King Kong - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

u2sarajevo · 07-06-2005, 07:18 PM

From the greatest director the world has ever known......

To watch the trailer click here

Drbio · 07-06-2005, 10:00 PM

I saw the trailer before war of the worlds. I don't remember there being a t-rex in King Kong ([img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]), but it was some good eye candy.

u2sarajevo · 07-06-2005, 11:01 PM

Well... this is Peter Jackson's version.

I am a Tolkien fan, and was a little miffed about some of the bastardization of the storyline(I don't remember reading that Arwen rode Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen, or that Elrond delivered Anduril - the reforged blade of Elendil named Narsil - to Aragorn right before heading to Dimholt and the Paths of the Dead to claim the aid of the Men of the White Mountains - if that were true, how could he reveal himself and that very blade that cut off the Ring to Sauron after the Battle of Isengard?). As well as leaving out key parts of the story like the Scouring of the Shire.... but overall I thought it was well done and highly entertaining.

So I am more than eager to see his interpretation of King Kong.

mavsman55 · 07-06-2005, 11:30 PM

Anything with Jack Black is worth seeing. As long as it's not called "Envy".

I was really excited for this when I saw the previews for it.

poohrichardson · 07-07-2005, 12:05 AM

God, this movie looks like shit.. give me Kong vs. Godzilla any day..

Member · 07-07-2005, 12:22 AM

I'm not sure if I'll be able to take Jack Black seriously during this movie.

u2sarajevo · 07-07-2005, 12:32 AM

I think Black will be interesting to watch. But I didn't like the dynosaurs either.... I don't know this version of the story yet so I will wait until I see it.

I also don't think I can buy the whole filming a movie on a remote lost Island plot though.

grndmstr_c · 07-07-2005, 12:51 AM

I'm pretty sure there was a Kong/T-Rex fight in the original King Kong from back in the 30's or whenever. I believe Jackson's version is a remake of that original moreso than of the more recent one with Charles Grodin and Jeff Bridges.

And U2, I'm with you on Jackson and LOTR. At some point later in my life I hope to see a very high-quality, big budget, completely faithful rendering of the trilogy, complete with Tom Bombadil and everything. But outside of the occasional script nuisances Jackson's directing was terrific, I thought. I'm expecting good things from him again.

mmmfast · 07-07-2005, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
...
I am a Tolkien fan, and was a little miffed about some of the bastardization of the storyline(I don't remember reading that Arwen rode Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen, or that Elrond delivered Anduril - the reforged blade of Elendil named Narsil - to Aragorn right before heading to Dimholt and the Paths of the Dead to claim the aid of the Men of the White Mountains - if that were true, how could he reveal himself and that very blade that cut off the Ring to Sauron after the Battle of Isengard?).

Anyone ever heard of Tom Bombadil?
He knew of Entwives, was unaffected by wearing the ring, could see Frodo while wearing it and could not even get a cameo?

Sorry, I wanted to be geeky too [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
No offense, and I will certainly think about renting King Kong.

u2sarajevo · 07-07-2005, 06:54 AM

No offense taken? I wasn't trying to "be geeky". I was just pointing out that Peter Jackson has messed with the original storylines before and the finished product was still very good.

And on Tom Bombadil.... I was even more interested to see his wife Goldberry. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

sike · 07-07-2005, 10:18 AM

I'll see it...but not all that excited about it.

ocelot_ark · 07-07-2005, 10:30 AM

Saw the preview last night...I'll definitely check it out. Not going to be an intellectually stimulating movie, but it should definitely be fun.

Big Boy Laroux · 07-07-2005, 11:12 AM

looks high camp with a big budget. gotta love it.

a guy kicking a dinosaur in the head? i'm there!

Murphy3 · 07-07-2005, 09:32 PM

You will never get a better version of LOTR than what Peter Jackson provided. It's impossible to be completely faithful to the books. They are simply too long with too much going on.

Be thankful with what you got. It was truly amazing. Honestly, I believe it's 'popular' to nitpick LoTR for what it does not provide. It's just the cool thing for 'geeks' to do.

Big Boy Laroux · 07-07-2005, 10:31 PM

man, i agree. these books won't be made into a movie again... or at least not for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

u2sarajevo · 07-07-2005, 11:03 PM

The same was said of Dune(that it's impossible to be completely faithful to the books...). Granted it's just a third of what was originally a trilogy. But Sci-Fi channel put out a pretty good alternate, that followed the initial book(Dune) pretty closely if not spot on. It's a 4 1/2 hour version.... but the point is that it's not impossible.

edit: To say, please don't think I am knocking PJ's movies because I am not. I love them. I watch them once a month on average. They have garnered in my kids an interest in one of the greatest literary artists of the 1900's, and for that I am grateful.

rakesh.s · 07-08-2005, 11:55 AM

Way too much fake CGI for my taste...Jackson is really in love with that stuff, like George Lucas.

It would be nice to see a movie where they shoot something outdoors and not in front of a green screen [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

sike · 07-08-2005, 12:38 PM

saw the trailer again last night...liked it better the second time....

Murphy3 · 07-08-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: rakesh.s
Way too much fake CGI for my taste...Jackson is really in love with that stuff, like George Lucas.

It would be nice to see a movie where they shoot something outdoors and not in front of a green screen [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

I know. If only they could get all of the dinosaurs and giant monkeys to cooperate.

u2sarajevo · 07-08-2005, 07:35 PM

I must have become oblivious to the CGI effects in movies. It never has bothered me in the least.

Either that, or my eye doctor gave me the wrong contact prescription.

twelli · 07-08-2005, 07:46 PM

once I saw the dinosaur, I immediately lost a portion of interest in the film. and with 'Lost' still on air, the island location is not that refreshing either.

Give me Godzilla anytime...

Murphy3 · 07-08-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: twelli
once I saw the dinosaur, I immediately lost a portion of interest in the film. and with 'Lost' still on air, the island location is not that refreshing either.

Not a fan of the original King Kong I take it.

Oh well. The trailer looked great. I can't wait to see the finished product. After hearing so much whining the past few days about the trailer, I was shocked at just how good it actually was. Hey, it just proves one thing. If people are bored, they'll bitch about something. It's the off season for the Mavs so people are going to bitch. That's life.

u2sarajevo · 07-08-2005, 10:03 PM

I haven't seen the original King Kong yet. So I didn't know there were dinosaurs in the original one.... when Mr. C said that above it changed my opinion instantly on this film. I love that PJ is staying close to the original - which I understand stands up to the test of time pretty well in regards to entertainment value.

I want to see it, and tried to rent it.... but the Hollywood Video only had it in VHS. And I threw my VHS player away 2 years ago. Apparently it's not available on DVD. I bet it is soon though.

sike · 07-11-2005, 02:59 PM

Lesson of the Day: never throw your VHS away.

grndmstr_c · 12-19-2005, 03:50 AM

Bump. Saw it tonight. Awesome. Takes a little while to get going, but man when it does it's really special.

On a related note, I finally got around to watching Dead Alive recently. It was entertaining as hell in spite of being absolutely disgusting and very low budget. I'm already counting the days till the announcement of Jackson's next project (which on the executive producing side of things is apparently HALO).

Dooby · 12-19-2005, 09:09 AM

Saw it yesterday. It is really, really good. It does have some problems-I don't buy Adrien Brody and Jack Black turing into badasses so quickly on Skull Island.

Naomi Watts is amazing. She really is. I was crushed when I found out she wasn't really juggling.

Drbio · 12-19-2005, 09:30 AM

Like most Hollywood films these days, time was spent on eye candy, not story development.

How long has it been since the last great epoch? The last great story?

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 11:16 AM

I disagree Doc. Much of the movie was based on story development. That's what made the movie amazing... Jackson actually makes the love shared between Watts and Kong seem realistic. There were actually people crying at times during the movie.

Doc, you're suffering from good old day syndrome... or maybe just the old part. You don't have to go far back to think of great stories... or great epics. Lord of the Rings ring a bell? Cinderella Man?...not a great story?

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 11:16 AM

...made $140 million in first 5 days....

jthig32 · 12-19-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

...made $140 million in first 5 days....

That's worldwide. Only 66 mil domestic. Pretty poor showing for a movie as hyped as it was.

Hell, the Narnia movie beat it for opening weekend and first five days.

I'll go see it, but I'm not expecting much. Jack Black in a serious role is impossible to accept.

Everyone go see Narnia though. Great movie.

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 12:07 PM

It's a three hour movie. Typically, three hour movies have lesser opening weekend grosses because they simply won't have as many showings.

And as for it being $140 million worldwide, the people making the money probably don't care whether or not the majority of the money is made in the U.S. or overseas... It still spends the same.

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 12:08 PM

You're not expecting much? Why not? It's getting amazing critical reviews and amazing reviews from the general public. Why wouldn't you expect much?

With over 16,000 user reviews on yahoo.com, the average grade for it is an A-. At Rottentomatoes.com, their has been 176 reviews by critics with 145 of them being good reviews for the movie.

Here's the critical consenus at Rottentomatoes.com for King Kong:

CONSENSUS
Peter Jackson’s dream project is as good as event movies get; King Kong is visually spectacular and emotionally resonant.

jthig32 · 12-19-2005, 12:33 PM

I am impressed by the reviews it got at RottenTomatoes. That's tough to do.

But as I said, I doubt I will be able to accept Jack Black in that role. This might be the worst casting in the history of film. They guy's a bit comedy buy, funny in Tenacious D and a handful of comedy films. He's never done anything seriously.

jthig32 · 12-19-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

It's a three hour movie. Typically, three hour movies have lesser opening weekend grosses because they simply won't have as many showings.

And as for it being $140 million worldwide, the people making the money probably don't care whether or not the majority of the money is made in the U.S. or overseas... It still spends the same.

I wasn't necesasrily saying the 140 mil didn't count, but I assumed you were posting it to show how well it was doing, and I didn't want anyone to be mislead thinking it had some historic opening or something.

sike · 12-19-2005, 12:52 PM

tooooooooooooooooooooooooo loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong to many needless action scenes (though Kong looks and sounds amaszing!)....a lotta hype for so-so acting and overblown special effects....Watts is an amazing actress, Black is out of his element, and Broody is totally wasted...and to quote doc, "This is the best Bestiality movie I've ever seen!"

all in all it would have been a better film if 2 and a half hours long.

Dtownsfinest · 12-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I am impressed by the reviews it got at RottenTomatoes. That's tough to do.

But as I said, I doubt I will be able to accept Jack Black in that role. This might be the worst casting in the history of film. They guy's a bit comedy buy, funny in Tenacious D and a handful of comedy films. He's never done anything seriously.

Watch out lol. That's the same thing they said about Jamie Foxx and a oscar later he's still recieving notoriety but this time for his movie Jarhead.

Seems like $66 million is a bit low for a film that was suppose to be the 2nd biggest film of the year behind the Harry Potter franchise. The movie already cost them $207 million to make so I guess they'll make that back but it has to be a dissapointmetn for the people behind King Kong. I expected a lot more. That Disney movie that came out last week made what? 100 million? I don't even know the name of that film lol.

jthig32 · 12-19-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dtownsfinest

Watch out lol. That's the same thing they said about Jamie Foxx and a oscar later he's still recieving notoriety but this time for his movie Jarhead.

Seems like $66 million is a bit low for a film that was suppose to be the 2nd biggest film of the year behind the Harry Potter franchise. The movie already cost them $207 million to make so I guess they'll make that back but it has to be a dissapointmetn for the people behind King Kong. I expected a lot more. That Disney movie that came out last week made what? 100 million? I don't even know the name of that film lol.

It was The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. It did 66 million it's first weekend. Great movie.

You're not seriously comparing Jamie Foxx to Jack Black are you? Jack Black has been successful in bit comedy roles in movies. He's never caried a movie. Jamie Foxx carried his own show for several years. And was good in several movies before doing his first dramatic role in Collatoral.

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 01:49 PM

I was shocked at how well Jack Black played his role. Actually, it's not as serious of a role as one might expect.

As for the movie being a disappointment..if it grosses $500 million worldwide, I don't see how it can be a disappointment to anyone. No, it won't be as huge as Lord of the Rings, but it's going to bring in a ton of cash for everyone involved and will completely justify Peter Jackson's $20 million dollar price tag. If the movie makes as much money as it's on pace to make, Jackson will once again be given free reign to do as he pleases and rightfully so...

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Sike, your opinion doesn't count.

Murphy3 · 12-19-2005, 01:53 PM

As for whoever mentioned The Chronicles of Narnia, it's sitting at $154 million worldwide in two weeks with a similar budget. It doesn't remotely appear to be headed towards the same amount of financial success as King Kong even though Narnia had a better opening weekend in the US.

It's really difficult educating the underinformed,...but, I do what I can.