclaim. just a thought
Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:17 am
You wouldn't laugh if Kong unleashed his fury on Australia instead of New York. Consider yourself lucky!
Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:20 am
i wonder what john howard would say to that if that happened
'lets all remain calm'
what would your president do? drop a nuclear bomb?
i know what we'd use for our weapon
look kindly in to his eyes, then right in the sack
Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:26 am
Scott Haigh 781990EP wrote:what would your president do? drop a nuclear bomb?
If need be.
Kong won't be pushing George W. around.