I think LOTR gives us BIG insight into Jackson’s thoughts on maintaining the integrity of the source material. Were there changes in LOTR? Of course, you have to change things to make the story work on the big screen. Did you see wholesale changes to the plot or characters? No, if you watch this movie, you will absolutely understand the plot of the books, who is who, and where it all goes, with the exception of a few minor characters and side plots.
With Kong, there is only one fairly short movie as a source. I feel very confident that the plot will be the same, the characters largely the same, only fleshed out and pumped up with state of the art effects. If you liked Kong the original, good news, so did Jackson, and he wants to honor that work with his own, not remake it in his own image. A better Kong, not a new Kong.
No, I wasn’t saying that at all. And as you seem to be on a totally different wavelength and will not understand me no matter what I say, I won’t bother repeating myself.
I was another kid who stayed up late watching the original King Kong.
The 1976 version was just goofy by comparison. The stop-motion animation on B&W worked a lot better for me than the big mechanical Kong. I don’t think there’s any one who could do a better job coveringKing Kong than Jackson. After the success he had with LOTR, I think he had no problem securing funding for this. And Naomi Watts is a good cast for Fay Wray
I suppose if the movie is a huge success, Universal Studios will feel compelled to dust off that horrifyingly underwhelming “King Kong” ride they used to have in their theme parks. One of my more depressing vacation experiences was the time I stood in line for forty five minutes for the privilege of being breathed on by a giant Muppet. Disney’s “Country Bears Jamboree” attraction was infinitely more frightening.
If by this you mean that Peter Jackson fans will try to build up the movie as much as possible, we do have the the advantage of having an informed opinion.
We have Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy to go by. Even haters have to acknowledge that the 3 movies were financial, popular and critical successes. What, do people think he’s going to go back to the production values and story simplicity of Bad Taste?
We have the knowledge of Jackson’s history of King Kong being his all-time favorite film and the one that prompted him to get into filmmaking to go by. He’s not going to want to screw up something that important to him. He was even willing to chuck a completed score by a friend because it wasn’t exactly right. That’s dedication.
We have Phillipa Boynes and Fran Walsh’s human and feminine touch to go by. They came up with some of the best character moments in the LOTR trilogy (after Tolkien, of course).
We have WETA’s past work to go by, that, if nothing else, it’s going to LOOK amazing. Every inch of every set is going to be breathtaking. It will have a richness and depth of detail not seen since, well, since LOTR.
We have the superior acting skills of Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody and Jamie Bell to go by. I’ll admit that Jack Black is, seemingly, the unknown quanity here, but anyone who’s seen Rock School and High Fidelity knows (or should know) that Black is perfect for the role of Carl Denham.
All in all, it boggles my mind that anyone other than an irrational Jackson hater would think it might “suck.” Would think that that’s even in the realm of possibility. At the least it won’t live up to expectations, but will still be entertaining and wonderful to look at. At the most it’ll be an instant classic and garner the critical and box office success that the LOTR films did. My guess is that it will be somewhere in the middle of those two. If it is it will almost certainly get a few Oscar nominations (perhaps special effects, art direction, cinematography) and might even win a couple.
It could only be really bad if the acting is corny, which I doubt, or if he decided to pull a Psycho and reshoot every shot of the original frame by frame.
Joking, joking I think it will be great.
I’m really excited and I see King Kong stuff everywhere. There is even a King Kong lotto game.
The only thing that I see as a drawback is Adrian Brody. I don’t think he is a good actor and I really don’t see him as an action hero.
Oh and the ‘finding an actress on a street corner in NYC is stupid’, you obviously have never been to NYC. Throw a rock and you’ll hit an actress. And do me a favor Fink, throw it hard.
I was very suprised by the trailers. I think they show waaaaay too much of the good stuff. I would have kept Kong hidden except for the tight shot of his face and then maybe the jump and grab at the end of the trailer. But, that’s me.
I’m pretty excited, especially after (inspired by this thread) I went back and watched the production diary videos on the Kongisking.net website. You think they show a lot in the trailer? The videos are spoilers galore.
Speaking of which, I think that showing as much as they have via trailers and “making of” videos is a statement of confidence. They’re saying: “What we HAVEN’T shown is SO DAMN GOOD that we can afford to throw bits that would be money shots in any other movie into the TRAILER.”
That’s the Academy Award winner for Best Actor over Jack Nicholson, Nicolas Cage, Daniel Day-Lewis and Michael Caine Adrien Brody you’re talking about? Hmm, thought so. Your opinion is not shared by others. He’s an excellent actor, and will be fine.
My first worry of this movie was not one of if PJ could make a convincing King Kong movie or not. It was more of if the original story or screenplay could be interesting. I know the whole King Kong story and it’s just sort of ‘meh’ to begin with. So, I was more concerned with “yes, they can make a great looking, true to the story, perfectly produced King Kong movie but so what? Does that make me want to see it?” Case in point would be the disappointing boxoffice of Cinderellaman. No one argued that it wasn’t a well made, well acted, good looking film. People, I think, just avoided it because they had seen that story already (down on his luck boxer fights back against all odds) and didn’t need another retelling of it.
So I don’t know if I really wanted to see another CGI monster go on a rampage, fight other monsters, and die in the end (The Hulk anyone?)
However, a couple buzz pieces on this have kept my hopes up.
#1 The running time. Company executives are always pushing for movies to be cut down to the ‘2 hour’ limit so they can make more money on the film (it can be shown more times per day per screen). They especially want them cut down when the movie just isn’t that good or feel what can be shown in 3 hours can be shown in 2. But the buzz was that executives thought King Kong was so good that they immediately agreed to the 3 hour running time and Jackson didn’t even have to fight for it.
#2 Not just another monster flick. I’ve also heard in an interview with someone involved in the film that they were suprised the film carried so much emotional weight. He said that people expecting a big budget popcorn flick aren’t going to be ready for the depth of the story and the emotional involvement.
Amazing to see such heated discussion on a film that hasn’t even been released yet.
After the huge financial, critical and popular success of LOTR, Peter Jackson could have had any script and select to do any film he wanted and had money thrown at him.
He picked King Kong.
Peter Jackson doesn’t appear to be stupid or career-suicidal to me.
So my guess is PJ is on a roll, and many are going to be eating their words once the film is released.
Remember people, this is King Kong - not King Lear.
And if I trust anybody with special effects, beautiful cinematography, compelling story and lush sets - well, PJ has already shown he is the master of that.
Looking forward to sitting back in my stadium seat with a 10 pound tub of popcorn, 5 gallon Diet Coke and enjoying the ride.
Well, I finally got to see that new trailer at home over the weekend (I don’t have QuickTime on my new computer at work yet). Now I’m getting really excited about the film! It looks damned good. Andy Serkis rules as a motion-capture actor extraordinaire – I believe I read somewhere that he went to Rwanda and studied families of mountain gorillas when he was preparing for his role.
Mr. brown watched the trailer as well and is very stoked. In fact, he consents to go and see it in the theaters, and he usually hates going to theaters. Our plans for Christmas day 2005 are thus: 10:00 a.m., dim sum breakfast; 12 noon, King Kong.
Yeah, the idea of a giant ape falling in love with a human girl* is even more preposterous than the idea of a “lost world” island swarming with dinosaurs. Also, it’s clearly implied (from the natives’ mode of worship) that there is only one Kong on Skull Island, and there has been only one from time out of mind – and how can there be just one of anything? One animal implies a breeding population, unless it’s the last of its kind. But, if you can swallow those points (with which I doubt Jackson will presume to meddle) – and if you can overlook the implicit racism of an “ape” lusting after a white blonde woman (ditto) – it’s a ripping good yarn!
*BTW – what did Kong do with all those other sacrificial victims that the island’s people offered him at apparently regular intervals? Was Ann Darrow the first one he did not immediately use as a light snack? I guess that’s just one of many things you’re not supposed to think about.
I know other people think he is a good actor but you should know that winning an Oscar is hardly any guarantee of quality. (Daniel Day-Lewis was robbed!)
This is the foul fiend Kong: he begins
at curfew, and walks till the first cock; he gives
the web and the pin, squints the eye, and makes the
hare-lip; mildews the white wheat, and hurts the
poor creature of earth
DENHAM: Is’t not the king?
KONG: Ay, every inch a king.
Okay, I’ll stop now.
_05.jpg){kind=link}