King Kong Remake

[OMNOMNOMALY]

[quote name='Lindus']... Like everyone has mentioned, the cg was fantastic and my friend and I were clinging to each other during the bug scene...[/quote]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=Indigo]Oh heck yes. The bug scene. I totally forgot to talk about it in my earlier post, even though EVERYONE has mentioned it. Heh, I actually couldn't watch alot of it. I am really REALLY scared of bugs and when it came on I actually squealed and covered my eyes not only with my scarf, but with my boyfriend's hand too. [spoiler]And when that one bug like attacked the dead little Asian man, and the other guy was fighting him off and another bug attached itself to his head[/spoiler] I just started crying. Not even just silently, I was practically sobbing. I won't lie, I'm lame. *laughs* I don't think I could even watch that part all the way through a second time. Yuck.

(Hopefully this isn't considered a double-ish post >_>;; )[/COLOR][/FONT]

[copperingle]

I say King Kong and loved it. LOVE IT!
My least favorite section was the running of the Brotosauruses. I think the movie could have done without that. How can a human, with its' tiny legs, out run or keep up with a Dinosaur's 25 ft leg-span? I'm all for suspention of disbeliefe, but come on!
What do you think?

[the_sixth_child]

I thought it was ok (too many dino chase scenes though, the bugs were cool) I cried at the end even though I knew what was going to happen :animecry:

[Arcadia]

[size=1]The last lines are [spoiler]the Police Lieutenant saying, "Well, the airplanes got him," and with Denham responding, "Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast."[/spoiler] They are classic, and essential. They were part of the old Kong, and are pure cinematic history, at its best. If they hadn't of been in the movie I would have thrown a tantrum, first grade style.

The entire movie is a huge tribute to that generation of movies in general - the film inside the film, the dark, gritty atmosphere, the stoic, tall-dark-and-handsome guy who falls for the endearing heroine. But it's also got that same classic critique of our supposedly "civilized culture" with all of its ambition and earnest desire for something that is beautiful, pure, and unspoiled, but even as sincere in our awe and appreciation as we might be, we are the ones who spoil it.

I really, [i]really[/i] liked the movie, and I would sit through another three hours to see it again on the big screen. But maybe that's just me.[/size]

[Guest Tigris Tusha]

I found the movie to be greatly entertaining. I ALMOST cried at the end which was quite surprising. I have to admit I was a bit skeptical at first about seeing the movie, the graphics just didnt seem as amazing to me as they could have been, and just seeing Jack Black in a serious role really statrted to drive me away from ever seeing the movie.

Luckily I sucked it up and went with Persocomblues, and dammit it was good! It was funny, suspensful and heartbreaking. I especially loved Kong's little tooth that was visible, sort of made him less monster-ish. The T-Rex scene was a killer for me too, it made me laugh so hard.

I had originally planned to just sit it out and wait for the movie to come out on DVD, but Im glad I didnt. This is definetly a movie you would want to see in the theatre if you are to do it any justice at all, or get any true enjoyment. Either that, or sit at home with your largest tv with the sound pumped all the way up and the lights turned off with your favorite blanket and snack at hand.

This was definetly worth seeing. And hey, Jack Black wasn't all that bad. Although his last line, I thought, was kinda cheezy,it just didnt sit well with me. Wasnt it supposed to be "Twas beauty that killed the beast" not "twas beauty killed the beast"? but whatever. I never saw the original so I guess I have no right to complain.

Now stop reading and go watch the movie!

[Brasil]

Okay, people, we really need to get a few things straight here. lol

I saw some qualms about the amount of "jungle scenes" in the remake. As if there were too many of them or something. Has anyone here honestly watched the original King Kong a few times? I saw...Dagger mention having seen the original version, but other than that, nobody has said anything about it.

And I don't think anyone would have any gripes about the jungle scenes if they really watched the original a few times through, not to mention read up on the creation and backstory of the original film. Around 75% of the original is jungle. The opening is in NYC, the ending is in NYC, and all together, those scenes total maybe in the ballpark of twenty minutes, tops, in a movie that is approximately two hours long.

The NYC scenes in the original were there to open the story and to close the story, that's it. There was nothing more to them than that. The introduction was a quick "Here are the players" type of montage for all intents and purposes, and the Finale gave Carl Denham the chance to say those famous last words.

Do any of you know why the original had that type of scene ratio?

Because the meat of the story is jungle-based. Sure, Kong rampaging down Times Square is pretty intense and creates a nice juxtaposition of the ape and the city, but that really doesn't mean jack when you don't have the extremes in the jungle.

And you'll find that Peter Jackson gave us the extremes in the jungle. Some of it was drawn-out or too long? I don't think so, really. The way I see it, we needed the long takes of the humans getting maimed, killed, eaten, slammed, crushed, etc. Kong expires (relatively) quickly in civilization. The humans expire much, much, much faster than that in the jungle. It's critical to see that, and it's critical to the motif of the story:

Savagery destroys civilized men, and at the same time, love destroys savagery. And it could be said that civilization destroys love.

Why do you think P.J. had a character on the boat reading [i]Heart of Darkness[/i]? What were those questions about Marlow? Those weren't accidental. Those questions all revolved around major themes in both HoD and King Kong: who is really in control?

And it's made clear throughout both versions of King Kong (and in HoD, as well) that nature is always in control. Look at how badly Kong destroys NYC. And then compare that to the non-existent dents the humans leave on the jungle.

Kong [i]only[/i] dies at the very end. And it's not the airplanes that did it, like Denham says. They tore him up, surely, but if his anger and savagery weren't broken by love...he would have kept going. If he didn't "love" Ann, the airplanes would have had to drop him.

But there were too many jungle scenes? I think we had just the right amount.

And those troubled by the spider pit sequence...definitely read up on some of the more (in)famous cut portions of the original. It's rumored that Merian C. Cooper [i]burned[/i] the footage. I hear he was known to do that. The fact that he expressed worry over it stopping "the movie cold," is proof that the footage was filmed, edited, and ultimately completed. And it's nowhere to be found.

It's become a "Holy Grail" of sorts for King Kong enthusiasts, Peter Jackson included. The spider pit sequence is so desired that Jackson and his crew "re-created" the sequence from a few photographs taken during the original sequencing, the shooting script, and just a fan's imagination. Their take on the sequence is included as a Special Feature in the King Kong Collector's Edition.

So I can understand having a problem with bugs in general, but the spider pit sequence itself is part of King Kong history, and Jackson was being true to the source material by realizing the sequence on film.

I did see the movie last night, but I didn't really include my own review of it, so here goes.

For the most part, the remake was a King Kong fanboy's wet dream. I say this because the film was made for fans of the original film. It seems to me that much is obvious. This movie was not made for the regular audience, even though they certainly enjoyed it (like others have said, the audience-wide gasping, laughing, cheering, etc, seem to be regular reactions in the theatre during this movie).

You know, sure Kong riding on the T-rex will garner a laugh from the "normal" audience members, but it's a very precise nod to the original, and because of this, only those who have seen the original a few times will fully appreciate it. Shot-for-shot, in the storyboards, Jackson has recreated a lot of the original. Most of the action sequences (sans the bronto chase) are CG versions of action sequences from the 1933 version.

We've got the T-rex fight, we've got Kong playing with the jaw, just like the original. We've got the punches, the skull bashing.

We've got the escape at the end with the vine, executed nearly identically to 1933.

Even a few shots are identical, like the low angle shots of Ann and the log.

Another nice little nod to 1933 was the dialogue on the boat...the dialogue when Denham himself was directing Ann and Bruce. Word for word, that's what it was in the original, and I know I was one of the few (if not the only one) in that theatre who knew that and appreciated it on a "deeper" level rather than just laughing at corny dialogue. It sounded like that exchange didn't even resonate with the audience when I saw King Kong. I didn't hear anyone acknowledge or recognize what those lines were. And that really confirms for me that the movie was not made for a regular audience.

Jackson made his own spider pit sequence, even. Like I said before, a sequence that has become the Holy Grail for 1933 Kong fans. Sure, the audience "enjoyed" the spider pit (I put that in quotes because most people in my audience were also freaking out), but which group of people are going to get the most out of that sequence? I'll use my group as an example. I went with my girlfriend, Melissa, and my friend Alec (Final Remix here on OB) and his girlfriend, Cat. It was a fun double-date. ^_^

As Kong was shaking the log, and sailors were falling down into this chasm...I knew what was coming. Anyone who's checked out anything about the original knew what was coming. I turned to Alec and Cat and exclaimed "Spider pit!" They were having fun, yeah, but they didn't "get" the significance. I don't think much of the audience "got" the significance of the spider pit. And I think that is largely due to the film not being made for a "mainstream" audience. There's just too much in the film that relies on experience with the original to say otherwise, I think.

Let's not forget the "recreation" of the Skull Island scenes and so forth at the end of the film. The costumes, the drums, everything about it is entirely 1933, and only fans of the original are going to appreciate that.

That's not to say mainstream audiences don't enjoy it, or their enjoyment is somehow "less." It's just that 85% of the audiences seeing King Kong are seeing it as Peter Jackson's King Kong, rather than testament to Jackson's dedication to and love for the original film.

I'm pretty sure the remake was Melissa's first time seeing a "traditional" King Kong movie. She's seen the 70s remake, but that wasn't really King Kong. Since Melissa saw the remake first, her reaction to the original will be really interesting. She, like 85% of the audiences, having never seen the inspiration, is going to be surprised at just how faithful Jackson remained to his inspiration.

It was an [i][b]amazing[/b][/i] remake, too. I enjoyed it immensely, and I may very well check it out again in theatres, probably also buy the DVD.

However, it didn't surpass the original, because there were some major issues...like Jack Black. I don't have anything against him, necessarily. I think his performances in Orange County (funnily enough, Colin Hanks plays an assistant to Black in the remake), School of Rock, High Fidelity, etc., are hilarious.

But Carl Denham isn't supposed to be hilarious. Ignoring the fact that Black doesn't even have the look for a 30s movie producer (that hair just did not work), he didn't have the background for a role like that. He does the goofy loser older brother. He does the goofy loser musician. The goofy loser best friend music snob.

Carl Denham is not a goofy loser movie producer. Especially in the remake, because they tried to play him sinister or something, but that failed miserably. It failed because the character never was sinister in the original story, and because Black just can't play sinister. If he can, he hasn't yet. It felt like he just wanted to bust out with some inane shouting the entire time. Or go running around in his underwear talking about how kick-*** he is even though he didn't go to college.

He wasn't Carl Denham. He never should have been in consideration for the role.

I'm not saying that [i]elements[/i] of the remake's Carl Denham can't be found in the original, because you could see the Reality TV-esque nature even in 1933. But the difference was that in 1933, he wasn't a sleazy movie producer, or a sleazy Reality TV producer. He was an honest guy looking to make "a swell picture." While he certainly was exploiting Kong at the end, Robert Armstrong's "I'll share it with all of you!" was never as...deliberately suspect as Jack Black's in the remake.

The entire characterization of Carl Denham in the remake was completely incorrect, and I think it's one reason why the remake's NYC scenes bored me so much.

Getting to know Ann, fine, even though one of the biggest and most important points in the original was that she was [i]completely[/i] unknown. We're given no backstory (very little if any) on Ann in the original for a reason. She was one of the faceless in the masses. Some could make the case that in the remake, she still was, because she was in an off-off-off Broadway production, but the original Ann wasn't even a "working" actress, if she was an actress at all. She was a complete nobody who had the right look.

I didn't care, basically, about anything we were hearing about in NYC. So much of it was just irrelevant exposition or things the original handled so, so much better. I attribute that to the writing. The original is surprisingly tight and effective. This plods at points.

The entire screening scene...we didn't need. We know Denham is in a tight spot because he's running up against a deadline. We knew that in the original from three lines, and those lines did not include "I'm in a tight spot. That deadline is approaching," like we see in most crappy exposition. Think the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon series dialogue between Shredder and Krang (Shredder: "I don't trust you, Krang!").

But instead of a quick and witty exchange between Denham and Jack Driscoll, what do we get? Jack Black acting nervous in the back of a darkened screening room. I'm sorry, but that's just inexcusable. The dialogue in the original was written by a woman who never wrote a screenplay in her life, and rarely wrote comedy. She was asked to write the script because she was friends with the producers. She was virtually unknown. An unknown wrote a better script, better dialogue, than modern-day professionals. The sheer absurd truth of that hurts my brain.

Denham and Ann talking in the coffee house, also pale in comparison to the original. "No funny business" coming from Jack Black was so mindlessly and unintentionally ironic. Black can do nothing but "funny business."

...yeah. That's probably the only part of the movie I didn't like: NYC. lol

The only part where the CG looked foggy was the bronto chase. The medium-long shots of the humans running in-between the dino legs...the matting and everything was really off. It just didn't look right.

[haru sakurai]

i really enjoyed the movie, would see it again but wouldn't ever probably get a major urge to watch it, like i do sometimes with LOTR. i thought it was a little long, but then again there was nothing in the movie that i didn't think should be there. though i didn't know all the background of the original movie (i vaguely remember being bored by the 70s remake... anyway thank you Alex for your enlightening insights on it!), i thought it was great they showed the entire ecosystem of the island, right down to the scavengers. it was stylish, pretentious, romantic in every sense of the word-- not just in the relationships, but in its values and its outlook.

i'm guessing one of the reasons it didn't do as well in the box office as suspected is becacuse it came out so close to Narnia. really, two big 'must see' movies coming out so close together is bad for both of the films. and as far as critics and all of that-- Peter Jackson had stated that it was a movie he was making for is 8-year-old son, and he didn't care what critics thought. i think that this is a triumph on his part. he had enough leeway to make the movie he really wanted to make, and it's obvious how much fun everyone had with it. i can't wait to see his next effort.