King Kong
 

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

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef23952...en_splash.html

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

personaly i dfont like king kong

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! ;)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.