King Kong (2005)

[Winters_Sorrow]

Is anybody else just thinking that this could be the movie of 2005?

What do you think it'll be?
Travesty or Triumph?

[red_temple]

To me, Peter Jackson has certainly proved himself to be a talented director. I have a feeling that this will be an excellent version, so definitely not a travesty. I'm not ready to put it in the "movie of the year" category yet. Besides, Jackson needs to save some of his Karma for "The Hobbit."

[Circus Cranium]

Man, this will be the third version of this movie. King Kong was the first movie to scare the bejeezus out of me as a little kid. I guess it's a labor of love for him to make this film, but it just seems like an odd choice. We had Faye Ray, Jessica Lang, and now....Naomi Watts is it? Sure hope she can scream.

[Foxbat]

hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?

[polymorphikos]

http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml

(it has a video production diary with stills and stuff)


Normally I'd agree, but this is one of the few movies a remake might actually be justifiable for. The original is a classic to some, but to many it's laughable, out-dated, hidden-away and never watched. We need something like this to make people realise that Kong is cool again. (This version'll be quite M-rated, with violence savagery on Kongs part). That, and the chance to see dinosaur fights with modern technology.

Above all, not only will this give people a chance to see a Lost World film outside of the waning Jurassic park franchise and bad TV-movies, but it might manage to reinvigorate the Lost World genre. If this is a hit there'll probably be another JP to capitalise, and then someone else will make a smaller one to undercut it, and so-on. This coupled with films like LOTR and the Matrix are pumping new life back into fantasy cinema.

That, and I've always wanted to see Kong on the big screen. I have a Land That Time Forgot obsession fuelled by deprivation.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?

I agree in the most part (remake Casablanca? ) and it can be done badly (like the remake of King Kong in 1976 ) but I do think that a lot of people who don't watch B&W movies because they're B&W - fools I agree! - will go to see this, and I hope they're blown away by it!

[Foxbat]

I do hope that this film is a success – and through that success, people are encouraged to look at the original (which was quite violent for its time if you look at the uncut 1933 version rather than the edited 1938 re-issue).


As to folk not watching B&W just because it’s B&W is just sad because they are missing many a good movie.

Here’s something that happened the other day: I told a workmate that I had recently bought Blake’s 7 on DVD. “Oh,” he says, “I used to love that, but now it’s rubbish.”
I had a hard time getting through to him that it’s not Blake’s 7 that has changed but his perception of it and his raised expectations – which leads to disappointment.


This same logic applies to old films, the quality of the acting or special effects – or whatever - doesn’t deteriorate with time; they are fixed within the celluloid. It’s our perceptions and our own laziness that taints our opinions. We have been pigging out on CGI for so long now that we are failing to appreciate the artistry and ingenuity that went into all those old movies.

Ok, I think I’m finished ranting and raving for now.

As for remaking Casablanca – Blasphemy!!!

[Circus Cranium]

I originally had the same feeling. I get annoyed at all the films being re-made, some of them not all that old. And King Kong is such a classic. We can only hope that because it's in such good hands it will do it justice.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

hmm. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy..but I think there are certain films that become so iconic that remakes seem irrelelvant. I think Jackson is a fine director but why remake this when the original is so heavily ingrained in cinematic history?

I have to agree - is it just a self-indulgent project for Jackson, or can he really bring such a cinematic icon into the modern world and have near the impact?

Somehow I doubt he could - it was stop-motion that made King Kong - I can't see a new version really working unless we all pretend CGI doesn't exist for a moment...

[polymorphikos]

Apologies, but if this becomes a debate over the relative values of stop-motion and cgi I may go mad.

If it looks right and is used right, it's right.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

Apologies, but if this becomes a debate over the relative values of stop-motion and cgi I may go mad.

If it looks right and is used right, it's right.

There's always stop-motion CGI like with Gollum in LOTR

[Tsujigiri]

Whether it's the film of the year or not, it's bound to be a damn good couple of hours, even if all it end up being is another popcorn paradise.

[Cenerue]

Isn't Andy Serkis supposed to pose as King Kong the way he did for Gollum?

[polymorphikos]

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

Jungle (damsels (Savages + dinosaurs) + machine-guns) = awesome.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Just need some fricking sharks with fricking laser beams now....