King Kong

[Beery]

Judging by the trailer, this actually looks to have the makings of a good movie:

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

Looks like Peter Jackson is set to do it again - going back to the first Kong and doing a classic version.

[Kapitan]

personaly i dfont like king kong

[Gizzmoe]

I´ve seen the original version and the remake, I don´t need a third version... Watch the trailer and you have basically seen the entire movie! ;)

[Beery]

It's a classic - it's not as if you're going into this movie not knowing the basic story.

[Type941]

I'm too old for this sh*t. :rotfl:

Having said that, I can predict how this movie will go.

The first half - will be fantastic, effects, the build up, scary unknown mystery of the island, etc, etc. Than - it will spiral downward, a lot of special effects and shallow acting, some stupid love store of a big monkey and a girl and how it will be painful to kill/see die the monkey because he's actually very nice. Brody and the girl will be happy ever after.

Now, I haven't even seen the original King Kong. So I don't know what actually happened to the monkey, nor have I finished watching the trailer of this one. But sadly, all latest HOllywood movies are rather bad. Especially after the main climax, as everything after that is just very fast paced and very predictable.

[Beery]

Well, the director is Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame), and while he can be accused of some things, and reliance on special effects is one of them, he's known for carrying through a project while being faithful to the source material, and not losing track of the characters.

[Egan]

Well, the director is Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame), and while he can be accused of some things, and reliance on special effects is one of them, he's known for carrying through a project while being faithful to the source material, and not losing track of the characters.

Yeah, but his special effects are great! A certain Mr. Lucas could learn some tricks.

[Damo1977]

Another remake of a movie? Its official, Hollywood has run out of ideas. IMHO, in some cases they do more harm than good remaking these classics. Imagine if they remade 'Kelly's Heroes' or 'Jaws'? Me don't think I would like.

[Beery]

There's nothing wrong in a remake if the earlier versions were lacking in some way. In the case of King Kong, that's certainly true. The 1970s version was horrible, and the 1933 version is merely a curiosity due to its dated special effects. The folks who made the special effects for the 1933 version were geniuses, but if they were working today, they'd be the first to suggest that King Kong needs a more modern treatment, and Peter Jackson is about the only modern director I'd trust with such a job. Now if this was The Godfather we were talking about, I'd be as anti-remake as anyone, but it's not.

[Type941]

Nothing wrong with remaking a 1933 cartoon, but I hope we don't get to see 'space invaders' circa 2006, starring [your pick]. (if you are curious, my pick is angelina jolie. :rotfl:

[Beery]

Nothing wrong with remaking a 1933 cartoon, but I hope we don't get to see 'space invaders' circa 2006...

I'm just not sure why anyone would think that Peter Jackson is your average Hollywood director, out to churn out a piece of trash for a paycheck. It just doesn't make sense. Everything he's done so far suggests the opposite. I just don't see how anyone could assume the wrorst unless they simply don't know anything about Peter Jackson.

[Takeda Shingen]

There's nothing wrong in a remake if the earlier versions were lacking in some way. In the case of King Kong, that's certainly true. The 1970s version was horrible, and the 1933 version is merely a curiosity due to its dated special effects. The folks who made the special effects for the 1933 version were geniuses, but if they were working today, they'd be the first to suggest that King Kong needs a more modern treatment, and Peter Jackson is about the only modern director I'd trust with such a job. Now if this was The Godfather we were talking about, I'd be as anti-remake as anyone, but it's not.

By this logic, it would be prudent and worthwhile to remake Jacques-Louis David's La mort de Socrates with digital technology and recompose Franz Joseph Haydn's 103rd Symphony using modern compositional techniques simply because such features now exist. Sometimes it is best to let the works of the past be.

[Beery]

By this logic, it would be prudent and worthwhile to remake Jacques-Louis David's La mort de Socrates with digital technology and recompose Franz Joseph Haydn's 103rd Symphony using modern compositional techniques simply because such features now exist. Sometimes it is best to let the works of the past be.

Let's come back down to Earth for a second. This is King Kong we're talking about. At best it's a pulp adventure movie for God's sake. Like I said, this ain't The Godfather. Pretending that King Kong is similar in any way to to one of Haydn's symphonies is like saying that Roger Corman is to cinema what Mozart is to music.

At least Peter Jackson has the potential to bring King Kong to the level of classic cinema.

[Type941]

Nothing wrong with remaking a 1933 cartoon, but I hope we don't get to see 'space invaders' circa 2006...

I'm just not sure why anyone would think that Peter Jackson is your average Hollywood director, out to churn out a piece of trash for a paycheck. It just doesn't make sense. Everything he's done so far suggests the opposite. I just don't see how anyone could assume the wrorst unless they simply don't know anything about Peter Jackson.

I think only the Two Towers was done more or less well, the rest is filled with too much cliche lines and symbolism. Don't get me wrong, I like the music in the movie, and I know the target audience for it is kids who just finished Harry Potter - but I think he's a fad. He's better than your average hollywood maker though, i agree.

[Takeda Shingen]

Let's come back down to Earth for a second. This is King Kong we're talking about. At best it's a pulp adventure movie for God's sake. Like I said, this ain't The Godfather. Pretending that King Kong is similar in any way to to one of Haydn's symphonies is like saying that Roger Corman is to cinema what Mozart is to music.

At least Peter Jackson has the potential to bring King Kong to the level of classic cinema.

I was not attempting to compare the two, only to illustrate the argument against the sentiment that technology makes everything better. Personally, I cared little for the original, and bothered not with the remake. However, it was you that stated that the special effects managers were geniuses, so I placed them in suitable company for the sake of argument.

For the record, I have little faith in Mr. Jackson's directing ability, as I found the Lord of the Rings films to be derivative and self-indulgant (the painful film score played no small part in this assessment). It is, however, more than likely that my similar opinion of J. R. R. Tolkien's have influenced this perspective, thus skewing objectivity to an extent.

[TLAM Strike]

Yeah, but his special effects are great! A certain Mr. Lucas could learn some tricks. Learn bah he just steals from CGI companies like Zoic. :roll:

But who cares about Lucas, "Joss Whedon is my master now." :yep:

[Beery]

I think only the Two Towers was done more or less well, the rest is filled with too much cliche lines and symbolism...

I guess I'm odd, in that I absolutely detested The Two Towers - compared to The Fellowship of the Ring it was nowhere near as visually stunning. Some of the 2nd unit photography was decidedly second-rate, and some of the dialogue was appalling. It wasn't too bad on a second viewing, but when I first saw it after seeing FOTR I was quite disappointed. I also felt the third movie missed a lot of the point of Tolkien's work by ignoring the whole 'blighted Shire' bit. But all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

[Beery]

I found the Lord of the Rings films to be derivative and self-indulgant (the painful film score played no small part in this assessment). It is, however, more than likely that my similar opinion of J. R. R. Tolkien's have influenced this perspective, thus skewing objectivity to an extent.

Oh, I agree that Tolkien's work is greatly overrated. Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast is a much better piece of epic fantasy - its only failure being that it was left unfinished. Tolkien's work is derivative and not very imaginative. Of course I'm not at all sure he wanted to beoriginal or imaginative, since part of the point was to cobble together an English mythology from bits and pieces of European folklore, and (by all accounts) he was more interested in developing the languages of Middle Earth than in producing great literature, but the work suffers nonetheless.

My point is that Peter Jackson takes pulp fiction and overrated fiction - society's guilty pleasures - and brings them to the screen with more panache and flair than other directors could. It's not like he can ruin a classic by adapting the work of 2nd rate artists. Jackson is not doing the equivalent of re-recording Mozart using a synthesizer - he's basically just taking the equivalent of a Celine Dion song and giving it a bit of style.

[Type941]

all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

Who else have tried to get close? I think Jackson is he only one! :rotfl:

[Beery]

all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

Who else have tried to get close? I think Jackson is he only one! :rotfl:

There was an unfinished (and atrocious) animated version done in the '70s, and a reasonably good BBC radio version (with Ian Holm) done in (I think) the early '80s.

[Egan]

Yeah, but his special effects are great! A certain Mr. Lucas could learn some tricks. Learn bah he just steals from CGI companies like Zoic. :roll:

But who cares about Lucas, "Joss Whedon is my master now." :yep:

Joss Whedon? Umm....No need to get silly now...

:P

And I'll take the Lord of the Rings books over any amount of other fantasy or Sci-fi any day of the week.

Mind you, I generally can't stand either fantasy or Sci-fi so I'm probably not the person to speak about this sort of thing.

Aside from Gibson and Clarke that is.

[Type941]

all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

Who else have tried to get close? I think Jackson is he only one! :rotfl:

There was an unfinished (and atrocious) animated version done in the '70s, and a reasonably good BBC radio version (with Ian Holm) done in (I think) the early '80s.

Not exactly benchmarks than. :doh:

[Beery]

Not exactly benchmarks than. :doh:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never suggested there was a benchmark.

[Type941]

Not exactly benchmarks than. :doh:

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never suggested there was a benchmark.

someone said that Jackson did the best job of anyone in recreating the movie, and thus deserves big cridit, while my point is it's hard to say how good of a job he did since we can only compare to some very mediocre/low budget attempts - thus hinting that the whole thing is overrated a little. :|\

[Beery]

someone said that Jackson did the best job of anyone in recreating the movie, and thus deserves big cridit...|\

No one here said that he did the best job that anyone had ever done of recreating the movie. If they did, please quote it, because I don't see any such thing.

But anyway, if we're talking movies now, he has certainly done better than the first movie - it was better simply because this version actually got finished. The fact that no one has done a credible job up to now is not an argument against Jackson's ability, and anyway it's beside the point. I don't think anyone argued that Jackson was the greatest director ever, or that his version of LOTR was an incomparable masterpiece. Personally, I didn't think the last two films deserved the overblown recognition they got at the Oscars.

All I said was I felt that he did the best possible job of achieving the feel of the books. I don't think anyone could seriously dispute that, unless they got inside my mind and checked out what I really felt about it. I'm pretty sure that what I feel about Jackson's LOTR is pretty much actually what I feel about it. :88)

[Type941]

all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

I was referring to this.. Apparently your own qoute! :know:

[Beery]

all-in-all, I felt Jackson got closer to the feel of the books than anyone else could possibly have done.

I was referring to this.. Apparently your own qoute! :know:

And I stand by it 100%. But judging by the argument you're making against it I just don't think it says what you think it says. Your argument seems to suggest that I'm talking about the movie being OBJECTIVELY better than any other MOVIE. The quote of mine says nothing of the kind. It talks only of my SUBJECTIVE opinion of how well the movie renders the BOOKS. It is folly to argue against what I wrote there, because it's my own opinion (it says nothing at all about objective fact), and I'm the only one who can possibly dispute it. :D

What you seem to be doing is either completely misunderstanding what I've written, or you're trying to create a rather clumsy straw man. I think it's probably the former. I don't mean to be rude, but is English your first language? I'm definitely getting the sense that you're getting something wrong here.

I guess you could argue that my opinion is wrong, but then you'd have to argue about how Jackson got the feel of the books wrong. So far you've made no effort to argue along those lines.

[jason10mm]

Jackson cut his teeth making huge splatter fest horror flicks. I have a sneaking suspicion that King Kong is gonna trample a lot of New Yorkers to mush :) Can't wait for the spider scene myself!

[Type941]

Jackson cut his teeth making huge splatter fest horror flicks.

Yes yes, I've seen those! :rotfl:

Beery, i think you just said he's done better than anyone on LOTR, hence he's a very good director. I didn't think his movie was that good, hence my view is you can't judge him based on his one work, a remake of a book, than can only be judged against some mediocre attempts before him. Or in other words - how much is modern technology, and how much is Jackson. ;)

[Beery]

Jackson cut his teeth making huge splatter fest horror flicks.

Yes yes, I've seen those! :rotfl:

Beery, i think you just said he's done better than anyone on LOTR, hence he's a very good director.

Again, I think you're putting words in my mouth. I certainly never said any of those things, and I am BY NO MEANS convinced that Peter Jackson is a very good director. He has his strengths, and he has very pronounced weaknesses - weaknesses that I've mentioned. In many ways he's very similar to George Lucas - he can make a movie look very good, and he can do very good pacing, but where a script is concerned he's a liability. But what's important in the end is that Jackson did make a credible version of LOTR where others failed. LOTR didn't need a genius to bring it to the screen, but it did require competence. The same is true of King Kong.

[Type941]

Well, may be because english is not my first language i misunderstood you! Semantics.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, I agree that Tolkien's work is greatly overrated. Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast is a much better piece of epic fantasy - its only failure being that it was left unfinished. Tolkien's work is derivative and not very imaginative. Of course I'm not at all sure he wanted to beoriginal or imaginative, since part of the point was to cobble together an English mythology from bits and pieces of European folklore, and (by all accounts) he was more interested in developing the languages of Middle Earth than in producing great literature, but the work suffers nonetheless.

My point is that Peter Jackson takes pulp fiction and overrated fiction - society's guilty pleasures - and brings them to the screen with more panache and flair than other directors could. It's not like he can ruin a classic by adapting the work of 2nd rate artists. Jackson is not doing the equivalent of re-recording Mozart using a synthesizer - he's basically just taking the equivalent of a Celine Dion song and giving it a bit of style.

Fair enough. That reasoning stands good with me.