I’m not sure you do. I can’t stand re-makes and I’ll be there for this one as soon as I can. I was disappointed I couldn’t make it yesterday or today. Peter Jackson’s track record is enough to bring in even remake snobs like me.
The word you’re looking for is schadenfreude.
Anyway, i’m not sure i’ll bother to see it because it just doesn’t appeal to me very much. I have a few other movies in mind right now that are well above King Kong on the “must see in the theater” list.
That’s a relief then because apparantly Peter Jackson beat you to it. Now all you have to do is decide if you’re going to watch it or not.
Something that may well hold back the first weekend in the States is Narnia. I was amazed at the number of kids at the session I attended in Sydney, however Narnia hasn’t opened here yet. If it was on I imagine it would have stolen some of the King Kong audience.
And for Raygun99 I am aware of the differences in days of the week in my earlier comment. However I think the $14.4 million for King Kong’s first Friday does not compare favourably with the $12.1 million for SawII on it’s release date. I expected much better.
I think you’re wrong. Maybe there are millions of “movie fans” who have never seen **The Maltese Falcon ** (1941), **The Wizard of Oz ** (1939), **Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea ** (1954), or **Moby Dick ** (1956). But I’d be very surprised to learn that lots of so-called “movie fans” avoid seeing these movies just because they’re all remakes.
None of those movies are remakes of their predecessors.
Meaning what, exactly? That they’re entirely original films that just happen to have the same title, characters and events as the earlier films?
He’s saying that remake of an earlier film (like King Kong) is not the same as a book that is adapted from the same source as an older movie.
Perhaps it is the fact that it’s the middle of the night where I am, but I do not comprehend this translation.
ex. 1: King Kong is a remake of the 1933 film of the same name.
ex. 2: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. They both had the same source, a Roald Dahl book, but the second movie was not based on the first. The same goes for the later versions of The Wizard of Oz, The Maltese Falcon, and so on. Movies like this are sometimes called remakes, but they aren’t.
Okay, I see the distinction now, I think. Kind of, in a way. I’ve never heard of this highly specialized definition of ‘remake,’ though. Your earlier explanation seemed to veer off the tracks a bit:
This should be ‘movie’ instead of ‘book,’ then, right? And the ‘source’ mentioned would be a book? I was reduced to drawing little flow charts to parse the meaning out of this. Although if that was the original meaning of fuyosa’s remark, as clarified by Larry Mudd, as translated by you… then I still don’t see what the problem is. What difference does it make whether a movie is based on a book, or an earlier movie, or is entirely original? Shouldn’t it be possible to determine whether a movie is good or not without knowing its provenance?
Does **The Magnificent Seven ** count as a remake?
They most certainly don’t. The Wizard of Oz is probably the most striking example – neither film closely resembles the source material. The latter film is a musical, and most of the script is new gags that are very firmy based in 1930s pop sensibility. The silent version has even less connection to Baum, except for the names of some of the characters. None of the actual plot of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is used in the film, apart from Dorothy travelling somewhere, although it’s to a Tsarist state, and she’s going back there to marry into nobility.
Same situation with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The silent version doesn’t resemble the Verne story at all, except that there’s this guy named Nemo who has a submarine, another guy named Ned who meets him, and a giant squid in there somewhere.
The Maltese Falcon (1941) isn’t a remake of the 1931 version, either – it’s a more faithful adaptation of the book. The 1931 didn’t feel much like Hammett at all. Anyway, as far as the plot is concerned, both movies are faithful to the novel, but emphasise different parts of it.
The Bad News Bears is a remake. You know that it’s going to substantially resemble the previous film, because the previous film is the source.
If someone decides to make A Prayer for Owen Meany tomorrow, it won’t be a remake of Simon Birch. If someone decides to make an adaptation of Naked Lunch, it won’t be a remake of the Cronenberg film, and won’t resemble it much. If someone decides to make another adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it won’t be a remake of Blade Runner. If someone decides to make an adaptation of Pierre Bouelle’s Le Planete De Singes, it won’t be a remake of the Tim Burton movie or the Chuck Heston vehicle that it was a remake of.
Whew. 'Scuze my logorrhea. It a subject that puts a hair up there for me. 
I coulda previewed in that time, too.
Yes. It’s not early here either. 
A remake isn’t automatically bad. Usually, they just have nothing to contribute one way or the other and have no reason for being. So it kind of bespeaks a lack of originality on somebody’s part - usually the studio, which wants to cash in on a built-in audience who already liked the original. That doesn’t make them boring or anything else, necessarily, it just explains the contempt that a lot of people have for remakes. And also movies based on old TV shows. :rolleyes:
Yes.
Adapting a book is fundamentally different from remaking a film. They’re different mediums, and while two independent adaptations may have overlaps, they’re not going to be as similar as a remake and it’s original. An analogy might be the difference between drawing the same subject from life and copying a drawing. Two artists drawing from life might pick totally different POVs, use different materials, etc. A copy of a drawing is going to be much closer, even if the second artist is trying for something deliberately stylized.
Gus Van Sandt made a remake of Hitchcock’s Psycho. (This is probably the most extreme example, being pointlessly shot-for-shot.) By remaking Hitchcock’s film, plenty of Hitchcock’s art was reduplicated – material that has nothing to do with Robert Bloch. Another adaptation of Pyscho would be a much different proposition than a remake of Hitchcock’s film.
Someone could make another version of Psycho, going back to the source, and it would be instead another adaptation of Robert Bloch’s novel. Never mind all the heavy-handed symbolism about birds, that was all Hitchcock. Norman wouldn’t be an imitation of Antony Perkins imitating Dennis Weaver’s performance in Touch of Evil, but a fat stinky guy, like in the book. And necessarily, you’d have to get creative to get it up there at all, because you just can’t translate a book directly into a film.
Remakes are much harder to make interesting, because your source material is an existing film.
I think Peter Jackson did a kick-ass job with King Kong. There are many many classic shots that are recreated, only bigger and better – and he’s nailed the spirit of the movie and amplified it. I like the elaborations where they are, but the best improvement is in the performance for Kong. Kong is central to the film, and there’s only so much of a performance you can squeeze out of an articulated stop-motion model. The monkey suit wasn’t any better, and not much else worked with the '76 version – it was never as good of a film as the original. This one was totally worthy.
Current stats per BOMOJO: Grossed $146 worldwide so far (that’s in 5 days), and $66 million so far in the US, including being #1 in the US weekend BO with $50 million.
I expect they’ll make a profit off of it.
I saw it today.
Lightly attended, and that’s too bad.
A nice film, & comes with some of the grandest specticle you will see in the movies.
To answer the OP – Yes, it’s too early. Even if King Kong were going to be a flop, which it is not, it would be silly to make that pronouncement so soon (especially given that it’s a good movie). Jesus, I really hate the obsession with opening weekends.
It’s not doing the movie industry any good, either.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the weekend boxoffice is in. Not shabby and the trend is showing an increase in box office on word-of-mouth.
So, yes - it is too early to declare King Kong a flop, and this thread might become an interesting footnote and the worst prediction of the year as the box office continues to climb.
Larry Mudd writes:
I think you’re a bit confused here. Maybe you’re thinking of the movie The Mysterious Island, the silent version of which sems to match up pretty closely with your description. The silent version of 20,0000 Leagues is remarkably faithful to Verne (It’s the only film, until The League of Extraordinary Gentlem, to depict Nemo as an Indian prince, as he’s described in Mysterious Island). It also tried to shoehorn in all of The Mysterious Island, as well – an ambitious undertaking. The film was ahead of its time in having an awful lot of underwater photography, done in the same waters Disney would later use fopr the 1954 remake.