View Full Version : MOVIES: King Kong
For those who haven't heard, this is the next project by Peter Jackson and crew, due out in 2005. With a new CGI Kong and everything. Who do you think should be cast?
Jedi Killer
05-19-2003, 12:46 AM
its gonna suck. i can see it now, its gonna look as bad as that CGI Hulk.
also, this re-re-remake has been done over and over again. and the story is just blahhhh and zzzzzzzz
Justin
05-19-2003, 12:48 AM
It's not a bad story. The original King Kong was awesome. Hopefully this new version will be good. I'm not excited about CGI, but we'll see. Mighty Joe Young looked pretty good.
Phil Tinajero
05-19-2003, 01:22 AM
I read PJ's '96 screenplay and I really enjoyed it. Even though he said it's gonna be completely rewritten, I think it's going to be a really fun movie.
Maybe Viggo Mortensen could play the hero Jack, and Kate Winslet could play the girl Ann. Peter Jackson has history with both actors.
well, he is setting the story in the 1930's like the original, so who knows how much is rewritten.
However, Viggo would be a great Jack. How about reuniting the LotR cast?
Darth Vegas
05-19-2003, 08:58 AM
I'm really looking forward to this movie, I'm gald they were forced to wait until now to make it, we know Jackson can pull it off, and we know it's going to look terrific.
Mann didn't you say something about Ian Mckellan having a role in it? I could've sworn you mentioned that.
Siri Ruane
05-19-2003, 03:04 PM
King Kong is one of my favorite movies of all time! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
I almost put him in my avatar, but got Jaws instead.
It wont be as good as the one made in the 70s. That's the best.
kopernikuz
05-19-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Master Gandalf@May 18 2003, 11:22 PM
and Kate Winslet could play the girl Ann.
History or no... I hope to God he doesn't cast her... I do not like her...
moocat
05-19-2003, 04:57 PM
ambivalence....utter...Ambivalence. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hmmm.gif
Erick Landrider
05-19-2003, 07:39 PM
I think with how well he did the visuals in LOTR, King Kong should look pretty good. And just out of curiosity, is there any talk of Jackson doing 'The Hobbit'?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Mann didn't you say something about Ian Mckellan having a role in it? I could've sworn you mentioned that. [/b][/quote]
I don't recall that. I remember saying he wanted a role in the Hobbit recreation, but I would like him in King Kong.
Justin
05-20-2003, 12:31 AM
I thought the actors in LOTR are great, but I don't want to see a LOTR reunion. New different actors for a different story.
Liv tyler, as a blonde...
just think of it!
Justin
05-20-2003, 12:36 AM
If they have a bunch of people from LOTR, I will be thinking "Hey, those guys were in Lord of the Rings together!" So I'd rather see a different cast.
As apposed to Star Wars which is like: Hey, that guy was in Schindler's List, or that guy was in trainspotting...?
It makes no difference. However, there aren't that many parts anyway.
Master Sage
05-20-2003, 12:42 AM
I've seen Kong enough I thinks.
Phil Tinajero
05-20-2003, 12:46 AM
I think Viggo would be cool as Jack and Liv Tyler would be pretty good as Ann.
Maybe Ian McKellen could play the Professor, even though it's a pretty short part.
Jedi Killer
05-20-2003, 02:39 AM
King Kong being done by Jackson just shows how SW and LOTR fans will love anything that these directors do and that they can do no bad. such brainwashing!
Justin
05-20-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Mann@May 20 2003, 03:39 AM
As apposed to Star Wars which is like: Hey, that guy was in Schindler's List, or that guy was in trainspotting...?
It makes no difference. However, there aren't that many parts anyway.
That's different, I don't mean I don't ever want to see those guys in any movie ever again, I mean I don't want to see them all together.
I wouldn't want to see Liam Neeson, Ewan MacGregor and Natalie Portman all together in a movie, but each of them on their own is fine.
Don't tell me if you saw a movie where Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher starred opposite each other you wouldn't be all "that's Luke and Leia together like in Star Wars!"
Darth Vegas
05-20-2003, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Killer@May 19 2003, 09:39 PM
King Kong being done by Jackson just shows how SW and LOTR fans will love anything that these directors do and that they can do no bad. such brainwashing!
Way to go, judge the movie before you know didilly squat about it. :whatsthat:
Darth Vegas
05-20-2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Justin@May 19 2003, 09:59 PM
Don't tell me if you saw a movie where Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher starred opposite each other you wouldn't be all "that's Luke and Leia together like in Star Wars!"
Ya' know Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman did Swordfish together, I wasn't distracted by the fact that they did X-men together before that.
kopernikuz
05-20-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Justin+May 20 2003, 12:59 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Justin @ May 20 2003, 12:59 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@May 20 2003, 03:39 AM
As apposed to Star Wars which is like: Hey, that guy was in Schindler's List, or that guy was in trainspotting...?
It makes no difference. However, there aren't that many parts anyway.
That's different, I don't mean I don't ever want to see those guys in any movie ever again, I mean I don't want to see them all together.
I wouldn't want to see Liam Neeson, Ewan MacGregor and Natalie Portman all together in a movie, but each of them on their own is fine.
Don't tell me if you saw a movie where Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher starred opposite each other you wouldn't be all "that's Luke and Leia together like in Star Wars!" [/b][/quote]
This happens all the time... Directors working with the same actors... actors working with each other...
What about Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan? Those two could make a movie about grass growing and people would shell out bucks to see it because they like them together.
Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson have done several movies together: Pulp Fiction, Die Hard: With a Vengence, Unbreakable...
And if Mark and Carrie were to do a movie together... hell yeah I'd be like "that's Luke and Leia together"... and that'd be the marketable reason to bring the two together... you go because they're familiar and have worked well together in the past.
This is not uncommon at all...
moocat
05-20-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by TK-007+May 20 2003, 01:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ May 20 2003, 01:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Jedi Killer@May 19 2003, 09:39 PM
King Kong being done by Jackson just shows how SW and LOTR fans will love anything that these directors do and that they can do no bad. such brainwashing!
Way to go, judge the movie before you know didilly squat about it. :whatsthat: [/b][/quote]
<span style="color:purple">Considering it's a remake I'm betting it's got a big ape in it, and I bet jedikiller did too.
It could be cool, but it could just as well be crap. King Kong wasn't a movie anyone was really screaming to see remade, and before we go praising Peter (overrated) Jackson to the heavens lets all remember the GODZILLA remake.
Great visuals. Decent actors. Crappy movie. </span>
Anyone remember the original remake in 1976? Man that was a piece of crap!
Oh well, with Jackson on the helm, I feel much more confident about it.
Siri Ruane
05-20-2003, 11:38 AM
I like that remake.... though I don't think I would remember it.
Originally posted by Siri Ruane@May 20 2003, 02:38 PM
I like that remake.... though I don't think I would remember it.
if you did remember it, you'll understand that came out a year before Star wars and basically destroyed the original's magic by using a Godzillaized suit. It flat out sucked.
Siri Ruane
05-20-2003, 10:04 PM
Hmm. I've never seem the original, but the 70s one is one of my favoritest movies of all time! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
Originally posted by Siri Ruane@May 21 2003, 01:04 AM
Hmm. I've never seem the original, but the 70s one is one of my favoritest movies of all time! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
@#*$(@~!@*@$*)*($@(&$@*@_!*#!#@($*~!
that is one of the most hated movies ever made. No i don't mean just remake, I mean movies.
Jedi Killer
05-21-2003, 12:41 AM
i hate how Jackson acts like Lucas in interviews. i kinda think he's gonna be a one hit wonder with LOTR. anyway, anyone could have directed those movies. geeks like us will enjoy it no matter what
Originally posted by Jedi Killer@May 21 2003, 03:41 AM
i hate how Jackson acts like Lucas in interviews. i kinda think he's gonna be a one hit wonder with LOTR. anyway, anyone could have directed those movies. geeks like us will enjoy it no matter what
Actually, Jackson acts like he has personality. Lucas has problems talking to people.
And it seems he's more of a three hit wonder huh? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Darth Vegas
05-21-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Killer@May 20 2003, 07:41 PM
anyone could have directed those movies. geeks like us will enjoy it no matter what
If anyone else had done it it would have been completely awful, in the original deal with Miramax they were going to try to cram all three books into two 2 hour long films and that was cancelled (thanks the lord!!!), nobody liked the idea, nobody would make the movie, if it wasn't for Peter Jackson chances are LOTR would never have seen it's way on screen.
Darth Vegas
05-21-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Mann@May 20 2003, 07:45 PM
And it seems he's more of a three hit wonder huh? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
And pretty big hits at that...can we all say together 3 billion dollars? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 11:59 AM
^in terms how much it cost? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif
Anyway, I think Jackson is a very good director. The camera angles used in LOTR are like nothing I have ever seen (granted he had one hell of a budget). The simple dedication to the project to make it the best it can possibly be is a trait that I think very few have in Hollywood.
The real question is if he can take that creativity and dedictation and keep it through every other film that he does. A film like King Kong, with good acting and a healthy budget, would be a great way for Jackson to explore new creative avenues.
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by TK-007+May 20 2003, 01:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ May 20 2003, 01:32 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justin@May 19 2003, 09:59 PM
Don't tell me if you saw a movie where Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher starred opposite each other you wouldn't be all "that's Luke and Leia together like in Star Wars!"
Ya' know Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman did Swordfish together, I wasn't distracted by the fact that they did X-men together before that. [/b][/quote]
Just out of curiosity, how often do you think about 'Swordfish'.
...and there was quite a difference in both actors appearences between the two films.
Now if Swordfish was a huge successand Jackman and Berry did a film wearing...uh...normal wardrobe, then there could be a problem
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>in terms how much it cost? [/b][/quote]
LOTR cost $300 Million to make all together. The largest budget for a film project in history. However, they didn't even go over, which is great, and they made back that money in the first domestic run. IT's a huge hit.
Handothrawn
06-12-2003, 03:00 PM
All ye of little faith.
Mistakes were made in the remakes of King Kong and Godzilla, but that was done by people that had no love for the originals. Roland and Dean just wanted to do a movie where they could plug in more visuals, and Rick Baker just decided to "what the hell" I'll make a monkey suit show it to DIno de Laurentis, and I'll have a movie for it.
Watch the originals of Godzilla and Kong. Godzilla, King of the Monsters is one of the great allegorical movies ever, King Kong is the classic story of Beauty and the Beast(with more wanton destruction and dinosuars).
Peter Jackson has loved King Kong since his childhood, (alot like LOTR) and he has wanted to make this movie since the release of Dead/Alive a.k.a. Braindead. No one wanted to have a nobody-director-of-zombie-movies to direct King Kong, but LOTR did it for him, I think that he'll do the Eight Wonder justice.
King Kong's remake was terrible. They didn't even have the final line in it.
The new script has it though!
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 03:18 PM
I really wish I could see the original. No video stores near by have any classic films like those.
But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, making good of any chance he could to use actual Tolkien writing, I don't doubt that he would try to do the same with King Kong. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
yep, him and fran walsh use old dialouge.
however, King Kong is like Star Wars on paper. It isn't very good to read, because it sounds funny. ON film it's alot better.
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 03:27 PM
Yeah, so many things in Star Wars (and the screen-play for LOTR) have to seem so unusual, usless you see them cinematically(sp?).
Darth Vegas
06-12-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 12 2003, 10:18 AM
But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing
That's not accurate, in MANY places the dialogue in the movie is straight from the book.
If the movie was just a carbon copy of the book it wouldn't really be worth watching, not as a big budget movie anyway (that sorta thing is better fora mini-series), kinda like Harry Potter, which wasn't worth watching anyway, IMHO.
It was impossible to translate such a book into a film series without changing things, adding things, and cutting things.
which is why changes are made at times.
If Tolkien were alive, they would do the same thing. Like how Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, which deviates from the story because it wouldn't be suprising.
Darth Vegas
06-12-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Mann@Jun 12 2003, 10:36 AM
which is why changes are made at times.
If Tolkien were alive, they would do the same thing. Like how Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, which deviates from the story because it wouldn't be suprising.
Very good example.
Too bad he didn't write The Lost World though, that movie sucked.
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 12 2003, 01:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 12 2003, 01:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Jun 12 2003, 10:18 AM
But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing
That's not accurate, in MANY places the dialogue in the movie is straight from the book.
If the movie was just a carbon copy of the book it wouldn't really be worth watching, not as a big budget movie anyway (that sorta thing is better fora mini-series), kinda like Harry Potter, which wasn't worth watching anyway, IMHO.
It was impossible to translate such a book into a film series without changing things, adding things, and cutting things. [/b][/quote]
(how did I know that Bond would get back on this thread eventually?)
I don't see your objection.
I saw the second Harry Potter film, and it was just plain to long, and a video version of the book.
The LOTR films would have been the same if Jackson hadn't taken creative license with it.
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 12 2003, 01:38 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 12 2003, 01:38 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 12 2003, 10:36 AM
which is why changes are made at times.
If Tolkien were alive, they would do the same thing. Like how Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, which deviates from the story because it wouldn't be suprising.
Very good example.
Too bad he didn't write The Lost World though, that movie sucked. [/b][/quote]
How can you even bring up the Lost World inferiorities, when Jurassic Park 3 was just plain out the worst film I have ever seen.
Darth Vegas
06-12-2003, 07:01 PM
Jurassic Park 3 was a good monster movie, and it was better than JP2 no contest.
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 07:04 PM
You have got to be kidding me. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif
Erick Landrider
06-12-2003, 07:10 PM
Jurassic Park 3 had no climax or plot structure. The relationship between the two parents was terrible, after the first few suspence scenes it was obvious when a 'shocker' was about to happen, and the kind of ending were Dr. Grant has learned the Raptors entire language with a mold that somehow made it through the entire film.
Lost World was bad, but it was still better than this.
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 12 2003, 10:01 PM
Jurassic Park 3 was a good monster movie, and it was better than JP2 no contest.
AMEN
JP3 was good fun. They didn't go nuts with the f/x but they wrote a story that isn't based on a book, but is much scarier than Lost world.
The Lost world is one of two Speilberg movie i really don't like. (the other is 1941, just plain stupid).
Lost world was nothing remotely like the book. Jurassic Park at least keep the story in the same area, but changes characters and some twists. Lost World takes away characters, adds in 30 more characters to be eaten, is nothing like the map layout in the book, leaves out the coolest dinosaur (the cameleon one) and makes the T-rex leave the island, all to make fun of Godzilla.
Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 12 2003, 10:10 PM
Jurassic Park 3 had no climax or plot structure. The relationship between the two parents was terrible, after the first few suspence scenes it was obvious when a 'shocker' was about to happen, and the kind of ending were Dr. Grant has learned the Raptors entire language with a mold that somehow made it through the entire film.
Lost World was bad, but it was still better than this.
A) there were like 3 climaxes, the Flying dinosaurs, the final fight of the Spinosaurus, and the Raptors encounter.
B) When two parents are divorced, they usually don't have a good relationship.
C) the mold of the raptor's vocal thing explained why they did that hooting thing in the first two films. I liked it. It also makes Grant look ALOT smarter than everyone else, cause he is.
my problems with it: the fact that the dino munched people die in the first few minutes of the film, and that the dead boyfriend they find is somehow forgotten in a few seconds. Also, the kid partner of Grant's was a wasted character. He'll probably be in the fourth one as the main character.
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Mann@Jun 12 2003, 05:23 PM
A) there were like 3 climaxes, the Flying dinosaurs, the final fight of the Spinosaurus, and the Raptors encounter.
B) When two parents are divorced, they usually don't have a good relationship.
C) the mold of the raptor's vocal thing explained why they did that hooting thing in the first two films. I liked it. It also makes Grant look ALOT smarter than everyone else, cause he is.
my problems with it: the fact that the dino munched people die in the first few minutes of the film, and that the dead boyfriend they find is somehow forgotten in a few seconds. Also, the kid partner of Grant's was a wasted character. He'll probably be in the fourth one as the main character.
a) You can't (or really shouldn't) just go adding climaxs when ever you damn well please. The climax is should be a build up of the events of the entire film. Not "Oh look! Pteradons! Oh no the Spinosaur! again! Oh boy the raptors want their eggs back. Yippee Marines, that were sent all the way from the U.S. because Dr. Sattler got a hunch from the wierd phone call from Alan."
b) I know, it was the making up thing that set me off
c) I still don't buy it, and how did it make it all the way from Montana to Island Sorna with no one noticing it
After seeing Jurassic Park III, I really hope that there isn't a fourth one
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>a) You can't (or really shouldn't) just go adding climaxs when ever you damn well please. The climax is should be a build up of the events of the entire film. Not "Oh look! Pteradons! Oh no the Spinosaur! again! Oh boy the raptors want their eggs back. Yippee Marines, that were sent all the way from the U.S. because Dr. Sattler got a hunch from the wierd phone call from Alan."[/b][/quote]
you're thinking too much like a book. Book's have usually one climax, but at times the best of books have more than one. Good movies have more than one climax too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>b) I know, it was the making up thing that set me off[/b][/quote]
I see what you mean, it's not poetry, and it goes along with my quib against the forgetting of the boyfriend.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>c) I still don't buy it, and how did it make it all the way from Montana to Island Sorna with no one noticing it[/b][/quote]
wasn't it in his assistant's backpack?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>After seeing Jurassic Park III, I really hope that there isn't a fourth one[/b][/quote]
Sorry buddy, but it's in the works already. Speilberg loved JP III, so he wants another one.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Mann@Jun 13 2003, 07:04 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>After seeing Jurassic Park III, I really hope that there isn't a fourth one
Sorry buddy, but it's in the works already. Speilberg loved JP III, so he wants another one. [/b][/quote]
I liked it too, you just really never get enough of b-rated monster flicks, it's always nice to see big Dino's eating people, especially dino's that look real.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 12 2003, 01:58 PM
The LOTR films would have been the same if Jackson hadn't taken creative license with it.
As a matter of fact before Jackson took the helm they were going to butcher the books into two movies.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 12 2003, 02:10 PM
Jurassic Park 3 had no climax or plot structure.
Ok I don't get you, you say that, and then five minutes later you say this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>a) You can't (or really shouldn't) just go adding climaxs when ever you damn well please. The climax is should be a build up of the events of the entire film. Not "Oh look! Pteradons! Oh no the Spinosaur! again! Oh boy the raptors want their eggs back. Yippee Marines, that were sent all the way from the U.S. because Dr. Sattler got a hunch from the wierd phone call from Alan."[/b][/quote]
I don't know why I even bothered responding to your posts. You're either contradicting yourself, or you just don't know what you talking about, as is the case with The Lord of the Rings, you're flat out WRONG about your statements regarding it.
easy does it Bond, sometimes you are flat out wrong too, and we all respond. let the man say what he feels.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 02:32 PM
We're talking about facts here Mann, not opinions, what the man said about Peter Jackson and LOTR was WRONG.
Don't turn this around on me or anyone else, we're talking about what he said, if I was wrong about something I would expect to be informed of the truth too.
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 12:32 PM
We're talking about facts here Mann, not opinions, what the man said about Peter Jackson and LOTR was WRONG.
Don't turn this around on me or anyone else, we're talking about what he said, if I was wrong about something I would expect to be informed of the truth too.
What did I say about LOTR?
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 04:36 PM
You said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing [/b][/quote]
and you said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The LOTR films would have been the same if Jackson hadn't taken creative license with it. [/b][/quote]
That just not accurate, to begin with another studio was going t produce the films with a grosely low budget and they were only going to make two films.
Enter Peter Jackson, he said it was impossible to do such a thing, he refused to make the movies like that, so the project was dropped, so Peter Jackson rewrote the scripts along with Fran Walsh and others and they went to New Line, Peter Jackson convinced New Line to let them make all three films at once, yadayada....
The point in simple, if it wasn't for Peter Jackson, we probably wouldn't have seen any Lord of the Rings movies for a damn long time, and they probably wouldn't have been as good.
Handothrawn
06-13-2003, 04:54 PM
He's right.
Bond gets his info from the DVD, I know it's word for word what the DVD commentary said.
however, it was PJ that was going to condense it into 2 films. He even says so. He didn't imagine three was a possibility. The studio told him 1 movie was enough, and he said screw it. He brought his two movie script to New Line who told him they loved it and expanded the order to three.
It's true though that Lord of the Rings is PJ's baby, and his genius (not the mention 300 million bucks) is what makes them so good.
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 02:36 PM
and you said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The LOTR films would have been the same if Jackson hadn't taken creative license with it.
[/b][/quote]
I really feel stupid, but this is not a desperate attempt to do anything. I must have miss typed the 'would have been the same' bit. That is an honest mistake. I'm sorry. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 02:36 PM
You said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing
[/b][/quote]
I don't see how this demeans LOTR.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider+Jun 13 2003, 02:03 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Erick Landrider @ Jun 13 2003, 02:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 02:36 PM
You said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing
[/b][/quote]
I don't see how this demeans LOTR. [/b][/quote]
No one said it did, I said the statement was not accurate.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Mann@Jun 13 2003, 01:05 PM
however, it was PJ that was going to condense it into 2 films. He even says so. He didn't imagine three was a possibility.
That was because of frickin' Mirimax, they gave the film such a low budget.
Darth Vegas
06-13-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider+Jun 13 2003, 02:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Erick Landrider @ Jun 13 2003, 02:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 02:36 PM
and you said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The LOTR films would have been the same if Jackson hadn't taken creative license with it.
[/b][/quote]
I really feel stupid, but this is not a desperate attempt to do anything. I must have miss typed the 'would have been the same' bit. That is an honest mistake. I'm sorry. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif [/b][/quote]
If you say so... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
I retract my previous comments, you may have been mistaken, but you kinda gave the impression that you were bashing LOTR.
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 11:05 PM
I realized that to. That made me out to look line an @$$. I love LOTR. It has actually given me a lot of inspiration. I apologize for the mis-understanding
Erick Landrider
06-13-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 13 2003, 05:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 13 2003, 05:43 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 13 2003, 02:03 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 02:36 PM
You said this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But with the way that Jackson did LOTR, finding any chance he could to interject actual Tolkien writing
I don't see how this demeans LOTR. [/b][/quote]
No one said it did, I said the statement was not accurate. [/b][/quote]
How am I not acurate?
Darth Vegas
06-14-2003, 12:06 AM
Because you're not. That's completely off base. They tried to fit everything they could possibly fit from the books in, it just simply was not possible to make a carbon copy of the book, and no one wanted that anyway.
But in many places the dialogue is straight from the books.
Darth Vegas
06-14-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Jun 13 2003, 06:05 PM
I realized that to. That made me out to look line an @$$. I love LOTR. It has actually given me a lot of inspiration. I apologize for the mis-understanding
Apology accepted Captain---erm Landrider.
Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 13 2003, 10:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 13 2003, 10:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Jun 13 2003, 01:05 PM
however, it was PJ that was going to condense it into 2 films. He even says so. He didn't imagine three was a possibility.
That was because of frickin' Mirimax, they gave the film such a low budget. [/b][/quote]
Miramax, the film that campaigns the hell for oscars, just like the did last year for Gangs of New York. Oh wait, that won nothing...HAHA!
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 14 2003, 03:06 AM
Because you're not. That's completely off base. They tried to fit everything they could possibly fit from the books in, it just simply was not possible to make a carbon copy of the book, and no one wanted that anyway.
But in many places the dialogue is straight from the books.
ONe way they could make a carbon copy: have NBC buy the right, dumb down the f/x and you have a T.V. movie. s good? maybe, but not the same thrill as a movie.
Justin
06-14-2003, 07:13 PM
After this movie comes out, Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin should join forces with Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh to make a King Kong vs. Godzilla movie starring Matthew Broderick and Viggo Mortensen. Ha!
Handothrawn
06-14-2003, 10:49 PM
Oh, Jesus, God, no.
Anyway, why tamper with a classic. King Kong vs. Godzilla is already a great movie. I'm just glad I'm not the only one whose seen it.
Darth Vegas
06-15-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Mann+Jun 14 2003, 02:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Jun 14 2003, 02:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 14 2003, 03:06 AM
Because you're not. That's completely off base. They tried to fit everything they could possibly fit from the books in, it just simply was not possible to make a carbon copy of the book, and no one wanted that anyway.
But in many places the dialogue is straight from the books.
ONe way they could make a carbon copy: have NBC buy the right, dumb down the f/x and you have a T.V. movie. s good? maybe, but not the same thrill as a movie. [/b][/quote]
I think PBS would be there best bet, or like HBO or something.
Darth Vegas
06-15-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Handothrawn@Jun 14 2003, 05:49 PM
Anyway, why tamper with a classic. King Kong vs. Godzilla is already a great movie.
King Kong is a classic too...
I think Justin was joking, I hope he was.
bodhisattva yoda
06-15-2003, 01:16 AM
damn. i thought peter jackson was going to make a zombie movie next.
Darth Vegas
06-15-2003, 01:17 AM
I think he's done with cheesy horror flicks for now.
Erick Landrider
06-15-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 10:06 PM
Because you're not. That's completely off base. They tried to fit everything they could possibly fit from the books in, it just simply was not possible to make a carbon copy of the book, and no one wanted that anyway.
But in many places the dialogue is straight from the books.
This wasn't a demeaning comment (nor was it a typo). If anything it commplements what Jackson did in getting dialogue from the book. I was responding to Mann talking about the how a remake of King Kong left out the famous last line (which I oddly enough don't know). Like a reassurance that if Jackson make the film that he would have the respect for the original to do that.
Darth Vegas
06-15-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Erick Landrider+Jun 15 2003, 05:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Erick Landrider @ Jun 15 2003, 05:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Jun 13 2003, 10:06 PM
Because you're not. That's completely off base. They tried to fit everything they could possibly fit from the books in, it just simply was not possible to make a carbon copy of the book, and no one wanted that anyway.
But in many places the dialogue is straight from the books.
This wasn't a demeaning comment (nor was it a typo). If anything it commplements what Jackson did in getting dialogue from the book. I was responding to Mann talking about the how a remake of King Kong left out the famous last line (which I oddly enough don't know). Like a reassurance that if Jackson make the film that he would have the respect for the original to do that. [/b][/quote]
Hey, you said that Peter Jackson interjected actual Tolkien writing whereever he could, now I think everyone took that to mean
yu were saying he purposefully weant through the book and tried to change everything.
I'm either groosely misinterpreting your comments or you again "misspelled" an entire sentance.
Please, explain those comments.
Erick Landrider
06-15-2003, 10:47 AM
I'm sorry. A glorious mis-use of words.
I think of 'interjecting' as putting in or using. I didn't mean for it to seem to blunt. I'll edit my post.
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 15 2003, 04:17 AM
I think he's done with cheesy horror flicks for now.
I don't know. He uses alot of the same elements in his movies, which is what makes LotR so effective. I predict he'll go back and make another one some time.
Darth Vegas
11-19-2003, 06:59 PM
BUMP!
Here's some cool news about Andy Serkis' possible involvement in King Kong, possibly playing the big ape himself.
http://www.chud.com/news/nov03/nov19kong.php3
brookie
11-19-2003, 07:37 PM
ok peeps kate winslet IS going to be in the movie
yesssss!
Darth Vegas
11-25-2003, 10:51 AM
I did not know that. However, Naomi Watts is starring in the film - along with Kong and 30+ dinosaurs of all shapes and sizes.
Winslet? Since when?
Watts is in negotiations. Nothing certain.
Justin
11-26-2003, 02:11 AM
I hope Hugh Jackman will play the main dude who falls in love with the chick. And Gary Oldman plays the enterprising film producer. And I hope it takes place in the 30s, because that would be so much cooler than another "update" remake.
Its actually a remake of the old one. All the same characters. same setting. good stuff I think.
Jackman seems like he would do well in that role. I thin that watts is alright, but she doesn't strike me as a bombshell. I'd pick that girl in Troy. She's a fine woman.
the guy I would pic as the producer: Kevin Spacey. He and the man who originated the role seem to coincide perfectly.
Javen
11-26-2003, 11:06 AM
I believe this is a rent flick for me.
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 11:24 AM
I'd say to at least wait until you see a trailer to make that judgement.
Javen, I bet you'll see the movie anyway, just because nothing else will come out that will peak your interest. I mean, who is going to challenge the might of Peter Jackson and his 20 million dollar paycheck?
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 11:41 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I mean, who is going to challenge the might of Peter Jackson and his 20 million dollar paycheck[/b][/quote]
Star Wars 3 and perhaps Indy 4 on dvd.
But I'm sure there's nothing else worthwhile coming out in theaters in December 2005, except maybe the ROTK extended edition.
Yeah, December Bond. six or seven moneths after SW and Indy (If Indy comes out in 2005) No movie is going to challenge it. Besides even the remake was a huge hit.
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Mann@Nov 26 2003, 07:52 AM
Yeah, December Bond. six or seven moneths after SW and Indy
I said DVD. Yes, the dvd for Episode 3 (which is likely to be released around November 2005) will keep me out of theaters during the holiday movie season in 2005, I imagine Indy 4 should be released on dvd sometime around then too (and yes it WILL be out in 2005, it's not a rarity for such a film to go through production that quickly), I won't miss King Kong for it, but I think there could be some competition for it, in or out of theaters.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Besides even the remake was a huge hit.[/b][/quote]
The 1976 Kong? It was anything but a huge hit, might have been somewhat finacially successful, but it's not a very popular film.
Well it was nominated fopra few oscars, and is remembered as Jessica Lange's breakthrough role, not to mention she won a Golden Globe for it.
It wasn't a critical success, but for its time the effects were just like the impact Star Wars. Star wars was just more fun.
And if a DVD is going to keep you from leaving your house, get out more.
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Mann+Nov 26 2003, 08:11 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Nov 26 2003, 08:11 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> And if a DVD is going to keep you from leaving your house, get out more. [/b]
How about you mind your own business. Or at the very least, read a little more clearly:
<!--QuoteBegin-Me
I won't miss King Kong for it, but I think there could be some competition for it, in or out of theaters.[/quote]
sorry just read this:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, the dvd for Episode 3 (which is likely to be released around November 2005) will keep me out of theaters during the holiday movie season in 2005[/b][/quote]
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 12:31 PM
Well, I'd probably stay home with or without the dvd. I won't go see just anything, there aren't enough movies these days that are worth the price to see them in theaters.
Justin
11-26-2003, 12:40 PM
What's funny is that it's two years before this happens and we're making all this conjecture. I believe the Batman movie will be coming out at the same time, so King Kong will have some competition.
Also Bond, I was a little perplexed by your statement about the Episode III DVD keeping you out of theaters through the holiday season. Are you planning to watch it every weekend for two months?
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 12:45 PM
No, I just don't have the time or money to waste away going to theaters, and most of the flicks just aren't worth it, that's all I meant by that. Not that I would literally sit down and watch it over and over again (though I will watch it several times no doubt), just saying it'll probably be more worthwhile to watch movies at home (that I have or havn't seen) than to spend an arm and a leg and sit through most of the crap that's coming out these days - and I will reintirate that I wouldn't miss King Kong, I'm sure it'll be great, but for some people it might not be worth their time and money (I'm sure Javen will change his mind about it though).
Javen
11-26-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by TK-007@Nov 26 2003, 11:45 AM
I'm sure it'll be great, but for some people it might not be worth their time and money (I'm sure Javen will change his mind about it though).
You're probably right. I just don't want to be disappointed compared to the 1976 version. I mean I always thought Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange was really good. And the way she interacted with KIng Kong was excellent. Anyway, I just want it to be a good film, not a cgi buffet.
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 02:36 PM
Yeah I'm sure it'll be more than just Kong and 30 dinosaurs. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 02:59 PM
Script review... (http://www.tnmc.org/dp/0628021.shtml) style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif
Originally posted by Javen+Nov 26 2003, 06:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Javen @ Nov 26 2003, 06:10 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-TK-007@Nov 26 2003, 11:45 AM
I'm sure it'll be great, but for some people it might not be worth their time and money (I'm sure Javen will change his mind about it though).
You're probably right. I just don't want to be disappointed compared to the 1976 version. I mean I always thought Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange was really good. And the way she interacted with KIng Kong was excellent. Anyway, I just want it to be a good film, not a cgi buffet. [/b][/quote]
That's probably what the producers wanted too, so they didn't hire Lucas. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Frendon
11-26-2003, 05:33 PM
OMG some times you are soooooooo funny mann!!
Originally posted by Frendon@Nov 26 2003, 09:33 PM
OMG some times you are soooooooo funny mann!!
I know... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Darth Vegas
11-26-2003, 05:41 PM
He's a just regular ole' clown ain't he?
Dem clowns are a riot!
we just have the best sense of humor!
And we all come here in one small clown car too!
Javen
11-27-2003, 09:40 AM
Don't know if anyone has read about this yet. Ian McKellan may be up for a role in King Kong. I will for sure be seeing it if he is in it.
Darth Vegas
12-06-2003, 01:59 AM
Here's some nice tidbits about the remake from Peter Jackson.
Jackson says that Naomi Watts is his favorite chioce for the leading female role, and Ian Mckellan confirms that Peter Jackson has said that there may be a part for him in the film...
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/444/4444....html?fromint=1 (http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/444/444452p1.html?fromint=1)
Phil Tinajero
12-06-2003, 03:15 AM
Yeah, in Fran and PJ's original draft, Ann Darrow's father would be the most obvious choice. But now that it's being revised and Ann is apparently back to being an actress, then I have no idea who McKellen could play.
All I know is, King Kong is going to be major fun.
I anticipate that the LOTR guys could make cameo appearances...
ya know if Viggo isn't busy...Naomi does need a leading man.
my choice for the filmmaker who leads the expedition: Kevin Spacey! Having seen the original, the actor (forget his name) has a voice and appearance like Spacey's.
Darth Vegas
12-06-2003, 03:23 AM
I don't think Spacey quite has what it takes to play a filmmaker who's also an adventurer. I don't think he has the right look for the part. Not as I imagine it anyway.
I doubt he's been considered for the role. But maybe.
Kevin Spacey is the only actor I can think of. The guy isn't exactly an outdoorsy character. He talks fast and acts smart. spacey has made a career of playing people as smug as him. This is a role he could sink his teeth into.
Think about who they gave the role to last time: Charles Grodin. He was great, even though he over did it.
Darth Vegas
12-06-2003, 03:45 AM
Yeah I couldn't imagine Charles Grodin in the role either, even though I've seen it.
I'm sure whoever gets the role the cast will be the best it can be, as much of an ensemble as LOTR was.
Phil Tinajero
12-06-2003, 12:51 PM
Well, Kevin Spacey might a good choice for Denham. But there's probably other actors out there that'd be better for the role. But I agree, Spacey would be good there.
As for the hero, I don't think it'd fit Viggo Mortensen's shoes. The hero in Kong is the classic, fearless swash-buckling hero and Mortensen is good at playing strong human characters who show their emotions well. If that makes any sense. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif
Andy Serkis would be great as one of Denham's oddball crew.
Gandalf,
I think this new script will be an updated version of King Kong. In all adventure films back in the 1930's, actors had to act swashbuckling because they got only so much to work with. I think they will want to make the character a little more though provoking.
Actually, now that I think of it, Karl Urban would make a better choice. He's tougher and heroic.
Spacey has the voice and ability to play denham, who is the best character in the film. I think he should play it.
Phil Tinajero
12-06-2003, 10:55 PM
Urban might be a good choice, and it'd be good to see PJ put him in a major leading role since Eomer didn't get as much screentime in LOTR as we'd all hoped. I'm sure he'd gladly work for PJ again since he's sang all praise for him in every interview.
That was one thing that I didn't really like about Jack's character in the script: he was either totally machismo as the swashbuckler with hardly any sentimental side, an angry selfish guy, or a total sap (at the end). I hope the new draft makes him a lot more likeable, since he is our hero (besides Kong, that is).
I agree Mann, Denham was the best and most well-written character in the bunch. I'm sure he'll remain my favorite when the movie comes out.
Marbleman
12-07-2003, 12:42 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That was one thing that I didn't really like about Jack's character in the script: he was either totally machismo as the swashbuckler with hardly any sentimental side, an angry selfish guy, or a total sap (at the end). I hope the new draft makes him a lot more likeable, since he is our hero (besides Kong, that is). [/b][/quote]
As campy as the Mummy series was, I think Brendon Frasier fit the bill of likeable (streetsmart but not overly clever) adventurer to the letter. Still, for this movie it might be nice to see a fresh face.
Phil Tinajero
12-07-2003, 02:16 AM
I was going to say the same thing. Fraser was indeed likeable as the swashbuckler because he had fun with it, with plenty of wisecracks and good fighting skills.
The first Mummy movie was the only good one. It brought back the feel of the old serials once again, which hadn't returned since the Indy films. I'm hoping King Kong will bring that back as well.
Oh and the Skull Island scenes are gonna rule. I can't wait to see all the dinosaurs and weird creatures that PJ cooks up. And you can really see PJ's passion for the project in the legendary scene where Kong fights three T-Rexes. In that picture that was around AICN a while back, you can see PJ's eyes filled with glee and love while looking at the conception model for that particular scene. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif
Phil Tinajero
12-07-2003, 02:21 AM
Well, looks like Robert De Niro and George Clooney are being considered for Denham. If those are the two picks, I pick Kevin Spacey! Nothing against De Niro or Clooney but I just don't see either of them as Denham. Neither would fit his persona.
I got the info from ComingSoon.net.
Justin
12-07-2003, 02:26 AM
I would pick Gary Oldman.
Phil Tinajero
12-07-2003, 02:35 AM
Or Johnny Depp if he were a bit older-looking.
Darth Vegas
12-07-2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Justin@Dec 6 2003, 10:26 PM
I would pick Gary Oldman.
Perfect. I could definitely see him in the role.
Though in my mind I see Denham as kind of a big bully.
Darth Vegas
12-07-2003, 11:06 AM
http://scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2...2/04/13.00.film (http://scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-12/04/13.00.film)
Originally posted by TK-007+Dec 7 2003, 07:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Dec 7 2003, 07:33 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Justin@Dec 6 2003, 10:26 PM
I would pick Gary Oldman.
Perfect. I could definitely see him in the role.
Though in my mind I see Denham as kind of a big bully. [/b][/quote]
No, not gary. He's more of a creepy actor or villan type. He's playing Sirius Black in Hary Potter, a role that requires creepiness.
from what I saw of the original King Kong, denham is not a bully. He's a leader, and visionary. If anyone's seen Mighty Joe young, the original, then you'll know that the actor was the same who played Denham and played virtually the same character. He's a nice person, with intentions that he realizes are wrong.
Phil Tinajero
12-07-2003, 03:06 PM
I agree that he's not really a villian, but he's far from a nice person.
Originally posted by Jedi Master Gandalf@Dec 7 2003, 07:06 PM
I agree that he's not really a villian, but he's far from a nice person.
Well he's nice to the people, more or less. He sets into motion events that were terrible in the end. He's not a bad guy, just screwed up intentions.
Phil Tinajero
12-07-2003, 06:29 PM
I think PJ and Fran Walsh made him into a semi-villian at the end, which just didn't work for me.
I wouldn't classify Denham as a villian or a nice guy, but as the humorously self-absorbed comic relief. Which is why him turning into a bad guy at the end of the script wasn't right for the character. Hopefully they rework that.
From Yahoo:
Jack Black Takes on 'King Kong'
1 hour, 27 minutes ago Add Movies - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Borys Kit
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Comic actor Jack Black (news) has been in cast alongside Naomi Watts (news) in Peter Jackson (news)'s remake of "King Kong," the director said Monday.
Black will play Carl Denham, an adventurer filmmaker who is trying to make a name for himself in 1930s New York. Robert Armstrong played the role in the 1933 original. (Jackson has said he is pretending the 1976 update does not exist.)
Watts is playing Ann Darrow, an American actress who makes a living performing in Broadway song and dance shows. The project, which will shoot in Jackson's native New Zealand, is set up at Universal Pictures.
"I've been wanting to work with Jack Black ever since I saw him in High Fidelity," said Jackson, who is also writing the remake along with his "Lord of the Rings" co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. "He's a smart and versatile actor blessed with an abundance of energy and charm and I'm absolutely thrilled that he is joining us on 'Kong."'
Black earned a Golden Globe nomination this year for his starring role in last fall's hit comedy "The School of Rock." His other credits include "Orange County" and "Shallow Hal."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Darth Vegas
03-30-2004, 03:18 AM
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif
Oh BTW, here's a link just to confirm what Mann copied and pasted.
http://www.chud.com/news/mar04/mar29kong.php3
Darth Vegas
03-30-2004, 03:57 AM
That remains to be seen...
Naomi Watts....awesome
Jack Black.....Awesome
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh I'm sooo gonna see this movie.
Jack Black's role calls exactly for the kid of energy he can bring to the screen.
Justin
03-30-2004, 11:06 PM
Eh...I don't know. Are they making it a comedy?
Also, I don't really think Naomi Watts is that great.
Originally posted by Justin@Mar 31 2004, 03:06 AM
Eh...I don't know. Are they making it a comedy?
Also, I don't really think Naomi Watts is that great.
A Peter Jackson horror film is always funny. I don't think Jack Black is strictly for comedic purposes. He has a range, and this part requires someone with his over-the-top humor.
Naomi Watts is a better actress than the last two blondes playing Kong's woman.
Justin
03-30-2004, 11:24 PM
I dunno man, I don't really want to see that kind of zany humor in it. I also don't consider King Kong to be a horror movie.
Originally posted by Justin@Mar 31 2004, 03:24 AM
I dunno man, I don't really want to see that kind of zany humor in it. I also don't consider King Kong to be a horror movie.
I'm sure it wont be zany humor, he's like jim carrey, who can subdue his tendencies to overexaggerate.
JediJaina
03-31-2004, 12:00 AM
Peter Jackson found his long lost brother! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
8-Ball
03-31-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Mann@Mar 30 2004, 10:54 PM
I'm sure it wont be zany humor, he's like jim carrey, who can subdue his tendencies to overexaggerate.
and in what movie has he shown that aspect?
Choosing Jack Black for this movie has just been Jacksons first movie downfall. People are not gonna take this movie seriously now and Black is just an actor of today and not tomorrow. Bad choice. Same for Naomi Watts, shes exactly like the last two blondes! Good today but not tomorrow. Plus the remake in the 70s sucked and this one will probably be the same thing. Lots of bad special effects that are good today but will be laughed at in 20-30 years. Not to mention a terrible plot line. Oh yea, and doesn't anyone remember what happened with Godzilla!? Jeeeeez
I think Jackson needs to take to Lucas and see what happens when you try something new. cough cough, Howard the Duck, cough. Jackson needs to stick with making The Hobbit. Lucas is probably regretting not making EP1-3 in the mid-late 80s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>and in what movie has he shown that aspect?
[/b][/quote]
ok, um lets look back at Jack Black's career. (seeing as he's an actor of today whose been acting in films for 12 years...)
His very first movie Bob Roberts he had a small role, but it was important and dealt with playing a subdued character.
He was a supporting player in Dead Man Walking, a relative of Sean Penn's character.
IN the Cable Guy he was toned down because Jim Carrey was turned all the way up. Black wasn't anywhere near Carrey in that film in terms of craziness.
Then High Fidelity, which sort of used his subdued humor, but at times had craziness. He was oscarworthy there however.
Dutch
03-31-2004, 01:42 PM
Watch the "Peter Jackson" apologists handle this news.
8-Ball
03-31-2004, 04:37 PM
yea but mann, you naming lots of bad movies over that 12 year period or very low based movies that no one really knows about except for movie freaks, like us style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif
oscar-worthy? i think not....only lame Golden Globes can nominate an actor like him....and they did!
Face it, he's a comedy actor and not everyone thinks he's that great. Plus, he's only had one (and it was successful) lead role in a movie. This is still a HUGE mistake on Lucas....err i mean Jackson to do this with his new movie.
This is just as bad if Lucas decides to do Howard the Duck part 2 or Willow 2 after Episode 3. haha
NO, actually I didn't name alot of bad movies. Most of those movies I named are really good. I can see you don't like Jack Black, but he isn't considered lame. He was ranked third for the National Society of Film Critics for Best Actor for his role in School of Rock. Also he was given accolades for High Fidelity.
brookie
03-31-2004, 05:56 PM
i smell style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif the Godzilla remake staring matt broderick.
but then again jack black could be cool
Originally posted by brookie@Mar 31 2004, 09:56 PM
i smell style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif the Godzilla remake staring matt broderick.
but then again jack black could be cool
I smell...an Oscar winning writer and director at the helm, as opposed to the Independence Day Team...
JediJaina
03-31-2004, 06:35 PM
Adrian Brody looks like he's stepping on board.
http://comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4116
Originally posted by JediJaina@Mar 31 2004, 10:35 PM
Adrian Brody looks like he's stepping on board.
http://comingsoon.net/news.php?id=4116
you beat me.
wow...this sounds cool. I hope he gets more muscle though, cause Brody is skinny.
Darth Vegas
03-31-2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by brookie@Mar 31 2004, 01:56 PM
i smell style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif the Godzilla remake staring matt broderick.
Well you can't blame that movie for being bad, the original wasn't all that good either.
Tovor
03-31-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by brookie@Mar 31 2004, 04:56 PM
i smell style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
Well duh, stop farting in my direction! And use some deodorant and you won't smell no more. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
brookie
03-31-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Mann+Mar 31 2004, 05:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Mar 31 2004, 05:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-brookie@Mar 31 2004, 09:56 PM
i smell style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif the Godzilla remake staring matt broderick.
but then again jack black could be cool
I smell...an Oscar winning writer and director at the helm, as opposed to the Independence Day Team... [/b][/quote]
dude dont get me wrong , i love peter jackson, and i really want it to be good, so why dont you chill out?
i dont like king kong and i doubt i will like this one becuase of personal prefrence, there is something about a giant gorilla that turns me off
Originally posted by brookie+Apr 1 2004, 01:39 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brookie @ Apr 1 2004, 01:39 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by Mann@Mar 31 2004, 05:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-brookie@Mar 31 2004, 09:56 PM
i smell* style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif the Godzilla remake staring matt broderick.
but then again jack black could be cool
I smell...an Oscar winning writer and director at the helm, as opposed to the Independence Day Team...
dude dont get me wrong , i love peter jackson, and i really want it to be good, so why dont you chill out?
i dont like king kong and i doubt i will like this one becuase of personal prefrence, there is something about a giant gorilla that turns me off [/b][/quote]
I am chilled out. I'm just pointing out the distinct differences in the cmparison you are trying to draw. The guys who made Godzilla were in it soley for the money. Jackson doesn't need the money.
I don't think Godzilla had the kind of talent this one does. I mean Matthew Broderick and Jean reno are good actors, but we have Adrien Brody, Naomi watts and Jack Black! sweetness!
frootylupes
04-01-2004, 11:18 AM
i think itll prolly be pretty sweet
8-Ball
04-01-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Mann@Apr 1 2004, 01:39 AM
I don't think Godzilla had the kind of talent this one does. I mean Matthew Broderick and Jean reno are good actors, but we have Adrien Brody, Naomi watts and Jack Black! sweetness!
Yea but those actors arent the best out there. I really dont think it matters who you get for this movie, it's not gonna be that great.
I think everyone needs to realize in advance that this movie is gonna blow and suck at the same time. Yea i guess we should all keep an open mind, but the way things are lining up, its not gonna be a super movie. Yea Jack Black is a funny guy, but he's not amazing or able to take on a serious role. Plus, only a certain faction of people enjoy his movies. I think he should do The Hobbit first then King Kong. It's just the fact that most people dont like the Godzilla or King Kong storyline. Its boring and lame and cheesy.
I'm done with this thread....
galactick
04-01-2004, 11:32 AM
The last remake was pretty good IMHO and it should only get better because this time Kong might even look like a realy Gorilla. But yes, it'll probably be more like The Incredible Hulk with loads of back hair!
Originally posted by 8-Ball+Apr 1 2004, 03:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(8-Ball @ Apr 1 2004, 03:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Apr 1 2004, 01:39 AM
I don't think Godzilla had the kind of talent this one does. I mean Matthew Broderick and Jean reno are good actors, but we have Adrien Brody, Naomi watts and Jack Black! sweetness!
Yea but those actors arent the best out there. I really dont think it matters who you get for this movie, it's not gonna be that great.
I think everyone needs to realize in advance that this movie is gonna blow and suck at the same time. Yea i guess we should all keep an open mind, but the way things are lining up, its not gonna be a super movie. Yea Jack Black is a funny guy, but he's not amazing or able to take on a serious role. Plus, only a certain faction of people enjoy his movies. I think he should do The Hobbit first then King Kong. It's just the fact that most people dont like the Godzilla or King Kong storyline. Its boring and lame and cheesy.
I'm done with this thread.... [/b][/quote]
I think you need to take a chill pill.
Only a certain faction of people? King Kong is one of the most popular films EVER made. If you have a personal preference, don't start throwing it out as a fact, since its actually just plain false.
8-Ball
04-01-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Mann@Apr 1 2004, 10:37 AM
I think you need to take a chill pill.
Only a certain faction of people? King Kong is one of the most popular films EVER made. If you have a personal preference, don't start throwing it out as a fact, since its actually just plain false.
don't tell me what to do. And it was someone else that told YOU to take the chill pill.....
As for King Kong being a popular movie....yea, maybe in the 1930s! Todays audience wont buy it.
later all
kopernikuz
04-01-2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by 8-Ball@Apr 1 2004, 10:48 AM
don't tell me what to do. And it was someone else that told YOU to take the chill pill.....
As for King Kong being a popular movie....yea, maybe in the 1930s! Todays audience wont buy it.
later all
Nah, I predict it'll make a mint. Jackson's name alone will draw the audiences... regardless of it's quality.
Today's audience won't buy it? Huh? Today's audience buys a lot of crap... so even if this movie was crap... they'll buy it. But I don't think it will be, it'll be well done, you'll see. It'll be set in the 1930's the way the 1976 one should've been and more faithful to the original. The 1976 movie will be a distant memory, as if it wasn't already.
Besides, I don't know how someone can be so sure something will be bad/good before ANYTHING has actually been done with it yet. It's just an odd stance to take... like it's popular to be so contrary.
Who knows what it will be like? You can say it's shaping up to be horrid in your opinion, but why so negative? It's not healthy... lol.
I'll bet you're not done with this thread style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
Now, on the other hand, if you're like me... the stance that should be taken is that Hollywood needs to stop messing with what works. King Kong, okay... the technology exists to make it better... but why? Why make it better? The original is a classic for a reason. But still, the technology is there... so remake away... I can live with it...
You have Speilberg remaking "War of the Worlds" because he CAN. You have Jackson remaking "King Kong" because he CAN. Because the technology exists to make it better "looking"... fine... I can live with it...
At least it's not the blasphemy that is Gus Van Sant's "Psycho", where you take a movie and remake it for no damn reason. Or Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka... these are movies that don't need to be messed with. There isn't a significant technology advancement that makes these movies better... it's just a rehash of an idea... and it's dumb. It's just ridiculous.
So from that perspective... I have issues with a new "Kong", but because of the technology changes, I can overlook them enough to give a new "Kong" a chance. I'm interested to see what they'll do.
Darth Vegas
04-01-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by kopernikuz@Apr 1 2004, 09:22 AM
Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka
LOL! You shouldn't blame him for it, blame it on Tim Burton.
kopernikuz
04-01-2004, 01:37 PM
Oh I know... Johnny Depp is in it... though... it's the whole idea... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif Here's what I'll say on that and then allow the thread to continue on it's intended subject...
The first Willy Wonka was a fun classic... but in truth... Tim Burton is the perfect director to adapt that book... period... so I don't feel a lot of animosity towards the production, even though I don't think they should remake classics. This is a case where I'm torn... I don't like the idea... but I also think Burton is PERFECT for it... I dunno...
What's next though?
Leo DiCaprio and Gwynneth Paltrow in Casablanca? Jude Law in Citizen Kane?
Back off Hollywood! Come on!
anywho... what were we talking about? Oh yeah...
Yay Kong! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Darth Vegas
04-01-2004, 01:53 PM
Yeah I agree that Tim is perfect for the job. Depending on the film I don't really mind remakes at all, in some cases I encourage them, not in the case of Wonka though...
Darth Darthy
04-01-2004, 01:57 PM
The original was based on the musical and wasn't dark like it should have been. Wonka is perfect material for those two loons.
Darth Vegas
04-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Well if it's darker and more like the novel than that's fine with me, I'll see it, I just don't like musicals.
Its not a musical though...at least that's what I heard. Its based on the book, which is actually titled CHARLIE and the Choclate Factory.
I agree Kope that some hollywood rehashing of old stuff is dumb. Psycho was shot for shot remade...dumb. And even say PLANET OF THE APES! Dumb, though the ending I think was more faithful to the source than the original.
I'm for Jackson's Kong, if anything he has shown that he knows spectacle. I mean I just want to see how the dinosaurs on the island turn out.
and 8-Ball, King Kong was ripped off in 1997 by The Lost World (the whole end...so king kong/Godzilla) but the audience paid to see it. It will work out and make PJ even more to stuff his pockets with.
brookie
04-01-2004, 05:20 PM
naomi watts blows
Vibroblade
04-01-2004, 05:57 PM
^really? Does she make house calls?
Handothrawn
04-01-2004, 07:17 PM
So what do you think of Jack Black being cast as Carl Denham? I hope they do the original justice...We've needed a good new kaiju film for quite some time.
Originally posted by brookie@Apr 1 2004, 09:20 PM
naomi watts blows
Who are you...Heath Ledger?
Tovor
04-01-2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Vibroblade@Apr 1 2004, 04:57 PM
^really? Does she make house calls?
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
Justin
04-01-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Vibroblade@Apr 1 2004, 09:57 PM
^really? Does she make house calls?
LOL
Erick Landrider
04-02-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Vibroblade@Apr 1 2004, 04:57 PM
^really? Does she make house calls?
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif LOL
Enough about Naomi Down under...
More about KING KONG!
Handothrawn
04-02-2004, 08:15 AM
I could make a really corny and way too easy joke...But I won't.
8-Ball
04-02-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Mann@Apr 1 2004, 04:13 PM
and 8-Ball, King Kong was ripped off in 1997 by The Lost World (the whole end...so king kong/Godzilla) but the audience paid to see it. It will work out and make PJ even more to stuff his pockets with.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, dont remind me. STOP STOP!!! AHHHHH
That was one of the worst endings ever. I thought Jurassic Park 1 had a bad ending, but that was aweful and soooo cheesy. When I first saw it, I was totally saying that it was a rip off of King Kong. And yes, people did pay to see it but that was because of the success of the first movie. I think the bad acting, same scenes and mostly that terrible King Kong-ish ending made people not go back to the theaters to see it. Thats what makes movies TONS of money and if it can apply to all ages. I dont think King Kong does. But like JP2: Lost World, it'll will make lots of money cause of Jacksons name. I can already tell thats how their going to promote it, just like they did with Hilago.
Darth Vegas
04-02-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by 8-Ball@Apr 2 2004, 05:23 AM
I thought Jurassic Park 1 had a bad ending
I think you are quite possibly the only person who thought that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>When I first saw it, I was totally saying that it was a rip off of King Kong.[/b][/quote]
Big monster loosed upon a big city, yeah that is definitely a rip off of King Kong, I mean before Kong nobody had ever thought of that scenario, right?
The Lost World might not have been the best sequel ever made, at times it completely sucked, but it had some good scenes, some good monster movie moments.
Now what were we talking about here? Oh yeah, Peter Jackson's King Kong...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I can already tell thats how their going to promote it, just like they did with Hilago.[/b][/quote]
Oh yeah, they had Peter Jackson's name all over that marketing campaign... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif
8-Ball
04-02-2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by TK-007@Apr 2 2004, 08:30 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I can already tell thats how their going to promote it, just like they did with Hilago.
Oh yeah, they had Peter Jackson's name all over that marketing campaign... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif [/b][/quote]
Stop bashing me. Very rude of you. No need to peal apart my entire post. Can I get an appology please?
As for Hilago.....I was hoping you would have picked up on what I was trying to say that they promote the movie for the person in it and just say that he or she is from Lord of the Rings. Viggo Mortenson name is now all over the place. Its sad. Just like when I was watching GI Jane on TBS the other week, they kept mentioning his name. Like they would have even said something about Viggo before 2001. So like I was saying and maybe you need to read again, I was trying to show everyone that they will most likely promote it as Jacksons next movie after Lord of the Rings. Like I bet the first trailer or tv spot will say "from the director of Lord of the Rings"......oh my gosh, I just noticed this after I posted. Even the subtitle to this thread is what I'm saying. jeez
In a nutshell, I'm just saying that its a cheap way to promote something. But I guess anything goes.
Darth Vegas
04-02-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by 8-Ball@Apr 2 2004, 05:39 AM
Stop bashing me.
Nobody bashed you.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>As for Hilago.....I was hoping you would have picked up on what I was trying to say that they promote the movie for the person in it and just say that he or she is from Lord of the Rings.[/b][/quote]
Yeah I know what you meant, that was sarcasm.
They do that sorta thing all the time, it's nothing new.
But I don't think you'll see that kinda strategy taken to the same extreme as it was with Hilgalgo ("Viggo is still the King!") in Kong, but it's pretty common for the poster or trailer of a film to say something like "From the director of _____" "Starring Academy Award Winner ____", or "From the creators of ___ and ____ ____"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>In a nutshell, I'm just saying that its a cheap way to promote something.[/b][/quote]
That might be, but the objective of advertising is to sell your product, and as long as this works they'll keep doing it...
kopernikuz
04-02-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by 8-Ball+Apr 2 2004, 08:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(8-Ball @ Apr 2 2004, 08:23 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Apr 1 2004, 04:13 PM
and 8-Ball, King Kong was ripped off in 1997 by The Lost World (the whole end...so king kong/Godzilla) but the audience paid to see it. It will work out and make PJ even more to stuff his pockets with.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, dont remind me. STOP STOP!!! AHHHHH
[/b][/quote]
Ahhh... welcome back style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That was one of the worst endings ever. I thought Jurassic Park 1 had a bad ending, but that was aweful and soooo cheesy. When I first saw it, I was totally saying that it was a rip off of King Kong. And yes, people did pay to see it but that was because of the success of the first movie. I think the bad acting, same scenes and mostly that terrible King Kong-ish ending made people not go back to the theaters to see it.[/b][/quote]
Enough people went to warrant a sequel... the sequels never made as much as the first I don't think, but that tends to be a trend with many sequels.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Thats what makes movies TONS of money and if it can apply to all ages. I dont think King Kong does. But like JP2: Lost World, it'll will make lots of money cause of Jacksons name. I can already tell thats how their going to promote it, just like they did with Hilago.[/b][/quote]
Is that wrong? They should promote it using whatever works... it's business... I don't think you could sell a remake of King Kong without a big name behind it.... just as you can't sell a new War of the Worlds without a big name behind it... nothing wrong with that... particularly since those big names generally have proven themselves to put out a good spectacle... there's absolutely no reason to believe Jackson won't bring it off here as well.
There is no reason to believe people won't see this. They will. You almost seem resentful that Jackson's name alone will bring people out... so what? Gibson's name brought people to see The Passion, and then they realized it's a great film. You can't predict people don't want to see big monkeys stealing women... people want "spectacle"... and King Kong is certainly, especially with Jackson behind it, "spectacle".
8-Ball
04-02-2004, 09:59 AM
Ahhh... welcome back style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
[/QUOTE]
Yea I guess I did say before that I was done with this thread...hehe
You can't predict people don't want to see big monkeys stealing women... people want "spectacle"... and King Kong is certainly, especially with Jackson behind it, "spectacle".
Ok, now I'm going to "spectacle"....King Kong sucks! Now I'm done with this thread FOR GOOD! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Originally posted by Handothrawn@Apr 2 2004, 12:15 PM
I could make a really corny and way too easy joke...But I won't.
Hando, it was already made.
kopernikuz
04-02-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by 8-Ball@Apr 2 2004, 08:59 AM
Ok, now I'm going to "spectacle"....King Kong sucks!
Wait, don't go!! You have to explain because... um... I don't understand this statement?
What does it mean you're "going to spectacle"?
I get the "King Kong sucks" part...
HE means speculate, even though they haven't started anything yet...
kopernikuz
04-02-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Mann@Apr 2 2004, 03:57 PM
HE means speculate, even though they haven't started anything yet...
Ahh... though that's not what I meant when I used "spectacle"... I meant:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>spec·ta·cle (spkt-kl)
n.
a. Something that can be seen or viewed, especially something of a remarkable or impressive nature.
b. A public performance or display, especially one on a large or lavish scale. [/b][/quote]
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
JediJaina
04-02-2004, 06:19 PM
An FYI for 8-ball. Peter Jackson plans on making the Hobbit, but he can't do it right now and here is why:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040306/D.../D814VP480.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040306/D814VP480.html)
Originally posted by kopernikuz+Apr 2 2004, 09:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kopernikuz @ Apr 2 2004, 09:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Apr 2 2004, 03:57 PM
HE means speculate, even though they haven't started anything yet...
Ahh... though that's not what I meant when I used "spectacle"... I meant:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>spec·ta·cle* (spkt-kl)
n.
a.* Something that can be seen or viewed, especially something of a remarkable or impressive nature.
b.* A public performance or display, especially one on a large or lavish scale. [/b][/quote]
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif [/b][/quote]
ok, I;'m so confused... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif
Handothrawn
04-02-2004, 09:31 PM
Excuse me, miss, could you help this old man gather his spec-a-tac-ulls?
What, no Homestar fans?
kopernikuz
04-02-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Mann+Apr 2 2004, 07:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mann @ Apr 2 2004, 07:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by kopernikuz@Apr 2 2004, 09:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mann@Apr 2 2004, 03:57 PM
HE means speculate, even though they haven't started anything yet...
Ahh... though that's not what I meant when I used "spectacle"... I meant:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>spec·ta·cle* (spkt-kl)
n.
a.* Something that can be seen or viewed, especially something of a remarkable or impressive nature.
b.* A public performance or display, especially one on a large or lavish scale.
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif [/b][/quote]
ok, I;'m so confused... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif [/b][/quote]
It's called "sarcasm"... hence the universal sarcasm indicator ---> style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Because he used the wrong word. Try and keep up... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Note another use of "sarcasm indicator"...
Justin
04-03-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Handothrawn@Apr 3 2004, 01:31 AM
Excuse me, miss, could you help this old man gather his spec-a-tac-ulls?
What, no Homestar fans?
Seriously.
It's dot com!
Blizzard
04-03-2004, 01:09 AM
I like monkeys. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
goodwije
04-03-2004, 12:07 PM
wow uhmm.. hey i am not putting any money down to make the movie so they pretty much can make whatever they want i guess.
I am not so uptight about it, i mean all i want is a good movie remake, reimagining, adaption, or wholely original doesnt really matter.
Blizz.. monkeys are pretty cool.
Obidobi
06-11-2004, 09:22 PM
Gollum is becoming King Kong!
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=230310
Sorry but the article is in Norwegian!!
It says that Andy Serkis is going to do the King Kong acting the same way he did with Gollum in th LOTR!
Seanakin
06-11-2004, 09:29 PM
He's not a monkey, he's an APE. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Handothrawn
06-12-2004, 12:09 AM
He's a member of the Great Ape Family, he's not a monkey.
But monkies are cool, I'd love to have a tail that can catch stuff.
JediJaina
06-12-2004, 12:53 AM
Are you sure? King Kong doesn't say anything from my recollection. Just grunts and growls. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
Obidobi
06-12-2004, 12:55 AM
Movement....Not words.... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
Greedo Boy
06-12-2004, 12:59 AM
King Kong is the shiznit. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/barf.gif style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tie.gif
Seanakin
06-12-2004, 02:45 PM
Hey 'Dobi, I gotta ask...did "King Kong" ever seem, you know, WEIRD, if not redundant, to your Norwegian eyes?
Handothrawn
06-12-2004, 08:03 PM
Godzilla would still just step on Kong, anyway.
Obidobi
06-12-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 12 2004, 07:45 PM
Hey 'Dobi, I gotta ask...did "King Kong" ever seem, you know, WEIRD, if not redundant, to your Norwegian eyes?
Are you thinking about "King" that is Kong in English or "Kong" that is king in Norwegian? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/scratchchin.gif
Tovor
06-12-2004, 11:23 PM
So, to Norwegians he's "King King"?
Obidobi
06-12-2004, 11:34 PM
No... Kong King!! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
Tovor
06-12-2004, 11:42 PM
LOL. Do you have any more words in your language that are set opposite to each other in English?
Seanakin
06-13-2004, 12:19 AM
Ummmm...only if our word "droning" had three N's instead of two. Then, during a particularly long and boring speech, you could call her a droning Queen and people like 'Dobi would giggle. Unless it were about Dronning Sonja, of course. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/trooper.gif
Obidobi
06-13-2004, 12:21 AM
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif
Seanakin
06-13-2004, 12:23 AM
Actually, Sonja seems too spunky to ever be called boring.
Now, H5, on the other hand...and with all respect...*YAWN* style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
Tovor
06-13-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 12 2004, 11:19 PM
Ummmm...only if our word "droning" had three N's instead of two. Then, during a particularly long and boring speech, you could call her a droning Queen and people like 'Dobi would giggle. Unless it were about Dronning Sonja, of course. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/trooper.gif
Of course, when I asked the question, I half expected that the answer would be in English. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
Obidobi
06-13-2004, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Seanakin@Jun 13 2004, 05:23 AM
Actually, Sonja seems too spunky to ever be called boring.
Now, H5, on the other hand...and with all respect...*YAWN* style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
I'll have H5 over Her any day.... More "stiffness" would take a long time to find.... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
Now! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
Seanakin
06-13-2004, 12:44 AM
Oh right...oops. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blush.gif
I guess as mods we should know better. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif
Weebacca the Wookie
06-15-2004, 06:39 PM
I don't think that Peter Jackson's King Kong is gonna be that great!
Part of why I love the original is because the bad F/X, stop-motion and wrong proportions makes it involuntarily funny and charming...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the the whole concept of King Kong is dated; a big monkey is discovered on a remote Island (full of dinosaurs, but no one really cares about wether or not they would make good attractions style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif ) and brought to NY as an attraction and then gets loose and starts ruining things...It can be made stylish yes, but interesting? I think not... PJ should learn by Roland Emmerich's failure with Godzilla! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/y.gif
Greedo Boy
06-15-2004, 06:42 PM
I used to watch that movie all the time. If the new one'll be as good as entertaining as that one was, I'll be satisfied.
Virus
06-15-2004, 09:12 PM
This is gonna be all Special Effects with a terrible story and even worse acting. Your typical movie today
Handothrawn
06-15-2004, 09:40 PM
Don't remind me of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla...
Originally posted by Handothrawn@Jun 16 2004, 12:40 AM
Don't remind me of Roland Emmerich's Godzilla...
http://www.decowar.com/wallpapers/godzilla.JPG
oops, my bad
Darth Vegas
06-15-2004, 10:16 PM
As if the original was such a Masterpiece. At least his looked better.
RustyMuffler
06-16-2004, 12:36 AM
The main problem (in a mountain of them) with the updated Godzilla is that it took itself too seriously. The charm of the Godzilla films is their cheese value. I mean, a man in a suit stomping on cardboard buildings and Hot Wheels while wide eyed Asian businessmen scream in terror. Who can't get behind that after a few Bud Lights? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
As far as P.J.'s Kong being nothing but effects and no story. Um...with basically the entire team from LOTR involved I highly doubt you will have to worry about that. But I am thinking that P.J. and crew will add a lot of the tongue in cheek to it. You almost have to. As I said above about Godzilla, you have to understand that you are dealing with a huge ape and act accordingly. Not that it needs to be a schlock-fest. But I wouldn't be looking for Citizen Kane here. This is going to be a lot of fun, I think. And with Jack Black cast as one of the leads, you have to know what you are in for. If you are willing to have fun with it, I bet you will enjoy it.
But this is just my opinion from reading P.J.'s comments on the film and scanning a bit of the early screenplay he wrote for it. It could end up being the Gone With The Wind of giant ape films. Who knows? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/giveup.gif
-- Rusty
Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 16 2004, 01:16 AM
As if the original was such a Masterpiece. At least his looked better.
yeah...i mean 1950's vs. 1990's...
Every film looks better than films made back then!
At least the movie was not as laughable as the update. The movie was cooler, yes, but it was just plain stupid.
I agree with Rusty, that Godzilla movies weren't made to look cool, they are made to poke fun at. I mean Godzilla 2000 came out and it was also very cheesy. I think that Godzilla, 1997 was confused on how to take its stance. It went for a mixture of cheese and Jurassic Park (baby godzillas...totally rips off Raptors). Looks don't make it great. Godzilla isn't a masterpiece, but its a classic.
Virus
06-16-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by RustyMuffler@Jun 15 2004, 10:36 PM
As far as P.J.'s Kong being nothing but effects and no story. Um...with basically the entire team from LOTR involved I highly doubt you will have to worry about that.
hmmm, yea your right...oh wait, nevermind. Their crew is missing just one person......Tolkien!!! Plus the storyline for King Kong is very dull for todays movie audience
And from what you said about Jack Black, yea your just gonna have to go with it and have fun with it. Which is either gonna work 100% or COMPLETELY fail and Jackson will get hurt from his mistake.
Originally posted by Virus+Jun 16 2004, 11:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Virus @ Jun 16 2004, 11:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-RustyMuffler@Jun 15 2004, 10:36 PM
As far as P.J.'s Kong being nothing but effects and no story. Um...with basically the entire team from LOTR involved I highly doubt you will have to worry about that.
hmmm, yea your right...oh wait, nevermind. Their crew is missing just one person......Tolkien!!! [/b][/quote]
I was unaware that Tolkien wrote Heavenly Creatures...wait, PJ and crew did that too! Gosh...
And What does Tolkien have to do with King Kong? should they resurrect him to write the novel? IT didn't exactly hurt the crew in the orignal that Tolkien didn't write it...and Jackson wont get hurt by choosing Jack Black in a semi-serious role. If you watch the original, its an inspired choice for casting. Plus, Naomi Watts!
Jackson has the most successful franchise in history, 17 oscars to his credit, plus 3 personal ones (one of few to acheive that peak) and was on friggin MTV! If the movie flops critically, he doesn't care, he's made his mark in history. He's immortal.
Virus
06-16-2004, 09:08 PM
Heavenly Creatures? Never heard of it. I'm serious.
Dude, calm down. I was just poking fun at Jackson and his "crew". haha. Its just the fact that they didn't write Lord of the Rings. They had a BIG head start with those movies and same goes for King Kong. This guy should be looked at for never coming up with an original idea.
But what I was really trying to say is that Jackson doesn't have Tolkien with his perfect and amazing story. He has King Kong this time and its bad, very very bad.
Darth Vegas
06-16-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Virus@Jun 16 2004, 04:08 PM
This guy should be looked at for never coming up with an original idea.
There is no such thing as an original idea.