King Kong

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10216525/site/newsweek/

This is a great article on the movie, and it has greatly piqued my interest in wanting to see it. It should be the ultimate escapist movie for Christmas, and if you have family, should prove to be a better alternative then those obligatory holiday-themed crap that Hollywood throws out at us!

Anyone else psyched to see this? It has has Peter Jackson directing it, which has been his lifelong dream. The 'overview' in Newsweek has been very positive.

The original King Kong (1933) is one of the best movies ever made. I'm not exaggerating here or giving it too much credit. To say that is to state a fact. It is a miracle of pacing, trickwork, and suspense, with some of the most exciting scenes in any movie. It also has what must be the saddest monster death I've ever seen.

I have mixed feelings about yet another remake, even one made with as much skill and passion as Peter Jackson abundantly has. He feels that too many kids these days wouldn't want to sit through an old black and white film. It's depressing to think he might be right about that.

I'm somewhat annoyed at the fact that the dinosaurs, as we've seen them in the previews, don't look well researched. It's as if they've been inspired from Jurassic Park and had recent paint jobs. The T.rex in particular has alligator hide and three fingers, which is just plain embarassing. I'd seriously rather see it with feathers (this is a very real possibility, btw). I also hope Kong won't kill it in the same manner that he did in the original, as it's now been shown that Tyrannosaurus had THE strongest bite, pound for pound, of any creature in the animal kingdom, living or dead.

I won't criticise the original, of course, because it reflected the dinosaur knowledge of 1933, and was even ahead of it's time in some areas, but Peter Jackson should know better.

Anyway, I STRONGLY advise everyone to rent the original before the remake comes out on the 15th. If you watch the remake without having seen the original, I'll evicerate you on these boards with my dromaeosaurid claws and impale you on my thagomizers!

*sigh* tell you what, I'll agree to do that if you agree to finish reading LotR

He can't till I give him his books back. I'm reading them before I see the movies. (and, apparently, am being drugged with something he calls "gravy for my brain," having my eyelids taped open, being strapped to a chair and being forced to watch the original king kong.)

Oh man, I gotta go buy Catcher in the Rye again.

Please, god, let people know that that was a joke, if not the exact reference.

Watching the original King Kong will take a mere 100 minutes of your time. Yes, movies actually managed to be short and still accomplish more than than most films twice their length back then. Reading LotR would most likely take me more than 100 minutes, but I'll agree to that as well. As soon as I get them back from Serissa.

I think I watched it on the old movie chanel. It was good. I didnt like the parts King Kong kidnapped the woman. Their different species.

King Kong is myth, not science fiction or fantasy, and it's important to remember that. I guess that's part of the reason that the rationalizing of the creatures on the island (i.e., that the "V.rex" is more highly evolved etc., and that's complete B.S.) annoyed me. I guess he likes Fay Wray because she's different from the other islanders.

The subtext is important as well: "Beauty Killed the Beast". Kong would have been perfectly happy to have been left alone on the island, but when he has been charmed by a woman, he abandons his wisdom and becomes vulnerable. The story of Kong parallels the legend of theTarrasque, which is a fearsome monster charmed by St. Martha, led into town, and then killed by the townsfolk to whom it offered no resistence. In this respect Kong could also be seen as a metaphor for untamed, and inappropriate male sexuality, especially in those scenes where he curiously peels away Anne's clothes. I think racial metaphors are nonsense, but that's just me.

if the norwegian for 'king' is 'kong', what do they call "King Kong" in norway? Kong Kong? Kong King? anyone here from norway know?

aspie minds ponder such things

(Deleted my "Queen Kong" pic)

As I watched the original yet again a few days ago, then followed by a T.V. spot, something occured to me.

Peter Jackson obviously knows that Kong is not just a monster, but a tragic and sympathetic character. However, I hope this angle is not overdone in the film and he is not seen as Ann's benevolent "bodyguard". I saw some clips on T.V. in which Kong appears to have let her walk safely on the ground. While Kong in the original film is indeed a creature that we care for, his savage side still remains. Ann is still his captive, and he deliberately kills several people, by biting them and/or stomping on them, or by shaking them off a giant log. In one of the most distrubing moments, he grabs a woman out from a window while climbing a hotel with many floors, and when he realizes she isn't Ann, he drops her to her death! All this brutality and we STILL feel sad when he dies, because it wasn't his fault. He should have landed on Carl Denham.

During the TV spot we watched, one of the co-writers mentioned that the reason Kong decides not to kill and eat Ann (as he has presumably done to all the other sacrifices) is simple because he's tired of killing or something. Serissa suddenly added that this is psychologically invalid--for a human or an ape. Obviously, Kong pursues Ann because the plot requires him to, but if one is stuck in a rut one does not change simply because they are 'tired'. Instead, she reasoned that Kong valued Ann because she was the first captive that other humans clearly valued. And when Denham and his team race after Ann, Kong naturally wants what the others want.

Of course, the other, more racist interpretation exists; that Kong values Ann because she is blonde and beautiful.

In any event, I'm afraid the new King Kong will water down the beast a bit and make him into Ann Darrow's giant animal friend. If Jackson doesn't trust the viewers to see the good qualities in Kong, he may go over the top with it. And at a bloated 187 minuts, he has plenty of time to do that.

Anyone want to share their thoughts?

Whos Carl Denham? And how longs 187 minutes?

rofl, another good penny arcade strip.

I feel ashamed because I never saw the first Kong movie. I did see the one made in 1970... it was pretty aweful seeing a man in a rubber costume run around like that. Even Godzilla had better special effects!

I wonder if they'll remake King Kong vs. Godzilla next

Carl Denham is the robust, enterprising, and amoral film maker/adventurer who brought Kong back to civilization to exploit him for profit. 187 minutes is over three hours.

I can't wait to see the unseen Spider pit scene in King Kong.

That scene was taken out of the 1933 version because it was too gory and too scary because of the spiders were very massive and they eat the humans alive in very disturbing ways.

I heard Jackson has just used the Shelob model from LOTR: Return of the King to create the giant Spiders but I don't know if thats true

I'd love to get a screen grab of that scene both Jack Black and Adrien Brody get thrown into the pit.