# Wow, KING KONG is a wonderful, epic..chick flick! Who knew?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 15, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711 "2005-12-15T10:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/101 "2005-12-20T05:52:00Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Jackson . . . jerking off for 3 three hours Ahh, so that’s the film I stumbled into after buying a ticket for _King Kong_… ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/102 "2005-12-20T09:59:03Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Reviews, are, of course, fickle things and what everybody likes _this_ year, may turn into their most hated flick just a few years down the road. _Titanic_ was a hugely profitable film and highly reviewed, but many people seemed to have changed their mind about it over the years. …so, if you don’t want to judge the merits of a movie by its box-office or by its reviews, how would you judge it? > [@](#): > > As for Jackson being better off without them, that’s a tough call. Certainly, IMHO, Jackson could benefit from having _someone_ else working with him on the films to insist that obvious flaws in his films are corrected. “Obvious flaws” are subjective-what you see as an obvious flaw, someone else may see as a masterpeice. For everybody that complains about the length of a movie, another one will say it was just right. > [@](#): > > **You** were the one you stated that Kiwi’s worked their ass off on the film. They most certainly worked their asses off: the same production crew has been working for the last five years straight on four multi-million dollar movies: what does that have to do with my objectivity? > [@](#): > > I can’t recall a single instance in this or any other thread, where I’ve brought the nationality of a film crew into the discussion. How many other film productions have matched the scale of what was done with the LOTR and the Kong films? Of the top 100 hundred films for all time box office, there are only four movies that are not “Hollywood Films”, and they are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Crocodile Dundee-with the LOTR movies being in the top 20. Why do you think that is? > **[Top Lifetime Grosses - Box Office Mojo](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/)** > [@](#): > > I don’t give two shits about where the folks might be from, I’m more concerned if they can make a good movie or not. And I happen to think that _Meet the Feebles_ is some of Jackson’s best work. (I loves me some depravity.) See? We can disagree! > [@](#): > > Only that Hollywood is more interested in the bottom line than quality of script (not realizing that quality of script is often the determining factor in a good bottom line). So? > [@](#): > > Jackson could have turned in a 16 hour cut of the film and you can bet Universal would have busted ass to figure out how to release it that way. Why? Rubbish. Universal was all set to tell Jackson to cut the movie until they saw it. > [@](#): > > Because if Jackson got his panites in a wad about the whole thing, and made a lot of noise in the press about Universal “quashing” his vision, the movie wouldn’t have made a dime. Strawman. What in Jackson’s history makes you think he would do that? He has always been concious of the needs of the studio-and if they had said cut the movie, he undoubtably would have. I would like to see a citation if you believe otherwise. > [@](#): > > Well, admittedly, pinning the entire blame for the film on **two** of the writers (Jackson’s name is also listed in the credits) is a bit much, since we **don’t** know who is responsible for what. Still, given that their names are listed first in the credits, it’s safe to assume that they wrote the bulk of the script. …so from the critical acclaim the movie is getting, would you say its fair to call Boyens and Walsh idiots? And yes, Jackson, Boyens and Walsh write together: and Walsh and Jackson have written together almost since day one. Is Jackson an idiot? > [@](#): > > It all depends upon what you consider to be the greatest flaws in the films. If it’s the writing, then the writers bear the bulk of the blame, if it’s pacing, acting, or the effects, then the director gets the blame. So does that make Boyens and Walsh idiots? Do you wish the movie to fail so they get fired? If all your saying is that you had problems with the writing, you have no arguement from me-I may disagree with you, but that doesn’t make your criticism any less valid. But if, for some reason, you decided to accuse Jackson of having an affair with Boyens, and that was the cause of the “bad writing”, can you see a reason to object? > [@](#): > > (Though, to be fair, it may be that the director’s forced to do certain things due to contractual obligations. However, I don’t think that would be a problem for Jackson.) IMHO, Jackon’s directorial mistakes outweigh any problems the script might have. Fair comment, and rightly noted as being your opinion-something that **Omniscient** never stated. > [@](#): > > And the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Jackson’s falling? After one day at the box-office, the movie was called a flop. By the end of the weekend, the movie had met Studio expectations, and is still garnering critical praise. What is this “fall” you speak of? > [@](#): > > It’s precisely because Speilberg, et. al, have done such an excellent job in the past, that when they _do_ make a mistake, people come down on them harshly, when they might have ignored that mistake if it was done by a lesser director. Which, you must admit, is a shame. I also feel that people lash out just for the sake of it: note the criticism of Serenity or the new series of Lost, or the Lucas films. There is nothing wrong with critical appraisal, there is everything wrong with being a “hater” for the sake of hating. > [@](#): > > Admittedly, these critiques may boil down to, “Waaaaah! He didn’t make the movie I wanted him to!” but at the same time, dismissing **all** criticism of a particular film as the whining of fanboys is simply wrong. Well, I’m glad that I stated several times that I’m not dismisisng all criticism: I said it twice in my last post and several times here. Do you consider that I am “dismissing all criticism of a particular film as the whining of fanboys”? Do you consider that **Omniscient’s** comments were rational, objective criticism’s like those offered by everybody else in the thread? Did I take issue with anyone else’s problems with the movie? > [@](#): > > Sadly, however, some times it **takes** a spectacular failure for a director to realize he’s been listening to too many hangers on, and **not** paying attention the things that he needs to do. Or maybe he made the movie he wanted to make, and that he thought people wanted to see. Maybe he did listen to those around him, and made decisions that he thought were best for the movie and the studio. Maybe the studio saw it, were blown away with it and decided to release it as is. Flawed or not, I don’t see a need to call people behind the production “idiots”, ‘almost’ wish for the failure of the film, and accuse the writing team of having a “disturbing polygamous relationship” when no such relationship exists. This film is far from a spectacular failure, its a critical hit, with great overseas box office and building domestic box office numbers. Many people in this thread were blown away with the movie, and others loathed it-such as life. It is one thing to critique a movie, it is another to defame its writing team. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/103 "2005-12-20T18:05:15Z")
> [@Banquet Bear](#): > > …so, if you don’t want to judge the merits of a movie by its box-office or by its reviews, how would you judge it? You know what? I go by a number of things to judge a flick, one of which being how long a film stays popular with the general public. > [@](#): > > “Obvious flaws” are subjective-what you see as an obvious flaw, someone else may see as a masterpeice. For everybody that complains about the length of a movie, another one will say it was just right. Obvious flaws doesn’t have to be subjective, and in fact, when I stated that, I wasn’t even thinking about the length of the film, but about problems with the matting, poorly rendered images, and the like. It might be subjective on whether or not the auidience will be bothered by it, but it **isn’t** subjective that the mask for the matt is off. > [@](#): > > They most certainly worked their asses off: the same production crew has been working for the last five years straight on four multi-million dollar movies: what does that have to do with my objectivity? The folks at Industrial Light and Magic, and dozens of other companies do the same all the time, yet no one else feels compelled to raise the issue. > [@](#): > > How many other film productions have matched the scale of what was done with the LOTR and the Kong films? Off the top of my head, I can think of several: _Back to the Future I, II, III_, _Star Wars Ep I, II, III_, and _War of the Worlds_. > [@](#): > > Of the top 100 hundred films for all time box office, there are only four movies that are not “Hollywood Films”, and they are the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Crocodile Dundee-with the LOTR movies being in the top 20. Why do you think that is? > [http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm](http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm) Again, I don’t think that using box office gross is a good way of measuring of how good a film is. After all, _Mad Max_ had a much smaller box office gross that _Crocodile Dundee_, but it’s a definately a better flick, and no doubt over the years has made more money through video sales. However, if you _want_ to play that game, I will point out from a marketing standpoint, that the LOTR films came presold to their audience, via the books which had been in print for some 40-50 years. So, in the opening days of the films you can expect a large turnout (this is when the studio makes it’s money), given the film’s subject matter, if you load up on special effects lots more people can be expected to turn out, just to see how well the effects look. As for _Crocodile Dundee_, it’s certainly _not_ a box office hit because Paul Hogan’s a genius. The rest of the movies he’s done (including some movie where he’s a guy who thinks he’s an angel and two sequels to CD) have pretty much tanked at the box office. > [@](#): > > So? Well, I don’t know about you, but I go to see a flick because I hope it has a good story, if the script sucks, I don’t care how pretty the things look on the screen. > [@](#): > > Rubbish. Universal was all set to tell Jackson to cut the movie until they saw it. Got a cite for that? > [@](#): > > Strawman. What in Jackson’s history makes you think he would do that? He has always been concious of the needs of the studio-and if they had said cut the movie, he undoubtably would have. I would like to see a citation if you believe otherwise. Gee, I don’t know, maybe because I figured that Jackson considered himself an artist and **all** artists have times when they won’t budge on their creative choices. Some times they’re right, some times they’re not. > [@](#): > > …so from the critical acclaim the movie is getting, would you say its fair to call Boyens and Walsh idiots? Well, you know, Anne Rice’s books tend to get great reviews when they’re released (not her most recent ones, though) and frankly I can’t stand any of them, and IMHO she _is_ an idiot. Do you think it’s fair for me to say that? > [@](#): > > And yes, Jackson, Boyens and Walsh write together: and Walsh and Jackson have written together almost since day one. Is Jackson an idiot? I don’t necessarily think so, but I can see how someone might feel that way. > [@](#): > > So does that make Boyens and Walsh idiots? Do you wish the movie to fail so they get fired? If all your saying is that you had problems with the writing, you have no arguement from me-I may disagree with you, but that doesn’t make your criticism any less valid. But if, for some reason, you decided to accuse Jackson of having an affair with Boyens, and that was the cause of the “bad writing”, can you see a reason to object? Actually, given that the primary purpose behind the internet is so that people can slander one another anonomously and exchange porn, no, I don’t really see the reason to object. > [@](#): > > Jackson’s falling? After one day at the box-office, the movie was called a flop. By the end of the weekend, the movie had met Studio expectations, and is still garnering critical praise. What is this “fall” you speak of? I never said Jackson was falling. > [@](#): > > Which, you must admit, is a shame. I also feel that people lash out just for the sake of it: note the criticism of Serenity or the new series of Lost, or the Lucas films. There is nothing wrong with critical appraisal, there is everything wrong with being a “hater” for the sake of hating. yeah, but unless someone proves themselves to be a general hater of **everything** I still listen to what they have to say, and I weight their comments carefully. I may not agree with them on anything, but I’m not going to waste my time (or theirs) trying to convince them they’re wrong, since there’s not a damn thing I can say that’s going to change their mind. > [@](#): > > Well, I’m glad that I stated several times that I’m not dismisisng all criticism: I said it twice in my last post and several times here. Do you consider that I am “dismissing all criticism of a particular film as the whining of fanboys”? I’d take your comments a lot more seriously if you were a bit more dispassionate in them and if you hadn’t mentioned anything about it being a home team production. > [@](#): > > Do you consider that **Omniscient’s** comments were rational, objective criticism’s like those offered by everybody else in the thread? I wouldn’t label everyone’s comments rational, objective, be they criticism or praise. Certainly, there **are** instances of both in this thread, but I’d not single **Omniscient** as being the only person not being objective. > [@](#): > > Did I take issue with anyone else’s problems with the movie? Yeah, mine. > [@](#): > > Or maybe he made the movie he wanted to make, and that he thought people wanted to see. Maybe he did listen to those around him, and made decisions that he thought were best for the movie and the studio. Maybe the studio saw it, were blown away with it and decided to release it as is. It’s never that simple. > [@](#): > > Flawed or not, I don’t see a need to call people behind the production “idiots”, ‘almost’ wish for the failure of the film, and accuse the writing team of having a “disturbing polygamous relationship” when no such relationship exists. As far as you know. They may, in fact, have kinky sex orgies all the time. Admittedly it’s unlikely, but still possible. > [@](#): > > This film is far from a spectacular failure, its a critical hit, with great overseas box office and building domestic box office numbers. Many people in this thread were blown away with the movie, and others loathed it-such as life. It is one thing to critique a movie, it is another to defame its writing team. Depends upon how you define “defame.” Some people would take **any** negative comments about the film as defaming Jackson, et. al. Other people would consider comments about Jackson & Co. felching dead goats and using Kong to give the public a dirty Sanchez par for the course for the internet. ---
**Author:** ![PookahMacPhellimey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pookahmacphellimey/32/3175_2.png) [@PookahMacPhellimey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PookahMacPhellimey)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/104 "2005-12-21T10:00:05Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > I was expecting > > I’ll\_\_\_\_\_\_\_be\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_right\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_here. Bit late but I just thought of this this morning. When he was on top of the building he should have said Ludo DOWN ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/105 "2005-12-21T10:55:16Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Reviews, are, of course, fickle things and what everybody likes _this_ year, may turn into their most hated flick just a few years down the road. _Titanic_ was a hugely profitable film and highly reviewed, but many people seemed to have changed their mind about it over the years. No, the same people who hated it back when it was released and became a hit are the same people who hate it now. Most if not all of the people who thought it was a good/great movie then still think so now, it’s just they’ve never been as vocal as the haters, who often seemed to latch onto one or two things that they really couldn’t stand and then painted the whole movie with their irrational “bad movie” brush. Having just watched it again via the new DVD special edition release, and not having seen it since it was in the theaters, I found that **Titanic** still holds up for me today. It was as interesting, as exciting and as moving to me the day before yesterday as it was back in 1997. It was the same excellent movie I remembered, and I believe it is, and always will be considered, a classic. Back on topic, we saw **King Kong** again last night and the pacing worked for me even better than the first time. The opening scenes in New York went by much quicker, as did the scenes on the ship. Scenes on Skull Island that seemed to go on for a long time, such as the dino stampede, the bug pit, and the rex fights were over much sooner than I remembered. I liked the movie even better the 2nd time. Since I’d seen the midnight show the first time and was very tired, it was refreshing to see it again fully alert. I don’t know what the box office numbers are now, but the theater we went to is showing it on 4 screens, and they are selling out showings. We had to go to a later showing than the one we planned on because the one we wanted was sold out. The one we did go to was packed. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/106 "2005-12-21T11:26:20Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > No, the same people who hated it back when it was released and became a hit are the same people who hate it now. Most if not all of the people who thought it was a good/great movie then still think so now, it’s just they’ve never been as vocal as the haters, who often seemed to latch onto one or two things that they really couldn’t stand and then painted the whole movie with their irrational “bad movie” brush. Funny, I couldn’t seem to escape the people saying the film was a wonderful movie when it was in theaters, now however, it seems like people are willing to pop up and express a dislike for the film. > [@](#): > > Having just watched it again via the new DVD special edition release, and not having seen it since it was in the theaters, I found that **Titanic** still holds up for me today. It was as interesting, as exciting and as moving to me the day before yesterday as it was back in 1997. It was the same excellent movie I remembered, and I believe it is, and always will be considered, a classic. Perhaps, but then again, if you look at films/writers/artists that have cleaned up at awards/been hugely popular during their time, you’ll find that they don’t always remain so. Indeed, many of the most popular classical composers today are ones who were almost completely ignored during their lifetime. It is, quite simply too early to say for certain what the final opinion will be. > [@](#): > > Back on topic, we saw **King Kong** again last night and the pacing worked for me even better than the first time. The opening scenes in New York went by much quicker, as did the scenes on the ship. Scenes on Skull Island that seemed to go on for a long time, such as the dino stampede, the bug pit, and the rex fights were over much sooner than I remembered. I liked the movie even better the 2nd time. Since I’d seen the midnight show the first time and was very tired, it was refreshing to see it again fully alert. I’m happy for you. The film completely worked for you, but it didn’t for me. I didn’t think it was the worst steaming pile to ever grace the screen, but it was, IMHO, far from a perfect film and could have benefitted from a little tweaking here and there. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what the box office numbers are now, but the theater we went to is showing it on 4 screens, and they are selling out showings. We had to go to a later showing than the one we planned on because the one we wanted was sold out. The one we did go to was packed. Well, I never doubted that the film would make plenty of money for the studio. Given the loyalty of Jackson fans and the tendancy of US films pulling in more money overseas than they do domestically, plus the various marketing tie-ins, future DVD sales, etc. the worst that I figured the film could do was break even. One thing that worries me, though, is if this film becomes a runaway hit, it could encourage Hollywood to churn out more remakes and I doubt that the majority of them will be very good. And all of us will wind up there, in the theater seats screaming, “You festering bastards! I want my money and the two hours of my life back!” ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/107 "2005-12-21T23:59:03Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > . . . One thing that worries me, though, is if this film becomes a runaway hit, it could encourage Hollywood to churn out more remakes and I doubt that the majority of them will be very good. . . . How likely is that? Seriously dude, where you bin for the last 10 years or so? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/108 "2005-12-22T00:09:43Z")
Cuz otherwise, think of the horrors we could be subjected to if KK is a hit and Hollywood suddenly decides to start making bad remakes . . . [insert wavy dream lines] . . . ```auto 2005 King Kong 2005 Yours, Mine and Ours 2005 The Fog 2005 The Bad News Bears 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2005 Dark Water 2005 The War of the Worlds 2005 The Longest Yard 2005 House of Wax 2005 The Amityville Horror 2005 Guess Who 2005 Assault On Precinct 13 2004 Flight of the Phoenix 2004 Alfie 2004 Grudge, The 2004 Shall We Dance? 2004 Taxi 2004 Wicker Park 2004 The Manchurian Candidate 2004 Around the World in 80 Days 2004 The Stepford Wives 2004 Man on Fire 2004 Walking Tall 2004 The Ladykillers 2004 Dawn of the Dead 2003 Cheaper by the Dozen 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The 2003 Freaky Friday 2003 The Italian Job 2003 In-Laws, The 2001 Vanilla Sky 2001 Ocean's Eleven 2001 Planet of the Apes 2000 Bedazzled 2000 Shaft 2000 Gone in 60 Seconds 1999 The Bachelor 1999 Mummy, The 1999 King and I, The 1998 Psycho 1998 Parent Trap, The 1998 Doctor Dolittle 1996 The Nutty Professor 1996 The Birdcage 1995 Sabrina ``` ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/109 "2005-12-22T07:52:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > How likely is that? > > Seriously dude, where you bin for the last 10 years or so? Yeah, I know, we’ve been subjected to a lot of them of late, I just don’t want it to get any **worse.** Ya know what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/110 "2005-12-22T08:40:58Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Ya know what I mean? I’d like to understand the reasoning behind this. Work through it logically: There’s absolujtely no disincentive to making remakes as it stands. Michael Bay just made a very tidy sum, thank you very much, by producing a completely shitty remake of a twenty-five-year-old movie that is _itself_ generally regarded as [one of the shittiest movies ever made](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078062/). You’re worried that an excellent remake of a seventy-year-old movie that’s generally regarded as excellent will inspire more dull remakes of dull movies? If there’s a lesson for producers here, it’s if you want a _runaway hit_, make a movie that doesn’t suck. Remake doesn’t enter into it. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/111 "2005-12-22T09:12:14Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > I’d like to understand the reasoning behind this. > > Work through it logically: There’s absolujtely no disincentive to making remakes as it stands. Michael Bay just made a very tidy sum, thank you very much, by producing a completely shitty remake of a twenty-five-year-old movie that is _itself_ generally regarded as [one of the shittiest movies ever made](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078062/). You’re worried that an excellent remake of a seventy-year-old movie that’s generally regarded as excellent will inspire more dull remakes of dull movies? > > If there’s a lesson for producers here, it’s if you want a _runaway hit_, make a movie that doesn’t suck. Remake doesn’t enter into it. Except, of course, you’re forgetting the whole “presold” concept. A film like King Kong comes “presold” in a couple of different ways, first there’s the fact that a director like Jackson is a hot property these days, so **any** film he’s got out there is automatically going to attract an audience (even if it _does_ suck, since hard core fans will have to go see it for themselves [**ultra** hard core fans will **never** admit that it _does_ and will see it repeatedly]). A remake of Kong will appeal to fans of the original, since they’ll already be familiar with the concept and will be inclined to go see it. It will also appeal to people who hated the 1976 remake, since they’ll be hoping that “someone’s finally got it right” as well as fans who _liked_ the 1976 remake. Given that Hollywood’s run by beancounters and **not** artistic types, they’ll be more likely to greenlight such a film over one where **everything** has to be explained to them (in a **five minute** pitch session, which IIRC, is all you get). Even directors with established track records often have trouble trying to get films made. Terry Gilliam wants to do a film version of _Good Omens_, but last I heard, he couldn’t get a studio to support him on it. Hell, Ridley Scott’s having trouble getting a “special edition” DVD of _Bladerunner_ released! (Last I heard, he wanted to do a huge multi-disk set complete with commentaries, every version of the film that’d ever be released, and the like, but someone in charge of the rights refuses to give him permission, and it’s a cult classic!) The writers responsible for _Starship Troopers_ originally went to the studio and said, “We want to do bugs in space.” The studio said, “We need something better than that.” So the writers dug around and found that no one had optioned the film rights to _Starship Troopers_, checked to see that Heinlein’s estate was willing to sell them, then went back to the studio and said, “Okay, we can get the rights to _Starship Troopers_ and it’ll have the same target demographic as the _Alien_ series since it’s a similar subject.” The studio said, “Deal.” (I’m paraphrasing a bit and going off memories of an article in a magazine like _Entertainment Weekly_, so take that with a grain of salt, but it matches in tone with things I’ve read about other films, so even if I’ve screwed up some of the details, I don’t think it’s totally out of whack.) And this isn’t a totally unreasonable stance on the part of the studios, since they’re going to be investing tens, if not hunderds, of millions of dollars on the production, so they’re going to want to be certain of a return on their investment, doing a remake, or another film in a franchise (or a new film similar to an existing successful franchise) is going, in their eyes, to be more likely to make money, than a film with a great script, that the general public doesn’t know about. Studios like the pre-Disney Miramax and Merchant Ivory, where they focus on great scripts, great casts, and _then_ what the box office take will be, are the rarity. The viewing public is also a bit to blame. How many of us have looked at the trailer for a film loaded with special effects and said, “Well, even if the story sucks, the film will at least look cool.”? So we go, then, of course, we discover that it doesn’t matter how cool the film looked, the story sucked so hard, we couldn’t focus on the eye candy (_Pearl Harbor_ is a perfect example of this.). If we’d simply said, “Oh shit, this is a Jerry Bruckhiemer production, it’s probably going to suck hard.” and then stayed away from the film, hacks like him would soon be out of a job. (Not to say that _every_ Bruckheimer film blows, just 99.99999999% of them do.) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/112 "2005-12-22T10:09:45Z")
[NPR piece somewhat related to these issues.](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048864&ft=1&f=1019) > [@](#): > > The Chronicles of Narnia dominated box office receipts this weekend. The film relies heavily on digital effects for its spectacular images and action sequences, impossible to achieve using traditional film techniques – but at a much greater cost. Alex Chadwick talks with Slate contributor Edward Jay Epstein about whether digital effects are ruining Hollywood. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/113 "2005-12-27T04:37:26Z")
Saw it this afternoon. I’m with those who thought it was way too long. I spent the last 15 minutes thinking “could you just kill the damn ape so I can go pee?” One little factoid – according to the IMDb, the costumes the “natives” wore in the B’way show at the end are the same as the costumes the real natives wore in the original. Heh. Overall, it was good – but it was definitely too long. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/114 "2005-12-27T21:36:10Z")
I loved it. That movie has _everything_. It’s a better **King Kong** than the original; it’s a better **Jurassic Park** than Jurassic Park; it’s got about half an **Ed Wood** movie stuffed in there; Jack Black does a good Orson Welles; it’s got gore; it’s got a good love story. Maybe even a little **African Queen**. The only genre they tried but didn’t get was silent movie - Naomi Watts just isn’t funny doing her Vaudeville bits. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711/115 "2005-12-28T14:36:08Z")
Meh. I saw it last night and that’s what I’m left with. It’s a good movie. It’s not even close to a great movie. I’d even say that it’s only matinee worthy - don’t pay full price for it. Way, way too long - by at least 45 minutes. I like Jackson as much as the next guy, but he **needs** an editor. Action sequences went on for far too long, and there were far too many soulful gazes. Too much bad CGI - Jackson needed to spend some more money to make these scenes better. I think he loses the audience too many times, and he require them to suspend their disbelief too much. But Adrian Brody’s worth at least $3 of the purchase price. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-king-kong-is-a-wonderful-epic-chick-flick-who-knew/335711.md?page=5)