Peter Jackson's KING KONG

[MacGuffin]

With all the talk of ruining the original here, how many have really seen it and hold it such high regard?

I do.

I'm sure it is a landmark of special effects, but it is seventy years old.

So you haven't seen it? Then how can you answer your own question above?

And a 70 year old movie can't stand the test of time? I'll take a 70 year old great film classis over a one year old piece of shit, that will stay a piece of shit forever, like Charlie's Angels 2 anyday.

[Derek]

While I'm sure there are exceptions, I would argue the majority of people here love the nostalgia of the original more than the product itself.

And how can one movie ruin another? They are separate entities. Did Jaws 3-D ruin Jaws?

[Derek]

Well, I have seen it, but it was quite a while a go and only half-remember it.

[cine]

While I'm sure there are exceptions, I would argue the majority of people here love the nostalgia of the original more than the product itself.

I think what you're saying is that more people respect the film because its old as opposed to respecting the film itself for what it is. If that's what you're saying, then understand the King Kong of 1933 will stand the test of time over a King Kong of 2005 or so. The landmark film of the 30's is just a great movie.

And how can one movie ruin another? They are separate entities. Did Jaws 3-D ruin Jaws?

But did Van Sant's Psycho shit on the legacy of Hitchcock's? You bet.

[Derek]

I don't know if you can say that Jackson's won't stand the test of time since it hasn't been made yet...that said, I'm not exactly certain what the criteria is.

It shouldn't be a competition between the films, anyway. His love for the '33 version is why Jackson is making his film.

As far as Psycho, it is a subjective thing. But the new one's existence didn't make it possible to go back in time and make the original any less than it is.



Edit: I could have sworn MacGuffin had a response to me a post or two ago.

[Sleuth]

Mac's been deleting a lot of his posts lately

[modage]

well that brings up an interesting point.  has any remake in history had been considered the 'definitive' version of whatever story?  like better critical/commercial success and usually regarded as a better film?  have any of those been so-called 'classics'?

and remember this is REMAKES not other adaptations based on previously existing books/comics etc.  stories like Batman, Robin Hood, Dracula that get made 100 times because there can be new ways to interpet the material.

[Derek]

Only Psycho, as far as I understand.


I know history is against its success, but the new one has Peter Jackson on its side.

[cine]

has any remake in history had been considered the 'definitive' version of whatever story?  like better critical/commercial success and usually regarded as a better film?  have any of those been so-called 'classics'?

The Maltese Falcon.

Only Psycho, as far as I understand.
I know history is against its success, but the new one has Peter Jackson on its side.

Oh, good for for the '98 Psycho, huh? Peter Jackson is supporting it over the Hitchcock classic. I guess Van Sant has the upside.

[Derek]

I think you misunderstood my post. I was sarcastically referring to Psycho above, and the King Kong remake below.

[cine]

I think you misunderstood my post. I was sarcastically referring to Psycho above, and the King Kong remake below.

Yeah, I misunderstood probably because you seemed serious about asking in the other thread about how sitcoms are irrelevent to movies.

[modage]

oh i didnt know Maltese was a remake.  loved the Bogart one.  have you seen the original?  and if so, was it a good film?  or 'classic'?  i doubt.  thats the only time when remakes are a good idea.  when you have a good idea for a movie that doesnt live up to its potential and you take another shot at it.  remaking classics always seems like a bad idea, especially the more time that passes.  this is like 70 years later and the original is mythic, so this cant do anything but beg for comparison.  i dont doubt that jackson will make a competent film, or even a good one, but it will never out-do the classicness of the original, and thus is doomed for failure.  like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it is pointless.  the only point in retelling this story is for teenagers who dont like black and white.

[cine]

the only point in retelling this story is for teenagers who dont like black and white.

That's essentially it, yes.

[Derek]

I'm a little more optimistic. There is more than a good chance Jackson will make a wonderful movie, although its far too early to give this thing an Oscar or bury it in the 'best intentions' pit. Jackson, for my money, is one of the best directors working, not simply for The Lord of the Rings but that alone would be enough.

Maybe Texas Chainsaw Massacre did nothing really new except update a classic. What's wrong with that?

[modage]

Maybe Texas Chainsaw Massacre did nothing really new except update a classic. What's wrong with that?

it's pointless.  i think jackson is a hugely talented director and i'd rather not see him wasting his time (and several years of his life) directing something that is doomed to begin with.  i'd rather see him generate something on his own.