Some thoughts on Jackson's Kong in Kong - 8th Wonder of the World Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Some thoughts on Jackson's Kong

Author	Comment
ryanbrennan		#41	[-]
Aug 4 08 3:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I personally do not know anyone under the age of 30 who has even seen the '33 film. And likely haven't seen the '76 version either. A 30 year-old was only 1 year old when that one came out. That makes it an "old" movie.
	Remove this ad
BijouBob8mm		#42	[-]
Aug 4 08 8:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	<< ...I don't think any of us can say whether a film will be remembered for decades to come. To include the original, unfortunately. I personally do not know anyone under the age of 30 who has even seen the '33 film. I don't know about that; just a few years back a local organization rented the original KING KONG to show as part of a fund-raiser. The place was packed with kids wanting to see it. When the monsters came onscreen, they ate it up. I don't see Jackson's Kong as a pet. I see him as also being Nature personified. Unlike the natives, who fear Kong, and unlike Denham, who thinks he can exploit Kong, Watt's Ann sees him for what he is. Here's a spot where I think Jackson's film is weak: We don't know squat about the natives, and no one takes the time to learn. Are they cannibals? Do they really worship Kong as a god, or is he just a pain in the a** that has to be thrown some "food" every so often to keep him off their backs? The natives show up, do a little cackling, there is a confrontation and then the whole thing is over with as quickly as it began. Even after they kidnap Ann, we don't learn anything more about them or their motives. (Unless Jackson is taking for granted everyone who has seen his film is very familiar with the previous versions.) In the original film and '76 remake, we learn there is a reason for the natives doing what they do. Here, we don't see them about to sacrifice one of their own to Kong as we did in 1933 and 1976. Maybe that's a part of their life, or maybe Kong just has to rely on the occasional careless native hunter who gets too close...we simply don't know. As for Watts' Ann seeing Kong for what he is...what he is is a giant beast that could accidently crush her without meaning to. Look at how Ann is whipped around as Kong crashes through the jungle after first capturing her. Realistically, that little jaunt would have left her with at least whiplash, if not a broken neck. He's not trying to do her any harm, but he could still do it with little effort or awareness. Again, I like the film a lot, but think plot and characters got overshadowed by CGI euphoria. Also keep in mind we had plenty of time to watch Ann's vaudeville act, plenty of time to hear Carl Denham's backstory, but no time to learn anything more about the natives and their exotic island? All that time spent on establishing the Depression era setting could have been done much more concisely (witness the 1933 film), allowing us to explore and enjoy the more exotic aspects of the story to a greater degree.
Great Ape		#43	[-]
Aug 4 08 12:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Good post Bijou! I agree with you on this. I wish we would have seen the natives again when Kong was being captured. What was their point of view then? Their god was being captured. That is a very strong scene in the original. It would have been cool to see Kong go on a killing spree of both sailors AND natives. One thing Jackson did do, he did show what Kong did with the "other" native women by showing the bone yard. So that was a peek into the natives back story of sacrifing their own. Kong would have most likely killed Ann at that spot. Tore her limb from limb as the others were. I guess he did this because he was crazed from lonliness. Her escape may have been the first since the "natives" knew their fate and probably did not put up a struggle. I'm one of the few people that owns the book, "The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island," so I understand what Jackson was trying to do. But this of course does not help the average movie goer. Great book by the way!
BijouBob8mm		#44	[-]
Aug 4 08 12:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	One thing Jackson did do, he did show what Kong did with the "other" native women by showing the bone yard. Were they all women? (I didn't get a chance to count the ribs. ) Seriously, though, I wondered if those had been sacrifices, or victims, or possibly both. Again, some things just seemed so rushed after all the time spent in New York and on the boat. You know, the best test for this film would be to check it out on someone who had never seen either previous version of KING KONG, and get their reaction. In spite of its flaws, I like it. But given what Jackson was able to do with LORD OF THE RINGS, I expected a bit more out of this than we actually got. And, as I said earlier, I think I like the alternate cut released to DVD better than the theatrical version.
Great Ape		#45	[-]
Aug 4 08 2:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	You're right...were they all women? Lol. I also enjoy the Extended Edition much more. I wish he would have cut the Bronto stampede in half - it's soooo long - and put in the Swamp sequence within the original theatrical release, which is spectacular! That sequence also added a bit to the Jack Black's Denham character quite a bit with him begging Preston to save the camera, and filming the last sailor's demise trying to get up on the shore. There are many small things that editing should have and could have smoothed out in this picture. The film was rushed IMO and should never have been released when it did. Especially with Narnia coming out soon after. I still love the film, but agree with the many nitpicks within, some more than others.
killer meteor		#46	[-]
Aug 4 08 2:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Omega Man wrote: << ...I don't think any of us can say whether a film will be remembered for decades to come. To include the original, unfortunately. I personally do not know anyone under the age of 30 who has even seen the '33 film. It's black and white... They're not interested. I was 8 when I first saw King Kong and it made me a film fan. I'm 21 now
hermanthegerm		#47	[-]
Aug 4 08 4:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	BijouBob8mm wrote: However, in today's more enlightened age of Dian Fossey and Animal Planet, I think we'd despise a character who didn't defend a giant ape that clearly had no intention of harming her and in fact, saved her life countless times. (Heck, even in the wilds, if I encountered a puny little thing like an elephant, I'm going to be giving it plenty of elbow room so it won't feel crowded! ) An elephant's a vegetarian! Don't you know you've got nothing to fear??? At least that what Spielberg would have us believe. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Cameron McCasland		#48	[-]
Aug 4 08 11:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Count me in the under thirty camp who saw it as a kid and loved it. A trip to universal studios at an early age gave me a certain love of horror. I was introduced to the Mega Kong on the train ride, and met frankenstein face to face. Changed me.
BijouBob8mm		#49	[-]
Aug 5 08 10:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	An elephant's a vegetarian! Don't you know you've got nothing to fear??? I wouldn't be worried about being on the menu; I would be worried about being trampled on. (Hey, you saw the bronto stampede in PJ's KONG...they weren't chasing the sailors for snacks!) But, this raises a good point: Gorillas are herbivores, so what are all those Kongs (1933, 1976 and 2005) doing with all those human sacrifices?!!!
cjh5801		#50	[-]
Aug 5 08 10:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Gorillas are herbivores, so what are all those Kongs (1933, 1976 and 2005) doing with all those human sacrifices?!!! I don't think anyone has suggested that the Kongs were dining on them. The natives obviously thought of them as "brides." Kong seems to have just been annoyed by all the screaming (until Ann/Dwan showed up, that is). - Clark hollowaypages.com
	Remove this ad
BijouBob8mm		#51	[-]
Aug 6 08 8:20 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The natives obviously thought of them as "brides." "The little woman" indeed! (Although KING KONG LIVES shows us Kong feeding on alligators while eluding the army.)
Kingkongkessler		#52	[-]
Aug 6 08 9:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kong isn't just a gorilla, that is Jackson's biggest mistake (he should have never let Serkis influence him like that in MHO, especially since Serkis never saw the original until he was hired for the part) Kong in the 33 film is a meat-eater, watch him after he kills the Pteranadon, he takes a couple extra bites of him, the thing is already dead but Kong wants a taste of him and takes a few more bites, if he wasn't a meat-eater, after it was dead he would have tossed it right away. as for PJ's version, I always liked it but was very disappointed in it, it could have been so much more, he had all the tools to make a version almost as good as the original, but he decided to make a chick flick in MHO. I was at the premier in NYC and was very upset coming out of the theatre. He made so many little mistakes and tried to make it too much like The Lord of the Rings in MHO (which I loved, but is a totally different story) I give PJ an A for effort, visually it was stunning, the sound is amazing, but the story is too long and so much of it was unnecessary, PJ was his own worst enemy in this film, he changed the relationship and attitude of the 4 major players (turned Kong from monster God to oversized silverback gorilla, turned Ann from being scared for her life and hating Kong to feeling sorry for him, turned Driscoll from a rough tough first mate to a play writer full of emotion and feeling and he turned Denham from the enthusiastic adventurer to a slimy ass-hole (which is a direct slap in the face to Merian C. Cooper since Denham was written to be Cooper in the original) PJ tries to force us into feeling sorry for Kong which is the exact opposite of the original, we end up feeling sorry for Kong in the original because Ann Hates him (when she looks at him it makes her think of that awful night on the Island) and the others want him dead. ahh, what could of been?
M F Berry		#53	[-]
Aug 6 08 10:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Some excellent points, King. You're absolutely right ... in the original, Kong is not a gorilla, he's a mythical, "gorilla-like" creature of fantasy, born from the imaginations of Merian Cooper, Willis O'Brien, and Marcel Delgado, and I would have wished that PJ had maintained that facet in his movie. Instead, he made him into, as you said, just an "oversized silverback gorilla." And what Jackson did to Carl Denham, one of my favorite movie characters of all time ... [shudder]. Robert Armstrong's Denham is a huckster, a showman, a blowhard to be sure, but when it came right down to it he was a good guy who most definitely was "sorry for the harm he did." The changes made to the character of Denham, in my opinion, are more damaging to Jackson's film than is the casting of Jack Black. If they'd let Black play a Bob-Armstrong-esque Denham, a likeable Denham, he may not have been too bad at all.
Kingkongkessler		#54	[-]
Aug 7 08 10:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	has anyone ever been able to figure out why in PJ's version, Kong is injured when Ann stabs him with her native necklace, but fine when the jaws of a V.rex chomp down on his arm point blank?
shran		#55	[-]
Aug 7 08 11:24 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kingkongkessler wrote: has anyone ever been able to figure out why in PJ's version, Kong is injured when Ann stabs him with her native necklace, but fine when the jaws of a V.rex chomp down on his arm point blank? Maybe he wore chainmaile under his coat?? Last Edited By: shran Aug 7 08 11:31 PM. Edited 1 times.
G Vallejo		#56	[-]
Aug 8 08 12:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't know if Denham's character in 05 was necessarily a comment on the original. I think PJ was just trying to take it in a different direction. Or, I should say it doesn't bother me what he did in the new version, since I can still enjoy the original any time I want. I did think the story was muddled and overlong. The entire NY scene at the beginning (vaudeville) could have been deleted and summed up in thirty seconds. The fatal flaw for me was the Jimmy/Englehorn arc. If none of those characters even gets to NY, none of their scenes in the previous two hours matters, since nothing was resolved. A few minutes could have been spared to put Jimmy in there somewhere, and maybe he could learned something watching Kong get killed... revenge solves nothing, perhaps. Or the Heart of Darkness angle could have been explored a bit further. If that thread had been resolved in some way it might not have been so glaringly out of place in the movie. It could have been done with no dialog, if the acting was good enough. Instead, Jimmy just disappears altogether, making me wonder what the point was. And having the natives completely disappear after playing their part was a blunder. And, of course, there were no spiders in the "insect" pit! I had my mom watch it last week. She thought the tommy-gun scene in the pit was ridiculous, and the V-Rex fight overlong. She liked the ice-skating scene, though, and thanked me at the end of the film for making her watch it. She thought it was good, though not as classic as the original. Sounds about right to me. A perfect Monster has no end...
Robert Troch		#57	[-]
Aug 8 08 11:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sums up most of my feelings very well. Anyone who decides to take on a remake like this is already in trouble anyway. It is like remaking Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Rules of the Game, Citizen Kane...well you get the idea. Supposedly (I don't know if this is really true or not) when the remake of Godzilla was announced Speilberg called Devlin and told him it was not a good idea to take that project on. Anyway, to my mind, the only upper hand you have in a remake of Kong is in updating the effects and that, for the most part was done very well. However, (as has already been said the CGI madness can go over the top and it frequently did). It all reminds me of a saying that I try to remember. "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you should." Robert T. <<<<Kong isn't just a gorilla, that is Jackson's biggest mistake (he should have never let Serkis influence him like that in MHO, especially since Serkis never saw the original until he was hired for the part) Kong in the 33 film is a meat-eater, watch him after he kills the Pteranadon, he takes a couple extra bites of him, the thing is already dead but Kong wants a taste of him and takes a few more bites, if he wasn't a meat-eater, after it was dead he would have tossed it right away. as for PJ's version, I always liked it but was very disappointed in it, it could have been so much more, he had all the tools to make a version almost as good as the original, but he decided to make a chick flick in MHO. I was at the premier in NYC and was very upset coming out of the theatre. He made so many little mistakes and tried to make it too much like The Lord of the Rings in MHO (which I loved, but is a totally different story) I give PJ an A for effort, visually it was stunning, the sound is amazing, but the story is too long and so much of it was unnecessary, PJ was his own worst enemy in this film, he changed the relationship and attitude of the 4 major players (turned Kong from monster God to oversized silverback gorilla, turned Ann from being scared for her life and hating Kong to feeling sorry for him, turned Driscoll from a rough tough first mate to a play writer full of emotion and feeling and he turned Denham from the enthusiastic adventurer to a slimy ass-hole (which is a direct slap in the face to Merian C. Cooper since Denham was written to be Cooper in the original) PJ tries to force us into feeling sorry for Kong which is the exact opposite of the original, we end up feeling sorry for Kong in the original because Ann Hates him (when she looks at him it makes her think of that awful night on the Island) and the others want him dead. ahh, what could of been? >>>
BijouBob8mm		#58	[-]
Aug 9 08 12:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Supposedly (I don't know if this is really true or not) when the remake of Godzilla was announced Speilberg called Devlin and told him it was not a good idea to take that project on. I've heard that, but always wondered if it were true, since the legendary director is no stranger to remakes. Steven Spielberg was announced as remaking WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE (soon after his version of WAR OF THE WORLDS), his 1989 film ALWAYS was a remake of A GUY NAMED JOE, and he was an uncredited producer on the remakes of CAPE FEAR and THE HAUNTING. (Latest on WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE is that Spielberg will produce and Stephen Sommers will direct.) And he was involved with THE TWILIGHT ZONE movie, which remade a number of classic episodes for the big screen.
Doctor Lamont		#59	[-]
Aug 12 08 10:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	has anyone ever been able to figure out why in PJ's version, Kong is injured when Ann stabs him with her native necklace, but fine when the jaws of a V.rex chomp down on his arm point blank? He was surprised when he was hurt by this little creature. When fighting dinosaurs he expects to take a few hits, and his rage helps him to ignore them.
Kingkongkessler		#60	[-]
Aug 13 08 6:02 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	so you are saying you can be hurt by a surprise toothpick, but take a chainsaw to the body no problem if you are ready for it? Kess
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Some thoughts on Jackson's Kong