There was another moment that struck me as really sincere...After Kong kills the T Rex by stretching it's mouth open and crushing it's skull he begins to play with it's jaw in a way that a cat bats around a mouse after it's dead.
Its great. shit y'all, its a fantasy movie, its fun..some of you chinscratchers sound like you were expecting Citizen Kane. "Dinosaur scenes were unrealistic"? You have some actual dinosaur footage to compare it to? Are you a prehistoric animal biomechanics expert/enthusiast? Fuck, its a remake of a classic movie that Peter Jackson wanted to make because it was the movie that made him want to be a movie maker (I think makes sense as I read it back to myself)...great action/fight scenes, Peter keeps the love story BS to a minimum, no one is annoying in it...its a good flick, no more no less.
As far as special effects, its really good, but "Narnia" had slightly better special effects, some of the shit in "Narnia" was mind blowing.
Its great. shit y'all, its a fantasy movie, its fun..some of you chinscracthers sound like you were expecting Citizen Kane. "Dinosaur scenes were unrealistic"? You have some actual dinosaur footage to compare it to? Are you a prehistoric animal biomechanics expert/enthusiast? Fuck, its a remake of a classic movie that Peter Jackson wanted to make because it was the movie that made him want to be a movie maker (I think makes sense as I read it back to myself)...great action/fight scenes, Peter keeps the love story BS to a minimum, no one is annoying in it...its a good flick, no more no less.
"Dinosaur scenes were unrealistic"? You have some actual dinosaur footage to compare it to? Are you a prehistoric animal biomechanics expert/enthusiast?
There was another moment that struck me as really sincere[/b] ...After Kong kills the T Rex by stretching it's mouth open and crushing it's skull he begins to play with it's jaw in a way that a cat bats around a mouse after it's dead.
"Dinosaur scenes were unrealistic"? You have some actual dinosaur footage to compare it to? Are you a prehistoric animal biomechanics expert/enthusiast?.
you have to admit that the scene with the stampede through the gorge (or whatever), with masses of giant dinos, and people running *at the same speed* between the legs of the dinos was ust a little unrealistic?
I know I wouldn' be able to outrun stampeding elephants, let alone a giant whatever-saurus... that's all.
as long as you keep in mind that this movie is supposed to be over the top, unrealistic, you can enjoy it - I did
I loved it. 3 hours of wellmade escapeism. Peter Jackson kept it close to the original '33 story which is a good thing IMO, and I thought the script had a good balance of character exploration and action/FX. The relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow is integral, and the plot just wouldn't be the same without it, teary eyes or not. At least he toned down the cheesy softerotic nuances that the '76 version had. Dinosaurs = great, giant cockroaches = great. Remember that Skull Island is supposed to be a 'lost world', so i find these elements quite natural. As mentioned before, this was also a part of the '33 version. I think Jackson did a really good job on making Kong somewhat 'human', and not just a one-dimensional monster. This is also an essential part of the story, methinks. There are a lot of breathtaking scenes in Jackson's movie. The final scene on the top of the Empire State building was my favorite. Go see it if you like a good, solid adventure movie with a little bit of depth to it.
I loved the love-sex scene. Not very realistic though.
I take it you're talking about Jessica Lange in '76 now, right? That was pretty ridicoulus and pervy. Rumour has it that she originally had a line which went something like "you're/it's so big!", or something like that which eventually ended up being cut out of the final film.
can someone tell me why they did a remake of a perfectly good movie. i understand the technology is better for a remake but what about original ideas in the movies, what happened to that?
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
can someone tell me why they did a remake of a perfectly good movie. i understand the technology is better for a remake but what about original ideas in the movies, what happened to that?
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
i guess i answered my own question.
dave
They're remaking EVERYTHING. Starsky & Hutch as a movie, I just saw an ad for the Poseidon Adventure of all movies. Next thing, it'll be Airport 07 or something.
can someone tell me why they did a remake of a perfectly good movie. i understand the technology is better for a remake but what about original ideas in the movies, what happened to that?
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
i guess i answered my own question.
dave
They're remaking EVERYTHING. Starsky & Hutch as a movie, I just saw an ad for the Poseidon Adventure of all movies. Next thing, it'll be Airport 07 or something.
Yeah man, the Poseidon trailers are already out - same guy who directed "The Perfect Storm" which means, this time, he gets the fuck with an even BIGGER boat and even BIGGER wave. Uh...
The trailers to Miami Vice? SO NOT A GOOD LOOK, especially Colin Farrell with a bad looking mustache. Somewhere, Don Johnson is pouring another shot.
can someone tell me why they did a remake of a perfectly good movie. i understand the technology is better for a remake but what about original ideas in the movies, what happened to that?
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
i guess i answered my own question.
dave
You're partly wrong here. I think this was more the case with Dino De Laurentiis, who claimed that his production would surpass "Jaws", the biggest blockbuster from the previous year. Of course money will always be an issue when it comes to a big Hollywood production, and Jackson undoubtedly has some very fat pockets right now. I just don't think it's his main motivation for making the film. All I've heard him talk about is his love for the original version and how it inspired him to make his own films, and I do believe that. Every generation needs new takes on those classic, epic stories like "Romeo And Juliet", "Frankenstein" or whatever. "King Kong" is one of those stories, and I see anything wrong with trying to make it relevant to a new audience if the result is good, which I think it is.
*Edit* OK, I'm not talking about stuff like Miami Vice, Poseidon and Airport 07. That shit is corny. Y'all know what I mean???stuff like Coppolla's Dracula *Edit*
Yeah, I'd have to agree here. "KK" can't be treated as strictly a money-making scheme:
1) Jackson has said, many times, that "KK" was one of the films that inspired him to become a filmmaker. 2) If you want to make $$$, you don't make a 3 hour film since that limits how many times it can be shown in a day. 3) There's definitely a lot of CGI but Jackson isn't like Lucas with all digital effects. Jackson loves modeling and he spends an enormous amount of his budget getting WETA to create realistic minatures for his movies, including "KK." Not to say the green screen didn't get mondo love though.
can someone tell me why they did a remake of a perfectly good movie. i understand the technology is better for a remake but what about original ideas in the movies, what happened to that?
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
i guess i answered my own question.
dave
You're partly wrong here. I think this was more the case with Dino De Laurentiis, who claimed that his production would surpass "Jaws", the biggest blockbuster from the previous year. Of course money will always be an issue when it comes to a big Hollywood production, and Jackson undoubtedly has some very fat pockets right now. I just don't think it's his main motivation for making the film. All I've heard him talk about is his love for the original version and how it inspired him to make his own films, and I do believe that. Every generation needs new takes on those classic, epic stories like "Romeo And Juliet", "Frankenstein" or whatever. "King Kong" is one of those stories, and I see anything wrong with try ing making it relevant to a new audience if the result is good, which I think it is.
Just got back from seeing the movie, and those puppies werent cockroaches, they were weta's, (http://weta.boarsnest.net/) New Zealand native insects, I guess it was an in-joke form the boys at the Weta workshop.
Comments
it seems that once you make an uber-movie it's tough to go back.
he should make a 5 hour 'Moby Dick' with a computer-generated white whale as a follow up...
---
As far as special effects, its really good, but "Narnia" had slightly better special effects, some of the shit in "Narnia" was mind blowing.
Good or great? Would you own it?
SG
you have to admit that the scene with the stampede through the gorge (or whatever), with masses of giant dinos, and people running *at the same speed* between the legs of the dinos was ust a little unrealistic?
I know I wouldn' be able to outrun stampeding elephants, let alone a giant whatever-saurus... that's all.
as long as you keep in mind that this movie is supposed to be over the top, unrealistic, you can enjoy it - I did
I take it you're talking about Jessica Lange in '76 now, right? That was pretty ridicoulus and pervy. Rumour has it that she originally had a line which went something like "you're/it's so big!", or something like that which eventually ended up being cut out of the final film.
'76 Lange was pretty yummy, though
oh i remember why to make bucket loads of money. and it makes more money if you don't really hire great writers and subsidize that with lots and lots of cgi graphics.
i guess i answered my own question.
dave
CoSiGN
They're remaking EVERYTHING. Starsky & Hutch as a movie, I just saw an ad for the Poseidon Adventure of all movies. Next thing, it'll be Airport 07 or something.
Yeah man, the Poseidon trailers are already out - same guy who directed "The Perfect Storm" which means, this time, he gets the fuck with an even BIGGER boat and even BIGGER wave. Uh...
The trailers to Miami Vice? SO NOT A GOOD LOOK, especially Colin Farrell with a bad looking mustache. Somewhere, Don Johnson is pouring another shot.
You're partly wrong here. I think this was more the case with Dino De Laurentiis, who claimed that his production would surpass "Jaws", the biggest blockbuster from the previous year. Of course money will always be an issue when it comes to a big Hollywood production, and Jackson undoubtedly has some very fat pockets right now. I just don't think it's his main motivation for making the film. All I've heard him talk about is his love for the original version and how it inspired him to make his own films, and I do believe that. Every generation needs new takes on those classic, epic stories like "Romeo And Juliet", "Frankenstein" or whatever. "King Kong" is one of those stories, and I see anything wrong with trying to make it relevant to a new audience if the result is good, which I think it is.
*Edit* OK, I'm not talking about stuff like Miami Vice, Poseidon and Airport 07. That shit is corny. Y'all know what I mean???stuff like Coppolla's Dracula *Edit*
every movie must have its own thread... movie-strut, like whut??!
1) Jackson has said, many times, that "KK" was one of the films that inspired him to become a filmmaker.
2) If you want to make $$$, you don't make a 3 hour film since that limits how many times it can be shown in a day.
3) There's definitely a lot of CGI but Jackson isn't like Lucas with all digital effects. Jackson loves modeling and he spends an enormous amount of his budget getting WETA to create realistic minatures for his movies, including "KK." Not to say the green screen didn't get mondo love though.
So we own those "Lord of the rings" t??rds to a hairy beast?
I'm digging your umlaut style
sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa
sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa
sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa
sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa
sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa sherpa
im just curious as to how they got king kong all the way from the island to the states? wtf?!
-rich
On a large barge. You must have dozed off during that part.
Just got back from seeing the movie, and those puppies werent cockroaches, they were weta's, (http://weta.boarsnest.net/) New Zealand native insects, I guess it was an in-joke form the boys at the Weta workshop.
I thought that was King Kong vs Godzilla.
In that movie they also introduced the floating version of King Kong as well
Japanese ingeniousness =
I feel mad dirty reading this.