Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 42 on July 05, 2005, 09:00:21 PM
-
To go along with a movie year that is over saturated with remakes--what does everyone think of the King Kong trailer?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/
Talking to Sprig, I agree that the dinosaurs seem a little ho-hum. Kong looks cool.
Most importantly, Naomi Watts isn't that bad of a screamer. Maybe not as good as Fay Wray, but I'm not totally disillusioned, yet.
-
yeah, it doesn't seem too bad of a flick, but I'll be the first to say, who cares?
-
I'm with you Gemm I really don't care to see King Kong, the first wasn't all that interesting of a film and this one just looks like a Jurassic Park 2 rip off.
-
I'd say its more of a Jurassic Park 3 ripoff than a Jurassic Park 2 ripoff.
-
I dunno. It looks less than stupid. There might be some good stuff. There's some good direction, I think. I liked how everyone stops to turn and look when Kong roars, but the camera guy doesn't stop turning the crank.
-
King kong died for our sins.
The movie looks like it's a fantastic 4 - to be watched with trepidation.
-
"Just wait till she finds out you worship a sock puppet."
"Hey, Lambchop died for our sins!"
"Lampchop was never alive."
"FOR. OUR. SINS!"
-
yeah, it doesn't seem too bad of a flick, but I'll be the first to say, who cares?
For fear of being sledged I'll stick my hand up and say "me".
Peter Jackson has *never* made a bad film and his version of "Kong" will ride roughshod over 90+% of the Xmas releases this year.
"Lion, Witch & Wardrobe" or "Kong": where would your time & money go?
-
LW&W has grabbed my desire more effectively thus far.
I feel like, as a geek, I'm SUPPOSED to be interested in King Kong. However, I feel like my geek cred is slipping by not being excited by it. It seems like another monster movie. Seen lots of those. Can he pull me in with something more?
-
After seeing LW&W's preview, I'm veryinterested in seeing it. Way more than Kong.
-
It doesn't look like a bad movie but I'm in agreeance with SE, and Peter Jackson has made bad movies some really bad ones (cheesy horror movies) it's just that his last 3 were good. But I'd rather see the movie for Jack Black then Peter Jackson.
-
Have you people seen the original "King Kong"? The trailer makes this look like an extremely faithful remake, and as a huge fan of the original, and of Jackson, I can't wait.! As far the comparison to "The Lost World: Jurassic Park," that entire movie was Spielberg's homage to Kong, right down to name of the boat the T-Rex arrives in (S.S. Venture.).
Everything about this trailer looks cool, and I for one am just excited to see Adrian Brody finally following up "The Pianist" with something that isn't going to suck.
-
I'm with JK. Overall, I think that C.S. Lewis did an awesome job on the Chronicles of Narnia, so the movie has a good base for its story. If it is pulled off well, it has potential to be very good.
-
Have you people seen the original "King Kong"? The trailer makes this look like an extremely faithful remake.
Yes I've seen the original and the other versions and the only one I've ever liked was King Kong vs Godzilla. King Kong just isn't a movie that I care for.
-
Well, if you don't like "King Kong", then this is not the movie for you. It definitely looks like Jackson is taking a reverential approach, becaue the original is beloved by so many film fans and film makers as one of the most influential blockbusters of all time. But if it's not your cup of tea, than I can certainly understand why you are not looking forward to the movie.
-
Well, Jackson is in that camp of loving the old classic film to death. He's said and been quoted many a times as saying "After LotR I want to remake King Kong. Etc. Etc." (As paraphrased by myself.)
-
Now if it had Godzilla, guy in a suite version not the crappy American CGI one, in it I'd be uber stoked. Especially if a giant Jack Black ended up fighting him.
beloved by so many film fans and film makers as one of the most influential blockbusters of all time.
This is what SE was getting at, we both feel like we have to like King Kong because you're expected to, it's a classic and all the people in the "business" love it. It's like the Beatles and Nirvana in music, they're influential but I don't care for any of their music.
-
I see your point about feel obligated to think something is great, and if you don't like "King Kong," I completely respect that. But to me, "King Kong" is honestly that good. My point is that the comparsion to "Lost World" doesn't hold water because the only reason Spielberg made that movie was to do a homage to "King Kong " and "Hatari," and that while I love Spielberg, and I enjoy the "JP" sequels, they are all about Spielberg and Joe Johnsaton trying to relive the original King Kong.
Now, "Godzilla" on the other hand, that one I don't get at all. The American version is terrible, and the Japanese movies are laughably bad. I am constantly amazed that it has fans. There has NEVER been a Godzilla film that has been hasn't been just plain awful.
-
that's the reason they're good, because they're bad. When SONY released Godzilla 2000 people thought they were crazy but the head of the US movie devision knew how popular they were in Japan (literally people lining up for blocks) and that they had a following here in the states. So he spent about $1 million in advertising and dubbing (which he did bad on purpose because that's what people expect) and grossed $10 million. Sure 10 million isn't a lot compared to what movies like War of the Worlds took in, but it made 10 times what it cost in the US and that's a rare thing.
-
That is a rare thing, and I have no doubt that "Godzilla 2000" satisfied fans more than Emmerich's overblown epic. I gues I'm in the same category with "Godzilla" that you are with "Kong.": I've always been told I'm supposed to like it, and as a movie freak, and someone who enjoys bad movies, I have tried, but I just don't. I can't even sit through it. I think what we are both saying is that personal taste should be based on what you like, not what everyone else tells you to like.
One last thing I will still say about "Kong" is that the orignal has to be watched the same way as "Citizen Kane" - meaning that you have to appreciate what was so groundbreaking about it back then, not how it holds up now. I have a friend who refuses to acknowledge that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is one of the great adventure movies, because he could name so many other movies that had as much action, if not more, and felt that he had seen it all before. But every movie he named came AFTER "Raiders."
-
I'll bet you a dollar, but I know already I will win, that a number of people will say Kong sucked cause the CGI looked fake.
-
lol, too true.
-
the original Godzilla had poor production values, it's true, but it had some really brilliant moments in the script.
Japanese scientist invents a weapon of mass destruction
he then refuses to let it be used, because of the collateral damage.
Was he right or wrong? I mean, here they have a monster supposedly created by a wmd. He's got a new kind. Is it safe to use it? What will be the "fallout" of such use?
Top that all off with the fact that it had been less than 10 years since a WMD had been dropped in their own country....
Like I said, this isnt' to convince you the movie is good. The rubber suit was too much, and there were other problems. But that sort of handling of the issues. That's a lot to think about.
-
Yes, because that's what EVERYONE said about Gollum. I'll take that bet, provided we're basing this on real critical reaction, not what people on internet fan sites are saying.
-
Anyone with enough money can make something look good on screen, heck Jar-Jar and Gollem weren't that different from a tech standpoint, what makes some characters stand out is how they interact with the live actors which includes the role they have. If Jackson has Kong doing silly or absurd stuff (ie unrealistic to a large enough degree) then the complaints will be justified. I'm not saying he will, just that there's not a huge difference in the CGI quality of most major movies anymore from a tech standpoint. As Nintendo says "It's not how much processor power you've got, but what you do with it"
-
Gollum looked real though. Jar jar looked like what he was. And the kong in this looked like a mix - better done than jar jar, but not so good as gollum. That's just on the trailers though.
-
Hey--the new trailer for this flick's up, and I for one am suddenly very excited to see it. I'll agree that the teaser didn't blow me away--but this looks awesome. Check it out.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/
-
I watched that last night, and I loved it. And I think I'm in love with Naomi Watts.
-
Jack Black waxing poetic.
I have to admit, Naomi Watts seems to be giving a good performance.
Adrien Brody however...not so sure.
-
Yes, Naomi looks like she's carrying off the role well. I think the movie looks like it'll be fast-paced and fun with some good character development. I'd like to see it just for its own sake, not for the other versions. Actually, what sort of bothers me about the movie doesn't have anything to do with feeling somehow obligated to go so as to honor my geekish heritage. :P
Instead, I feel a little bothered by the primitivism overtones of the storyline. You know, the savage natives who sacrifice their own dark women to the beast until, finally, they offer up the white--and therefore much more "beautiful" and "valuable"--woman as the ultimate means of placating the fearsome beast.
Lo and behold, the stunning white woman tames the wild beast insomuch that he protects her with his life even though (if I'm remembering right) he killed (ate?) all the others.
I dunno, it just seems like a prime example of the stuff that whiteness studies has a field day with. Of course, this movie was written a long ways back, so, for the time, it wasn't an issue that'd trigger any red flags. For them, it was a cool story of savagry and adventure condemning man's desire to cage everything and make it serve them--or else. Still.... I'm kind of uncomfortable with the primitivist message that goes unchallenged (?) in the film.
-
I have to admit that I thought something very similar when I watched the trailer--the black natives charging out to attack the white movie crew wasn't unexpected, but it was a little unnerving to actually see it. I'll be interested to see how the movie carries it off.
-
I'm just waiting for Hollywood to start making movies, with a deadpan, about white savages on a pacific island killing and eating a black Captain Cook.
Why's it always have to be about race? It's a documented fact, many times over, that white races find, upon first exposure, dark skinned people fascinating, different and intriguing. And that dark skinned races find white people fascinating different and intriguing.
In Afghanistan we got into some pretty back country places. Places so far back they had only heard vague rumors about the russian occupation for instance. Our black psyops sergeant drew massive crowds, children and adults alike, who, among other things, wanted to touch his skin and would immediately examine their fingers afterwards to see if any had rubbed off.
There are plenty of explanations other than the immediately racist ones like "blacks naturally think white women are beautiful because, well, just because whites are better." How about "the damned ape eats all our women, maybe he'll like this one better."
I'm finding more and more that the most vociferous objections to racism come from people who are only offended because they are deeply racist themselves.
-
Ari is quite open with her racism (and she'll be the first to say that the Chinese are racist).
Me, I'm a xenophile, so racism doesn't really jive with my relosophy, you know?
-
I can see how the portrayal of different races in King Kong can be considered racists. Course, it is in the 1930s and race relations were different back then.
I don't quite see King Kong as touting white supremacy.
-
How about they sacrifice the white woman because she's a stranger they have no emotional attachment to?
How about Kong doesn't eat her because She's a neat toy he's never seen the likes of before?
-
How about they sacrifice the white woman because she's a stranger they have no emotional attachment to?
Um, I see your point. However, they didn't sacrifice her solely because they had no emotional attachment to her. After all, they've been offering up their own women for who knows how long. And, presumably, the men do have some sort of fondness for their women. So the fact that the female outsider is just that, an outsider, doesn't preclude all other possible reasons for her little adventure with Kong, right?
Granted, at the very least, they figured they could postpone sacrificing another one of their own women by serving up the delicate-skinned, blonde stranger. Then again, it seems much more plausible that they stop sacrificing their own dark women because they take one look at the white girl and think she's gotta be the tastiest treat they could offer Kong.
Besides, it stands to reason that they'd never have risked giving Kong a "below standard" entree. Not a good idea to anger a hungry monster. So they had to think that Fay was at least as "valuable" as their own women. On the other hand, it makes even more sense that they have a second bigger reason for selecting Fay: they think this gal, with her peaches-and-cream complexion, might be more irresistably precious than their own women, with their dark, mocha-ish complexions.
(i.e., "Wow, this girl's out-of-this-world strange. Gorgeous even. In fact, she kinda seems more special than all the other chicks we've got hanging 'round here. Hey, here's a thought--anyone think she might just make the big hairball happy enough to leave us alone forever? Golly, wouldn't that be super!?")
-
i guess kong likes white chocolate, hehe.
-
I dunno, I think that putting off having to sacrifice one of their own is plenty good enough reason. If this strange new toy is the one, so be it.
Besides, their own women hadn't stopped him, so why not try something different? I don't see at all why there has to be a logic of "she's innately superior to our own women" behind their motivation. I think that's projecting a racism on to it that isn't suggested in the text as I know it.
If they say "She's more beautiful than any of our women because she's white and ours aren't" that's one thing. But even if they say she's more beautiful on the basis of being strange and different, being the first white chick they've ever seen, I think you're pushing the use of the racism card.
-
I agree with e.
-
moi aussi.
-
Granted, at the very least, they figured they could postpone sacrificing another one of their own women by serving up the delicate-skinned, blonde stranger. Then again, it seems much more plausible that they stop sacrificing their own dark women because they take one look at the white girl and think she's gotta be the tastiest treat they could offer Kong.
Besides, it stands to reason that they'd never have risked giving Kong a "below standard" entree. Not a good idea to anger a hungry monster. So they had to think that Fay was at least as "valuable" as their own women. On the other hand, it makes even more sense that they have a second bigger reason for selecting Fay: they think this gal, with her peaches-and-cream complexion, might be more irresistably precious than their own women, with their dark, mocha-ish complexions.
Wow. This line of reasoning is so racist I can hardly stand it. Yummy! If the skin colors were reversed you'd immediately accuse the whites (sacrificing the dark girl) of jumping at the chance to use a less valuable offering.
On the other hand you assume that the blacks are too dumb to grasp the idea that Kong probably wants a nice female gorilla with luxurious back hair rather than a human of any stripe. Racist.
-
Wow. This line of reasoning is so racist I can hardly stand it. Yummy! If the skin colors were reversed you'd immediately accuse the whites (sacrificing the dark girl) of jumping at the chance to use a less valuable offering.
On the other hand you assume that the blacks are too dumb to grasp the idea that Kong probably wants a nice female gorilla with luxurious back hair rather than a human of any stripe. Racist.
Skar, you make me laugh. I'm just amazed that you're so quick to call someone whom you don't even know a racist---someone who was merely expressing what -could- be considered a racist element in a plot. I know, I know, you've said that those who protest too much are often the most guilty ones themselves. But is it too much to ask to try to have a civil conversation about a concern/observation regarding a movie? Also, is it my logic that is "racist" or the point itself that I'm arguing? After all, I'm in no way saying that whiteness is superior but only that Western society has defined it as such and has reinforced that in various ways.
Next, I wonder what the heck my observations have to do with thinking blacks are too dumb to know that Kong would prefer a girlfriend of his own kind. I mean, what does that have to do with anything? Ah, the absurdity of it all is so . . . confusing. ??? Basically, Kong is unhappy. The natives know this and have been offering up their women time and again. I've no doubt that they probably prayed for a female Kong to stumble onto the island. But no such luck! Instead, a white woman comes...
Anyway, honestly, I'm disappointed because all I was trying to do is express some interesting concerns of mine and get others' opinions. Instead, I get what feels like a personal attack. :-[
Second, given that the time-period was rife with racial tension between whites and blacks, I was only suggesting that the hegemonic coding of whiteness as superior -might- have found its way into the plot. Is that such a leap in logic? Is that proof that I'm racist? Well, go ahead and think what you want to. You've already seem to have made up your mind in any case.
-
I dunno, I think that putting off having to sacrifice one of their own is plenty good enough reason. If this strange new toy is the one, so be it.
Besides, their own women hadn't stopped him, so why not try something different? I don't see at all why there has to be a logic of "she's innately superior to our own women" behind their motivation. I think that's projecting a racism on to it that isn't suggested in the text as I know it.
If they say "She's more beautiful than any of our women because she's white and ours aren't" that's one thing. But even if they say she's more beautiful on the basis of being strange and different, being the first white chick they've ever seen, I think you're pushing the use of the racism card.
Thanks for your explanation, e. Very interesting and clear. I'll be the first to say that I'd much rather think "King Kong" -isn't- driven by ulterior racism. So I'm glad to get your thoughts.
The whole "something different" scenario is right on track. That reasoning was sort of the back of my head all along though I didn't state it outright. But I completely agree that the idea of "difference" translating into superiority is certainly less "provable."
I'm entirely willing to admit that I could be basing my concerns too much on the time period in which the film was written. After seeing the trailer, I was reminded of the issues of primitivism and racism that Ishmael Reed explores in his novel Mumbo Jumbo, set during the jazz craze of the early 20th century. To me, in regards to the movie, it didn't seem entirely implausible to consider that "difference" (whiteness) = superiority.
All in all, I brought it up in this forum because I was hoping that my concerns with the film would turn out to be largely unfounded. As I said, I'm excited to see the movie. Yet, rather than ignore something that I've been wondering about, I figured I'd get some other perspectives. Thanks. :)
-
so, how about that jack black? <blatant try at changing the subject>
-
I think that Jack Black is going to do a good job. He really is a rather talented and versatile actor. (Personally, I would have casted him instead of Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds)
However, he really is better in more humorous roles and this role doesn't seem to fit thta bill. Also, I'm not sure how well he portrays villian roles.
-
Shrain. My entire point was that your very accusations/concerns of racism were racist. All of your assumptions about the motivations of the people making the original film, the current film, and so on were based on a prejudgement you were making about their attitudes toward race, which judgements you made based on the fact that they were white.
If you approach an analysis of the film from a neutral perspective there are plenty of explanations that do not involve racism. Yet you passed those over without a thought in order to call white folks racist. When you start making assumptions about people based on their skin color that's called racism.
You're probably used to being called open-minded and tolerant when you assume white people are racist and judge them on that basis, since that's the normal way of things in academia and the PC press/entertainment industry, but it still doesn't fly under actual intellectual scrutiny.
And it doesn't matter at all that there actually were prevalent racist attitudes when that film was first made. You can't make that sweeping judgement about all white people without engaging in racism. Anymore than I could make sweeping judgements about blacks because they make up 12 % of our general population but over 30% of the prison population without being racist.
-
Shrain. My entire point was that your very accusations/concerns of racism were racist. . . .
If you approach an analysis of the film from a neutral perspective there are plenty of explanations that do not involve racism. Yet you passed those over without a thought in order to call white folks racist. . . .
You're probably used to being called open-minded and tolerant when you assume white people are racist and judge them on that basis, . . .
And it doesn't matter at all that there actually were prevalent racist attitudes when that film was first made. . . .
Skar. Thanks for clarifying your objection. In other words, you're saying that I should've said nothing about racism being a possibility because merely suggesting the possibility based on the timperiod assumes that all white people back then were racist. That's a good point.
Here's what you need to know: first, I did have other reasons besides the timperiod to support my concerns that I didn't make clear earlier (see below); second, I'm not racist nor am I "sold" on the idea that the film must be racist simply because I approached the movie with a "stereotypical" skepticism about the underlying messages of ethnicity.
The only things I can say in my defense is that while 1) I realize that it's all too easy to wonder if all films created during a certain time are racist, 2) the fact remains that the POSSIBILITY of a film being racist--esp. one featuring two ethnic groups of such widely disparate cultural lifestyles--is not automatically invalid.
Intellectually, I should've done more research to see what else besides the following were grounds for concern: a) the timeperiod, b) the two strikingly different cultures, and c) the stereotypically blonde, blue-eyed Arian beauty.
HOWEVER, I think it's best to simply call a truce, agree to disagree, and give everyone else a break. You know, talk about the actors and the special effects and the quality of writing and other interesting, less volatile stuff. ;)
-
i think jack black could have played king kong himself. It would have been hilarious to see him dressed in a bad costume trying to be king kong. Best comedy ever.
-
lol. Yeah, that would've been tons of fun. With any luck, it'll be part of the extra features on the DVD: King Kong Revisited: Jack Black Monkeys Around. ;D
-
Truce called and observed. (although the word calls up more acrimony than either of us felt I think )
I'd watch Jack Black Monkeys around.
-
I'm not black like Barry White, I am white like Frank Black is.
-
Truce called and observed. (although the word calls up more acrimony than either of us felt I think )
Uh-huh. But, hey, what's the use of being a writer if you can't act a tad overly dramatic now and again, right? ;)
-
I've seen King Kong and to be honest I think it was a waste of time making a remake. The start is boring the middle is alright and the end is dissapointing. It's really not worth seeing. There are some excellant bits in it I have to admit but the rest is plain rubbish.