3
   

King Kong 2005

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2005 06:06 pm
The sequel to the 1933 movie, "Son of Kong" was a travesty.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 02:11 am
no, de Laurentis had his own sequel "Kong Lives" , I looked it up. SCience saved Kong after he jumped off the WTC.
I never saw Son of Kong. , You realize then, that implies a Mother of SOn of Kong, since Kong was a King. He seemed kind of butch anyway.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 08:06 am
You're right! It was so pathetically bad I had a psychological mental block and erased it from the ole grey cells.

Somewhere in "Son of Kong" they explained what happened to "Mother Kong." Oh, no, how I've put a seed into someone's mind for yet another sequel. I'm sure Jackson isn't planning on one even though his new Kong could break box office records. If he's created an affectionate connection to his Kong and consequently a deep emotional response, movie goers will go back and see it more than once. What movie fare of late -- the cineplex choices have us either empathizing for an giant ape or two cowboys in love. My oh my.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 08:42 am
farmerman wrote:
ITS 3.5 hours of big monkey. Cmon.


I'm devastated. Of all the people to call an ape a monkey Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 09:41 am
Some are carping at the length of the movie, most of the extra half hour or forty-five minutes for what would seem apropos devoted to the foundation scenes in New York before embarking on the trip to Skull Island. For those who have never (!) or not seen the original in many years it could benefit in suspense and anticipation of what is to come. I've read most of the reviews and they may or may not have a point -- most say the pacing is quite good despite the long length.

Hey, people (unless they had lived on Mars up until now) knew the Titanic sinks and it didn't deter it from becoming the biggest money maker of all time. Can Jackson top that? If you count all three LOTR films, I believe he has but then one would have to clock in all six "Star Wars?"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 12:24 pm
The sequel could be
"The Family Kong"
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 01:49 pm
I'm going to wait for "The Kong Family Christmas".
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2005 05:50 pm
Laughing Good! That would be a completely new thread -- crazy sequels to "King Kong."

This thread should be featured.
0 Replies
 
Futurist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 06:15 pm
I watched it last night, very captivating, full of thrill, the girl is pretty, i would fall in love with her too. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Futurist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 06:41 pm
Naomi Watts is beautiful, very charming, gorgeous, captivating, she is 2 years older than I.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 07:32 pm
Im hearing great hings about this movie. My "suspension of belief in structural engineering" will kick in. Yes , a 100 ton beast can jump 50 feet without considering F=Ma. to his skeletal structure.

I saw some of the trailers and I was not really thrilled about the CGI. It looks rather cartoonish to me.

Too bad futurist, Naomi Watts wants an older dude, in uniform
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:06 pm
You're not actually telling me you ever entertained the thought of taking "King Kong" seriously? It's a fable with all sorts of creatures that should make paleontologists roar with laughter. I think one has to enter the theater with expectations of a good ride, not for any revelations.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:29 pm
no, when suspension of belief enters the realms of Grimms Fairy tales, then I feel that I have to pardon myself and go get stoned. Hell when I was a stoner, I could watch dryers spinning and have a good time , as long as I had some Reeses pieces.

I do have some minimal base of acceptance, and if I wish to roar at dinosaur stories, Ill talk with Creationists on A2K.

The thing that bothered me most about the KK trailers was the cartoony look. Didnt this catch you? Kong has more moves than Bruce Lee. I hated "Crouching Dragon" for that very reason, not the fairy taleness. The special effects , which were an important part of the show, sucked .

I loved Harryhousens claymation of "The Golden Fleece" or the Ali Baba tales. The claymation was fascinating for its time. For that reason, I loved valley of Gwangi. I liked Jurassic Park 1 (the rest , well 2 was derivative of King Kong with a green screen and 3 was "Jason and the Argonauts" really.
0 Replies
 
Futurist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:30 pm
Those people should be and trampled and killed when they ran together with the dinosaurs.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 07:47 am
Oh, my, farmerman, you gaven't gone adultish on us? I'm not sure where one should interpret the action as "cartoonish." Artistic license to go a bit over-the-top with something like Kong is acceptable to me. The very definition of action adventure is a visceral experience. With Jackson, it's also an artistic design experience. What's been written about the film so far seems to indicate that there is a heart at the center and even though many of us know the story that Jackson has more than adequately told the story again. The 1976 remake decided to "polish up" the story to an inert, disasterous result. I will see it in the next two weeks so perhaps I should reserve my final assessment until then.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 09:24 am
wiz. Ill probably see it also, and will reserve my official critique. My expectations are just not as high as yours.

I keep a list of "cheesey special effects freom modern flicks"

My two worst are
1. The karate on bamboo tops in Crouching Tiger

2The bomb dropping from a plane and falling onto the Arizona during that really dumb "Pearl Harbor" flick of 2001.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 09:46 am
Can't agree more about the obligatory shot following the bomb down to the deck of the Arizona. But that film was meant to depict a real event and departures into sci-fi, "Star Wars" effects just often do not work for that genre. Much preferred the depiction of the attack in "Tora, Tora, Tora," without the aid of CGI. It was more like one was observing the event rather than being thrust behind tail of a bomb which was decidedly unrealistic.

"Crouching Tiger," I can't agree -- this was also a fantasy fable and it's necessary to appreciate the aesthetics of a particular scene like the duel over the bamboo. Was "The House of Flying Daggers" more to your taste? Or perhaps your fantasy gene is just wanting -- too much of a realist? That would certainly irritate one when trying to communicate with Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates (who are scarcely worth even communicating with -- their minds are too pinched close by church propaganda for me).

Actually, I don't really keep any lists of bad or good special effects. I do have memorable appreciation of the success of a movie for its effects like the original George Pal "The War of the Worlds." I also still appreciate the effects in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (okay, so I worked on that movie) even if one could see the zipper in the back of Klatu's "suit." The effects in "Sink the Bismark," a British black-and-white are also memorable and I can't forget the great miniatures and future underground city of "Things to Come."

There are far more grievous abuses of CGI effects than those two, however, than the two you mentioned. Perhaps they were in movies you've avoided at all cost.
0 Replies
 
Futurist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 06:17 pm
How can a giant sized king kong can jump as fast and as high as spiderman?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 07:33 pm
part of the suspension of belief. Im more worried that , when he lands, all his long bones are smashed.

Wiz, I keep my own list of cheeseys and I trot them out in discussions like this. My problem with Crouching Tiger was that, with the advanced state of the art, the effects were just hammy to me.
I agree that Tora^3 was the definitive view of Pearl. It was cobbled together from colorized news fims in many cases so it did have that 'immediacy" like a silo fire in Iowa.

One of the things that has always annoyed me was how the marine shots of old ships of the line were made. They cried "MATTELL BOATS" in a bathtunb. Yet,when I saw "MAster and Commander" I was quite pleased with the detail in how they preserved the bow waves, the ships wake and the wave action.Thats , at least to someone of my limited skills, been one of the most difficult effects to achieve.

I anticipate your review, and Ill have to look for Gort's Zipper. KLATU BERADA NIKTO was the instructions that were issued by Michael Rennie to his metallic assistant.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 08:23 pm
Actually, I believe you are thinking of "Midway" which had the used doctored and inserted authentic footage -- beween the Japanese Toei Co. Ltd. and Paramount, the special effects were all originated for the film with no vintage footage.

I do agree about "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" having excellent effects and it made you believe in the reality of the film. That first skirmish with the French ship has to also be some of the best sound effects. With my Dolby 7.1 sound at home, I thought I was a goner when the battle began.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » King Kong 2005
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 05:23:12