King Kong

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

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.)

[Spriggan]

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.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

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.

[Spriggan]

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.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

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."

[Eagle Prince]

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.

[Spriggan]

lol, too true.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

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.

[Spriggan]

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"

[Entsuropi]

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.

[Parker]

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/

[Fellfrosch]

I watched that last night, and I loved it. And I think I'm in love with Naomi Watts.

[42]

Jack Black waxing poetic.

I have to admit, Naomi Watts seems to be giving a good performance.

Adrien Brody however...not so sure.

[Shrain]

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.
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.