King Kong (can you spoil this?)

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:15 am

I really enjoyed it.
It was much better than I had expected.
I didn't like the look of some of the CGI (the dinosaurs mostly) - but everything else was ace.
And there was too much slow motion (same **** as in Lord of the Rings)! Jesus christ.
On a plus note; no stupid comic relief (Gimli, Jar Jar).

Here's a comic with Transformers and Kong

[SPOILERS]

When the film crew first comes to the island, there are a lot of natives that cause big trouble (you know, the whole "Lets kill them!" thing).
But after that scene (when Kong arrives), they are totally gone. Nowhere to be found. Poff! Like David Copperfield or something.
That really annoyed me (yes it's a "plot device").

The scenes in the jungle, with Kong fighting dinosaurs, people running from dinosaurs, etc. really got to me. I was on the edge of my seat, pumped with adrenaline.
Great stuff!

And I felt sad about Kong when he was captured, and when he died.
Kong is a real character, and you really get to know him.

Naomi Watts is really beautiful. She has that 'classic look'.
Jack Black is Tenacious D coolness.
Etc.

An awesome movie.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:12 am

Have you seen the original?

And if so, how does this new one compare, both in plot and in effects?

Is Kong still the biggest lead in Hollywood?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:21 am

The original is on telly next week. I wanna see it as the last time I saw it I was tiny.

I remember the 76 version more. The less said about that the better tho.

Pretender Bumblebee · Post by **Pretender Bumblebee** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:32 am

I haven't seen it yet.. plan to do so on Sunday but the only thing I don't like is that they made him smaller. Im old school and love the huge giant rampaging monsters that they used to have. I realize they made Kong smaller to interact better with the girl but if I had to say one thing doesn't look right it would be that they really made him too small compared to the previous versions of Kong. In this one he is only 24 feet .. yeah its big for a gorilla but not for a monster

Other then that it all looks really great. I can't wait to see it!!

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:43 pm

Rebis wrote:Have you seen the original?

And if so, how does this new one compare, both in plot and in effects?

Is Kong still the biggest lead in Hollywood?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I saw the original two days before I saw the new King Kong!
I think the new one is better than the old.
The effects in the new one were better, which made the whole thing more "real". You actually believed that Kong was there.
I also thought that the new was more emotional than the old; Naomi Watts performance was way better than Fay Wrays (overall the acting in 2005 was better), and Kongs facial expressions were more 'real' (Watts relationship with Kong is great).
Plotwise; As I said, I like Kong and Watts, better than Kong and Wray.
So, in short: King Kong 2005 is much more awesome than King Kong 1933. It's unfair to compare them though.

Just my two cents. Hope somebody else gives their point of view!

Pretender Bumblebee wrote:but the only thing I don't like is that they made him smaller. Im old school and love the huge giant rampaging monsters that they used to have. I realize they made Kong smaller to interact better with the girl but if I had to say one thing doesn't look right it would be that they really made him too small compared to the previous versions of Kong. In this one he is only 24 feet .. yeah its big for a gorilla but not for a monster

"King Kong is being described as 25 feet tall on his hind legs by the makers of this version, half as tall as the filmmakers of the 1933 described their "50-foot" Kong. However, in proportion to people and objects in that film, the original Kong was actually around the same height (20-25 feet) as the new Kong."

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:45 pm

If I had to sell King Kong in two sentences, they would be:

Everything has teeth.

There is a pile of dinosaurs.

I questioned the characters logic in bringing Kong back to the city, though. They were on an island swarming with 8 foot tall bugs, an undiscovered native tribe, and a half dozen species of LIVE dinosaurs. But they decide to bring back the giant ape. Now, a giant ape's cool. No question about it. But look at it in "reality."

Curtain goes up and it's Kong.

Crowd: WOW! That is the biggest ape I've ever seen!

Curtain goes up and it's a T-Rex.

Crowd: OMFG! A dinosaur! A LIVE dinosaur! *plotz*

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:53 pm

Saw it last night.

Four star movie. Probably the best special effects I have seen in any movie. Period. King Kong never looked animated, he really looked like he was there in every scene and in every setting. Whether it was the jungle or New York, I would have sworn that he was actually there. And this hasn't been accomplished with any CGI creation. Golem looked great, but rarely you could tell he was CGI. With Kong, there was no such time.

Storywise, it was done very well. The first hour could have been pared to about thirty minutes and still had the same effect. After they reach Skull Island, it was nonstop out-of-your-seat suspense.

A couple things were better done in the second Kong movie with Jeff Bridges. Firstly, the scene where she is chained up by the natives and Kong first appears was better in the older version. Secondly, the scene where the men are trying to stay atop the fallen tree that bridges that deep ravine as Kong is twisting it was also better in the Bridges version. Other than that, this movie is clearly superior to its predecessors.

Definitely worth seeing. Another Peter Jackson film that is excellent, but still does not top his Lord of the Rings masterpiece.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:35 am

Professor Smooth wrote:
I questioned the characters logic in bringing Kong back to the city, though. They were on an island swarming with 8 foot tall bugs, an undiscovered native tribe, and a half dozen species of LIVE dinosaurs. But they decide to bring back the giant ape.

Yep, that never made sense to me either!

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:14 am

I read a post on the IMDB-forums where someone said something like "Back in 1933 the general population didn't know as much about dinosaurs as the general population does today.
That might be a reason why it was better to bring back a big-ass gorilla; everybody knows what a gorilla is".

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:30 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Crowd: OMFG! A dinosaur! A LIVE dinosaur! *plotz*

Maybe they saw how wll that turned out in the second Jurassic Park film.

I now have to go and book some memory-repression sessions.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:44 am

Brendocon wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:Crowd: OMFG! A dinosaur! A LIVE dinosaur! *plotz*
Maybe they saw how wll that turned out in the second Jurassic Park film.

I now have to go and book some memory-repression sessions.

Dude, you just reminded me of JPIII.

After you with the mind bleach.

anna · Post by **anna** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:59 pm

i saw it sat and it was pretty good(a little long though) however it is unfair to say the effects and whatnot are better of course they are they didnt have as much money and tech as we do now (i like the original a little better because it wasnt as long) now i do like all the extra creatures but they did make a major mistake with the rexes they gave them 3 fingers when rexes have only 2 (in the 30s they did that but ignorence was thier excuse) as for the 76 version it wasnt all bad in its defense the snene near the end where kong( knowing hes about to die) lets the girl go is very touching (and ironically i saw it the week before 911)

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:24 pm

The Rexes with three fingers wasn't a mistake.
They just gave them three fingers (probably as an homage of some sort).

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:48 pm

Obfleur wrote:The Rexes with three fingers wasn't a mistake.
They just gave them three fingers (probably as an homage of some sort).

maybe they've evolved a third finger in the last 65 million years?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:06 pm

Obfleur wrote:I read a post on the IMDB-forums where someone said something like "Back in 1933 the general population didn't know as much about dinosaurs as the general population does today.
That might be a reason why it was better to bring back a big-ass gorilla; everybody knows what a gorilla is".

Maybe they could have marketed them as dragons instead of dinosaurs, then.

Pretender Bumblebee · Post by **Pretender Bumblebee** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:29 pm

Finally saw it..

It wasn't the masterpiece the reviews here made it out to be. It was pretty good but very long. Didn't have to be 3 hours only due to the fact that a lot of the stuff at the begining came off as filler rather then important plot devices.

We have the longest boat ride in history of a movie.. by the time we get to Skull Island we are half asleep. Skull Island itself is great but a little over done. We didn't need to see creature after creature after creature. yes we got the idea. very nice special effects.. that was overkill there. The original story had a nice touch.. keep it simple yet effective. This was way over done with the creatures that showed up and that Brontosaurus stampede..while cool eye candy was ridiculous. The worms or leaches or whatever those things were was just disgusting.

New YOrk City climax was fun and well done. Again a little longish. The whole Kong and the girl in love scenes I could have done with out. Also changing the story from the girl not even being at the theater he was being displayed in was not a good change to the story.

Like I said earlier.. way too small .. should have kept him original size he was in previous two movies. He looked like a shrimp of a monster on the Empire State Building. A few slow parts and changes in the orignal plot aside.. its a definite must see just for the great effects and retelling of a classic movie. Not the great, brillient, movie of the year its made out to be but pretty darn good and worth the price of admission. A few edits and cuts here and there it would have been almost perfect.

Im not even going to get into the fact that they don't mention how they get Kong back to the ship and keep him knocked out for weeks as they get him back to New York..

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:08 am

Pretender Bumblebee wrote: Like I said earlier.. way too small .. should have kept him original size he was in previous two movies.

Pretender Bumblebee wrote:but the only thing I don't like is that they made him smaller. Im old school and love the huge giant rampaging monsters that they used to have. I realize they made Kong smaller to interact better with the girl but if I had to say one thing doesn't look right it would be that they really made him too small compared to the previous versions of Kong. In this one he is only 24 feet .. yeah its big for a gorilla but not for a monster

"King Kong is being described as 25 feet tall on his hind legs by the makers of this version, half as tall as the filmmakers of the 1933 described their "50-foot" Kong. However, in proportion to people and objects in that film, the original Kong was actually around the same height (20-25 feet) as the new Kong."

BB Shockwave · Post by **BB Shockwave** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:29 am

When I saw the trailers, I was pretty suprised this IS the KOng movie... I mean, with dinosaurs, giant animals, natives, was there even time for Kong?

I think Peter Jackson shoehorned too many things into this movie... giant animals would have been enough, but dinosaurs? Gah. It's like with LOTR - the original wasn't enough for him, he had to put more in there.

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:52 am

The original Kong hade dinosaurs.

TransFans.co.uk

King Kong (can you spoil this?)

welll