|
|
Post by Quorthon on Mar 12, 2005 23:08:34 GMT -5
Anyone else anxious for this movie? Peter Jackson directing, with a script he wrote taking the best ideas from the previous two movies!
Did anyone else like King Kong (1976) or King Kong Lives? The original from '33 is unbeatable, of course, but I still like the last two films. Probably from my childhood love of "giant monster horror flicks."
There just aren't enough of those these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Mar 14, 2005 12:52:10 GMT -5
I love all the King Kong movies. The original is still my favorite and if I'm ever flipping channels and it's on I will always usually watch it.
I saw some of the pre-production artwork they are using for the new movie and it looked fantastic.
Considering Jackson's love for King Kong and his awesome special effects team at WETA I think it's going to be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Mar 16, 2005 1:34:29 GMT -5
I saw it when I was a kid too ;D
I liked it then, but I have really vague memories about it.
I never watched it again. It was very rarely on Polish TV.
But I remember vividly that I was fascinated by Japanese production The Revenge of Mechagodzilla (1975). I really enjoyed when I was a kid.
But when I watched lately the other similar flicks of that brand I was not that happy. Most of the plot seemed to me now a bit lame. So maybe I won't dare to see Revenge of M. (that I liked the most) not to contaminate the happy childhood memories?
By the way have you watched the flick from the same kind that joins to the King Kong stream?
[glow=red,2,300]Kingukongu tai Gojira (1962)
aka "King Kong vs. Godzilla"
[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Mar 30, 2005 11:12:52 GMT -5
I've seen King Kong vs. Godzilla--used to have it when my brother and I were kids. The Kong suit was so damn rubbery!! I haven't watched it in years, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on Mar 31, 2005 2:18:40 GMT -5
I've seen King Kong vs. Godzilla--used to have it when my brother and I were kids. The Kong suit was so damn rubbery!! I haven't watched it in years, though... Yes the "rubber effect" was much too noticeable but also sometimes funny too ;D When I was a kid I laught at it a lot in a theater ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Apr 30, 2005 0:43:45 GMT -5
I definitely have mixed feelings about Jackson remaking KING KONG.
The original '33 version is the first movie I ever actually "loved". The film that was "my favorite" when I was a little kid. Before PLANET OF THE APES (Hmm, more apes, see a pattern?) and then later STAR WARS (Okay, Chewbacca was kind of like an ape.) KING KONG was it for me. I would watch it anytime it was on tv. (This was way before the days of home video.) And was always drawing sketches of Kong being attacked by fighter planes on top of the Empire State Building.
I thought the '75 remake was a travesty. More money, bigger stars, yet they took several steps backwards in the special effects department. Instead of Willis O'Brien's fantastic stop motion animation in the original, we get what, a guy in a gorilla suit? Where's the innovation? What's the point? Sure they also built a life-size mechanical Kong that was going to revolutionize special effects and you know what? It didn't really work. Which is why you only actually see it in the movie a couple of times and they had to resort to Rick Baker, yes, THAT Rick Baker, in a monkey suit for most of the movie.
Beside the effects being lame, the dialogue was terrible. Sure the original KK had that overly dramatic dialogue, but that was the standard then. By the time the '75 remake came around, they should've known much better. On top of that, the acting was horrible. Sure Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges and even Charles Grodin all went on to do really good work, but here, everyone was universally awful.
I don't even want to get into the sequel to that movie, KK LIVES.
I know that Jackson is a huge fan and that this is his dream project, and I guess that can be a good thing, look at Sam Raimi and what he's done with the SPIDER-MAN franchise. And I'm sure that the effects in this one won't let me down like in '75. I just have a problem with people remaking classics. Remaking bad movies or movies that didn't live up to their potential the first time is fine. (LOGAN'S RUN is a perfect candidate for a remake.) Remaking movies and changing them so much that they barely resemble the original is okay too, ie: THE THING, THE FLY. But there really is no "real" reason to remake KING KONG other than to say, "Look how much better the effects are."
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrLenera on Apr 30, 2005 12:48:49 GMT -5
Cinsidering how well the Lord Of The Rings films turned out,I can't see Jackson's King Kong being poor. Whether it's neccessary is another matter. Hopefully this version will be able to stand alongside the original and they will be enough original ideas to justify it's existence!
The original is simply matchless,I think it's the best monster movie ever {and this is coming from a Godzilla fan}. What really makes it stand out for me is it's pace-after the first half hour it's just one exciting scene after another and never slows down for a minute. The effects are still pretty good-love the ripples on Kong's fur. Surprising how violent it is too'Kong picking up people,eating thme,throwing them away,etc.
Didn't mind the 76 version,there are some good scenes in it. King Kongt Lives IS pretty awful though. King Kong Vs Godzilla is great fun,especially the climactic 20 min fight scene where they act like wrestlers. The suit is dreadful though-I love the Toho films but they did a terrible job on that. I wish they would release this in it's original Japanese version,it's much better than the heavily reedited,cut up US release.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on May 3, 2005 0:10:09 GMT -5
I know that Jackson is a huge fan and that this is his dream project, and I guess that can be a good thing, look at Sam Raimi and what he's done with the SPIDER-MAN franchise. And I'm sure that the effects in this one won't let me down like in '75. I just have a problem with people remaking classics. Remaking bad movies or movies that didn't live up to their potential the first time is fine. (LOGAN'S RUN is a perfect candidate for a remake.) Remaking movies and changing them so much that they barely resemble the original is okay too, ie: THE THING, THE FLY. But there really is no "real" reason to remake KING KONG other than to say, "Look how much better the effects are." Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Unfortunately, look at Hollywood's track record of late. They've done poorly, sometimes exceedingly poorly with original work. Most of what we've had these past few years have been top-rated foreign films (Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days Later, Crouching Tiger-Hidden Dragon), Americanized remakes (The Ring, The Grudge, Insomnia) and remake after remake, sequel after sequel. Another Batman (though, it does look good), remakes of House of Wax, House on Haunted Hill, The Haunting, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Amityville Horror, 13 Ghosts, Sweet November, Ocean's 11, Manchurian Candidate... Sequels to now-classic franchises: Spider-Man 2, Terminator 3, Star Wars I, II, III; Exorcist, Alien & Predator... Let's face it, Hollywood is in Slump City, and their pathetic reliance on steady PG-13 crapfests hasn't helped. Now they're desperate for the big bucks and relying on remaking, sequelizing, and filming up as many already-known franchises as possible. Was Kill Bill the last original thing we got? Aw hell, those movies were just entertaining homages to other older movies. So much for that originality... |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 3, 2005 8:44:07 GMT -5
Was Kill Bill the last original thing we got? I'd say SIN CITY was. Which, thankfully, was very recent. But yeah, overall, I'd say you're right. Here we are at the beginning of May and I've seen exactly 2 movies that were released in 2005. STAY COOL, an average sequel to a superior movie, and SIN CITY. Next is REVENGE OF THE SITH, another sequel/prequel. Albeit, a highly anticipated one. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on May 3, 2005 16:00:36 GMT -5
Well, Sin City being original is debatable. True, there hasn't been a major Hollywood release anywhere like it for ages, but Sin City isn't exactly new. Those graphic novels have been around for a decade or longer.
Hollywood is really losing touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 3, 2005 16:12:27 GMT -5
Oh sure, the books have been around for a while, but I was referring strictly to the movie having an original look and style. I'm not lumping in movies that are adaptations of books with the sequels & remakes. That's a totally different thing and there's way too many of them. Besides, no book adaptations, no beloved movies like JAWS, THE GODFATHER, LORD OF THE RINGS, SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on May 4, 2005 0:00:53 GMT -5
Well sir, I do agree that Sin City's style is completely unlike anything else out there these days. Thank god for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacer on May 4, 2005 1:27:21 GMT -5
Was Kill Bill the last original thing we got? Well, Kill Bill being original is debatable. It borrows a lot from Wuxia - violent asiatic genre (Enter of the Dragon), and brutal yakuza storiesThough, it is not a simple remake as it was with Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven or with Reservoir Dogs (remake or rather plagiarism of Ringo Lam flick) |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 27, 2005 23:15:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Jun 28, 2005 13:00:36 GMT -5
I have to say I'm a fan. Not the average remake. The dinosaur vs. king kong is so godzilla and monster movie for me I love it! Cool to see the big budget special effects going into a concept that is notorious for cheese (which I do enjoy!). I also think Jack Black is going to be much more subtle - something I'm looking forward to as well. AND the special effects look very crisp. I hated how effects tend to be blurry when reflecting the past (ie. Sky Captain). None of that here. Someone sent me this today as well (you can at least see good pics of Kong): punchpanda.com/tmfok.html |
|
