Do you think it'll be worth going and seeing or just a waste of 10 bucks?

I know if I have a chance, I'm going to go and see it.

Just wondering.
 

Normally I wouldn't see it. But Peter Jackson has earned my trust with LOTR. So I'll give it a shot myself. Of course, this might unearn my trust...

[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 20, 2005).]
 

btw... I just got back from seeing Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.... heh
 

I'm tempted to buy each of the books one at a time. Are they worth it?? Or is her writing dull, drab or whatnot.

Just asking.

-Monolith-
 

As far as King Kong goes . . . I dunno. It's one of those movies that just doesn't need a remake, in my opinion. The concept was fantasy even at the time it was originally made, but back then technology was still undeveloped enough that a viewer could watch the movie and think to themselves that it just possibly COULD happen. Now, though, whatever credulity it once possessed has completely vanished, and I have a hard time seeing how this film will appeal to a modern audience. Maybe that's just me, though.
 

I'm a bit tired of remakes that deliver nothing but flat characters and barely transformed plots. Studios are relaying too much on special effects these days (and this comes from a person who *loves* big explosions and car chases).

But, I might be wrong and King Kong turn out to be a smashing success.

Anyhow, I still remember paying to see Godzilla; the memory of wanting to pull a Hulk, growl and demand my money back are fresh.

Monolith: About Harry Potter, I'd recommend the books. If you liked the first three movies chances are you'll love the books.

MG

 

This might be one of them, but I wouldn't pay to see another King Kong. To me, there is only the 3d version.

Still, it might be worth a look on Jackson's rep. I *did* see all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" in the theaters, and found the experience worthwhile.

But, for bladder's sake, why don't they put intermissions in three-hour movies anymore?
 

One problem with that version couldn't possibly have been anticipated. The aforementioned updating had Kong scrambling, not up the Empire State Building, but around the World Trade Center towers. As we all know, these buildings could not take jumbo jets crashing into them. Would a giant ape scrambling up the sides do more damage than it did?
 

quote:

---

I've seen the previews and while I did ogle at the special effects carrot, I'm a bit dissapointed in Peter Jackson. I thought he'd choose a more original project than the movie starring the giant ape...

---

Maybe it would make more sense to you if you realized Peter Jackson's emotional attachment to King Kong. It's the reason he wanted to become a director. This movie is an act of love, that he's made because he now has the money and clout to do so. Not because the world needed another version of it. Because of the great job he did with LOTR, I'm willing to see this version; not because I need to see another version of King Kong, but because I trust Jackson to provide me with a couple of hours of brainless entertainment. And some days, that's enough.

quote:

---

Expanding on his personal connection to Kong, Jackson added, “I owe King Kong a huge debt personally because it really did get me wanting to be a filmmaker. I truly don’t think I would have been a filmmaker if I hadn’t been exposed to that movie on TV in New Zealand when I was about nine years old. It just got me so excited about fantasy and the escapism of film. I was swept away and transported to another world when I saw that film. It was a love affair that began at that point with me for fantastic cinema and storytelling.”

---

Am I the only person who was pissed off after seeing his LOTR adaptations? I kept asking my brother if he thought Jackson danced around the set ripping out pages from the book saying, "I can do better, watch this!" and "Tolkien's ending to Return of the King sucked, watch mine!"

After that nonsense I decided that J. R. R. Jackson wouldn't get another dime of mine.

Then I see this. 3 hours of turn your brain off action, and a CG character that doesn't speak.

I may rent it (or steal it off the internet ) but I won't drop 1800 yen to see it in the theatre.
 

Nearly every scene Jackson filmed seems based on that kind of call. Whereas some alterations were regrettable (I miss the Scouring of the Shire and didn't care for how the fate of Saruman was handled), the movies as a whole were a great ride, that kept Tolkien's ideas and themes intact.

I suppose, in fifteen, twenty, thirty years, somebody will acquire the rights to "The Lord of the Rings" and film them again. Maybe that one will be better yet...certainly it'll be different. "King Kong" has officially been filmed twice before, to say nothing of spinoffs and ripoffs...the upcoming "Narnia" movie has also been filmed twice before that I know of.

Even "The Lord of the Rings" was filmed before---that cartoon theatrical version in the seventies that stopped halfway through the story, only to be taken up at that point by a "singing / dancing" TV version by the guys who did "The Hobbit" earlier that way.

And there were worse possible versions. At one point, the Beatles were going to buy the film rights to "The Lord of the Rings" and star in it themselves. Paul would play Frodo, Ringo would play Sam, George would play Gandalf, and John would play Gollum. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
 

Just for the record, I'm all for brainless fun. Kong is just not my *thing*.

MG
 

I don't agree with every choice to the Nth detail. In particular in TTT, I'd have minimized Arwen's roll and not had Aragorn fall off the cliff and have a confusing dream sequence. But I came to the conclusion: Thank Tolkien I didn't do it!

The way I'd envinsioned it years before Jackson had his hands on it, was having ROTK open with a long musical prelude, like Traffic's Freedom Rider, while watching Aragorn riding around on his horse.

PJ had much better ideas...

[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 25, 2005).]
 

I have to say the acting was atrocious. And when they showed KK for the first time, I had a good laugh. But suprsingly, though it was pretty hokey, I really felt for him as a character.

And I was left angry at the end. Yeah, I know, it's just a movie and entertainment.

But King Kong was not responsible for killing people in NYC or on the island. Men were. The natives who offered the maidens for a sacrifice, the filmmaker who trounced into Kong's home, killed wonderous creatures along the way that belong there, dragged Kong out of his home, subjected him to captivity. The filmmaker was totaly responsibly for any death's caused in NYC. What right did he have to kill the dinosour or to rip Kong from his home? But in the end, he got off without punishment, where King Kong died. There was no thought even hinted at that he was responsible, that they did anything wrong. Wouldn't at least, he subject to a lawsuit?

[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited November 25, 2005).]
 

And then Aragorn went off the cliff. "OH! I thought. THAT'S how it feels!"

For that reason alone, I'm glad Jackson inserted that scene. It gave even those of us who were intimately familiar with the story a bit of a jolt. I regretted the omision of several scenes, like the Scouring of the Shire. But I don't fault Jackson for having to make the adaptations he did in order to assure the film's success.

And as for King Kong, the story is almost more relevant today than it was in the 1930's. What right does man have to destroy the habitat of any natural beast, large or small? It's a question we all ask each other. And as for the relevance of redoing such an old tale? I think ChrisOwens nailed Jackson's reasons when he said, "I had never seen the original." Yes, we know the story. But how many people really HAVE seen the original? Good tales beg to be retold.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/14/review.king.kong/index.html

quote:

---

In a word, Jackson's "King Kong," is spectacular, awesome, phenomenal and breathtaking. OK, so I can't boil it down to one word.

---

Hmmm... maybe I WILL go see it in the theater. A friend of mine plans to go see it in the IMAX theater. That should be a king-sized Kong, indeed!
 

http://www.gerrold.com/soup/page.htm
 

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous
 

[This message has been edited by arcanist (edited December 15, 2005).]
 

Bottom line: Go see it. It's very good.
 

There are three nitpicks:
(1) As in the original movie, it never shows how they get Kong onto the ship, a momemental feat to be sure. It just skips to NYC.

(2) The Carl Denam thread (forgot how to spell) never is resolved. He's the greedy bad guy, responsible for all the death and mayhem. Does he go to jail? Does he get sued? Is his career over? We never know.

Carl says, 'Twas beauty that killed the beast'. No... I wanted to yell, 'You killed him!' It was greed, fear, and ignorance that killed him.

(3) Jimmy. A pure cliche. The young man who always begs for his chance to help. You know the kind of guy who's like, 'Gee mister, let me hold the gun. Just once. I won't let you down. I'll be real good. You'll see.'

Otherwise, it was a movie that suprised me at every turn. It elicited strong emotion in me, anger at ignorant greedy humans, sadness for Kong. However, I was able to hold it in.

Now, ordinarily, I don't go for all that 'entertainment teaches xyz' type stuff. But I guess I was wrong. Entertainment teaches and influences either for good or bad.

And I think I walked away from the movie a better person or perhaps reinforced to be a better person: To be kind, not to retaliate, not to harm a living soul, to be understanding while minding my own business.

The movie portrayed violence, and ironically, it was fashioned in such a way, I came away having a greater distaste for violence. In particular, I never wanted to see another gun in my life.
 

(Spoiler)

I agree with everything that ChrisOwens said, plus I'd like to throw in:

(4) The complete bloodlust of the T-Rexes. I'm sorry, but hanging over a huge cliff, I'd have more on even my feeble predator mind than some snack hanging next to me.
 

Utterly worth it. I was never bored. Not for a moment. Great action, great special effects, great emotion . . .

I want to see it again.
 

Jackson did well with an old, well-told tale. He'll be able to write his own ticket for darned near anything he wants to do from here on out.