June 28, 2005

• King Kong vs. Jurassic Park?
• There were always dinosaurs in the Kong story - the original has the T-Rex vs Kong fight, plus the brontosaurs. I forget if the 70s version had them, I suspect not.
• Peter Jackson is a pig.
• Personally, I love the original. I was quite fond of the '76 remake - as a kid it was quite enthralling. Faye Wray = yes, Jessica Lange = yes, Naomi Watts = not sure how I feel about her doing this character. Jack Black = seems like a great role for him. I never pay attention to the current state of movie production/release, so I had no idea they were doing this film. Kids will love it for sure... It's a great story indeed. Hope it's not overly-glossed 'n digitized.
• Are they having the can't-decide-how-big-Kong-is problem? He looked small (relatively) in the tossing-cars-in-the-street bit, then big again when facing off against the Tyrannosaur.
• Stan the Bat, I noticed the same thing. And the cgi looked pretty crappy to me, especially considering how well he handled in in Lord of the Rings.
• T-Rex's, as shown, only stood 15ft high. Kong seemed to be the right size.
• Kong looks about the right size to me also. His fist holds a human torso as in the original. The problem with the first version and the 70s one is that they did not have accurate Gorilla proportions, they have small legs. Also, it's easy to believe the Empire State building to be bigger than it actually is on film. All of the street shots appear to be cgi, which looks quite good to me. It would be ridiculously expensive to recreate 30s NY with physical sets.
• If you'd like to download the large (30.1 MB) version of the trailer, instead of just watching it on the browser you can right-click/save as here:movie Looks good btw :)
• Fuck remakes.
• Technically, this is a reremake.
• But the important question remains: is there gonna be hot monkey/female sex, like in the '76 version? (a few NSFW pixels in one of the photos)
• Peter Jackson rocks. He can do no wrong. Even is he were to make a movie that totally sucked, I would defend him with my last breath. I will go and see this Kong even though it will come out here 3 months after everyone else gets it... /pro-Kiwi rant
• "He can do no wrong." Ohh.. he can.
• Peter Jackson is a pig. I think that's pretty unfair. It's a contractual dispute. The guy has sunk enough into the NZ film industry such that he could never get back the money in 3 lifetimes even if everything returned in the same league as LOTR.
• Well I'm going to go and see it. Oh yes. Wearing my t-shirt.
• Odd, this CGI looks good to me- and I think all CGI is shit, including the massively overpraised obviosuly-standing-on-top-the-scenery-and-not-in-it Gollum. And this probably isnt even finished, since the movie isnt out for 6 months.
• I think I am in love with Peter Jackson. What's his next film? I'd like to see his take on The Neverending Story. Or The Wizard of Oz.
• My open suggestion to Peter Jackson: The Karate Kid: In Space.
• I still haven't forgiven Peter Jackson for shitting all over six hours of my life and calling it Lord of the Rings. I don't quite hate myself enough to watch the third.
• Lord of the Rings was certainly flawed, but it is as close as we will ever come in our lifetimes to a definitive version. I would have been more enthusiastic if it weren't for Jackson's addiction to  m a s s i v e   &   i n a p p r o p r i a t e   z o o m s   at every conceivable opportunity, hi-pitched shrieking monsters and Liv Tyler. And gay Hobbits. I certainly don't think he is the god of film-making and fully expect the fanbase to turn on him just like they did on Lucas, as soon as he doesn't do something quite to their expectations. To be honest, I don't see much difference in his obsessions with effects and those of Lucas, except Lucas probably would never show muppets fucking each other and being machine-gunned.
• HEY SOME OF US LIKED THE GAY HOBBITS
• A little too much, in fact.
• The CGI did look a little lax, but I'm hoping that will be ironed out. I gave a little squeal of delight when I saw Jack Black. And speaking as an uber-LOTR geek, the movies ROCKED! They could have been better, but not by much. Really, the only time I didn't like the movies was whenever Liv Tyler was on screen. God,I can't wait for this movie. It's gonna be sweet...
• It looks pretty. It also looks exactly like the original film, only with newfangled effects. Which leads me to ask, why remake? You're giving us the same movie.
• If we were talking about The Third Man or Citizen Kane, yeah, there's not much in remaking those, but the whole point of King Kong was "wow look at the giant ape" which kind of gets lost these days what with the original's effects being pretty unbelievable now. It's the kind of story that stands a retelling, imho. Now, if they remade Psycho shot for shot, then you'd be.. oh, wait...
• I must say the islanders are a lot creepier this time around.
• What Chy said above. I usually don't enjoy remakes (in the typical Hollywood Cash Machine sense), but this seems like it will be a good one to revisit. The Kong movies were definitely favorites when I was a child. I try looking at it from that standpoint - - why shouldn't kids growing up today get to see this great story, using present-day effects?
• the only time I didn't like the movies was whenever Liv Tyler was on screen I'd definitely tap it. From behind, with her hair held tightly in my fist...
• Not being a LOTR fan (I appreciate that they were exceptionally well done -- it's just that fantasy ain't my bag), I'm not sold on Kong on the Peter Jackson credits. That being said, it looks great. Jack Black seems actually tolerable (I assume his Ritalin prescription has been boosted), and Naomi, well, it doesn't take much to satisfy me on the Naomi front. She doesn't need to act on my account -- she can just stand there for a couple of hours, and I'd be pretty happy. Trailer looks great, a lot better than the crap that's out there right now. THIS should have been the summer movie we all wanted. More monkeys. It's the solution to everything, I tell you...
• Ah, it looks like fun.
• Everything is better with a monkey. And I have to agree with those who are saying that Jackson ROCKS. I am convinced that his LotR films are the best we could hope to get. I have a letter from SPIELBERG circa 1980 declining to make them because they were "far too impossible to be successfully realized" on film. Granted, special effects made a lot more possible, but Jackson actually did it. And fairly faithfully to the material to boot.
• I think the hobbits were gay in the original, they were just older (in their 50s, except for young Samwise, which means 30ish if they were human) and gay.
• I'm pretty sure there was a troll fucking scene too. Well, it was implied.
• I guess it didn't really help that the books made me want to peel my fingernails off.
• I felt that the LOTR movies were visually stunning. I really enjoyed the first movie because I had never seen anything like it. The second movie came along and I had seen something like it -- the first movie. So that left me with characters and plot. And they are not particularly interesting. Yes, there were some stunning scenes and cool shots, but I hardly liked or cared about any character. The books are revered because they were the first of their kind, and they were outrageous in their detail. It is my belief that the LOTR movies are not as universally loved as people think they are. I seldom hear people discuss them. I certainly don't hear people reciting dialogue. How many people actually are interested in seeing the movies again? How many do see the movies still? People talked about Star Wars and Batman and Jurassic Park and others. I don't hear people talk about LOTR. I imagine that, behind Passion of the Christ, the LOTR dvds have the second highest percentage of owners who have never watched them all the way through.
• JB: I think the hobbits were gay in the original, they were just older (in their 50s, except for young Samwise, which means 30ish if they were human) and gay. Nah, only youngsters think that! This was basically a buddy story, but written back in the days when the word "gay" meant "quite happy/frivolous". Sam's relationship to Frodo was more along the lines of poorly-literate-and-unswervingly-faithful-to-the-point-of-being-nauseatingly-sycophantic servant, to the benevolent-childless-rich-landowner. In those days, defining rigid social classes was thought right and proper. That sort of thing wouldn't happen now! wait a minute...
• Bernockle: The BBC radio version of LOTR had (and has) a massive cult following and yes, sad girl that I am, I would be able to recite portions of dialogue, along with any other afficionados I met. (Very good CD collection to have if you are a car-commuter.) In Jacksons's LOTR, the only nod to the BBC fans was the appearance of Ian Holm; Bilbo in the movie, Frodo in the BBC radio version. /nerdy factoid
• It's a contractual dispute. I'm sorry my little joke got past you.
• And fairly faithfully to the material to boot. There were enough discrepancies that I think the LotR movies must simply be said to be "inspired by" Tolkien's books, instead of based on them. Some, including I, would claim that Jackson's conception of Middle Earth lacks the exacting genius of Tolkien. He takes a linguistically based mythology and tries to fashion a story with humanistic and filmic appeal; Tolkien's elves thus become Jackson's princes and pirates; his dwarves become clowns; his Dúnedain action heroes. Gollum, most of all, is unrecognizable in the film version. Instead of a sneaky villain, we get a pitiful creature in whose schizophrenic head a devil and an angel are waging war. When Frodo says that he pities Gollum (in the film), we think that the pity comes from Gollum's sad state, not that it comes from the fundamental goodness of Frodo's and hobbit nature. Jackson's orcs and hobbits are the most faithful to Tolkien's creations, perhaps because these races were already based on ready archetypes.
• tensor's insight seems quite on the money. Jackson has all the subtlety of a megaton asteroid smashing into a planet. He has imagination, but not subtlety in any sense. If he hits a target, it is because his ammunition is a howitzer shell.
• >He takes a linguistically based mythology and tries to fashion a story with humanistic and filmic appeal In fairness, though, if his intention had been to make a series of three big-budget movies with linguistically-based appeal, nobody would have given him a dime...
• I'd largely agree with tensor as well, with the possible distinction that those are the reasons why I think Jackson's films are far superior to Tolkien's clunky, pedantic and empathy-poor novels.
• Yeah, tensor, but they looked fucking cool!
• Certainly, the LotR movies succeed as movies. One doesn't take multi-billion box-office draws and win Oscars by making trash. My point above was entirely to counter the claim that the movies were "fairly faithful to the material". There are obvious reasons for Jackson's choices, and even the argument that being faithful is not a worthwhile ideal is an easy one.
• No. One doesn't.
• why have I spent so much of my time witnessing actors pretend things? we are not actors don't want to go down in flames with people watching the twin towers shown as an establishing shot saddens many films the Empire State used as an action location gladdens many too so why do I cry when Kong turns to the sunrise softly thumps his chest? --Norman Schwenk, "Movie"
• 17 Questions about King Kong The most amazing thing I know about Jane Cooper is that she's the niece of King Kong. by JAMES WRIGHT Is it a myth? And if so, what does it tell us about ourselves? Is Kong a giant ape, or is he an African, beating his chest like a responsive gong? Fay Wray lies in the hand of Kong as in the hand of God the Destroyer. She gives the famous scream. Is the final conflict (as Merian C. Cooper maintained) really between man and the forces of nature, or is it a struggle for the soul and body of the white woman? Who was more afraid of the dark, Uncle Merian or his older sister? She was always ready to venture downstairs whenever he heard a burglar. When he was six his Confederate uncle gave him EXPLORATIONS AND ADVENTURES IN EQUATORIAL AFRICA by Paul du Chaillu, 1861. Does that island of prehistoric life forms still rise somewhere off the coast of the Dark Continent, or is it lost in preconscious memory? Is fear of the dark the same as fear of sexuality? Mary Coldwell his mother would have destroyed herself had she not been bound by a thread to the wrist of her wakeful nurse. What nights theirs must have been! Why was I too first called after Mary (or Merian) Coldwell, till my mother, on the morning of the christening, decided it was a hard-luck name? How does our rising terror at so much violence, as Kong drops the sailors one by one into the void or rips them with his fangs, resolve itself into shame at Kong's betrayal? Is Kong's violence finally justified, because he was in chains? Is King Kong our Christ? Watch him overturn the el-train, rampage through the streets! But why is New York, the technological marvel, so distrusted, when technologically the film was unsurpassed for its time? Must the anthropologist always dream animal dreams? Must we? Kong clings to the thread of the Empire State Building. He wavers. Why did Uncle Merian and his partner Schoedsack choose to play the airmen who over and over exult to shoot Kong down? He said: Why did I ever leave Africa?—and then as if someone had just passed a washcloth over his face: But I've had a very good marriage.
• King Kong King Kong that fellow Wright has done ye wrong