Any thoughts or opinions on this upcoming remake?
its gonna be cool
Rings king keen to start on Kong
Director Peter Jackson, fresh from the Return of the King world premiere, will start work on his $200 million King Kong film in Wellington next month.
Universal Studios is to pay Jackson a record $32 million to direct the film which is expected to provide between 1500 and 2000 jobs.
Jackson, who will be in Los Angeles tomorrow for The Return of the King's United States premiere, said he still had to edit an extended version of the third Lord of the Rings film for DVD late next year. He wanted it done before Christmas.
But after taking a short holiday, he would spend most of his time from January working on King Kong, inspired by the 1933 film.
Shooting is planned for August mainly in Wellington.
Jackson said that, because the film would be set in the 1930s, to create the period it would be easier to shoot about 80 per cent of the film at his Miramar studios. Some of the natural locations, including King Kong's home, Skull Island, would also be shot at the studios.
A key feature of the film is a freighter ship, Manuia, – believed to be berthed at Miramar – which takes King Kong from Skull Island to New York.
"I'm interested in (King) Kong being quite stylised and the jungles of Skull Island I want to be very over-the-top, like a jungle from hell. I imagine we are going to be more successful pulling that off in the studio or in a back lot than we are trying to find a beech forest in the South Island," he said.
There would be some location shooting for scenes on beaches or in boats, "but I'm not imagining a huge amount".
Jackson confirmed it was likely that Australian actress Naomi Watts, 35, would play Ann Darrow, the role made famous by Canadian Fay Wray in the original. The contract still had to be sewn up, "but it's looking okay".
He met Watts in London in October and showed her some designs for King Kong.
"She got really excited and it was great. Naomi's the only person that we've really approached because she's becoming so eagerly sought after by everybody."
No other cast decisions would be made until he, partner Fran Walsh and writer Philippa Boyens had completed the script by February.
"A lot of the characters are members of the ship's crew and we don't really kind of know who they are because we are going to write the script from scratch again."
Wellington special effects companies Weta Workshop and Weta Digital will work on the film.
"Once we get started on Kong we get a few months of what I call gentle work because I am writing, having meetings at Weta and looking at designs," Jackson said.
"It's actually going to be easier. . . (than The Lord of the Rings) the logistics involved don't seem as daunting."
I just want it over with, so that Jackson can start work on The Hobbit before the end of the decade.
I think King Kong was very much a movie of its time. What was dazzling about it then simply isn't grandiose enough to capture our imaginations now, I fear.
I'm interested to see what he's gonna do with it. He uses CGI better than most directors, so I hope he doesn't over do it in this one.
What can he really do to advance the story in regards to the original? This film seems like a waste of time and Jackson only extending his special effects power to limits he thinks he has to achieve. And as much as people can say she is talented, Naomi Watts is trying to be a major star as well. This movie to just film will be a large chunk of time for her. Its a guranteed hit.
Also, I don't believe his special effects are even any good for LOTR. They are quite wide spanding and varied in use, but they never convinced me for one second I was looking at another world. I just saw computer effects everywhere. These films would have been more effective and more beautiful if done in animation.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetWhat can he really do to advance the story in regards to the original? This film seems like a waste of time.
yup, although ill be lined up to see it on opening day, its really a pointless remake. when the originals a classic, why try to clone that? you cant really improve on something, so why bother?
...i think like godzilla ......p. diddy and page should ruin another zeppelin classic for the King Kong sounndtrack..... make it a monster movie tradition
it saddens me how much $$ they are putting into it. and he's getting paid $32 million?! :shock: that' got to be the record. spielberg's base salary ain't even close to that.
I hope the remake is not done like Godzilla... effects were cool but damn... they can do better... they could do it like the old one but with better technology and it would be awsome... I hate it when they just try to add shit that doesnt make sense and they blow it (Italian Job, Truth about Charlie, etc)
200 million is really a lot... I think thats the biggest budget ever (for a single movie)... isnt it? That means they expect to get at least double that in Box Office... Hmm... well lets wait and see
The reasons I condone it:
a.) It's Peter Jackson, and he rules (this is not a legit reason, of course, merely an opinion, but whatever).
b.) Peter Jackson is passionately obsessed with King Kong, owns the original stop motion puppet used in the classic film, and so hopefully he'll play the remake game right and make a film that is great in its own right while not treading on the original. If anyone but him was making it, I'd be uninterested.
Quote from: GhostboyThe reasons I condone it:
a.) It's Peter Jackson, and he rules.
i know and thats why i'm going, but i still say its a completely pointless thing to remake. like ted turner colorizing black and white movies, the studio just wants a 'new' version of this to make more money from people who dont like old ones.
Yeah, I don't get it either. He's wanted to do King Kong for years, because he's such a big fan of the original, but that doesn't make sense. If you're such a big fan of something, why not let it stand on its own without you trying to make it better, er, "re-interpret" it. That's just ego talking.
Speaking of Jackson, anyone know the story on why he of all people was picked to do the LOTR series? Honestly, he nailed it, I'm not saying he was the wrong choice, but before I heard about that series, I was a HUGE fan of his low-budget masterpieces Dead Alive and Bad Taste, and that's all I knew him for (let's not mention The Frighteners). What studio exec was drunk at a party watching Dead Alive or Meet the Feebles and shouted "THAT'S OUR GUY!"? It's so funny buying the SE DVD of Bad Taste and having in huge print on the cover "From the Director of Lord of the Rings".
I think it went like this: he was developing King Kong after The Frighteners, but the studio balked at the budget. He really wanted to do LOTR also, so he either convinced Miramax to buy the rights, or went to them because they already had them and convinced them to do the movie. It was originally going to be one two hour film, and then Miramax decided to split that into two -- and then they decided it was too expensive, handed the film to New Line (while retaining exec producer credits), who decided to go all out and make the trilogy the way it was supposed to be. And the rest is history.
If he hadn't made Heavenly Creatures for Miramax and received an Oscar nomination, it would likely have never happened.
Quote from: Find Your MagaliI just want it over with, so that Jackson can start work on The Hobbit before the end of the decade.
I think King Kong was very much a movie of its time. What was dazzling about it then simply isn't grandiose enough to capture our imaginations now, I fear.
what he said.
I think Jackson's reason for remaking it is simply to experience what it's like to direct the movie he loves so much. He's not pulling a Gus Van Sant, and he's not talking about how he's improving upon the original. He just wants to have the experience of making King Kong. He's probably the first to admit that his remake will be nothing compared to the original.
Point taken. Although, I really love The Clash but I'm not going to form a Clash cover band, those songs are sacred to me.
I really trust PJ will make a great movie, but on the other hand I think there are about a million other things he could do. After working on someone elses idea for years, I would think he'd want to so something more original, and i'd like to see him do something more original, either way though, King Kong isn't a bad idea to try.
Quote from: GoneSavagePoint taken. Although, I really love The Clash but I'm not going to form a Clash cover band, those songs are sacred to me.
Well... I dunno, I guess that's what makes you and PJ different people. I mean... would I like to know what it must have been like to make my favorite movie, or to perform my favorite song? Yeah, but I won't remake my favorite movie, because that will never let me experience what it was really like to make that movie.
I think Peter Jackson just looks at these things in a different light.
And yeah, I was hoping he'd move on to something original... I'm sure I'll love King Kong, but I just really want him to do the goddamn Hobbit and then something like Dead Alive or Bad Taste.
Quotethen something like Dead Alive or Bad Taste.
Right on.
yeah, i just want him to keep repeating himself until he has no soul.
'Lord' stands atop box office, and its director goes ape
Another weekend to Lord over the box office. As "The Lord of the Rings" marks its third straight weekend at No. 1, one man is not basking in the glory.
That's director Peter Jackson, who is thinking of something even bigger. Yes, he has those plans for the new "King Kong" in his paws. Why bring back the big ape?
"I've loved 'King Kong' ever since I was a kid and it inspired me to make films. There's a generation of kids now who don't love old films with jerky special FX [effects] and the heightened acting styles of the '30s. That's why I wanted to do a new 'Kong,' " he says.
As for some insider know-how, Jackson says he will "approach 'Kong' in a very similar way to how I approached 'Lord of the Rings.' You take a property, whether it is an old film or a beloved old book, and you just simply have a vision for it in your mind. You can see the movie and get excited about it all over again."
Quote from: themodernage02the studio just wants a 'new' version of this to make more money from people who dont like old ones.
Quote from: Peter JacksonThere's a generation of kids now who don't love old films with jerky special FX [effects] and the heightened acting styles of the '30s. That's why I wanted to do a new 'Kong,' " he says.
*puke
Quote from: Peter JacksonThere's a generation of kids now who don't love old films with jerky special FX [effects] and the heightened acting styles of the '30s. That's why I wanted to do a new 'Kong,' " he says.
Wait, I don't get it, Peter. So YOU'RE doing jerky special effects too?? Oh, okay, good luck with that.
Guys, be honest. Do I just have too much blind faith/optimism for my own good?
Yes.
Quote from: GhostboyGuys, be honest. Do I just have too much blind faith/optimism for my own good?
No, he will take it to another level for sure.
Quote from: FernandoQuote from: GhostboyGuys, be honest. Do I just have too much blind faith/optimism for my own good?
No, he will take it to another level for sure.
another level of what?!? seriously, how do you improve a classic? you cant. i am a geek, and i like peter jackson, have since i saw the frighteners in the theatre, and i will be in line like everyone else to see what he's done with it, but that doesnt in any way excuse the fact that this is an inexcusable remake done for the sole purpose of 'colorizing Casablanca' to make more money.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: FernandoQuote from: GhostboyGuys, be honest. Do I just have too much blind faith/optimism for my own good?
No, he will take it to another level for sure.
another level of what?!? seriously, how do you improve a classic? you cant. i am a geek, and i like peter jackson, have since i saw the frighteners in the theatre, and i will be in line like everyone else to see what he's done with it, but that doesnt in any way excuse the fact that this is an inexcusable remake done for the sole purpose of 'colorizing Casablanca' to make more money.
Yeah, call me a cynic, but that's how I see it too. Just tell your die hard fans to rent the classic, don't rape it by doing your own.
I think if I wanted to analyze this deeper I could say that there must be a high level of egoism/egotism (whichever way you choose to look at it) where a director would go about remaking one of their favourite films.
for one thing, i expect to wack off over naomi in it. i could not wack off over the old one.
hence the new one is better.
Normally I have a problem with remakes, but not this one.
First of all, they've already gone into franchise territory in the past so it's not like PJ is suddenly awakening King Kong after 70 years. At this point it's almost like saying remaking 'Godzilla' is abhorrible.
Secondly, have you ever tried to get someone who wasn't a complete cinephile to sit through the original? If the original isn't getting blasted for being racist, it's getting blasted because of the FX. I don't want a shot for shot remake, but seeing King Kong done believable would be awesome. And although audiences could suspend their disbelief in the 1930's, that's not the case now.
Finally, there's no one else who I'd rather have helming remakes of classic movies that PJ. He's proved he's meticulous to the craft and knows how to put a story together.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: FernandoQuote from: GhostboyGuys, be honest. Do I just have too much blind faith/optimism for my own good?
No, he will take it to another level for sure.
another level of what?!? seriously, how do you improve a classic?
Quote from: Pfor one thing, i expect to wack off over naomi in it. i could not wack off over the old one.
hence the new one is better.
I rest my case. :wink:
Seriously, you have a point about remaking classics and trying to improve them, but maybe I just have too much faith in PJ, I trust that he will make 'his' version of the classic and add something great to it, I don't expect him to do what Van Sant did with Psycho, I also think is great that it'll be set in the 30's, how can this be good? I really don't know, but that's the way I feel.
NAOMI WATTS CONFIRMED TO PLAY PETER JACKSON'S FAY WRAY
E! News Daily's Correspondent David Adelson attented the annual BAFTA/LA luncheon held in Los Angeles on Saturday and interviewed Naomi Watts and director Peter Jackson on the whereabouts of Jackson's next film project King Kong:
DA:You will be cast in King Kong?
NW: I will sit in the hand of King Kong (laughs.)
DA: When do you start filming?
NW: August
PJ: I just want to approach King Kong as a drama.. not as a fantasy.. not as anything other than a straight drama and explore what would really happen in that situation and I think would be interesting.
Quote from: MacGuffinNAOMI WATTS CONFIRMED TO PLAY PETER JACKSON'S FAY WRAY
...
PJ: I just want to approach King Kong as a drama.. not as a fantasy.. not as anything other than a straight drama and explore what would really happen in that situation and I think would be interesting.
Haha. This film is going to be hilarious. You know when you play material such as this straight you're asking for disaster.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: MacGuffinNAOMI WATTS CONFIRMED TO PLAY PETER JACKSON'S FAY WRAY
...
PJ: I just want to approach King Kong as a drama.. not as a fantasy.. not as anything other than a straight drama and explore what would really happen in that situation and I think would be interesting.
Haha. This film is going to be hilarious. You know when you play material such as this straight you're asking for disaster.
Remember Godzilla?
Quote from: kotteRemember Godzilla?
Nope. What about it?
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: kotteRemember Godzilla?
Nope. What about it?
I was just thinking how they played it straight...that's how I saw it anyway...and it sucked.
Quote from: kotteQuote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: kotteRemember Godzilla?
Nope. What about it?
I was just thinking how they played it straight...that's how I saw it anyway...and it sucked.
How unbearably true.
Am I the only one who thinks that Peter Jackson is the most over rated direcor working today? I thought LOTR was okay at best and I almost vomited when I heard about King Kong. I love the original and he is going to ruin it.
Quote from: StringstrokerI love the original and he is going to ruin it.
If this terrible version couldn't ruin the original, nothing will:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F6305495181.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=bd2e4a0b17bc56862c2529c49fb992a712d94f57)
truly one of the worst re-makes in history! i guess thats one thing this has going for it, it wont be as good as the first one, but CANT be as bad as the second!
Quote from: StringstrokerAm I the only one who thinks that Peter Jackson is the most over rated direcor working today?
hav u seen any of his other work? heavenly creatures, the frighteners, braindead/dead alive, meet the feebles, bad taste, FORGOTTEN SILVER..?
u sound like the ppl who think Russel Crowe was born when LA Confidential came out.
Also, when you compare his serious and realistic notion of King Kong to the 'serious and realistic' remake of Godzilla, remember what directors you are comparing -- Peter Jackson vs. the Emmerich/Devlin team is not exactly a case of equality.
Quote from: StringstrokerAm I the only one who thinks that Peter Jackson is the most over rated direcor working today? I thought LOTR was okay at best and I almost vomited when I heard about King Kong. I love the original and he is going to ruin it.
With all the talk of ruining the original here, how many have really seen it and hold it such high regard? Not me. I'm sure it is a landmark of special effects, but it is seventy years old.
It seems like you are defending someone else's nostalgia.
Quote from: DerekWith all the talk of ruining the original here, how many have really seen it and hold it such high regard?
me. i grew up watching all the universal classic monster movies and this one (even though its RKO, its still classic).
Quote from: DerekWith all the talk of ruining the original here, how many have really seen it and hold it such high regard?
I do.
Quote from: DerekI'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.
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?
Well, I have seen it, but it was quite a while a go and only half-remember it.
Quote from: DerekWhile 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.
Quote from: DerekAnd 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.
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.
Mac's been deleting a lot of his posts lately
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.
Only Psycho, as far as I understand.
I know history is against its success, but the new one has Peter Jackson on its side.
Quote from: themodernage02has 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.
Quote from: DerekOnly 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.
I think you misunderstood my post. I was sarcastically referring to Psycho above, and the King Kong remake below.
Quote from: DerekI 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.
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.
Quote from: themodernage02the only point in retelling this story is for teenagers who dont like black and white.
That's essentially it, yes.
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?
Quote from: DerekMaybe 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.
I don't know if it's pointless. Not to offend anyone, but the original is so old he would in essence be bringing something completely new to life. Like LOTR books, he would almost be crossing mediums because the the original, for all its merits, would be a completely different thing due to today's sensibilities and technologies.
Quote from: DerekI don't know if it's pointless. Not to offend anyone, but the original is so old he would in essence be bringing something completely new to life.
Completely wrong. Number one reason why: 1933's was in black and white while he'll be making this one in colour. Big, big difference.
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: DerekI don't know if it's pointless. Not to offend anyone, but the original is so old he would in essence be bringing something completely new to life.
Completely wrong. Number one reason why: 1933's was in black and white while he'll be making this one in colour. Big, big difference.
I don't understand what you mean.
it looks like ur both arguing the same point :shock:
What I mean is.. I didn't think remaking a b&w film into colour film would be bringing it to life. Quite opposite, actually, because b&w doesn't grow dated while colour does. So 2033, people will still be praising the original King Kong and celebrating its 100 years while Jackson's Kong will be looked upon in less than 30 years as a good movie at best and likely insulting to the original. Hey, that's my take anyway.
Peter Jackson Talks King Kong
Source: Variety
Variety columnist Army Archerd talked to "The Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson at the annual Oscar nominees luncheon about his next film, Universal's King Kong.
In August he starts filming back in New Zealand with Naomi Watts, of whom, he says, "I've been a fan for years." As for Kong himself, Jackson says, "We want him to be quite real." And the period of the film will be the same as the original - 1933 - with the Empire State Building and the biplane, "which is ingrained in memory. I want to be respectful."
After that, he admits, "I want to make smaller films."
Quote from: Peter Jackson"I want to make smaller films."
Just before Mac posted that, I was remembering a transcribed conversation I read between Jeanluc Godard and Pauline Kael where Godard said that Coppola was a big spender and Pauline Kael agreed , and replied that her least favorite film of Coppola was The Conversation. She said that smaller films where not his thing.
PETER JACKSON TALKS KING KONG AND REVEALS HIS POSSIBLE CAMEO
Source: AMCTV
In a recent taping of AMC TV's 'Sunday Morning Shootout' with hosts mega-Producer Peter Guber and Daily Variety's Editor-In-Chief Peter Bart special guest director Peter Jackson revealed some new information on his upcoming project 'King Kong.'
In the episode, Jackson, along with New Line head Bob Shaye, talked about just how long he had been working on the dream project and how it was delayed and shuffled by Universal Pictures' chairman Casey Silver who went and traded license rights to Miramax's guru Harvey Weinstein for production rights to 'Shakespeare In Love' which of course won the Best Picture Oscar in 1999.
By the end of the interview, co-host Peter Gruber asked Jackson if he already planned his expected cameo on Kong and Jackson replied, "I want to be the guy in the airplane shooting at him."
Watch the entire show here. (http://mediaframe.yahoo.com/launch?lid=wmv-56-p.1256838-124394,wmv-100-p.1256839-124394,wmv-300-p.1256840-124394,rnv-56-p.1256835-124394,rnv-100-p.1256836-124394,rnv-300-p.1256837-124394,&p=tv&f=1807778433&.dist=AMC&tw=http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/moviesplayertop.html&dw=http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/smslhs.html%27,%27mediaframe_window%27,%27toolbar=no,width=520,height=570,left=0,top=30,status=no,scrollbars=no,resizable=yes%27))) (Jackson interview is about 9 min. into the show).
'Rings' Director Looking Ahead to 'King Kong'
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (Hollywood Reporter) - New Zealander Peter Jackson has gone from making movies as a hobby to making movies about hobbits -- films that have helped him forge a filmmaking empire in New Zealand and build a reputation in Hollywood for pulling off the impossible.
On the eve of maybe landing his most precious prize yet -- an Oscar for directing "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," the last film in the "Rings" trilogy -- Jackson spoke with The Hollywood Reporter.
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WILL MAKING A SINGLE MOVIE LIKE "KING KONG" SEEM ANTICLIMACTIC AFTER "THE LORD OF THE RINGS?"
Peter Jackson: From a logistical point of view, a single movie is much easier, but the main creative challenge of writing a good script and making a good movie remains as difficult as ever. I do think that having the experience of three huge films back-to-back behind us has given the "LOTR" crew and craftspeople a confidence that we can take on any project.
THR: WHAT KEY CHALLENGES DOES ITS FILMING PRESENT?
Jackson: Writing the script is always the most critical and difficult job. The actual filming shouldn't be too tricky once we assemble a great cast. Creating a strong emotional presence of Kong himself will be a challenge since he obviously won't be joining us on set.
THR: CAN YOU CONFIRM WHICH, IF ANY, "LORD OF THE RINGS" CAST AND CREW WILL BE INVOLVED WITH "KING KONG?"
Jackson: It's too early to say about cast, apart from Naomi Watts, who's now confirmed. We need to write for a few more weeks to establish exactly what type of other characters we are looking for. I'm hoping there will be suitable roles for one or two "LOTR" actors. As far as crew go, "LOTR" veterans include Jan Blenkin and Caro Cunningham, both of whom are producing "Kong" with me; Andrew Lesnie is on board as (director of photography); Grant Major is production designer; Dan Hennah is supervising art director. Both Weta Workshop, led by Richard Taylor, and Weta Digital have been at work on "Kong" for some months now. Howard Shore is doing the music. We are talking to all other crew at the moment and imagine the majority will be "LOTR" veterans.
THR: HOW WILL YOUR "KING KONG" DIFFER FROM THE ORIGINAL AND THE FIRST REMAKE?
Jackson: It's based on the 1933 movie, and we will follow that basic plot and narrative structure. We will obviously be writing much more depth into the characters -- approaching it as a drama rather than fantasy. We pretend the 1976 version doesn't exist.
THR: WILL ALL OF "KING KONG" BE SHOT AND POSTPRODUCED IN NEW ZEALAND?
Jackson: Yes. Production will be based in Miramar, Wellington, at Stone Street Studios, which is having a new huge soundstage built to accommodate our needs. All postproduction will occur at Weta Digital for CGI and Park Road Post for the sound mix and lab work -- both in Miramar also. There will be some, but not much, location shooting elsewhere in New Zealand, but we're not sure where yet.
THR: DID YOU EVER THINK "LORD OF THE RINGS" WOULD BECOME THE PHENOMENON IT HAS, AND WHAT HAS MOST SURPRISED YOU ABOUT ITS SUCCESS?
Jackson: No. Even dreaming of this kind of success is something you just don't do during production. It would jinx it! We were all hoping New Line would get its money back, and we worked very hard to try and achieve that. If that happened, we would hopefully get to make other films. I have been surprised by how many non-Tolkien readers we have now converted. Having young kids plow their way through his rather difficult books is something I'm proud to have inspired.
THR: HOW IMPORTANT WAS DVD TO THE BOX OFFICE SUCCESS OF "RINGS," AND WHO CONCEIVED THE STRATEGY OF THE EXTENDED CUTS?
Jackson: I suggested the extended cuts when we were locking down the "Fellowship of the Ring" cut in 2001. Until we actually knew how much deleted footage we would end up with and how worthwhile it was, there was no thought about alternate cuts. Having multiple units shooting three movies at once, out of sequence, with continual script revisions, made it difficult to keep track of exactly how long each of the films was going to be. As it happened, we had nearly an extra hour of deleted scenes for each of the three movies. I've always regarded those deleted scenes as being a legitimate part of our "LOTR" adaptation. The DVD release of the theatrical movie was very helpful in maintaining a marketing momentum and profile during the 12 months between the cinema releases of each of the films.
THR: HOW DO YOU SEE TECHNOLOGY AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF MOVIES IN THE FUTURE? IS "LORD OF THE RINGS" A TEMPLATE FOR HOW MOVIES CAN BE FILMED AND POSTPRODUCED ANYWHERE NOW?
Jackson: Obviously, the future of production, distribution and exhibition of films lies in the digital technology currently being developed. We shot "LOTR" on film, as we will with "Kong." However, we did digitally scan and color-time the three movies, which I found to be a wonderful creative tool. It also enabled us to make completely digital intermediates, which had less quality loss than their film equivalents. That's a kind of compromise approach as I'm waiting for a completely digital filmmaking world to solidify over the next few years. As high-definition DVDs arrive next year and home cinema takes a huge quality leap, I think that the future of theatrical presentations will move to larger-event-type formats like Imax. Big-budget, complex films with extensive CGI effects can be made anywhere now.
THR: WHAT DO YOU MOST REGRET YOU COULDN'T ACHIEVE WITH "LORD OF THE RINGS?"
Jackson: I don't have regrets -- only a rather stunned disbelief at what has transpired. Ask me in five years.
THR: DO YOU EVER SEE YOURSELF MAKING MOVIES OUTSIDE NEW ZEALAND? WHAT KIND OF PROJECT WOULD IT TAKE?
Jackson: I'd go elsewhere if I needed a specific location, but I'd always come back to N.Z. for postproduction.
THR: DO YOU THINK YOUR STAGGERING SUCCESS WILL ENCOURAGE THE NEXT WAVE OF NEW ZEALAND FILMMAKERS TO RESIDE AND MAKE MOVIES HERE, OR WILL HOLLYWOOD ALWAYS LURE MOST OF OUR TOP TALENT?
Jackson: It will depend on the individual. Working where you want to work is a luxury that is dictated by one's status within the industry to some degree.
THR: HOW DOES A NEW ZEALAND DIRECTOR WIN CREATIVE CONTROL/FINAL CUT AND A RECORD FEE AS YOU REPORTEDLY HAVE FOR "KING KONG?"
Jackson: By making "The Lord of the Rings." But don't forget, "The Lord of the Rings" was made by somebody who had been making low-budget films, often with government support since 1986 -- and for 18 years before that with the support of my parents.
3am is the time before going to bed that I read all the world newspapers... and Mac's news which are always the best :)
Black takes on 'King Kong'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Jack Black has been in cast in Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong" for Universal Pictures. Black will play Carl Denham, an adventurer filmmaker who is trying to make a name for himself in 1930s New York. Robert Armstrong played the role in the 1933 original.
Black joins Naomi Watts, who is playing Ann Darrow, an American actress who makes a living performing in Broadway song and dance shows.
"I've been wanting to work with Jack Black ever since I saw him in High Fidelity," said Jackson, who is also writing the remake along with his Lord of the Rings co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. "He's a smart and versatile actor blessed with an abundance of energy and charm and I'm absolutely thrilled that he is joining us on 'Kong.' I look forward to seeing Carl Denham come to life in this new version of the story and I have no doubt Jack will make him a truly memorable character."
holy shit, jack black and naomi watts? fucking fantastic, i'll be there first day
AWESOME.
And before anyone says that Jack Black is only good at comedy, I'll just point out that he was very serious and restrained as Sean Penn's brother in Dead Man Walking.
Ever since High Fidelity, Orange County, and School of Rock, I thought I'd follow Jack Black pretty much anywhere. But not even he (and Naomi Watts) can make me want to see a monster movie remake. I'm positive Black would make an excellent dramatic actor. But still, this, nah, I don't know. But that's just me not liking the genre, so don't mind me.
.....hmm...jack blach...eh?..........
hes just as funny as pauly shore or yahoo serious. ....whats the deal with this guy..why do people like him....?..the only film i have seen that hes bareable in would be Jesus' Son......
he's the best and kong will rock my world.
Jack Black and Naomi Watts... abso-fucking-lutely!
Okay now I'm sold.
Quote from: andykJack Black and Naomi Watts
One Hellova pairing
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaEver since High Fidelity, Orange County, and School of Rock, I thought I'd follow Jack Black pretty much anywhere. But not even he (and Naomi Watts) can make me want to see a monster movie remake. I'm positive Black would make an excellent dramatic actor. But still, this, nah, I don't know. But that's just me not liking the genre, so don't mind me.
king kong isnt really a monster movie like that. its more an adventure than a horror movie or something. do you hate that genre too?
jack black rules. neon, listen to some tenacious d and rock out with your cock out already!
Quote from: themodernage02king kong isnt really a monster movie like that. its more an adventure than a horror movie or something. do you hate that genre too?
Haha, why yes, actually. Unless it's PTA making the movie.
/typical fan-boy response
Adrien Brody Also Joins Jackson's King Kong
Adrien Brody (The Pianist) is in talks with Universal Pictures to join the cast of Peter Jackson's King Kong, says Variety.
The Oscar winner has been offered the role of Jack Driscoll, a former World War I fighter pilot who is the love interest for archaeologist Ann Darrow, to be played by Naomi Watts.
On Monday, the studio announced that Jack Black will play showman Carl Denham who brings the giant gorilla to New York City from Skull Island.
Filling the Driscoll role is the last major casting to be done for the film, adds the trade. In the 1933 original, Driscoll spends much of the film trying to rescue Ann Darrow from Kong after the ape takes a liking to the beauty.
could it be any cooler?
Yes. He could get Clint Eastwood to be the bad guy.
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumYes. He could get Clint Eastwood to be the bad guy.
Or Charleton Heston.
"KING KONG IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLEEEEE!!!"
*Insert predictable Planet of the Apes quote here*
Quote from: Cinephile*Insert predictable Planet of the Apes quote here*
"You are a fine looking monkey!"
That's great that they got Adrien Brody.
"Guns don't kill people. Apes with Guns kill people"
-Robin Williams on Charleton Heston-
Jack Black makes me feel a bit leery... but Brody and Watts will be fine.
Quote from: SiliasRuby"Guns don't kill people. Apes with Guns kill people"
-Robin Williams on Charleton Heston-
Oh, so true...
Do we really need yet another King Kong movie? I mean, gimme a fcking break.
this movie is already starting to become overrated.
Quote from: The Disco KidDo we really need yet another King Kong movie? I mean, gimme a fcking break.
I'm skeptical too.
i'm actually interested in it, i think it sounds good, though i do think once it comes out, it's not going to be what i expect from Peter Jackson, but what do i know?
Hmm, interesting
HMMM.
Terrible, terrible expedition gone horribly wrong. But we must go on as I say. I am glad this stout Jackson fellow has seen to it to let future generations know of this monstrous travesty.
Peter Jackson Talks King Kong
Source: Entertainment Weekly
The latest issue of Entertainment Weekly includes an interview with "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy director Peter Jackson talking about his upcoming adaptation of King Kong. Naomi Watts will play the big ape's love object, Ann Darrow. Adrien Brody will play Darrow's boyfriend, former WWII pilot Jack Driscoll, and Jack Black will be blustery adventurer Carl Denham, who imports Kong to Manhattan.
"We are not reinventing it," says Jackson referring to the 1933 original film. "Our story follows the same structure. It starts in New York, goes to Skull Island, and there's dinosaurs on the island. Then it comes back to New York and there's the Empire State Building and the biplanes and the whole thing."
He says that one thing they're trying to do that the original didn't is to make it more "emotionally truthful. I put that ahead of anything else, including technology and the realism of the effects," he adds.
"Everybody's image of 'King Kong' is that it's this amazing beauty-and-the-beast love story. And when you look at the original film, there is as sense that Kong is feeling an attraction toward Ann-probably the first empathy he's felt in his life toward another living creature. But Ann is not giving him a thing. She just looks at him as an object of horror the entire time. She screams at him, she's terrified. Her relationship with Kong doesn't go beyond that. We're having a lot of fun making it more psychologically real."
Andy Serkis is King Kong!
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Andy Serkis, who brought to life Gollum's movements and voice in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, is reuniting with Peter Jackson to become the man behind the monster in Universal Pictures' King Kong.
Like he did for Gollum, Serkis will provide motion capture reference for the character of Kong, who will eventually be realized as a completely computer-generated creature.
Serkis also has been cast as Lumpy the cook, a member of the crew of the Venture, the tramp steamer that sails to Skull Island.
"I expect this time round will be a very different experience for both Andy and myself as we'll actually get to shoot extended drama sequences together," Jackson said. "It will be a little weird seeing Andy out of his Gollum gimp suit -- and I hope we can both make the adjustment!"
Commenting on Kong himself, Jackson said: "While Andy will provide very valuable onset reference, this doesn't mean we will be softening Kong by attempting to humanize him. The power of the story lies in the fact that this is a savage beast from a hostile environment, and we don't intend to compromise that."
Serkis joins Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody in the cast. Jackson and his "Rings" colleagues, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, are writing, with Jackson and Walsh also producing.
oh come on! andy serkis is like 5'5'' and really flaily, no way can he pull off king kong
script here (http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/kingkong.txt)
need I say spoilers?
Quote from: rustinglassscript here (http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/kingkong.txt)
need I say spoilers?
Actually I'm not sure you do, I think that draft has been substantially rewritten.
EDIT: This part is hilarious, though
(Spoilers?)KONG suddenly CHARGES at the WOODEN GATE! He crashes against it,
causing the ENTIRE WALL TO SHUDDER violently ... A NATIVE loses his
balance and topples off! He THUDS INTO THE GROUND at KONG'S FEET ...
KONG quickly scoops him up and BITES HIS HEAD OFF in a PG 13 kinda way!
haha hilarious!
:lol:
Jack Black Talks King Kong Script
Source: MTV.Com Tuesday, June 29, 2004
MTV reports the following:
"When it was announced that Jack Black would be starring in the new remake of "King Kong," a lot of people wondered: He's not going all serious-actor guy, is he?
"There are some funny things about my character but, yeah, it is a different thing for me," Black revealed backstage at the 2004 MTV Movie Awards. "But I'm not approaching it differently. I'm approaching it with the same balls-to-the-wall attitude."
And there'll be a similar attitude throughout Peter Jackson's "Kong" remake, which Black promised will feature a much fiercer giant gorilla than some of the kinder, gentler versions.
"I just read the script for the first time. It's so rad. And it's top secret. I can't tell you much, but I can tell you this," he teased. "King Kong is going to be scary as hell, dude. He's not gonna be sweet and cuddly. It's not gonna be the cute kind [of movie]. He's a f---ing carnivore, as in, eats flesh!" "
Hanks and Chandler Aboard King Kong
Source: The Hollywood Reporter Thursday, July 1, 2004
Colin Hanks and Early Edition star Kyle Chandler have joined Peter Jackson's King Kong remake, says The Hollywood Reporter. They join Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody in the Universal Pictures remake.
Hanks is on board to play a production assistant to filmmaker Carl Denham (Black) with Chandler in negotiations to play a 1930s B-movie actor opposite Watts' character, Ann Darrow.
Andy Serkis (Gollum in Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films) is providing the reference for the character of Kong, who will be a completely computer-generated character, as well as playing the role of Lumpy the cook.
Bell, Parke join 'Kong' journey
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Jamie Bell and Evan Parke are booking a trip to Skull Island. The actors have joined the cast of Peter Jackson's "King Kong" for Universal Pictures alongside Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Adrien Brody. Bell will play a young cameraman who accompanies Black's character, a filmmaker, on a quest to find the giant gorilla, while Parke portrays the first mate on the Venture, the tramp steamer that sails to Skull Island. He ends up heading the rescue team sent into the jungle to save Watts' character.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.ent4.yimg.com%2Fentertainment.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fent%2Fap%2F20040903%2Fwel104_multimedia_7442267_new_zealand_king_kong.sff.jpg&hash=4931d5f00a973df3c9659315f9d9dcd842bf13db)
The main players in the remake of the movie King Kong, Naomi Watts, as Ann Darrow, Adrien Brody as Jack Driscoll, Peter Jackson, the director and Jack Black as Carl Denham in front of the tramp steamer Venture on the set at the Miramar studios, Wellington, New Zealand, Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004. Shooting of the movie begins next Monday September 8.
adrien brody has a funny lookin' schnozz.
looks like petey lost a tiny bit of weight...or he trimmed his beard
september 8 is wednesday. do they mean september 6?
naomi watts is hunching.
p.s. since we were critiquing their appearances.
and Jack Black's head is twice the size of Naomi's.
And doesn't Jack Black look a bit like Sean Astin?
Adrien Brody looks menacing. It's as if he's secretly holding the other three hostage and forcing them to take a picture with him.
Jackson Revealing 'Kong' Secrets
Movie fans who can't wait for Peter Jackson's multimillion-dollar remake of "King Kong" can log on to the Internet to watch the gorilla thriller as it is being made.
A new Web site maintained by fans of the Oscar-winning director features online video clips of the media-shy Jackson on the set with actors and the film crew.
His remake of the 1933 classic will be released in December 2005. The "King Kong" cast includes Jack Black and Adrien Brody.
Production diaries and director commentaries often appear as bonus material on DVD releases of major films, but this marks one of the first times a director has unveiled the creative process prior to a movie's release.
In one clip, Brody and Black are shown staggering onboard a giant tramp steamer, the Venture, simulating rough seas.
"We want to let anyone that's interested (in on) just a few little secrets," the shaggy-haired Jackson is shown telling Black in another excerpt.
Jackson won the best-director Oscar for "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," the third film in his trilogy. The movie also won Oscars for best picture and best screenplay.
http://www.kongisking.net
I love PJ for putting a quicktime production diary on the website!
Oh my freaking gosh, this looks like the funnest set in the world! The production diaries are SO awesome, I'm in love. Peter Jackson absolutely looks like he's lost weight, and just seems a bit different without his trademarked mammoth glasses on.
King Kong
It was the monkey who made a filmmaker out of Peter Jackson. His return to Skull Island promises a character study, a surprising love story — and all the rampaging dinosaurs $150 million can buy.
Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2005-01%2F15854956.jpg&hash=a81862afc4b24d1be687f6260be029df3a2cee46)
HIS INSPIRATION: Jack Black, left, says of working with Jackson: “You can’t really ignore that I am playing the director of the film and I’m watching Peter all day on the set.”
Compared with his work as an Oscar-winning director and the filmmaker behind the most popular trilogy in movie history, Peter Jackson's first attempt to remake "King Kong" was by any measure pretty amateurish.
Jackson painted the Manhattan skyline on an old bedsheet, constructed the Empire State Building out of cardboard and pinched his mother's shawl to craft the giant gorilla's fur. It didn't look like much, Jackson admits, but then again he was 13 years old.
If filming "The Lord of the Rings" was Jackson's cinematic passion, remaking "King Kong" has been his lifelong obsession. For as much resolve as the now-43-year-old Jackson exhibited in adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's books about hobbits and elves, the Kiwi director has shown even more perseverance in retelling the legendary beauty-and-the-beast story.
In fact, he essentially owes his career to the 1933 original "King Kong": Had he not seen it, Jackson says, he might not have become a filmmaker.
"In a sense, this is more important to him than 'The Lord of the Rings,' " says actor Andy Serkis, who played Smeagol and Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films and in "King Kong" will play Lumpy the Cook and, with some digital assistance, the titular giant gorilla.
Besides his adolescent effort — "I still have some of that footage, somewhere," the director says — Jackson came within weeks of filming "King Kong" for Universal Pictures in 1997. But the production was derailed by the studio's cold feet, an about-face that left Jackson devastated, his production team in tears and the director's future uncertain.
A global blockbuster helps heal all wounds, though, and soon Universal (with a new management team) came to New Zealand on bended knee, asking Jackson to please, please reconsider revisiting Skull Island.
What else could a director who owns the original film's brontosaur and pteranodon say? This was the movie he believed he was born to rework, and with the third and final "Lord of the Rings" film nearly behind him at the time, he was more equipped than ever to tackle it.
So in early 2003 it was agreed. Before he would film Alice Sebold's ghostly novel "The Lovely Bones," before he would film Ian Mackersey's aviatrix biography "Jean Batten: The Garbo of the Skies," before he completed "The Return of the King," Jackson promised Universal that "King Kong" would be his next movie. To clinch the deal, Universal said it would pay Jackson, his partner Fran Walsh and screenwriter Philippa Boyens a combined $20 million to direct, produce and write the remake, with Jackson and Walsh receiving a share of the film's gross revenues. "Obviously, there's a lot of criticism and apprehension about remaking any film, and it has the potential for pitfalls that are greater than 'The Lord of the Rings,' " Jackson says during a short break on the set of "King Kong," whose filming is now more than halfway completed. "But it's a dream come true. That's the reality of it."
FIRST, THEY NEEDED A BOAT
Moviemaking perfectionism can take unusual forms, from actors packing on pounds to play drunks to screenwriters marooning themselves to compose starvation stories. In Jackson's case, his craving for "King Kong" authenticity can be found floating in Wellington Harbour, and it still smells a little like tuna.
Sitting in the water is the boat Jackson and art and set director Dan Hennah selected after an international search for the perfect ship to play the S.S. Venture. The Venture is the boat upon which "King Kong's" hustling filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black), its reluctant playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody) and the movie-within-the-movie's desperate actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) travel to a mysterious Indian Ocean island, where a giant gorilla just might roam.
Some directors would have picked any old trawler, but Jackson wanted exactly the right 1930s boat, the one with the proper rivets and hull shape. He finally found it, but the winning nautical contestant from Tonga carried one small complication: Its hold was filled with frozen fish. So Jackson purchased the boat — tuna and all (the fish was gone by the time the production took possession).
That quest for verisimilitude governs much of the $150-million remake's thinking (the film was remade previously in 1976, but that Jessica Lange version was a flop). Written with Walsh and "Rings" collaborator Boyens, "King Kong" is both a reverent tribute to the initial film and an energetic reworking of its main themes.
Jackson approached the original Ann, Fay Wray, about making a cameo. Although Jackson said the actress was interested, she died before it was possible.
Rather than filming on location in jungles, Jackson is shooting almost all of "King Kong" inside, as his "Kong" predecessors did 72 years ago. So in place of traveling to a real rain forest, Jackson and his crew manufactured a highly stylized one indoors. "That's about wanting the look of the original 'Kong,' " Jackson says.
Even as it pays tribute to specific scenes in the original, Jackson's version nevertheless will make numerous departures, adding spectacular chase sequences involving rampaging dinosaurs and emphasizing more of the love story between Ann and the big primate.
"What Peter and Fran and Philippa have been able to do is create all of these nuances that never existed," Brody says. "It's not just a giant gorilla and a damsel in distress."
When you also consider Jackson himself, the remake begins to exhibit autobiographical strains as well.
Jackson's career at various early turns mirrors that of original "King Kong" co-director Merian C. Cooper, and just as Cooper's collaborator Ernest B. Schoedsack's wife, Ruth Rose, was enlisted to rewrite the 1933 screenplay, Jackson's companion Walsh worked on the remake's script.
Cast as the plot's movie director, Black can't help but remind one of Jackson without a beard. The director discounts the resemblance, but when the production was announced in a New Zealand news conference, Jackson and Black were not seated beside each other because of their physical likeness.
And then there's Black's character of Denham, who in the original was a loose composite of Cooper and Schoedsack. In Jackson's telling, Denham is a driven filmmaker who will stop at nothing to get his movie made. Defeat is only momentary, and Denham must capture Kong on film above all else. Sound like any other director?
Sure, Denham has a lot less talent than Jackson, and yes, the character in actual fact is based more on a young Orson Welles. "But he's got vision, and he's got tremendous ambition. He wants to make the greatest film ever made," Black says.
"You can't really ignore that I am playing the director of the film and I'm watching Peter all day on the set, watching the way he directs," Black continues. "It's not the same guy at all, but there are parallels you can't ignore."
GUNS AND DINOSAURS
If a dinosaur falls in the forest and it's not really there, does it still make a sound?
It's a real-life issue Jackson's actors are facing on a November day inside Wellington's Stone Street Studios as the director guides the Venture's crew through a dense jungle set.
"Remember, it's 1933 and a lot of you don't know what dinosaurs are, unless you've seen 'The Lost World' several years earlier," Jackson says to the assembled actors, referencing a 1925 movie whose creatures were crafted by "King Kong" technician Willis H. O'Brien. He then instructs the cast how to react to the thundering steps of dinosaurs, all of whom will be created in post-production. "Everybody who has a gun just starts blasting," Jackson says. "It's one of those mob things, so it's important that everybody fire in a different direction."
A slimmer Jackson (he's recently shed nearly 30 pounds) picks up a megaphone and starts counting down, his amplified voice representing the impending plant eaters. Once one of the dinosaurs is fatally shot in a panicky barrage of bullets, Jackson describes its collapse. He urges his actors to express shock as the beast finally, yet invisibly for now, falls at their feet, its crash to the earth supplied by Jackson.
John Sumner, who plays one of Denham's camera assistants, pantomimes stepping over the dinosaur, but he ends up forgetting where the digital creature will be positioned in postproduction. "Let's try that again, John," Jackson says in good cheer. "You've walked through his legs, I'm afraid."
Even with Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" know-how, making a movie of this scale at times resembles chain saw juggling, especially since Jackson has relatively little time to finish all the film's complicated effects before its Dec. 14 debut. As Sumner prepares for another take, Jackson settles into the upholstered chair from which he directs and in rapid order examines computer tests of Kong's digital fur, offers notes on that day's production diary for "Kong's" Internet site (www.kongisking.net), and reviews a video feed from another stage, where Brody is running as fast as he can on a treadmill, to simulate Driscoll's escape from other dinosaurs. "In many ways, 'King Kong' is a more ambitious film than 'The Lord of the Rings' was," Jackson says.
While the 1933 filmmakers employed then-novel techniques such as stop-motion animation and rear projection, Jackson has an array of high-tech procedures to bring his 25-foot gorilla to life. Visual effects supervisor Joe Letteri is creating as many computer effects for "King Kong" as he and others did for all three "Lord of the Rings" films.
Cooper and Schoedsack may have longed for Kong to leap from New York rooftop to rooftop. In Jackson's production, it can happen.
"The story is such a compelling story that rendering the story with the new technology opens it up to a whole new interpretation," Jackson says. The first film, Jackson says, is a classic but "a product of its time."
In the lobby of Weta Workshop, where scores of artists and technicians are working on everything from "King Kong" tree branches to wigs for the Skull Island natives, stands a model of Kong wrestling three tyrannosaurs. The miniature dates from the film's 1997 incarnation and it serves as a reminder of how close Jackson came to making the movie then.
It may sound silly in retrospect, but the movies that torpedoed Jackson's "King Kong" were the quickly forgotten "Godzilla" and "Mighty Joe Young." Universal was concerned that there was only so much audience interest in tales of oversized rampaging beasts. Combined with Jackson's poorly received film "The Frighteners" and Universal's concerns about Jackson and Walsh's screenplay, the studio decided to cancel Jackson's remake.
"As much as I like being angry at [then Universal studio chief] Casey Silver for killing the film — which was literally the blackest day in my entire career — in hindsight you can't but be grateful it didn't happen," Jackson says. "And I don't even like our old script. I don't think there's a single line of dialogue that is the same."
So perhaps "King Kong" was best left for later, much like Jackson's first effort when he was 13. "It would have been pretty tough to do it eight years ago," visual effects supervisor Letteri says. "Well, let's put it this way. It's pretty tough to do it today, so it would have been impossible eight years ago."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2005-01%2F15854941.jpg&hash=d1fded199165c395fd0152f55129349678e7c8b8)
Jackson relies on conceptual illustrations not only as inspiration for the look of his creatures but also to choreograph the action sequences, such as a battle between Kong and Skull Island’s dinosaurs. The director says of making the movie, “It’s a dream come true. That’s the reality of it.”
QuoteUniversal was concerned that there was only so much audience interest in tales of oversized rampaging beasts.
I agree. Does this story need to be told again?
Well there's the difference between movies remade by studio's for more money and someone's lifelong dream of remaking a movie.
With Jackson's obvious passion for the project, this won't be a simple retelling of the story.
Quoteadding spectacular chase sequences involving rampaging dinosaurs and emphasizing more of the love story between Ann and the big primate
hmmm...sounds like a recipe for success! i guess it won't be a simple retelling after all. it'll be a retelling + corny fake crap.
yes, that's quite obvious from the information you've quoted there.
This will clearly be some corny fake crap.... whatever that means.
Quotemore of the love story between Ann and the big primate
CORNY
Quotespectacular chase sequences involving rampaging dinosaurs
FAKE CRAP
obviously
HAHAHA dinos?! What the fuck? I'm sayin bro.
what the fuck are you sayin bro?
ARE YOU CALLING ME OUT?
oh shit, you're right... love is corny and dinosaurs are fake. Damn, I guess this isn't going to be the realistic, non-romantic masterpiece that the original was.
it's a stupid movie to remake because it was a stupid movie to begin with and no amount of CGI dinosaurs or gorilla fur will make it any better. it was what it was and it should be left in the '30s where it belongs. of course i'm sure plenty of fan-boys like you will line up down the block to hop on jackson's nutsack no matter what he does. we can revive this in a year and see whether or not it lived up to your expectations.
I mean, seriously. What would happen if every director got to remake their favorite movie? Could you imagine PTA's Meet The Parents? Or Vincent Gallos DC 9/11: Time Of Crisis? Or Brett Ratners Rush Hour 2?
haha... seriously though... I'm not a fanboy... I don't even care that much about this movie... I just think your basis for getting upset about it is a little ridiculous.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-nex.theonering.net%2Fimages%2Fscrapbook%2Forig%2F15407_orig.jpg&hash=a655d4bf43febffad53f0ab6dc0c96a4fa805d15)
Quote from: lamasit's a stupid movie to remake because it was a stupid movie to begin with and no amount of CGI dinosaurs or gorilla fur will make it any better. it was what it was and it should be left in the '30s where it belongs. of course i'm sure plenty of fan-boys like you will line up down the block to hop on jackson's nutsack no matter what he does. we can revive this in a year and see whether or not it lived up to your expectations.
you should print out this quote and bring it to your family doctor the next time you do your physical, I bet that'll get you a waiver on your knee-jerk reaction exam.
Quote from: peteQuote from: lamasit's a stupid movie to remake because it was a stupid movie to begin with and no amount of CGI dinosaurs or gorilla fur will make it any better. it was what it was and it should be left in the '30s where it belongs. of course i'm sure plenty of fan-boys like you will line up down the block to hop on jackson's nutsack no matter what he does. we can revive this in a year and see whether or not it lived up to your expectations.
you should print out this quote and bring it to your family doctor the next time you do your physical, I bet that'll get you a waiver on your knee-jerk reaction exam.
Nice
'King Kong' sequels a joke
Peter Jackson said Friday that he will be making two back-to-back sequels to "King Kong" for Universal Pictures. But it was all part of an elaborate April Fool's Day joke. Jackson made the announcement for "Son of Kong" and "King Kong: Into the Wolf's Lair" as part of the movie's video diary series on the Web site www.kongisking.net. Jackson wasn't the only one who appeared onscreen in the April 1 entry, which marked shooting day 123 on "King Kong." Movie castmembers Naomi Watts, Jack Black and Colin Hanks as well as Weta staff, art directors and even a Universal exec were involved. The video entry featured shots of a "Son of Kong" script, monster designs, models and computer previsualized sequences.
Direct link to Joke here. (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/day123-480x270-mpeg4.mov)
Haha, that production video diary is hilarious. It's so OBVIOUSLY an April Fools joke, and it's supposed to be obvious, I'm sure, because they go into such absurd detail. My favorite is Pete drawing an image of Jack Black and Adrien Brody's characters riding on Kong, with machine guns mounted on each of Kong's arms.
Jack Black remained perfectly deadpan as he talked about how Kong and Son of Kong would go into Europe and defeat Hitler.
I thought it was funny. Looks like they run a fun set over there.
i would've liked Kong sitting down for an interview and discussing the story development of the future films and then during the interview he just yells "IS SOMEBODY GOING TO GET ME A FUCKING BANANA OR DO I HAVE TO GET ONE MYSELF?!"
also the fact that, after forgotten silver, he already owns the title of 'april fools king of the world' should be reason for him to not even try anymore.
but dammit, he just keeps on givin.
Friend of mine working on the set said that she saw the rough cuts of it, and reports that it's very OTT. There's one scene where Kong is hanging onto a cliff, and carrying the girl, on top of that he is hurling dinosaurs! :D
And, Peter Jackson is always grumpy, she says. Guess that's just the stress.
foray
Quote from: forayThere's one scene where Kong is hanging onto a cliff, and carrying the girl, on top of that he is hurling dinosaurs! :D
Ut oh...spoilers.
Quote from: SiliasRubyQuote from: forayThere's one scene where Kong is hanging onto a cliff, and carrying the girl, on top of that he is hurling dinosaurs! :D
Ut oh...spoilers.
the hurling dinosaurs is the basic illustration they've been displaying since day one.
production diary: day 131 (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/day131-480x270-mpeg4.mov)
Quote from: mogwaiproduction diary: day 131 (http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/day131-480x270-mpeg4.mov)
that was kinda funny...
and damn, Peter's lost weight!
Frank Darabont looks like Brian Rooker, or whatever the really lame director guy is named in Mulholland Drive, you know the one. not justin theroux. the guy in the office rehearsal who looks likes Frank Darabont.
Kong is Koming
Trailer headed to TV.
NBC and Universal announced today that the first trailer for Peter Jackson's King Kong will debut simultaneously on all nine of the NBC Universal conglomerate's TV networks.
The two-minute, 30-second teaser is scheduled to air on Monday, June 27, from precisely 8:59:30-9:02 PM ET. Here's the network breakdown for your TiVo programming needs...
NBC - Immediately following Fear Factor
USA Network - Immediately following Law & Order: SVU
SCI FI Channel - Immediately following Stargate-SG1
Bravo - Immediately following West Wing
Universal HD - Immediately following Airport '77
MSNBC - Immediately following Countdown with Keith Olberman
CNBC - Immediately following Cover to Cover
Telemundo - Immediately following La Mujer en el Espejo
Mun2 - During the two-hour block of The Roof
In the announcement, Universal Pictures Chairman Stacey Snider gushed about the film, "'King Kong, as it's being interpreted by Peter Jackson, is the work of a master storyteller operating at the full height of his creative powers. We are immensely excited to allow the world its first glimpse of this extraordinary film and its remarkable central character with an event that is as ambitious and momentous as King Kong deserves. This roadblock demonstrates just how coordinated and unified a company NBC Universal has become in just over a year, and we are proud of our shared commitment to accomplishing something of this magnitude."
Also on June 27th, the Kong teaser will debut online (on the Volkswagen website, oddly enough) and on various personal wireless devices. It'll also be shown in various high-profile locations around the world like the Times Square Jumbotron and giant screens in Universal's theme parks. The preview hits the big screen on June 29th. Next they'll be beaming previews directly into your brain.
Kong, which retells the classic story of the great ape captured on a remote exotic isle and brought to '30s New York, stars Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis, Jamie Bell and Adrien Brody. The film hits theaters around the world on December 14.
It was about time... I want to really see what this is about
Its amazing how desperate they are to start making money of this thing already... Volkswagen and all NBC Networks... its not even like Star Wars that they sold the spots on the OC
Well I guess they need to start getting the liquidity back from their 200 mill investment...
...
fair enough.
thats a dumb comment to my post... as its obvious that i wasnt talking about the story... but the actual work done and how it looks
ufff :yabbse-thumbdown:
Quote from: kotteand damn, Peter's lost weight!
hell yeah he has. i didn't watch that production diary, but i just saw him on that George Lucas tribute thing and the mother fucker looked like a cancer patient or sumthin. i wouldn't have even recognized him if his name wasn't at the bottom of the screen.
Trailer for a trailer.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2005/IJKLM/KingKong/trailer.php
REMINDER FOR TONIGHT!!!!!Quote from: MacGuffinKong is Koming
Trailer headed to TV.
NBC and Universal announced today that the first trailer for Peter Jackson's King Kong will debut simultaneously on all nine of the NBC Universal conglomerate's TV networks.
The two-minute, 30-second teaser is scheduled to air on Monday, June 27, from precisely 8:59:30-9:02 PM ET. Here's the network breakdown for your TiVo programming needs...
NBC - Immediately following Fear Factor
USA Network - Immediately following Law & Order: SVU
SCI FI Channel - Immediately following Stargate-SG1
Bravo - Immediately following West Wing
Universal HD - Immediately following Airport '77
MSNBC - Immediately following Countdown with Keith Olberman
CNBC - Immediately following Cover to Cover
Telemundo - Immediately following La Mujer en el Espejo
Mun2 - During the two-hour block of The Roof
In the announcement, Universal Pictures Chairman Stacey Snider gushed about the film, "'King Kong, as it's being interpreted by Peter Jackson, is the work of a master storyteller operating at the full height of his creative powers. We are immensely excited to allow the world its first glimpse of this extraordinary film and its remarkable central character with an event that is as ambitious and momentous as King Kong deserves. This roadblock demonstrates just how coordinated and unified a company NBC Universal has become in just over a year, and we are proud of our shared commitment to accomplishing something of this magnitude."
Also on June 27th, the Kong teaser will debut online (on the Volkswagen website, oddly enough) and on various personal wireless devices. It'll also be shown in various high-profile locations around the world like the Times Square Jumbotron and giant screens in Universal's theme parks. The preview hits the big screen on June 29th. Next they'll be beaming previews directly into your brain.
Kong, which retells the classic story of the great ape captured on a remote exotic isle and brought to '30s New York, stars Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Thomas Kretschmann, Colin Hanks, Andy Serkis, Jamie Bell and Adrien Brody. The film hits theaters around the world on December 14.
first Kong image online
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-nex.theonering.net%2Fimages%2Fscrapbook%2F15938.jpg&hash=3bf2cd3eac605b0851cb80e0ba5a685d30312dc9)
weak
Quote from: cowboykurtisweak
'King Kong' goes digitalSource: USA TODAY
Meet Kong. King Kong. You've seen him before, but never like this. He might look older than the 1933 original, but he's still a hairy brute with a nasty temper and a weakness for blondes.
Director Peter Jackson's King Kong could prove to be a box-office slump buster, though it isn't due until Dec. 14. But its teaser trailer will be unveiled on TV Monday and in theaters Wednesday as War of the Worlds opens. The preview of the action thriller starring Adrien Brody, Naomi Watts and Jack Black will be seen on 10 NBC-owned networks just before 9 ET.
Jackson has reached into the same Oscar-winning bag of tricks he used on the Lord of the Rings trilogy to turn the tragic monster from a Depression-era puppet to a 21st-century digital terror.
Andy Serkis, the human behind the computerized creature Gollum in Rings, provides Kong's movements and acted opposite the actors on the set. "There's a connection between him and Ann Darrow that's really important," Serkis says. Watts takes over Fay Wray's scream duties as the struggling actress who ends up in Kong's clutches.
As impressive as he is in the trailer, Kong is still a work in progress, says Jackson, calling from his native New Zealand. "We are deciding on the length of his fur, how tangled it should be, how much gray to work around the eyes."
Photos of silverback gorillas were superimposed on Kong's image, and tweaks were made. "He's not the Hulk of gorillas. That's the charm of Kong," the director says. "He is past his prime and isn't the super-virile ape of 30 years ago."
Serkis, who studied gorilla behavior in Rwanda, also does grunt work on Kong's behalf. "We developed a Kong-alyzer that allows him to make a lot of gorilla noises through a machine," Jackson says.
The primate stands 25 feet (real gorillas top out at 6 feet) and is 120 to 150 years old (30 is normal in the wild, 50 in captivity). The most notable feature on the battered beast is his snaggletooth. "We had the notion that Kong's jawbone was smashed in an ancient fight and mended itself at a crooked angle," he says.
Watts says her relationship with Kong is more evolved than in the original or the derided 1976 remake with Jessica Lange. "He's not picking off my clothes or blowing me dry with his breath," she says. "It's much more tender. There is something incredibly attractive about his power and masculinity. And isn't that what we all want in a man?"
Well, this will be a spectacle.
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_large.html
I had really low expectations so the trailer impressed me.
Wooooooww... impressed :bravo:
my expectations couldn't possibly be lower. Heaven's Gate anyone?
I can't decide if I want to defend Heaven's Gate or King Kong. Either way that analogy is awful, but you should probably submit it to VH1's Best Week Ever.
i'd like to hear your defense for King Kong
There was a T. Rex and a car got thrown?
Quote from: Losing the Horse:There was a T. Rex and a car got thrown?
Is that it?
'Cause I've already seen that movie.
i liked the first half , then there's too much cgi, but i guess that's my problem.
Quote from: cronopioi liked the first half , then there's too much cgi, but i guess that's my problem.
it's my problem as well
Quote from: ranemaka13Quote from: Losing the Horse:There was a T. Rex and a car got thrown?
Is that it?
'Cause I've already seen that movie.
What, you're crazy. That movie had a
way different title.
But seriously, a man once said that a movie coming out every couple of years about dinosaurs and mythological creatures isn't such a bad thing. I agree with that man.
It's got that distinct Peter Jackson look to it, but I'm not impressed. It's like Mighty Joe Young or something. Too digital. Those creatures look like they have no weight to them whatsoever, hopefully that will be fixed, but it just looks like a movie about a big monkey and a dinosaur, boring.
steal it directly:
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_large.mov
naomi watts looks amazing, no bad shots in this so far. i don't mind the CGI, if u bought everything that happened in LotR there's no reason for u to object to this. as that dude once told Losing the Horse, giant apes fighting dinosaurs over a hot chick is a good thing. i like the grimy shots, and the glossy ones of the jungle.
only bad thing i can see is albatross brody, i don't get his role, he seems to be the thankless Orlando Bloom type of actor in this where everyone else steals the show.
It's a teaser. I think it looks good so far. Obviously the effects will be at least twice as good once they're finished. It was mainly to get people excited about the movie, you can't really use this as ammo to hate or like it more.
Well then why even release a teaser?
Quote from: Stefen Posts Ghetto?Well then why even release a teaser?
(12 pages later..) just cuz.
IM MODE: "can u stop being an asshole please?" :kiss:
In some odd, twisted turn of events, I want Jack Black to end up winning an oscar, just cuz
i'm worried about jack black in this. and the cgi. and the fact its a remake the movie king kong. it could really go either way. prediction: it will be cool and make a bunch of money but overall a big disappointment from the lotr acclaim. hopefully i'm wrong.
Quote from: themodernage02but overall a big disappointment from the lotr acclaim.
lotr was overrated anyway. PJ's got enuff money now that i don't think he's gonna shoot himself in the foot anytime soon (spectacle wise, this is guarranteed to make money). but also in quality, he seems to be makin stuff that matters to him, as he was before he hit the big time, so logically this should be the best he's done yet. i'm hoping. and if not, then .. well, LotR was overrated anyways.
Jack Black was awesome in the little bit we get to see of him here - I think his casting is inspired.
The last third of the trailer does sorta underwhelm - you can tell they haven't finished a lot of the CG yet, because a.) the monsters look unfinished and b.) they probably just threw every nearly finished shot in there, because it abandons any sense of pace and story so nicely established at the beginning. PJ has even said that he's only now getting around to finalizing the design of Kong.
This movie will be a heck of a lot of fun. I can't wait to see the last scene get the Jackson swoopy-camera treatment.
What surprised me the most about this trailer was how excited I am to see it after initially hearing that Jackson was remaking this and feeling very apathetic. Also, is this a teaser trailer? It's like two and a half minutes long. Not sure what everyone else thinks but I've seen as much as I need to.
I was almost ready to see the Empire State and the end of the trailer... I'm glad I didnt... it was a teaser but kinda the one we saw for Star Wars... it really tells you everything you need to know about the film... and most people know the story anyways so its not so much about spoilers, but showing how good it looks...
And yep... I think it looks good!
Quote from: GhostboyJack Black was awesome in the little bit we get to see of him here - I think his casting is inspired.
The last third of the trailer does sorta underwhelm - you can tell they haven't finished a lot of the CG yet, because a.) the monsters look unfinished and b.) they probably just threw every nearly finished shot in there, because it abandons any sense of pace and story so nicely established at the beginning. PJ has even said that he's only now getting around to finalizing the design of Kong.
This movie will be a heck of a lot of fun. I can't wait to see the last scene get the Jackson swoopy-camera treatment.
I don't know about the CGI not being finished. It doesn't make sense to rush a trailer out with bad CGI, with the intention of fixing it later. I fully expect the CGI to look like this, and it, as it stands, looks awful. I do agree with you on Jack Black, he does look like he will pull this off. The other problem I have, what kind of tone is this film? Is it an adventure, horror or campy? The trailer seemed to have elements of all of them and I think that could be a problem.
Quote from: SHAFTR
I don't know about the CGI not being finished. It doesn't make sense to rush a trailer out with bad CGI, with the intention of fixing it later. I fully expect the CGI to look like this, and it, as it stands, looks awful.
More proof nobody reads Mac's posts. :yabbse-wink:
Quote from: MacGuffin on pg.11
As impressive as he is in the trailer, Kong is still a work in progress, says Jackson, calling from his native New Zealand. "We are deciding on the length of his fur, how tangled it should be, how much gray to work around the eyes."
Shaft, I know you did that comment from what GB said, so I'm just giving you the reason why he might think that, also IIRC, with all LOTR flims they did the same, they finished the final product within weeks from its release date.
Yeah, trailers for big budget effects films almost NEVER have the final CG in place.
Remember HULK? I swore Hulk would look like shit until I saw it and saw fuggin' detailed and brilliant he ended up looking in the actual film.
Comic-Con 2005: King Kong Panel
Jack Black, Naomi Watts & Adrien Brody!
One of the high points of this past weekend's Comic-Con, arguably the biggest outside of the Superman Returns panel, was Universal's presentation for director Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong.
Although Jackson himself was unable to attend (he's busy doing post-production in New Zealand for the film's December release date), he did send a video greeting to fans and promised that he will one day attend Comic-Con in person. He then presented the trailer for the film, which has been in cinemas and online for several weeks now.
Jackson then provided an exclusive peek at one scene in the film, composed of unfinished CGI effects, live-action shots of Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow, and pre-production animatics. Although incomplete, the sequence was nevertheless entertaining and left the crowd craving more.
The footage showed a knock-down, drag-out donnybrook between Kong and two T-Rexes for the possession of Ann. Kong is protecting Ann from the dinosaurs who really, really want a Naomi Watts-sized snack. The brawl spills over a cliff and down into a vast gorge. The ancient beasts' falls are broken by a network of huge interconnecting vines. How the vines are able to withstand the combined weight of all three creatures for as long as they do requires a huge suspension of disbelief but this crowd was more than willing to buy it.
Kong and the dinosaurs slowly drop down each vine, fighting each other as they go. Ann is free of all the beasts at one point, managing to cling to a swinging vine but she then finds herself perilously close to one T-Rex. The dinosaur snaps at her as she swings by pendulum-like on the vine. Kong manages to reach her, and the fight finally spills on to the ground where Kong shows he is truly the king of the jungle.
After this footage was shown, the crowd was treated to the unannounced arrival of the film's stars Adrien Brody, Naomi Watts and Jack Black. Black was clearly the audience fave, fielding the most inquiries and generating the most compliments during the Q&A. (Black's band Tenacious D later performed in concert at the convention center.)
Black said he did "mental backflips" when he learned he was going to work with Jackson. His co-stars were equally enamored with their director, and emphasized how much Jackson loved and revered the 1933 original. As respectful as the cast was of the original film, they felt that there was plenty of room for freshening things up.
When asked if he was going to employ a thirties acting style or if he felt daunted in trying to improve on the original, Black sardonically replied that it wasn't as if he had to top Brando. "(The original Kong) didn't change acting so I felt I could bring something new to it."
For her part, Watts felt that the Ann Darrow role, as originated by the late Fay Wray, is "such an iconic part in such an iconic film. I was a little nervous about that." She also noted how acting styles have changed since the first film and felt she could bring more reality to Ann's plight.
Brody added that his role in Kong was more physical than his part in The Village, joking that "it's hard to run around the jungle in dress shoes and look cool and be afraid" of things that aren't really there.
Black also entertained the crowd with an impromptu "Kong" song, egged on by Brody who provided percussion by banging on the table. It made for a very entertaining moment in a very entertaining session.
Quote from: MacGuffinComic-Con 2005: King Kong Panel
Jack Black, Naomi Watts & Adrien Brody!
that exclamation mark seems misplaced..
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages%2Fkingkong3titles.jpg&hash=d84c62788d64dbdfa2f2dbecf031d19e1c6f278b)
Universal has announced the release of a fascinating DVD title... King Kong: Peter Jackson's Production Diaries. The 2-disc limited edition set is due to street on 12/13 (SRP $39.98) and will include 54 production diaries (in anamorphic widescreen with Dolby Digital 2.0 audio), an 80-page scrapbook, 4 exclusive art prints, "collectible packaging" and more. It's a sort of pre-release, pre-DVD release I guess. We believe the dairies are the same ones some of you have been enjoying on the Kong is King website.
special features as seperately bought disc? :yabbse-thumbdown:
they will screw us.
but we will buy.
Will we ?
i wont.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.com.com%2Ftv%2Fimages%2Fvideo%2Fsnl_celebjeopardy_medvid.jpg&hash=4c1ccf50626108c06cb1aa847cea6fbb3ad9d6eb)
ooh, I think you will, Trebek... I think you will indeed.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages%2Fkongteaser.jpg&hash=d19c922309e7dfa61f4c2744284741d9da0a15b2)
WOW
Thats beautiful
Quote from: MacGuffinUniversal has announced the release of a fascinating DVD title... King Kong: Peter Jackson's Production Diaries. The 2-disc limited edition set is due to street on 12/13 (SRP $39.98 ) and will include 54 production diaries (in anamorphic widescreen with Dolby Digital 2.0 audio), an 80-page scrapbook, 4 exclusive art prints, "collectible packaging" and more. It's a sort of pre-release, pre-DVD release I guess. We believe the dairies are the same ones some of you have been enjoying on the Kong is King website.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx2%2Fkingkongpeterjacksonsdiariesbox.jpg&hash=3d4af55a94573198ce664832a5eac006e5bfa317)
Quote from: POZER!but we will buy.
Looking at that box set, I imagine the next major dumb religion (after Scientology and Star Wars) will be for Peter Jackson. Only the truly devout will buy such a hideous fucking exploit.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visi.com%2F%7Ephantos%2Fimages%2Fconpics_full%2Fcv01d.jpg&hash=76c818fabf70482dde7ae471eb19ea22909443c9)
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetLooking at that box set, I imagine the next major dumb religion (after Scientology and Star Wars) will be for Peter Jackson. Only the truly devout will buy such a hideous fucking exploit.
Jesus and I love you too. And by Jesus, I mean PeeJay.
'King Kong' composer Shore replaced
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Oscar-winning composer Howard Shore has left Peter Jackson's "King Kong" and is being replaced by James Newton Howard. The move comes just two months before Universal Pictures is set to release the epic film, which bows Dec. 14 in the U.S. Jackson issued a statement Friday saying that he and Shore were parting ways because of creative differences: "I have greatly enjoyed my collaborations with Howard Shore, whose musical themes made immeasurable contributions to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. During the last few weeks, Howard and I came to realize that we had differing creative aspirations for the score of 'King Kong.' Rather than waste time arguing with a friend and trying to unify our points of view, we decided amicably to let another composer score the film."
Trouble trouble... thats not good 2 months before the release...
yeah yeah, thats BAD.
I gasped.
I never fucking gasp.
Yeah, that's almost more shocking than Elfman's revalation about Spiderman 2 from that SG article.
Better head over to AICN to see if Knowles has started damage control yet...
Jeez. It's just Howard Shore. Not like he's replacing Naomi Watts or anything.
mutinyco's right. so he replaced one hollywood score with another. the LotR score was overrated, bad even, i guess PJ decided he wants to keep audiences awake during this one. if we weren't told about this, i bet no one would even notice it's not a howard shore score.
Shore at his best is pretty non-Hollywood/recognizable.
for me, its not a matter of it being shore's score or not. its a matter of racing to a deadline and making a release date (instead of a film). and the desperation of having to fire the composer who you've worked with for years (and just won oscars together) because he's not doing it right (which more likely means that the film NEEDS improving by the score). so i think its an all around sign of suckage. but, it worked for Troy, right?
Quote from: modagebut, it worked for Troy, right?
did anything work for troy?
Quote from: Pubrick and modage...shore('s) score.
don't you like saying shore score?
Quote from: modagefor me, its not a matter of it being shore's score or not. its a matter of racing to a deadline and making a release date (instead of a film). and the desperation of having to fire the composer who you've worked with for years (and just won oscars together) because he's not doing it right (which more likely means that the film NEEDS improving by the score). so i think its an all around sign of suckage. but, it worked for Troy, right?
Total overreaction.
It's not a sign of anything but a disagreement.
and yeah, Shore isn't impressive. I can't think of any movie that was HELPED by Shore's score. Just because Cronenberg loves him doesn't mean he's great.
i HOPE i'm wrong. but it has 'fiasco' written all over it. i guess we'll see come december...
Quote from: RegularKarate...Shore's score.
fun huh?
Quote from: modagei HOPE i'm wrong. but it has 'fiasco' written all over it. i guess we'll see come december...
I don't know about the others, but my reaction to this film so far is a big "eh." The film may turn out to be awesome, but right now I'm not feeling it.
Quote from: modagei HOPE i'm wrong. but it has 'fiasco' written all over it. i guess we'll see come december...
In 20 years, a book will be written about Peter Jackson's ego and this fiasco being the cause of it. But, by then, with the Peter Jackson religion in full tilt, all copies of that book will be burned.
I don't give a shit who was fired. With the reign Jackson is being given, he's due for some obviously bad films. I just hope his films don't take 10 years to get old to the general public. I was bored with the first Lord of the Ring twenty minutes into it. Expect bloatedness upon bloatedness. His waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetHis waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.
he's lost a lot of weight. why do u hate PJ so? LotR was overrated, that much is true, but from all reports the dude himself is nice enuff.
Quote from: PubrickQuote from: The Gold TrumpetHis waist may even get bigger too. He can afford it.
he's lost a lot of weight. why do u hate PJ so? LotR was overrated, that much is true, but from all reports the dude himself is nice enuff.
I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.
Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.
have you seen Dead Alive?
I think it's funny that they replaced Howard Shore with James Newton Howard, because I always confuse their names. But Howard is way better than Shore anyhow. Shore would've been pretty good because he uses brass and that would've been nice with the scale of monkey and all. Howard tends to be more shrieky and intense as shit, I think the new choice is revealing of the tone of the film. Maybe PJ is trying something different.
Anyhow, Shore fucked up History of Violence. He had some awkward cues at the beginning, like this overwhelming brass solo (I think it was a baritone) when a car was driving, I dunno, whatever.
This movie will be fine. PJ's sense of good is right on the money, but he needs amp it up to great.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.
Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.
I'll take your comments for what they are, but this one just seems so unnecessary to me. Comparing him with Kubrick, saying he hasn't proven him wrong, speculating that he'll be given a lot of money for big commercial movies only and your not sure if he'll go back to smaller films when you have no idea... I mean, who cares really. I'd put money on him doing a smaller film next, but I'd still be gambling. Maybe you should just take his films for what they are and be quiet about the things you don't know about or that don't matter.
I like Shore precisely because of his excellent brass arangements. Damn good stuff, in my opinion. I love most of his Cronenberg scores, his score for The Cell was pretty amazing, and Ed Wood was better than it would have been if Elfman had done it (maybe). And while I didn't like the first LOTR score, the second two were good enough to make me get the soundtracks. The Gangs Of New York score sucked, though.
Newton Howard is good, too - sometimes. His scores for Shyamalan are brilliant, the last two particularl.
Quote from: POZER!Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
I'll admit ignorance of Peter Jackson's personality. I really will. So take some of my comments for what they are. The thing is, for the license he has been given to let his imagination flow free, I'm not sure I'll ever see the director of Heavenly Creatures again. He promises to do smaller pictures, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling he's going to become this generation's Stanley Kubrick in all the wrong ways. He'll be given the huge budgets, allowed to invest in doing films far away and on subjects of personal interest, but really all for the idea of making a blockbuster movie. Nothing more.
Where Stanley Kubrick realized Lord of the Rings was "unfilmable" back in the 60s, Peter Jackson has seemingly proven him wrong. He hasn't. Lord of the Rings is still just as unfilmable and Jackson has created an action yarn the way one could be adapted from the Bible. He's not using his gifts for much.
I'll take your comments for what they are, but this one just seems so unnecessary to me. Comparing him with Kubrick, saying he hasn't proven him wrong, speculating that he'll be given a lot of money for big commercial movies only and your not sure if he'll go back to smaller films when you have no idea... I mean, who cares really. I'd put money on him doing a smaller film next, but I'd still be gambling. Maybe you should just take his films for what they are and be quiet about the things you don't know about or that don't matter.
The context of everything I said is in the manner of speculation. I have evidence to lead me to my speculation. Four blockbuster films in a row says something. Does this not matter? As I cleared up, I'm hopeful the director of Heavenly Creatures comes back. I'm just also very doubtful. He's found a niche of making epics that many take to be true great films. I find that identity to be bullshit.
And no, I have not seen Dead Alive. I'll try to see it. Think I would actually like it, Mod?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThink I would actually like it, Mod?
Wait, let me check my magic 8 ball... hmm, all signs point to no.
no, you'll find a reason to hate it, I'm sure.
LOTR should really only count as one film, since it was his intension to make a trilogy in the first place.
Seriously, your beef with Jackson is ridiculous. You haven't even given him proper time to get into this "niche" you claim him to be in.
Quote from: RegularKarateLOTR should really only count as one film, since it was his intension to make a trilogy in the first place.
No, it shouldn't. Yes, it is a trilogy but still three separate films. The only reason people argue this is because they liked all of them. But, for the Matrix trilogy, hardly anyone claim to hold all three as one film. It's because most people didn't like the second and third parts. They can't truthfully say they liked the trilogy, so they just say they liked the first one. Both are trilogies, but made up of separate films.
Quote from: RegularKarateSeriously, your beef with Jackson is ridiculous. You haven't even given him proper time to get into this "niche" you claim him to be in.
Maybe it won't be the nice he holds for his entire career, but with The Hobbit going to go into production, one has to admit that all 3 LOTR films, King Kong, and The Hobbit are more than lucky coincidences. More even than a trend. Its an identity considering how little you see in LOTR compared to Heavenly Creatures. My criticism is of that identity.
And yes, I doubt I'll like Dead Alive. I'm not a fanboy of that genre.
they should be counted as 3 films, but it shouldn't be compared to the matrix because these were all filmed at the same time as part of one story. i dont think you'll like Dead Alive but i think you might have a different opinion of Jackson afterwards. (what a fanboy of that genre look like?) plus, i thought he was offically doing The Lovely Bones next? and then HOPEFULLY a small horror film?
What I meant by saying it should count as one film is that you can't say "Jesus Christ, Peter Jackson keeps making the same kind of big budget shit... the last three movies he made are exactly the same!" That's stupid because it's one project... this project was just split into three films.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetbut with The Hobbit going to go into production
Did I miss something?
I think he's confirmed that he's directing Lovely Bones next. Which if done correctly will be great, as it's in the same vein as Heavenly Creatures (the ending of the book is really sappy though). I don't think Kong will be anything more than a really fun ride, and Jackson himself has admitted as much when he said it wasn't going to win any Oscars.
I understand LOTR as one project. But dedicating yourself to that project can be a decision that speaks for a good deal of your career. Especially dedicating yourself to The Hobbit afterword. I hope for diversity in the future.
As for The Matrix, I know it wasn't filmed continually, but if you ask the creators, they'll say they had plans for the trilogy ever since the beginning.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: The Gold Trumpetbut with The Hobbit going to go into production
Did I miss something?
I think he's confirmed that he's directing Lovely Bones next. Which if done correctly will be great, as it's in the same vein as Heavenly Creatures (the ending of the book is really sappy though). I don't think Kong will be anything more than a really fun ride, and Jackson himself has admitted as much when he said it wasn't going to win any Oscars.
I've heard many numerous projects on a smaller scale, but the only confirmed one really was The Hobbit.
Paging Mr. MacGuffin!
No need to page MacGuffin. The Hobbit was never confirmed, only rumored, and long ago at that. I'm not even sure if the rights issues ever got resolved.
The only other thing Jackson is attached to is Halo, and that's only as executive producer.
OK, a confirmation of his "plans"
Jackson Confirms "Hobbit" Plans
Posted: Sunday March 13th, 2005 8:51pm
Source: The BBC
Author: Garth Franklin
"Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson has said that it will be up to four years before he starts work on a film version of "The Hobbit" according to British newscaster The BBC.
The Oscar winner said on arecent visit to Sydney that there was a "desire" to make it, but not before lengthy negotiations were conducted. "I think it's gonna be a lot of lawyers sitting in a room trying to thrash out a deal before it will ever happen," he told the press.
As of now, the rights to JRR Tolkien's book are split between two major film studios - New Line and MGM. Jackson thought that the sale of MGM studios to the Sony Corporation would cast further uncertainty on the project. Jackson is currently working on a remake of "King Kong" and has also committed to making a film version of "Lovely Bones", based on the best-selling book by Alice Sebold.
So in other words, don't bet money on it.
well, as ghostboy and i said the lovely bones is likely his NEXT project and beyond that who knows? and the lord of the rings seems as out of place in his filmography as heavenly creatures does, so why have you pegged him as that guy?
It's a responce to not really peg, but identify. It seems with LOTR, he has major blockbuster epics in his future. King Kong has already been made and then The Hobbit, which I believe he will make. Rights issues on acquiring the story by New Line was cleared up when Sony bought out MGM, right? With his popularity on LOTR, is it not possible that if King Kong is a major success, he will not continue to explore blockbuster films? I think he will. He's been given an Oscar and popularity already.
I guess the basic argument is I don't see much success in his doing blockbuster movies. LOTR was that awful to me. It does come down to a personal opinion. His adaptation of The Lovely Bones, which I'll likely read before he makes it, will be interesting.
I think the thing to also consider is that, thus far, he's only made movies he wants to make. LOTR and King Kong were both longstanding passion projects. In that sense, they're no more different from Heavenly Creatures than Dead Alive was. The Lovely Bones seems to continue this trend, and as long as he's not making movies other people want him to make, I'll continue to be supportive of whatever he does. If that includes The Hobbit (which I nonetheless doubt he'll direct anytime soon), great. If it's another low budget splatter film, that's great too. Thus far, his enthusiasm for his projects has kept them all as exciting as they are wildly different.
Couldn't of said it better. Good note to end on.
October 27, 2005
A Big Gorilla Weighs In
By SHARON WAXMAN
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 26 - In hiring Peter Jackson, the Oscar-winning director of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, to remake the monster classic "King Kong," Universal Pictures took a daring leap, paying him $20 million to direct, produce and be the co-writer of the film.
With seven weeks to go before the movie's release, the risks are becoming clearer. After seeing a version of the film in late September at Mr. Jackson's studio in New Zealand, Universal executives agreed to release "King Kong" at a length of three hours.
The film is substantially longer than Universal had anticipated and presents dual obstacles: the extra length has helped increase the budget by a third, to $207 million, while requiring the studio, owned by General Electric, to reach for the kind of long-term audience interest that made hits out of three-hour movies like "Titanic" and the films in Mr. Jackson's "Rings" trilogy.
Hollywood blockbusters have increasingly relied on big releases that bring in as much as half of their ticket sales on the first weekend. But long films receive far fewer showings per day, and the most successful ones, like "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (2001) by Mr. Jackson, which took in $315 million at the domestic box office for New Line Cinema, have remained in theaters for well over half a year.
The film industry and Universal could use a big seller.
Hollywood has been struggling this year at the box office, with overall revenue down more than half a billion dollars, about 8 percent, from last year's total, according to Box Office Mojo, an online tracking service. Industry experts attribute the decline to a migration of audiences to other forms of electronic entertainment, whether television, DVD's, video games or the Internet. Universal has had a mediocre year at the box office. The studio had a hit in the summer with the comedy "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," but has endured disappointments, like the drama "Cinderella Man," and has had lackluster results with films like "The Perfect Man," "Kicking and Screaming" and "Doom," which opened last week to a tepid $15 million.
Asked about the length of "King Kong," Universal executives said they saw it as an advantage in an era when jaded moviegoers are hungering for something extraordinary.
"This is a three-hour feast of an event," said Marc Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, who described the film as a tragic love story between the ape and Naomi Watts, who plays Ann Darrow, an actress. "I've never come close to seeing an artist working at this level."
Set for release on Dec. 14, "King Kong" retells the classic beauty-and-the-beast tale first filmed in 1933, with its lasting image of Kong atop the Empire State Building, and remade in 1976. Along with Ms. Watts, it stars Jack Black, Adrien Brody and a 25-foot, computer-animated gorilla.
This time around, the picture depends upon another oversize talent in the person of Mr. Jackson, who was granted an unusual degree of control at a time when studios are trimming costs and tightening their grips on most productions. Not only did Mr. Jackson produce and direct, and also write with his longtime partner, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens, but his companies Weta Digital and Weta Workshop also created the physical and computer special effects in the film at Mr. Jackson's studio in New Zealand.
Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount took a risk in granting the director James Cameron a similar degree of control over his famously overbudget 1997 film "Titanic," and eventually came up winners. In that case, Mr. Cameron's three-hour epic, a love story set in the midst of the ship's sinking, went on to break box-office records and win 11 Oscars. With "King Kong," Universal executives say they are convinced that they have an epic of comparable worth, even though they were surprised by the length.
"I anticipated it would be long, but not this long," the Universal chairwoman, Stacey Snider, said. As recently as late September, she expected about two hours and 40 minutes, she said. But on Wednesday she expressed delight with the picture she's got: "This is a masterpiece. I can't wait to unveil it."
The increased length, Ms. Snider said, means that the movie will cost $32 million more than planned, adding to expenses that had already gone up $25 million from an original $150 million production budget.
Who will pay for these budget overruns has been the subject of intense negotiations over the last two weeks, with representatives of the studio and the director haggling over who was responsible, according to those involved in the negotiations.
Ms. Snider said that as of Wednesday, all had been resolved, with the studio more or less splitting the $32 million expense with Mr. Jackson.
In an e-mail message, Mr. Jackson appeared to disagree, saying instead that he would be paying for those expenditures, which were mainly associated with extra digital-effects shots. Referring to his partner, Ms. Walsh, Mr. Jackson wrote: "Since Fran and I believed in the three-hour cut and wanted to take responsibility for the extra length, we offered to pay for these extra shots ourselves. That's what we're doing." He did not say how much that would be, but said the extra effects shot would cost "considerably below $32 million."
A spokesman for Universal responded, "We are working together to cover overages."
In granting Mr. Jackson immense latitude, Universal relied not just on his skills, but also a huge fan base, much of which has followed the production through the director's frequent communications on a Web site, www.kongisking.net.
But few elements of the film have been seen by the larger public, and even Universal executives saw a finished version of King Kong's face - with its expressive eyes, broadly fierce nose and mane of computer-generated hair - only in recent days.
Universal lost an opportunity to capitalize on a "Kong" revenue stream when an anticipated deal to release the film on Imax screens in December, at the same time the movie would appear in regular theaters, failed to materialize, and Imax chose to show Warner Brothers' new "Harry Potter" film, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."
"We think 'King Kong' will be a big movie," Richard L. Gelfond, co-chairman of Imax, said, "but unfortunately we could not agree on deal terms, including the box-office split."
Ms. Snider said Imax could not guarantee space in its theaters at the time of Kong's release, and acknowledged that both the studio and Mr. Jackson were disappointed.
A spokeswoman for NBC Universal said Bob Wright, the chairman, has been told of the rising cost and length of "King Kong." "Bob is more than aware of what is going on with this production and other major productions, and he has enormous confidence in the leadership team at Universal Studios," said the spokeswoman, Anna Perez.
Ms. Snider said she did not think the three-hour length would be an obstacle for moviegoers. Three-hour epics, she said, are Mr. Jackson's "brand."
Exhibitors have long complained that very long films make it harder to draw audiences, though in this difficult year at the box office, they have complained louder about not having enough good films to show. Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the box office for theater owners, agreed that long movies posed problems. "But if it's a really fine film, it won't be a detriment to its success," he said.
wow, three hours. if this flops its going to flop HUGE.
It will open big, but nobody knows right now if people will like it enough to make it a hit. It doesn't have the built-in audience LOTR had, though it does have name recognition. And three hours? I can see how the LOTR films were long, but this? I don't know, folks...
Yeah... 3 hours is a bad idea. :(
http://www.kingkongjump.com/
Ok maybe i don't know much about money or the economy or audiences but, my logic is telling me this....
"The film industry needs a big seller."
That's true, but a movie with a $207 million budget will be hard to break even, correct? That's a lot of money, let alone a lot to profit from. I don't think this film will do mindblowingly well, but many will go to it. If many go to this, just enough to break even, but then neglect seeing all the other movies, then won't everything but this essentially lose money?? Everyone's flocking to this and not seeing anything else?
Even Alexander made a lot of money when international box office was tallied up. Peter Jackson still has the massive LOTR momentum to go on, so in the end it will make money.
Last year it seemed easy... this year has just been terrible and keeps getting worse for the box office... it will end up being 10-15% below last year and I believe we are having more releases than last year.
That is why it doesnt make a difference the budget of the movie, but if its good... if its good, it will make a lot of money... heck each of the Lord of the Rings movies made around 2 billion just in theatrical, dvds, tv rights... so it can definetly happen for a movie like King Kong... if its good
the others have nothing to do with it... people will go if they are interested... already 10% of the people are not going or going less... so it all comes down to the product that is out there
Quote from: andykLast year it seemed easy... this year has just been terrible and keeps getting worse for the box office... it will end up being 10-15% below last year and I believe we are having more releases than last year.
That is why it doesnt make a difference the budget of the movie, but if its good... if its good, it will make a lot of money... heck each of the Lord of the Rings movies made around 2 billion just in theatrical, dvds, tv rights... so it can definetly happen for a movie like King Kong... if its good
the others have nothing to do with it... people will go if they are interested... already 10% of the people are not going or going less... so it all comes down to the product that is out there
I'm not convinced its the quality of the product. A lot of bad movies made money last year. I think the boom of video games is playing an effect on younger crowd going to movies.
people just dont like movies anymore. it's a shame it really is. hollywood will be nonexistent in ten years.
Quote from: JimmyGatorpeople just dont like movies anymore. it's a shame it really is. hollywood will be nonexistent in ten years.
JimmyGator, I Have a question. When did you turn into a nutbar?
i'm in a silly mood tonight.
Mothers, lock up your daughters.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fffmedia.ign.com%2Ffilmforce%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F662%2F662852%2Fking-kong-poster_1130790440.jpg&hash=cb3014a4dbe828f3f6f1310d2a2f8584a5c9ab9d)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/hd/
Stunning Brilliant
New Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/)
But is it me or does the non-HD trailer not work for anyone?
It worked for me.
My cynicism just melted pretty much entirely.
me too, GB. me too.
goddddddaaaaaaaaaaamn that looks perfick.
i can't wait. this is going to be a masterpiece that people years from now will look back on and say, "Kong was to Jackson as Salome was to Colin McKenzie; an ultimate masterwork."
anyway, kong/dinosaur/brody/black and watts ( :inlove: ) all look fantastic. this is gonna be great.
take that, you anti-2005ers!
yeah, i'm quite pumped for this. i hope it rules.
Quote from: MacGuffin
is it me or does the non-HD trailer not work for anyone?
It's cause you need GOD DAMNED Quicktime 7 to view it!!! This is getting out of hand.. I DON'T HAVE TIGER!!!! Why must I be left in the dust?
if only cgi didn't look so shiny all the time, would it kill them to let ONE bit of image go unlit? it always looks like they're surrounded by spotlights. it might be nostalgia talking, but i don't remember Jurassic Park being so overlit. u'd think these creatures were HOLY or sumthing, emanating a spirit within.
Quote from: Pubrickit might be nostalgia talking, but i don't remember Jurassic Park being so overlit.
It is not the nostalgia. You're absolutely right. I always use Jurassic Park as a great example of CGI, even though it was one of the first instances of creature CGI. Probably BECAUSE of the lower-res, they didn't overlight it. As a result, it was better integrated with the rest of the world.
I also can't see the damn trailer. This is the last straw: I'm getting Panther from my friend. (Tiger's not worth the money to me)
Quote from: Pubrickif only cgi didn't look so shiny all the time, would it kill them to let ONE bit of image go unlit? it always looks like they're surrounded by spotlights. it might be nostalgia talking, but i don't remember Jurassic Park being so overlit. u'd think these creatures were HOLY or sumthing, emanating a spirit within.
Thank you! Plus, they always move as if Newton's laws don't apply. "Jurassic Park 3" was the worst offender on that front. These are supposedly huge creatures; they should move like they're heavy.
Plus, the depth of focus on the CGI elements rarely matches the rest of the shot. Gollum always seemed way too in-focus.
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: MacGuffin
is it me or does the non-HD trailer not work for anyone?
It's cause you need GOD DAMNED Quicktime 7 to view it!!! This is getting out of hand.. I DON'T HAVE TIGER!!!! Why must I be left in the dust?
Okay, cause I thought you needed to upgrade to only see the HD trailers. I don't have the OS requirements to upgrade. If the studios knew they are passing on a lot of potential moviegoers, they'd have Apple change back.
You can see the normal version with any Mac and OS... but if you want HD, you need to have the latest of the latest... same as everything else!
No, you have to have at least OS 10.3.9 to run QT7. There are still a lot of people running 10.2.
Yeah but for the normal version of the trailer you dont need QT7... just for HD. Thats what I meant.
Anyhow... do you have to pay to download the upgrades of Panther? Ever since I had my Mac I had it always with the latest software and never had to pay for it. Then I sold it and when I got my new one also has Tiger, so thats a different story. But Panther is already old.
Quote from: andykYeah but for the normal version of the trailer you dont need QT7... just for HD. Thats what I meant.
No, you're wrong... for the normal you need QT7. It even says that right below the window as you "watch" it.
All of the HD trailers are Purdy!
I'm not absolutely stoked for this. I'm sure it will be fun and all. I agree with the gripes about the effects. I think the backgrounds on some of the shots bug me more than the creatures.
The effects in the trailer may be rough and not representative of what is in the film.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/media_nm/kingkong_dc_1
DVD producer saddled with 'Kong'-size task
by Anne Thompson Fri Oct 28, 2:15 AM ET
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - There has been no rest for the weary on the Wellywood set of "King Kong."
Award-winning DVD producer Michael Pellerin and his team have been running as fast as they can to keep up with Oscar-winning "Lord of the Rings" producer-writer-director Peter Jackson. Somehow, while Jackson was in the throes of creating his three-hour, $207 million epic remake of his favorite childhood classic, the tireless filmmaker also was supplying commentary not only for the eventual "King Kong" DVD but also for a video set diary posted twice-weekly on the Internet, as well as a documentary for the long-awaited DVD of the 1933 "King Kong."
On scattered soundstages in Wellington, New Zealand, selected members of the "King Kong" crew participated not only in setting daunting new standards in digital effects for the new movie but also in painstaking recreations of six minutes of lost footage from the 1933 film, using the archaic special effects methods of that period.
Pellerin, a veteran laserdisc producer of many Walt Disney Co. deluxe multidiscs ("Snow White," "The Lion King," "Toy Story"), moved in the '90s to producing such DVDs as "A Bug's Life" and "Fantasia" before taking on Jackson's award-winning "Rings" series. Joining the Jackson team allowed Pellerin to indulge in producing the most elaborate, award-winning DVD content in his field. But, says Pellerin, nothing prepared him for his experience on "King Kong."
His long work jag started in late 2003, during preproduction of "King Kong," and continued through production and postproduction. In fact, Pellerin still isn't done: He will continue interviewing the "Kong" crew for several months after the film opens in order to "get perspective," he says.
After the end of filming "Return of the King," says Pellerin, Jackson was wondering how they were going to up the ante with the "King Kong" DVD. So the director came up with the idea of "using the camera as a diary or confessional therapist." During preproduction on "Kong," after every production, casting or script meeting, Pellerin went to Jackson with his camera and asked him for an update.
Then, in September 2004, on the first day of filming Universal Pictures' "King Kong," after Jackson spoke to the camera, Pellerin recalls, "he said, 'Let's put this up on the Internet."'
According to Pellerin, Jackson has always maintained a close relationship with his fans. But this ongoing set diary set a new standard of interactivity. Jackson arranged with the people behind his favorite "LOTR" fan site, http://www.Onering.net, to throw up the "Kong" set diaries twice a week on the new "Kong" sequel site, http://www.Kongisking.net.
They posted 90 in total over six months. "Truth is, it was guerrilla filmmaking," Pellerin says. "Universal was never involved, not one marketing person. We made it up out of whole cloth. It was raw. Every couple of days, we'd gather what we had. It was like doing the 6 p.m.ews. We were moving so fast, with no plan."
Pellerin's crew was housed right next to the "King Kong" production offices so that they were "right at the center of the hurricane," he says. "Peter was so busy making the movie that we were laying tracks just ahead of the train. The early ones were crude; they got more sophisticated."
Jackson helped Pellerin to come up with ideas and cajole the cast and crew into cooperating. "At first they were saying, 'What's going on?"' Pellerin recalls. "Then they started making up their own pieces.
Jack Black did a piece on his height. Andy did a piece on his revenge on the DVD team. The cast used to hang out at our editing facility to see what we were doing."
Needing more ideas, Jackson asked the fans to tell him what stories they would like to see. Pellerin combed through the hundreds of submissions and picked out the best ones, including a tutorial on how an Aero 434 movie camera works. "Jackson wanted people to know what each of the buttons do," Pellerin says. "It's a direct feed from the filmmakers to the audience, a communication patch with no filters."
What the fans really wanted to see was a day in the life of Peter Jackson. "He kept putting it off," Pellerin says. Suddenly, in the middle of the night on day 99, Jackson sent word to Pellerin that the day in the life would be day 100. Pellerin's crew hung close to Jackson on one of the film's most grueling long hauls. The director was shooting on a night schedule from noon to midnight, plus meetings, dailies and stints in the cutting room; he was getting about three hours of sleep a night. Pellerin wasn't sure if the filmmaker would want to reveal footage of him so exhausted that he nodded off in a meeting. But Jackson wanted people to see how tough directing really is.
While Pellerin continued to do his day job collecting footage for the "King Kong" DVD, Jackson told him the day before the 2004
Academy Awards that he also wanted Pellerin to produce with him the DVD of the classic 1933 "King Kong." "Otherwise, he said it would just be another disc of a classic film," Pellerin recalls.
Because there was little behind-the-scenes material left from the original, producing this two-hour, 40-minute documentary would be a challenge. Director Merian C. Cooper and his FX crew "didn't want anyone to know how they did the effects," Pellerin says. "We had some stills, blueprints and articles. But everybody's dead, even Fay Wray. How could we do this documentary with so little material?"
Jackson's solution was to stage a dramatic recreation of the legendary lost spider pit scene from "King Kong," using the same techniques the filmmakers employed in 1933, including stop-motion cameras in miniature environments, rear-screen projection and glass matte paintings. "We would show how it was done," Pellerin says.
Luckily, Jackson had some experience with emulating silent footage. His infamous 1995 mockumentary "Forgotten Silver," about the great silent New Zealand filmmakers, fooled many viewers in New Zealand. In fact, Jackson supplied some of the necessary period equipment for the 1933 documentary from his own personal collection, including a rear-screen projector from another gorilla classic, "Mighty Joe Young."
In the missing "Kong" sequence, a huge dinosaur chases the men onto a log, whereupon Kong throws them into a pit, where they are attacked by giant crabs and spiders. To help figure out how to piece together the scenes and seamlessly work them into the existing film, Jackson brought in writer-director
Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption") and makeup master Rick Baker (who worked on the 1976 "King Kong" and the 1998 "Mighty Joe Young"). Jackson also roped in key crew members from "King Kong" 2005.
They storyboarded the scenes, which Jackson directed and edited into six minutes that were inserted into the existing film with careful weaving of music, effects and just the right black-and-white film grain.
Fans who want to know more about the original "King Kong" will be able to rent or buy the 1933 classic DVD on November 22 (from Warner Home Video); the set diary DVD, which spans the first 54 entries, comes out December 13 (from Universal Home Video), the day before the new "King Kong" opens. And the ultra-deluxe "King Kong" 2005 two-disc DVD will go on sale in April.
Pellerin insists that they've saved plenty of goodies for the "ultimate DVD," he says. "In the 'Kong' 2005 set diaries, we couldn't show the cool stuff. We were banking 70% of all the original material for the later story, yet to be seen."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
haha, damn this dude's obsessed! i bet if you made a 'trekkies'-like documentary about the Kong fanbase, like 90 percent of the film would focus on Peter Jackson. KONGIES. :shock:
i'm sure it'll happen, and be included in the eighteen-disc box-set he's secretly planning.
I totally agree with Pubrick. Remember how real/frightning the T-rex's in Jurassic Park were when you first saw it compared to how fake/not frightning the one in this trailer looks. I still have high hopes for an entertaining movie, but when you see that trailer, do you not think 'is this really what 200 mill is going for these days?'
I honestly faked it when LOTR was out. I feigned love for some of the effects. Granted, Gollum was pretty damn amazing some of the time. It's always looked fake. Only Spielberg has gotten it right, forget Jurassic Park. Minority Report, lots of War of the Worlds, these are amazing effects.
Kong 3-D Coming?
Jackson's big ape may reach out and grab audiences.
Peter Jackson's King Kong could be even more larger than life than originally anticipated. The Hollywood Reporter scoops that Kong may follow in the footsteps of a much tinier big-screen predecessor, current box office champ Chicken Little, and be released in 3-D.
In-Three, a postproduction company that converts live-action and animated movies into 3-D, is reportedly already at work applying their patented "dimensionalization" process to the effects-filled flick.
The company's technology involves providing audiences with shutter glasses and does not require theaters to have specially treated screens. Some exhibitors have resisted the use of special glasses because of replacement cost and the time-consuming cleaning process which must be done after every screening.
THR contacted Universal about the 3-D Kong plans and were told by a spokesperson, "No, it will not be shown in 3-D." But we all know how shifty those spokespeople can be, so stay tuned!
As if it doesn't look fake enough already.
Quote from: RegularKarate on November 03, 2005, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinis it me or does the non-HD trailer not work for anyone?
It's cause you need GOD DAMNED Quicktime 7 to view it!!! This is getting out of hand.. I DON'T HAVE TIGER!!!! Why must I be left in the dust?
RK and other dust-eaters rejoice:
Non-Apple Quicktime Trailer
here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1392208&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
Man, does the trailer look like a Cliffs Notes version of the film. It starts at the beginning of the story, shows Kong with Naomi Watts, shows Kong fighting a dinosaur, and ends with Kong on the Empire State Building. I know that people are already familiar with the story, but I wonder what's going to be left in the film to surprise them.
i'm currently watching this incredible movie on showtime (eu version):
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.impawards.com%2F1986%2Fposters%2Fking_kong_lives.jpg&hash=8dbbad7649332cdff0a5b753d9ea992462062bd4)
i just saw king kong chow down a couple crocodiles. that was very funny. king kong looks really phony with his various of serious dramatic faces.
American cinematographer article here (http://theasc.com/magazine/dec05/kingkong/index.html)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1793%2Farticle.jpg&hash=e79f55793e2e829e165305ed47aa89b4ac23467b)
As a horror nut I first discovered Peter Jackson when Dead Alive was released on VHS tape back in the early 90’s. After viewing that first film I knew Jackson was destined to become one of the great filmmakers. I immediately saw his other works such as the Oscar nominated Heavenly Creatures and Meet the Feebles. When his first Hollywood film, The Frighteners, was going to be released I thought that the entire world was going to discover him then. But I was dead wrong because that film tanked. But as everyone knows, Jackson beat the odds and created a near perfect movie trilogy with the Lord of The Rings films.
Now Jackson is releasing his interpretation of the movie King Kong. He has kept the film set in the 1930’s and cast Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow, Jack Black as a crazed filmmaker and Adrien Brody as the screenwriter whose jungle script takes them to deadly Skull Island. With King Kong, Jackson has created a spectacle that may change the world almost as much as the original Kong did back in 1933.
Daniel Robert Epstein: A lot of people call you an auteur and you do these films with monstrous budgets and marketing campaigns. How hard is it to stay true to your vision when you also have to serve this marketing machine?
Peter Jackson: I don’t quite know what an auteur is. I never really understood that term because filmmaking is such a huge team effort. I regard myself as being the final filter, so that anything that ends up in the movie is there because it’s something that I think is cool. I very much tried to make a film that I’d enjoy, but I’m open to ideas. I need a huge team of people to help me and I try to encourage everyone to contribute as much as possible. I think that’s the job of a director, to funnel all the creativity into one centralized point of being.
The marketing is really something that happens with other people and it’s not something I’m an expert in. My job at the end of the day is to make the best possible film I can. That’s really where my job stops. Marketing people take over after that.
DRE: It seems like you haven’t stopped working since 1997.
Jackson: It is true. I’m exhausted. I’m absolutely tired. I haven’t really had a life. I’ve been making movies for ten years now with the Lord of the Rings movies straight into Kong. I’m very pleased that we did that because we were able to utilize the great creative team we had assembled for the Lord of the Rings films for King Kong. One of the reasons why I wanted to make Kong very quickly was because I wanted to keep this team together and be able to just channel that creativity into another project.
People didn’t really know it at the time but when we flew over to Los Angeles for the Oscars for Return of the King, we were in a Kong production meeting the following day. We had a Universal script meeting the day after the Oscars and then after that I got on a plane and flew to New York to meet with Fay Wray. We got a tour of the top of the Empire State Building and took reference photos. So it’s been a continuous journey.
DRE: What did you and Fay Wray discuss?
Jackson: I was trying to talk her into doing a cameo in the film because as a King Kong fan I really wanted her. I thought it would be fantastic if she could appear in even one shot. She said, “No, absolutely not.” But we got on well and the last thing she said to me was “Never say never.” So I thought there was a chance that we might get to shoot a cameo with her but of course she passed away soon after. I think we saw her about three or four weeks before she died. But I'm really pleased that I met her because obviously as a life long King Kong fan I've always wanted to meet her so I'm very grateful for this project and the time we had together.
DRE: With your version of King Kong you were quite faithful to the 1933 version. But you actually cut a couple of scenes like the giant snake and the pterodactyl. How did you decide what scenes to keep and what scenes to cut?
Jackson: It’s instinct to some degree and it doesn’t reflect a right or a wrong way of doing it since every filmmaker that would make a version of King Kong would do a completely different film. I’ve wanted to make this movie for a long time and I’ve had ideas and images in my head for years. To me it wasn’t a particularly difficult situation to decide what should be in or out, I just really wanted to play down a movie in my head. Incidentally we shot a scene where they cross the swamp and they’re attacked by a creature but it didn’t end up in the cut. Even though the movie is three hours long, there are quite a few scenes we filmed that didn’t make it into the finished movie.
DRE: The spider pit scene in the original King Kong was cut out. Was it very important to you to get a spider pit scene in your version?
Jackson: As a King Kong fan the spider pit scene is mythic because it was cut from the original at the last minute. So I wanted to put it in there as a Kong fan. Though it was also a rare opportunity for us to show a little bit more of Skull Island because one of the things that I really like about the story of Kong is all the creatures and inhabitants of the island because it is a sort of hell on earth jungle that's survived over the years. As much as I like the tyrannosauruses and brontosauruses, I wanted to make sure we put a few original creepy crawlies on the island as well.
DRE: What was it about the 1933 King Kong that inspired you to become a filmmaker?
Jackson: I saw the original Kong on TV when I was nine years on a Friday night and that weekend I grabbed some plasticine and made a brontosaurus. I got my parent’s Super-8 movie camera and tried to animate the plasticine dinosaur. There was a moment in time when I just wanted to do special effects and do monsters and creatures but ultimately it led to becoming a filmmaker. I didn’t really know what directing was when I was nine; it was more about monsters at that stage.
The original Kong is a wonderful piece of escapist entertainment. It has everything that’s really cool about movies like a lost, remote island, a giant ape, dinosaurs, and it also has this wonderful heart and soul. When I first saw King Kong I cried at the end. That moment of shedding tears for him has stayed with me. That level of emotional engagement and pure escapism is what I personally like about the movies.
DRE: Why did James Newton Howard replace Howard Shore as the music composer?
Jackson: Howard Shore was the original choice as composer. We’re very good friends but it just came to the point where it seemed that our sensibilities for the film were somewhat different. So we decided to not to go down that road anymore. James Newton Howard is a composer that we’ve admired for a long time. We’d used some of his earlier scores on some of the temp tracks we had, and his sensibility and his feeling for the music seemed to relate really well to the pictures that we shot. We also found an opportunity to pay homage to Max Steiner. We used some of his original score in the Broadway show where Kong is put on display on the stage.
DRE: How did you decide how much to make Kong human versus making him an animal?
Jackson: As a filmmaker you’re going to manipulate the character as you need to make the scenes work. I certainly don’t deny that. But we did set out to base him on a real gorilla as much as we could. We sat down at the beginning and asked, “What is Kong? Is he a monster, is he some sort of missing link or aberration?” We decided we wanted to make him as genuine a silverback gorilla as we possibly could. So we studied silverback gorillas and Andy Serkis, who did a lot of the performance of Kong for us, studied gorillas in the mountains and even tracked a group of them in the Rwandan mountains for a couple of weeks. Everything in the movie is based on what a silverback gorilla would do but with a little bit of manipulation and cheating on behalf of the filmmakers.
DRE: How much did you work with Andy on Kong’s personality?
Jackson: It was interesting because we found that a lot of silverback gorillas’ personality and character is expressed through simplicity. Studying gorillas so much allowed us to simplify his characterization. Gorillas don’t really give away a lot. It’s all to do with eye contact and whether or not they are looking at you. As we’ve been refining Kong, I realized I didn’t want to fall into the trap of making him too cute. The point in the story where we want the audience to empathize with Kong, I didn’t want to stop him being dangerous. I didn’t want to stop him from being a wild creature who can kill characters. I wanted people to empathize with him but also keep him wild and unpredictable.
DRE: How did creating Kong compare to creating another total CGI character, Gollum in Lord of the Rings?
Jackson: What was most important was to make people be able to connect with Kong and make him believable. I knew going into this that the movie was ultimately going to live or die on whether you believed in Kong. The biggest concern that I had in terms of the film completely failing was if Kong wasn’t believable. It was a difficult thing to pull off; it was much more difficult than Gollum. Gollum talked the whole time and so much of his character was presented in his dialogue. Yet Kong is completely mute. He’s got so much screen time and so many close-ups so we deliberately reigned in him and didn’t want him to express much.
DRE: How was working with Naomi Watts?
Jackson: Naomi was our first and only choice for the role. We responded to her because she’s such an honest actor. She makes her roles as real as possible. If she’s shedding tears in a scene, it’s because she’s thinking of something that makes her cry. I don’t know how she does it, but she’s utterly believable which for this role was essential.
Naomi was also hugely helped by Andy Serkis. People think of Andy as the guy who does motion capture for Kong, which he does. He’s in a suit, and he acts out the role and we did all the motion capture of the character with Andy and that was put into animation and then into performance. But one of Andy’s greatest contributions was always being on set with the actors during Kong’s scenes. He wasn’t even filmed. Andy was there for the other actors. Every close-up of Naomi when she’s looking at Kong, she’s actually looking at Andy. Andy was acting his heart out as Kong. I think that was hugely beneficial. That was the beginning of the character that would be taken to the motion capture and then to the animation and finally to the film.
DRE: My favorite scene in King Kong is the one where Kong and Ann Darrow are sliding on the ice in Central Park. Where did the inspiration for that scene come from?
Jackson: The thinking behind that scene is that didn’t want to go straight from Kong escaping from the theater, reuniting with Ann and then go directly to the Empire State Building. We wanted to give them a moment together to fulfill the relationship and the friendship that had started on the island. We just wanted to create a quiet moment for the two of them.
DRE: How long will the extended DVD cut of King Kong be?
Jackson: I’m not quite sure. With the Lord of the Rings situation the extended DVDs were a conclusion. In this case Universal is waiting for the release of the film before they decide what they want to do. The tentative plan is to release the movie as it is in theaters on DVD sometime next year. There’s been talk of an extended cut but we haven’t started working on it yet. If I was putting in some of the other cool scenes we would have about 30 to 40 minutes.
DRE: Are you still doing The Lovely Bones?
Jackson: Yeah.
DRE: Have you thought about who you are going to cast?
Jackson: No. We’re going to have a break first and then work on the script to that.
DRE: Is the horror filmmaker who made Dead Alive and Bad Taste still in you?
Jackson: Oh absolutely. I hope to one day make another low budget horror film. Right now I want to rest and recuperate from the last ten years of filmmaking. Recently I’ve realized that for the last ten years I’ve had just two projects Lord of the Rings and King Kong. We originally tried to make King Kong after The Frighteners and then when that got canned we went into Lord of the Rings and then back into King Kong again. So I’ve had two projects in the past ten years. It’s really an exciting time to rest up and think of new ideas.
Neato. So he is doing Lovely Bones. I thought I heard he wasn't, but I guess I was wrong.
Mark Kermode (legend) interviews Andy Serkis at the london zoo.
http://img-nex.kongisking.net/kong/movies/120805-AndySerkisCulture.mpg
This movie is so good it made my head explode!!!
Except for the racism.
But other than that, I'd say that this film would be more than worth every penny of the most extravanat ticket price.
awesome. some kid at my work saw a screening a week ago and i've been dying a little everyday since obsessing about it.
i think he said the racism was a nod to the originals racism!
Naomi Watts Ascends in 'King Kong'
One is a three-hour, $200 million-plus combination of digital effects, yearlong hype and the largest of monkeys. The other is a frantic $30,000 production depicting an actress desperate for cardboard-thin parts in the B-est of movies.
The films couldn't be more different and neither could Naomi Watts' career from what it was five years ago.
On Friday, Watts hits theaters worldwide with the famed ape in "King Kong." [MacGuffin's note: It's actually on Wedenesday] But her balance between blockbuster siren and indie shape-shifter is epitomized by the semi-autobiographical "Ellie Parker," released a month ago, featuring Watts in the Hollywood hell of a struggling actress.
She explains her contradictions simply: "That's me."
"I don't want to be boxed into any kind of confined space," Watts recently told The Associated Press.
Peter Jackson's remake of the original 1933 "King Kong" is ratcheting the 37-year-old actress to the top of fame's skyscraper. Since David Lynch famously picked her out of a pile of head shots for 2001's "Mulholland Dr.," Watts has filled her years with critically acclaimed performances, including "Le Divorce," "The Ring" movies and 2003's "21 Grams," for which she received an Oscar nomination.
"People keep thinking I'm this dark, serious person because the work I do is like that," she says. "Yes, the work I'm interested in does tend to be dark in nature, but it doesn't mean that that's who I am."
The blonde, blue-eyed Watts is a carefree force who, while frequently found in the pages of glamour magazines, appears more herself barefoot and a bit ruffled. Her 10 years of struggle remain more familiar than her current success, of which she says, "I'm still working it out."
She was born in England and moved to Australia at age 14. Watts and her mother (her parents separated when she was four and her father, a sound engineer for Pink Floyd, died three years later) moved around frequently, which meant having to repeatedly fit in. She would change her accent accordingly and says the transitions bred her acting ability.
If anything, her penchant for dramatic, emotional shifts in character has become her trademark. She plays essentially two roles in the dream/reality realms of "Mulholland Dr.," fluctuates from grieving widow to drugged-out avenger in "21 Grams," and literally changes persona while driving from one audition to another in "Ellie Parker."
"We do make such dramatic shifts we're capable of anything," she says. "You can't just say this is who I am and I'd never do that. It's like, I could say I'm not a murderer, but if someone touched my (hypothetical) child, I could believe wanting to kill.
"I like that behavior can be so unpredictable."
Scott Coffey, who directed Watts in "Ellie Parker," has been friends with her for years, beginning when they both lived in what he calls "non-ending, perpetual L.A. purgatory."
"I think what people really respond to is there's a deep, deep pain to her work and she's really willing to examine that," Coffey says, adding that Watts openly explores herself in each character, "as opposed to hiding behind the facades of the roles."
Before shooting "King Kong" in New Zealand, Watts and Jackson traveled to New York to visit the original damsel in distress Fay Wray. Wray, who died last year at age 96, was Ann Darrow in the first "King Kong."
Watts recounts: "At the end of the night, we dropped her off, and she said (whispering), `Ann Darrow is in good hands.'"
Of course, the good hands holding Ann Darrow belong, on screen, to Kong. The movie has always been essentially a love story, and making that connection with a computer-generated gorilla was Watts' greatest challenge.
She credits this part of her performance largely to Andy Serkis, who played the digitally created Gollum in "Lord of the Rings." He again used motion capture technology to parlay his physical performance into the gorilla's much larger computer generated image.
Serkis says that Watts "isn't someone who would want to generalize a few expressions to the camera."
"Considering that there were technical shenanigans all around us," he says, "it felt like a pretty normal on-screen relationship two actors just acting opposite each other."
"I was able to go with this absurd fantasy," says Watts. "I was able to fall in love with this creature and believe he was a ferocious, savage beast as well."
Watts, who recently finished filming "The Painted Veil" with Edward Norton in China, isn't currently attached to an upcoming production for the first time in years. She'll now get a chance to actually live in the L.A. house she bought a year ago that is, when she's not in New York visiting her boyfriend, Liev Schrieber (who co-stars in "The Painted Veil).
Older than the normal ascendant actress, she's already fielding the inevitable questions on the short life span of a leading lady. But she thinks those limitations are changing, and is looking forward to playing characters who have experienced more life: children, marriage, divorce.
One feels as though Watts is in the midst of a deep breath before her life takes some new, post-Kong direction.
"I'm off the map right now," she says of her career plans. "I need to get a different flight path, and that's all I'm thinking about."
Few spoils.
Just saw this yesterday. Expectations were reasonably high, mostly because of GBs praise, and it's overwhealmingly positive press here in Norway. Of course it didn't live up. Basically; I wanted and expected to cry some, but couldn't.
The biggest disappointment for me was too few scenes between Kong and Ann, but I've realised over night how great/ fantastic the ones they did have, were. So the movie has already grown on me, but my other major gripe with it still stands; it's unnecessarily long. Whilst they could've expanded the Kong/ Ann scenes, they chose to focus on them going and to and fro the boat, and too many overlong set pieces. They were creative - especially the visuals of the tumbling dinosaurs (whose bodies floating in and out of and filling the screen actually reminded me of the walking-with-the-cross shot in Last Temptation were Scorsese pays homage to the painting) and the sound design of the spider pit - but all went on way too long. Breathtaking to the point of choking.
The CGI is of course as good as it gets. Kong looks overlit like the trailer in a lot of full-body shots, but some of the close-ups are perfect. He also interracts really well with the surroundings. The best part of the film as how they really made him an animal. With Kong being the star, and having him react a lot to Ann, a lot of the emotions and reactions could have been made with a "human" touch. Not so; his first posivite reactions to Ann's vaudeville antics perfectly capture, with the whole of Kong's body, the reactions of an amused and surprised animal, as opposed to a cute smile. Not that he isn't cute, though. As expected their relationship made the film for me, though I left feeling it wasn't quite enough. But thinking back on that note-for-note perfect scene mentioned above, really makes me giddy for another go.
Oh, and the Skull Island name intro was awesome, as well as all the other cool PJ idiosyncracies that shows he remembers his roots amid all the epic-ness.
what a great film experience.
i'm glad i'm one of the people to see it first. :shock:
forget what i said about the special effects. screw trailers. the real thing REDEEMS 2005.
packed house, biggest screen in brisbane, only thing that sucked is the music was faulty at my screening, is it sposed to sound like all the instruments are out of tune?
personal reaction that really doesn't mean anything to anybody else
i wanted to see it again as soon as the credits rolled. there can only be two real complaints about the movie, both minor when compared to the million great things. and those two things are as such: not enuff naomi watts, and getting to the island feels like it takes a while. a lot of watts shots consist of her looking wide-eyed in awe, or with that adorable dormant face she has where she exposes her buck teef a little through her slightly open mouf. she doesn't have much dialogue, in fact if it weren't for the pre-island first part we wouldn't know anything about her. so the two complaints cancel each other out, those aren't my complaints but they are the only two i would accept.. and then debunk. EDIT: exactly the two things Withnail complained about!
the special effects were astounding. to the extent that it's incredibly easy to become immersed in the reality of the entire world PJ creates. even when things look overlit, the whole picture is stylized to compensate, so it's not really a problem. the detail in kong's face alone is worth price of admission. and the dinosaur chase! my god, you people. every single scene with kong is stolen by him, and the movie is better for it. his movement, persona, and precious interaction with watts is simply unforgettable. this is the definitive kong film. which brings me to..
analysis of what peter jackson has done
the doubters had it all wrong, this movie is COMPLETELY NECESSARY. it isn't a frivolous effort that simply indulges PJ's childhood fantasies (tho there may very well be an element of the latter), it's legitimate, premium entertainment. and much moreso. this deserves the praise Lord of the Rings got, but only this time ppl can actually mean it. watching the big ape, the girl sitting next to me repeatedly stated "oh he's so cute!", and she was better looking than Ann Darrow so she would know :ponder:.
i don't know yet the significance of what PJ has done. he's refined the story to reflect the essence of kong. and while typically he doesn't hammer any "heavy" ideas in his films (LotR notwithstanding), there's no denying that he has destroyed the original and all subsequent precursors with his awesome tour de force. at one point it feels like he's commenting on this very fact.
winner
kong's fall.
That makes me excited to see it more than any other review or recommendation I've come across.
I have minor complaints as well (one action set piece in particular might have been removed, the dialogue was hammy here and there), but my god, those thigns disentigrate under the power of Kong. Peter Jackson knew who's movie this was and the result was breathtaking.
Spoiler
Yeah, Kong's fall gave me fucking chills. CHILLS.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 14, 2005, 12:53:33 PM
That makes me excited to see it more than any other review or recommendation I've come across.
Ditto.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 14, 2005, 12:10:37 PM
winner
kong's fall.
THANKS FOR THE SPOILER WARNING P!!! :yabbse-wink:
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 14, 2005, 12:53:33 PM
That makes me excited to see it more than any other review or recommendation I've come across.
yeah, the REDEEMS 2005 bit was emotional. can't wait for friday 10:00am. i'm watching it with a buddy of mine who's the perfect blockbuster companion.
I think its the first time I see Pubrick talk positive about ANYTHING (not only movies). So this has to be damn incredible... I have to try and go tonight.
awesome, awesome movie. i saw it with my brother who loves these kinds of movies, but it was so annoying sitting next to him.
During the fight scene with the dinosaurs: "This is gonna be up for best fight scene at all the award shows."
The movie has just ended: "We should stay through the credits." "Why," I ask. "Knowing Peter Jackson they'll probably come back at the end and show another Kong being born for a sequel." Me: "No." "That'd be sick though."
I thought it was a little too long, but it's one of the best of the year. I certainly didn't love it as much as Pubrick, but it was excellent. Good fun.
I can't praise it as much as P, but it was really good.
I think the only REAL complaint is that it took too long to get to the island. I think we could have watched then entire original movie before they even GET to the island.... but once they get there, FUCK!
SPOILERS
and the fall, I really thought I wouldn't cry, but my eyes welled up a little.
Kong is really amazing... I had no doubt that there was a giant ape there. No doubt at all.
Did anyone else catch the Sumatran Rat Monkey? There were a bunch of inside jokes here...mostly about the original Kong.
Minor spoilers
The first time we see Naomi Watts doing her dance routine in front of Kong, I knew I was watching something special. This is an exceptional movie. Really the only complaint I have is that I wanted more scenes with Naomi and Kong.
The pre-journey scenes are terrific, particularly Jack Black's entrance. I loved the New York scenery and the way Jackson opens the film like a cliched period piece.
The voyage may seem too long, but I think it's necessary. The longer it takes to get to the island, the more mysterious and isolated the place feels when they arrive.
I don't feel I need to say anything about how incredible Kong was because P already has. It feels like your watching a real ape, its really remarkable.
Quote from: Pubrickhis movement, persona, and precious interaction with watts is simply unforgettable.
Indeed.
Quote from: RegularKarateand the fall, I really thought I wouldn't cry, but my eyes welled up a little
Yeah me too. I want to see this movie again right now!
yeah it was pretty great. the biggest problem being that it was a remake. but i'll tell you, keep an eye on this Peter Jackson. he's one to watch. A-
Quote from: modage on December 14, 2005, 10:16:03 PMkeep an eye on this Peter Jackson. he's one to watch.
I just checked my Hollywood Stock Exchange account for the first time in years and PJACK has gone up 1,004%. JBLAC 182%.
JGYLL 448%.
Quote from: picolas on December 14, 2005, 10:43:35 PM
Quote from: modage on December 14, 2005, 10:16:03 PMkeep an eye on this Peter Jackson. he's one to watch.
I just checked my Hollywood Stock Exchange account for the first time in years and PJACK has gone up 1,004%. JBLAC 182%. JGYLL 448%.
Naomi Watts is up :inlove:%.
Definetly one of the best movies I've seen in a long time... Yes it was long... but entertaining all the way... and kinda knowing the story and knowing where its heading makes it good because you are waiting to see "I wonder how he did that scene" and keeps you very much into the story.
The whole special effects for the insects, dinasours, everything was unbelievable... especially the whole Island... and I loved how cool NY looked in general...
Very emotional and very well done... Naomi Watts was great and beautiful
I almost get my ass kicked cause at the very beginning I knocked down my giant popcorn, in the process knocked down my giant coke, and the person sitting infront of me was pissed... but didnt stop me or him from enjoying the great 3 hours of movie!
i loved it, but i don't think i would have half as much without having a pretty through background knowledge of the original.
i thought it was a great tribute to the original, having juuust enough of its own identity. high marks.
Quote from: andyk on December 14, 2005, 10:56:27 PM
I almost get my ass kicked cause at the very beginning I knocked down my giant popcorn, in the process knocked down my giant coke, and the person sitting infront of me was pissed... but didnt stop me or him from enjoying the great 3 hours of movie!
It's finally happening. You are becoming your avatar.
OMG KING KONG. Wow, I really liked this movie when it was 100 mins long, Black and White and made in 1933.
I just don't know what everyone is so excited about. First, I'll get out of the way the things I liked. New York City looks great. Kong looks great, especially the close ups. The one on one fight with the T Rex is pretty cool.
Umm, now for the rest. This movie is entirely too long. The first hour of waiting to get to the Island is dumb. It is like a disabled version of Titanic. I just didn't care. The tweaked storylines makes Ann less likeable and changes Driscoll from Blue Collar to a playwright. Also, nearly every scene goes on too long. The action set pieces go too long until they get ridiculous (SPOILERS: ..like the Brontasaursus roling down the hill...or.....three tRexes....). Whenever a tender moment looks like it could be done well, it goes on too long and becomes painfully cheesy (the ice scene?). Also, Jack Black was really great at being Jack Black. I'm also glad that Jackson decided to reunite the Orange County cast together. As for the non-Kong CGI, I was far from impressed. Too many CGI beasts for my tastes. The Jurassic Park dinosaurs looked better (and that was over 10 years ago). Finally, the minor characters just added length, not depth to the film.
I know everyone here already loves it, and I might be the only one who didn't like it, but sorry, I just never really felt moved or excited. I hope Peter Jackson continues to play it safe. After adapting some of the most beloved books in the world, he went on to remake a classic. Maybe in a few years he can grace us with Peter Jackson's Jaws.
Spoilers, I guess.
I can't understand all the praise for all the new romantic plot between Kong and Ann. In the original Ann was both scared AND drawn to Kong. This one plays out like something out of Jerry Maguire (especially the ice skating scene). And no, that isn't a slam on Jerry Maguire.
Almost everything good about this film was directly lifted from the original, with the exception of the creepy crawly cave things, although there was originally a cut scene from the original where giant spiders attacked the men after the log scene, but was cut out because it was too gruesome. Come to think of it, they look a lot like the brain suckers from Starship Troopers.
Not a bad movie, but far from a great one. Way too bloated. It seems that Jackson took all the fat he lost and packed in onto his movie. I suppose I give him an A for effort, but sometimes less is more. Like, an hour less. And two T-Rex's less. C+
man, i LOVE it.
this is amazing and intense and incredibly beautiful, and certainly the best movie this year by a zillion.
the scenes shaftr described as being ridiculous, "...like the Brontasaursus roling down the hill...or.....three t-Rexes...," boy get off the crack pipe. the rolling dinos were breathtaking -- it didn't seem like it was ever going to stop, and not in the sense of tedium, but in the sense of absolute chaos whose end cannot be predicted, and so when you think it's going to stop, it gets worse.
the three t-rexes were astonishing. PJ took that fight scene to a higher, more electrifying level than i'd ever imagined it could be. and please, how can you deny the power of that final, painful jaw-snap?
i had a strong emotional response to this movie. there are five specific instances worth mentioning:
i can't stop thinking about the scene when Kong turns away from Darrow after the t-rex battle and starts moving away until Darrow calls out "wait!" and he turns around to pull her up onto his shoulder.. i think it might be my favorite scene in the movie. those eyes.. this is CGI at a frighteningly powerful peak, where the expression conveyed in the eyes of a CGi beast can strike such a powerful chord.
i didn't cry when me own father was hung for stealing a pig, but at the end of Kong, i was shooook. this is where the awesome preceding 2/3rds are elevated into something truly powerful and beautiful.
the Broadway show is heartbreaking - especially enraging when they show the audience members knee-slappin' away..(also, note the strong resemblance between the stage Natives and the Natives from the original film.)
the scene where Kong and Darrow slide across the ice. fuck that Jerry Maguire comparison. the scene epitomizes the gentle aspect of Kong so beautifully, with such tenderness. and then, there's the Empire State Building.
Kong and Darrow at the top of the Empire State together, against that gorgeous sky. the audience knows what's coming. the beast ascends, and pounds his mighty chest, roaring what just might be his last roar. Darrow's eyes are filled with fright, struck with horror as this graceful giant inches closer to his death.. and then it happens. the beast falls. the man at the end echoes what the more cynical audience members are probably thinking: who cares, it was just a dumb animal, a savage monster! like frankenstein's creation, mistreated by so-called 'civilized' people while just seeking companionship -- against all odds.
All Hail Peter Jackson for making the best film of 2005.
Quote from: Hedwig on December 03, 2005, 12:28:45 PMand no, i'm not jane goodall.
oh good. this was starting to be a downer page, but you picked it back up.
and good simpsons reference you worked in.
Quote from: Hedwig on December 15, 2005, 01:37:10 AM
i didn't cry when me own father was hung for stealing a pig, but at the end of Kong, i was shooook.
Quote from: Hedwig on December 03, 2005, 12:28:45 PMand no, i'm not jane goodall.
is that the simpsons reference? because i was about to praise hedwig for having written the funniest thing i've ever read on xixax.
yeah. that's a simpsons reference. i don't know about the jane goodall part. i think that's just something he said before and he quoted himself. but the crying thing, yes.
Im surprised. Made a little less than 10 million on the openning day. Very far from any record (like Star Wars 50 Million), so lets see what happens... maybe not so many people were into seeing this right away, and it will pick up afterwords because of the good reviews and the fact that it will get many nominations (I guess it should).
Quote from: andyk on December 15, 2005, 08:38:15 PM
Im surprised. Made a little less than 10 million on the openning day. Very far from any record (like Star Wars 50 Million), so lets see what happens... maybe not so many people were into seeing this right away, and it will pick up afterwords because of the good reviews and the fact that it will get many nominations (I guess it should).
I'm not sure. I went on Wed at 7:30 and the theatre was only half full. There was a reaction to the bug scene, but the theatre was pretty silent the rest of the way. Also, I noticed a lot of cell phone light with people checking the time. When it was over, it was quiet in the lobby, not much buzz.
It was a really good experience. The movie was okay.
I can't wait to see what Peter Jackson does next, this guy has a lot of talent.
A film like this is easy to respect for its ambition, but I saw this last night and it was just too overdrawn. It needed a few more passes to clean up special effects and get a better hold on tone and pacing. "Big and hairy" is a great way to describe this film.
It was good and all. I still don't understand why a King Kong movie has to 3 hours. Would anyone want to watch a 3 hour movie about the Valley? Umm wait. It's my belief that since the uber success of Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson has gotten a little bit more sloppy and self-indulgent in his fimmaking. FoTR has little to no fat, TTT has a little bit of fat and some uneven pacing due to taking stuff out and adding it to the other films, RoTK is filled to the brim with LOTR joygasms and not in a good way. All of this leading up to KONG. I'm all for PJ making his passion project, but why treat it any differently. Cut an hour out of this movie (and polish ALL of the non-Kong effects) and it's great.
A Great Great Movie. Just Loved it. Everything about it exceptional and Jack black playing Carl was fantastic.
As I said before... Box Office is NOT looking good for this one...
9 million Wed, 6 million Thursday, and only 15 million yesterday... which means it wont be even close to 100 million for the 5 day openning. Far from any LotR, or Harry Potter, or any comparable blockbuster... considering this was the most hyped movie of the year and it cost over 200 million to make... Studio is going to be pissed!
And the Box Office is ending the year with a 6-8% decline from last year... which is gonna make these fuckers realize something is wrong...
Quote from: andyk on December 17, 2005, 03:46:10 PM
... which is gonna make these fuckers realize something is wrong...
yeah that movies should stop being overhyped, it makes ppl sick of em. i don't get why everywhere Kong was spoken of they kept saying "this thing is going to be bigger than titanic" who the fuck knows how it's gonna do? but letterman kept saying it, everyone kept saying it, was it a press release or sumthing? yeah it's crap like that which backfires when ppl are told they're all gonna see it, everyone must feel like they don't need to see it since it's such a sure thing.
There is nothing not to love about this movie. Bottom line: any serious gripes with the length can be chalked up to short attention span. The last time I remember sitting open-mouthed and amazed at what I was seeing was the first time I saw Crouching Tiger. Everything I hoped it would be.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 17, 2005, 09:43:35 PM
Bottom line: any serious gripes with the length can be chalked up to short attention span.
That's not even the middle line man. Unless you think 'well paced' means 'the action scenes come often enough.' Unless by 'well developed characters' you mean 'the characters, well, they're developed.'
There was a day, back in the day, in which movies were built around characters and not the other way around. Jackson, in his faithfulness to original, left little room for compelling writing as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't bored in the beginning, I was drunk, but I wouldn't think less of someone who was bored. Then again, I wouldn't think less of who was involved emotionally.
I think the difference between someone who loves this movie and someone who thinks this movie is okay is what you're asking from the movie. It seems like people who love the movie wanted a well made movie with good acting and a good script. The people who liked this movie, they perhaps interpretated 'go someplace I haven't been before' not as a revamped Skull Island and a girl who still steals apples but this time understands the ape, but as can we stop making fucking movies about archetypal people.
It was a glitzy Hollywood-style movie through and through. I can understand why people love it, and I can understand why people don't love it. There wasn't a lot of meat to it.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on December 17, 2005, 10:05:50 PM
they perhaps interpretated
you're making up words again..
and i guess it's time to defend this beautiful thing.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 14, 2005, 12:10:37 PM
there can only be two real complaints about the movie, ... : not enuff naomi watts, and getting to the island feels like it takes a while.
Quote from: RegularKarate on December 14, 2005, 06:41:58 PM
I think the only REAL complaint is that it took too long to get to the island.
Quote from: brockly on December 14, 2005, 08:15:50 PM
Really the only complaint I have is that I wanted more scenes with Naomi and Kong.
and these were from positive reviews. i think the negative ones are like hacksparrow said, suffering from short attention spans. the beginning is long but once at the island and onwards, it goes by in a second. but that's all subjective perception of time isn't it? so it's meaningless. i also think the backlash is partly retaliation at the huge spectacle of the whole thing, including what i mentioned on the previous page about the overhype.
i agree with LTH about ppl going in there with expectations, but that's just like any other movie. i DON'T believe anyone who says the original is better. come on, watch it again, there was NO emotional involvement except our own compassion for king kong. which explains why PJ loved it so much when he was a child, we all would've, kids love things. ebert said something great about that, and pardon the quote as i know some of you don't like the guy, he's right about this: "Yes, Kong in 1933 cares for his captive, but she doesn't care so much for him. Kong was always misunderstood, but in the 2005 film, there is someone who knows it."
Quote from: ddmarfield on December 15, 2005, 12:04:18 AM
I can't understand all the praise for all the new romantic plot between Kong and Ann. In the original Ann was both scared AND drawn to Kong.
uh no she wasn't. in the original she was just scared, she was happy when they rescued her at the end, she was happy to see kong die. remember the classic shot where kong pulls her out of the building? she was HIDING from him.
i think this change, the immense beauty of the production, and yes the new depth in characterization (as far as characters can be developed when the focus of the movie is a giant ape), is what makes this the ultimate telling of the classic tale. it's all kong could ever be. if u don't like it, u don't like the king kong story.
i didn't expect this movie to do well. everybody i talked to didn't wanna see it. a 30 foot gorilla no longer sounds cool. it's sounds corny and cliched. people don't want corny action movies. they want cornyindependent movies. i'm not saying this movie is corny, but that's what a lot of the general public thought it looked like.
this movie will do all righ though. it will grow by word because it really is a great movie. it will make money back. theres no real big releases coming up.
my main gripe with the movie was not how long it took to get to the island. i think the movie is paced great until toward the end of the island sequence. the dinosaur fight was a little long in my opinion. i think they could have cut about 20 minutes out of the second act. then toward the end i thought there were too many scenes where ann and kong look at each other. they juts felt redudant. all were great when looking at them by themselves, but it did not work with the overall pacing of the movie.
:onfire: i said god damn this was BADASS!
favorite scene: ann doing her comedy act trying to make kong laugh, and he yawns! HAHAHAHAH.
how can you not love this? how?
i know i'm going to sound cheesy and naive and fanboyish in saying this, but isn't it amazing what we can do now in cinema? did you see, i mean, really see some of those shots? manhattan skyline, empire state, times square, the fucking dinosaur sequence-- JAW-DROPPING my friends! and KONG! his face! p is right-- it's worth the price of admission. kong and ann scenes were sooo wonderful it blows my mind.
my only beef (and it's a minor, thinly sliced piece of salami kinda beef) was with the whole Jimmy reading heart of darkness schtick and then his relationship with the black guy. those few exchanges of dialogue btwn the two of them elicited many a laugh in my theater. wtf was the point? anyway, i soon forgave and forgot once we got to the island.
PJ needs to take a nap and eat something for fuck's sake. he deserves it.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 17, 2005, 10:40:15 PM
i also think the backlash is partly retaliation at the huge spectacle of the whole thing, including what i mentioned on the previous page about the overhype.
also, peter travers said: I've heard gripes from jolt junkies about the hour it takes for the tall, dark and nontraditionally handsome leading man to make his entrance. Jeez, people, that's what they call building a rooting interest in the characters.
I just saw it again (My wife wanted to see it) and I still feel that the beginning is too long. Not because I'm in desperate need of fast-paced action, but because it feels awkward. The score for the first third sucks and sounds completely forced as does the humor and pacing.
Everything after that is fantastic... and C-Brad, I think the Jimmy scenes were supposed to be kind of tongue and cheek. at least a little.
SPOILER
This time I watched Kong's eyes right as he dies (right before the fall) and his PUPILS DIALATE!!! That's just fucking amazing. Loks so real.
I'd rebut what I think Losing The Horse is trying to say but Pubrick already covered it.
Quote from: RegularKarate on December 18, 2005, 01:41:33 AM
The score for the first third sucks
There were portions through the whole film where I thought to myself, "Hopefully they realize the rush job it was and fix it up for the DVD release or at least the inevitable extended version." It was the only thing that ever took me out of the film. So I have to slightly amend what I said before.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 17, 2005, 09:43:35 PM
There is nothing not to love about this movie except the score.
I can't help but think that people are ahem 'punch-drunk' with old PJ.
How can you overlook the pacing/secondary character/score/compositing issues? While all of the scenes between Anne and Kong may be pure joy, I find that said issues really hold the film back from being great.
I didn't feel like Pubrick rebutted me (though I do wish he wouldn't make such a concerned effort at pointing out my typing blunders, u know), as much as he agreed with me:
Quote from: Pubrick on December 17, 2005, 10:40:15 PM
it's all kong could ever be. if u don't like it, u don't like the king kong story.
Me:
Quote
It was a glitzy Hollywood-style movie through and through. I can understand why people love it, and I can understand why people don't love it. There wasn't a lot of meat to it.
Yeah. It's all Kong could ever be. And for some of us, plain and simple, much like I connected to Brokeback while it appears many are not, the Kong just isn't our cup. It doesn't particularly have to do with the score or the slow as fuck first act (I think the short attention span theory needs to end, I think most of the people here can sit through long movies with little happening until the end), or any other failed element. The twenty nine eye lights in every characters' eyes, including Kongs, are all there to tell the story about a giant misunderstood ape. Personally I think Raging Bull did that story better, although there wasn't a T. Rex I know.
So there really isn't an aggressive argument coming from me here, I'm just saying I like a different kind of movie.
i might be stretching a little here, but: did anyone else get a little chill when the ship's captain was pointing that harpoon at Kong....for me it just implanted the idea of a Pete Jack version of Moby Dick...like way down the line, after he's made a couple serious movies and MD could be like a throw back toward his more "epic" past...idunno, just throwing that in...
but yeah, this fuckin' rocked...best cinema experience in a long time.... :bravo:
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on December 18, 2005, 04:29:03 AM
I didn't feel like Pubrick rebutted me
the only part of my post directed at u was about the made up word. so yeah, no gripes here either. tho for the record your original post didn't make clear that you were saying the same thing as me, i think kong is more than pure hollywood-glitz. at the very least it's the best the "genre" offer, if that's how u wanna think about it. my main target was anyone who thinks the original is better, they're kidding themselves.
Quote from: killafilm on December 18, 2005, 04:05:08 AM
I can't help but think that people are ahem 'punch-drunk' with old PJ.
i think both LotR and PDL were wildly overrated, if that makes any difference to you. :yabbse-huh:
Quote from: killafilm on December 18, 2005, 04:05:08 AM
How can you overlook the
1. pacing/
2. secondary character/
3. score/
4. compositing issues
1. as soon as they get to the island the real movie begins and the pacing is perfect. a vast improvement from the original in which even the island was boring and it took an hour to get to new york where the fun began, finally, in the last 15 minutes.
2. who cares, the story was about kong and darrow. the secondary characters served their purpose, to get the main characters together (or keep them apart as it turns out). i would also say jack black did a great job, the only one lacking is adrien brody.. at first i cared for driscoll and darrow, but it's testament to the film that in the end you'd rather see kong get the girl.. as "sick" as that may sound.
3. it could've used a theme or something, if that's what you mean. otherwise it was a decent score and the sound was fucked up in parts for my screening, so again i have to say it didn't bother me at all.
4. didn't notice anything wrong with the compositing of kong, or the other creatures. the dinosaurs fell with weight, the crazy bugs and sucking things were convincingly buggy. there was a consistent look to the picture, the creatures may have been stylized but so was the whole movie to compensate as i noted in my original review.
Quote from: andyk on December 17, 2005, 03:46:10 PM
As I said before... Box Office is NOT looking good for this one...
9 million Wed, 6 million Thursday, and only 15 million yesterday... which means it wont be even close to 100 million for the 5 day openning. Far from any LotR, or Harry Potter, or any comparable blockbuster... considering this was the most hyped movie of the year and it cost over 200 million to make... Studio is going to be pissed!
And the Box Office is ending the year with a 6-8% decline from last year... which is gonna make these fuckers realize something is wrong...
i havent seen it yet...i want to..i think i will love it but..that is wierd that its not doign "like it was suppose to" at the b.o. maybe p is right ..its was overhyped to titanic porportions....i think it has soemthign to do w/ the fact that its 3 hours and its a
remake....if it was soemthign completely new....then that would eb another story..
Quote from: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 06:32:58 AM
Quote from: killafilm on December 18, 2005, 04:05:08 AM
I can't help but think that people are ahem 'punch-drunk' with old PJ.
i think both LotR and PDL were wildly overrated, if that makes any difference to you. :yabbse-huh:
Just being cheesy. Sorry.
Quote from: killafilm on December 18, 2005, 04:05:08 AM
How can you overlook the
1. pacing/
2. secondary character/
3. score/
4. compositing issues
1. as soon as they get to the island the real movie begins and the pacing is perfect. a vast improvement from the original in which even the island was boring and it took an hour to get to new york where the fun began, finally, in the last 15 minutes.
Quote
As soon as the REAL movie begins? I stand by what I said.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 06:32:58 AM
2. who cares, the story was about kong and darrow. the secondary characters served their purpose, to get the main characters together (or keep them apart as it turns out). i would also say jack black did a great job, the only one lacking is adrien brody.. at first i cared for driscoll and darrow, but it's testament to the film that in the end you'd rather see kong get the girl.. as "sick" as that may sound.
It could still have been tightened up. Jimmy went nowhere. The black dude went nowhere. My caring about them/them progressing darrow and driscoll nothing.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 06:32:58 AM
3. it could've used a theme or something, if that's what you mean. otherwise it was a decent score and the sound was fucked up in parts for my screening, so again i have to say it didn't bother me at all.
Yeah, I guess the score was alright.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 06:32:58 AM
4. didn't notice anything wrong with the compositing of kong, or the other creatures. the dinosaurs fell with weight, the crazy bugs and sucking things were convincingly buggy. there was a consistent look to the picture, the creatures may have been stylized but so was the whole movie to compensate as i noted in my original review.
Yeah, the Animation is good. But all of the elements do not come together. The backgrounds + CGI elements do not always match up with the live action. Maybe I just wish that Weta and all VSX companies would have improved upon that matter by now. I mean it's not really any better than TTT and Ents. This issue might just be nit-picking by myself, but it's possible that something is wrong with the movie if I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief and just accept everything as is.
I want to point out that I watched the original immediately before I saw the new one. So, I know that I'm not exagerating how good it is, or using nostaliga in my defense.
Quote from: SHAFTR on December 18, 2005, 10:58:21 PM
I want to point out that I watched the original immediately before I saw the new one.
so did i.
who to believe..
this was fun. it was almost more like being on a ride than watching a movie.
-some spoilers
the only part of the cgi that bugged me was the brontosarus stampede scene. some of it looked really akward and almost as cheesy as the 1933 version.
but i did love the tiny scene where darrow is about to step onto the boat and there is a really slow, overly dramatic shot of her foot stepping forward while the music hangs and then she steps and the music explodes and it was like jackson was saying "you know what comes next, and i know you know what comes next, but watch this."
i also enjoyed that the one part that he copied right out of the original was Kong ripping the T-Rex's jaw open and then playing with it.
There are movies I see that return me to a sense of wonder I thought lost. Not only with the world surrounding, but with film as well.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of the Big-Budget Hollywood product. Big Million Dollar Pictures are always lacking something. There was a time before, or so I've come to believe, when Big, Epic Action-Adventure films were intense, exciting and gratifying.
The last being the most important that we've lost. Or so I'd thought.
King Kong, in all honesty, has restored my wonder in film. It is a spectacle, pure and simple. Though it is a very modern production, it has a sense of the spectacular that grew out of Early Cinema.
I was genuinely excited throughout this. It was awe-inspiring; at times just plain inspiring.
I think I have a sense of what Jackson felt once when first seeing the original as a child.
There is a chunk in the middle that is the most intense that I've felt in a while. And I feel this is, easily, one of the best films I've seen in a while. The action hardly rests; it brings you just to the point of exhaustion but makes every second exhilerating.
And his eyes.
There are some problems. The delivery of certain lines bothered me, and lines in general rubbed me the wrong way. And if he (Peter Jackson) had to end with a very telling line, I wish he would've chosen to leave, at least, a little up to the viewer. Why not just have said:
"It wasn't the planes that killed him......"
But, I think with such a grand story, and having everything else done beautifully, I think he can afford these weaker moments without hurting the overall film.
So, no, it's not perfect, but it's close enough.
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 11:51:15 AM
And if he (Peter Jackson) had to end with a very telling line, I wish he would've chosen to leave, at least, a little up to the viewer. Why not just have said:
"It wasn't the planes that killed him......"
he ended the movie on the same line as the original.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 19, 2005, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 11:51:15 AM
And if he (Peter Jackson) had to end with a very telling line, I wish he would've chosen to leave, at least, a little up to the viewer. Why not just have said:
"It wasn't the planes that killed him......"
he ended the movie on the same line as the original.
He couldn't've remade one more line? :(
I liked it. thought it was fun but unneccessary. Been a long time since i saw the original but it seems to me that the first one was made with imagination...and this was made with money. Too much money.
Good: close-ups on Kong; Naomi Watts; Adrien Brody; 3 hours that felt like 2
Bad: Hulk-with-hair action shots of Kong; all other CGI beasties
Winner: Andy Serkis (as Lumpy the cook)
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on December 19, 2005, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 11:51:15 AM
And if he (Peter Jackson) had to end with a very telling line, I wish he would've chosen to leave, at least, a little up to the viewer. Why not just have said:
"It wasn't the planes that killed him......"
he ended the movie on the same line as the original.
He couldn't've remade one more line? :(
That line works in the original because the director just keeps talking about wanting to make a beauty/beast movie. In the remake, that is never talked about so that final line comes off as awkward.
Quote from: metroshane on December 19, 2005, 04:52:05 PM
I liked it. thought it was fun but unneccessary.
If you liked it and thought it was fun then it wasn't unneccessary.
Quote from: SHAFTR on December 20, 2005, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 12:37:27 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on December 19, 2005, 11:56:30 AM
Quote from: rené on December 19, 2005, 11:51:15 AM
And if he (Peter Jackson) had to end with a very telling line, I wish he would've chosen to leave, at least, a little up to the viewer. Why not just have said:
"It wasn't the planes that killed him......"
he ended the movie on the same line as the original.
He couldn't've remade one more line? :(
That line works in the original because the director just keeps talking about wanting to make a beauty/beast movie. In the remake, that is never talked about so that final line comes off as awkward.
That line is also THE signature line from the original. It works just fine in the remake because there are already so many specific nods to the original film throughout (set in the year of the original's release, the Fay Wray reference, using the original's dialogue as the dialogue in Denham's film, etc.), that to not have it there would be jarring. Besides, there's no better note on which to end the film.
It would be like a remake of The Wizard of Oz not ending with "There's no place like home," or a Gone With the Wind remake not ending on "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
It's so odd that remakes of films and adaptations of books are regarded so differently when it's the same thing. If Kong were based on a novel with that as the last line, this would never have been an issue.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 20, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
That line is also THE signature line from the original. It works just fine in the remake because there are already so many specific nods to the original film throughout (set in the year of the original's release, the Fay Wray reference, using the original's dialogue as the dialogue in Denham's film, etc.), that to not have it there would be jarring. Besides, there's no better note on which to end the film.
It would be like a remake of The Wizard of Oz not ending with "There's no place like home," or a Gone With the Wind remake not ending on "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
It's so odd that remakes of films and adaptations of books are regarded so differently when it's the same thing. If Kong were based on a novel with that as the last line, this would never have been an issue.
Would've for me.
The line's awkward, no matter the source.
I liked this film alot.
A few things rubbed me the wrong way.
I hated the line "But you're all I've got!" in the way beginning.
The whole Hayes/Jimmy relationship was completely unnecessary and produced the films worst, most cliched moments.
But other than that I quite liked it. The CGI was amazing, which I never say about CGI... So yeah... Good job... Job well done and so on... yeah...
QuoteIf you liked it and thought it was fun then it wasn't unneccessary.
Sure it was. I could have gotten the same entertainment from the first one. Kind of like hearing someone play a cover song well.
I enjoyed the human characters most of all and the first third of the movie is my favorite part, despite cheesy moments. What rubbed me the wrong way was how fleshed out everything was (the creatures, the island). My mind didn't have to do any work because PJ presented everything and more. Visiting the ruins was exciting, because I was anticipating things offscreen. After Kong shows up, it becomes less about show and more about tell.
Quote from: metroshane on December 21, 2005, 10:46:29 AM
QuoteIf you liked it and thought it was fun then it wasn't unnecessary.
Sure it was. I could have gotten the same entertainment from the first one. Kind of like hearing someone play a cover song well.
And hearing their take on that song which
is necessary if it's entertaining, if it amused you. I was interested in seeing Psycho because I wanted to see what Van Sant did with it. I personally was not entertained because there was really nothing new going on there. Much like when a band covers a song exactly the same - booooring. And come on, you won't get the same entertainment from the first Kong, I don't care what you say, I've seen it and it's not that great. I'm going to see the new version today because I want to see the better job that PJ did with that story.
I found about 45min-1 hour of this movie entertaining. Perhaps I would've been more excited if i had seen the original but i haven't. I don't want to write too much about this movie because I left the theatre hating it, then woke up this morning thinking maybe it wasn't so bad. So i've gotta give it some time i guess.
Spoilers...
Good stuff: The action on the island (minus the fact that once they had dealt with one obstacle on the island it was never seen again), Kongs eyes, Naomi
Bad Stuff: Bad post slo-mo stuff, anything with Jimmy, Adrien Brody watching his own play and hearing his own voiceover again, the ice skating scene.
Quote from: Tictacbk on December 21, 2005, 04:29:18 PM
Spoilers...
Bad Stuff: the ice skating scene.
I liked that. Knowing how it's gonna end makes that scene heartbreaking.
Well, I liked the movie quite a bit. I didn't think the beginning was too slow or awkward... I think some people were just too anxious to get to Kong, but I don't think Kong fit into the story until he came in.
Some scenes were too long (the ship crashing, some of the dinosaur fighting stuff, some of the native stuff), and the Jimmy story wasn't all that interesting. But when it scores, it scores. So, overall... B+.
Quote from: meatball on December 21, 2005, 02:28:22 PM
What rubbed me the wrong way was how fleshed out everything was (the creatures, the island). My mind didn't have to do any work because PJ presented everything and more.
what the fuck? your complaining cos the effects and production design were too good? cos the story was too well developed?
and to the other stuff ppl are saying.. who deems something as too long? as i already said it's your own subjective perception of time, so that argument is meaningless. secondly, the jimmy scenes, uh that was like 5 minutes out of the whole movie, and then you even admit the rest was good. so in tictacbk's case, how can you leave the movie hating it if u liked some (if not most) of it? jesus it's not Diary of a Black Woman.
if these are the kind of criticisms ppl are making, you're all a bunch of wackjobs.
what's wrong with arguing about the length? how bout if they said the pacing instead, would that change anything for you? cause i certainly had a problem with the pacing, althoughnot as much as most people. and for me, it wasn't the beginning of the movie that had pacing issues. i just thought some of the action scenes ran on too long. that's a valid argument for a movie, i think. sure, time is subjective, but what isn't?
Quote from: Pubrick on December 21, 2005, 08:19:10 PM
Quote from: meatball on December 21, 2005, 02:28:22 PM
What rubbed me the wrong way was how fleshed out everything was (the creatures, the island). My mind didn't have to do any work because PJ presented everything and more.
what the fuck? your complaining cos the effects and production design were too good? cos the story was too well developed?
I'm not complaining, it's fun to soak in amazing visuals and not use my imagination to fill in any blanks. Just enjoying the ride is fun. At some point, I just stopped caring. That's me, though. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
I saw this tonight and I loved it. The only thing stopping me from saying that this is the best movie of the year is that it's a remake. But I know it wouldn't have been as good if it wasn't a remake. The whole thing was just so good, though. And the CGI was just fucking amazing. I wasn't a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings Series, but this just redeemed anything I had against Peter Jackson. I enjoyed the first hour a lot, too, even before they got to the island. I mean, I was really waiting for King Kong to arrive, but I enjoyed watching the first hour. And then the end back in New York just brought it all back. Anyway, I think all I'm saying has been said before, but I thought this was just amazing.
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 21, 2005, 11:06:16 PM
The only thing stopping me from saying that this is the best movie of the year is that it's a remake.
I don't see why that should stop you.
Quote from: Ginger on December 22, 2005, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 21, 2005, 11:06:16 PM
The only thing stopping me from saying that this is the best movie of the year is that it's a remake.
I don't see why that should stop you.
Because I don't like the idea of remakes. In this case, like I said, I think it actually works better as a remake, but I just don't want to say a recycled idea is the best one of the year. Yeah, I've got bad logic, but oh well.
I've always really wanted to like naomi watts 'cause I think she's pretty and she's good in the roles, but she lacks charisma. She's not very good at getting the audience in her head or getting them to fall in love with her.
I'm in love with her. So I must respectfully disagree with your last statement.
Quote from: pete on December 22, 2005, 02:00:41 AM
I've always really wanted to like naomi watts 'cause I think she's pretty and she's good in the roles, but she lacks charisma. She's not very good at getting the audience in her head or getting them to fall in love with her.
I gotta disagree with you on this one. The only actress out there
better at that than Naomi Watts is Jennifer Connelly. And keep in mind that I'm dangerously obsessed with Jennifer Connelly, so for me to put Naomi Watts up at her level is really saying something.
Yeah, ass-to-ass gets 'em every time.
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 22, 2005, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: Ginger on December 22, 2005, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 21, 2005, 11:06:16 PM
The only thing stopping me from saying that this is the best movie of the year is that it's a remake.
I don't see why that should stop you.
Because I don't like the idea of remakes. In this case, like I said, I think it actually works better as a remake, but I just don't want to say a recycled idea is the best one of the year. Yeah, I've got bad logic, but oh well.
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 20, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
If Kong were based on a novel... this would never have been an issue.
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 22, 2005, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 22, 2005, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: Ginger on December 22, 2005, 12:06:00 AM
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 21, 2005, 11:06:16 PM
The only thing stopping me from saying that this is the best movie of the year is that it's a remake.
I don't see why that should stop you.
Because I don't like the idea of remakes. In this case, like I said, I think it actually works better as a remake, but I just don't want to say a recycled idea is the best one of the year. Yeah, I've got bad logic, but oh well.
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 20, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
If Kong were based on a novel... this would never have been an issue.
You know, probably not, but that's because those are two completely different mediums. I think I'm just stating the obvious in this post so I'm going to stop there.
The island scenes went on a bit too long. Its when he goes to New York that things get really emotionally more interesting, though the bond between Kong and Ann is (somewhat) established on the island. I wish we had a little more of that instead of the action scenes. The CG Kong was excellent. Great facial expressions and body language. I didn't fall in love with it, but it was a fun movie.
the first hour was superfluous, the stuff on the island was beyond exhilirating and managed to recreate for me the feeling of watching movies as a really young kid, and the third hour was a whole lotta bullshit minus kong falling. i also think the original is boring as hell and completely dated. part of the original's charm though is that it knows that everything else is an excuse to get to the ape, or that's how i see it, and i kinda wanted this to take it to a step further on that note and be a completely full-on roller coaster ride. i didn't buy into the "beauty and the beast" dynamic at all (although it was funny to see kong laugh while knocking naomi watts down). emotional resonance was nonexistent though the attempt for it was more than obvious... i guess it worked for some? jack black help being himself, and i found that entirely amusing ("YES... iamnowtouchingtheape."). and the three hours definitely felt like three hours.
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 22, 2005, 02:28:57 PM
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 22, 2005, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 20, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
If Kong were based on a novel... this would never have been an issue.
You know, probably not, but that's because those are two completely different mediums. I think I'm just stating the obvious in this post so I'm going to stop there.
Yeah... but no... different mediums with the exact same objective, so what's really the difference? It's distressing that even people who appreciate film generally regard it as a less worthy medium than literature or theatre.
It was flippin' outstanding! All of you who complained about whatever with this movie secretly love it don't you? What's not to enjoy dammit? And I loved the build up to the island. You can't go wrong with establishing some characters. I've got to agree with Pubrick wholeheartedly, I wanted to see it again right away. I can't really put it into words, but after all the intensity and the emotional ending, I wanted to go directly back to the build up.
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 23, 2005, 09:10:40 AM
Quote from: Figure 8 on December 22, 2005, 02:28:57 PM
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 22, 2005, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: lockesparrow on December 20, 2005, 11:49:07 AM
If Kong were based on a novel... this would never have been an issue.
You know, probably not, but that's because those are two completely different mediums. I think I'm just stating the obvious in this post so I'm going to stop there.
Yeah... but no... different mediums with the exact same objective, so what's really the difference? It's distressing that even people who appreciate film generally regard it as a less worthy medium than literature or theatre.
Yeah, but if you're remaking something in the same medium then I think that's a completely different thing than remaking a book into a movie because they work completely different. But I agree with you on that last part, but I think that I have more respect for actors in theater because each show is one shot all in that time, right in front of people, but I'm guessing there's a different thread to say that in.
OK, I saw the film and really a terrible movie. I dont want to make any bones with anyone here. Really just my honest opinion. I won't even serve up a review. I actually expected to like this movie. Advance word was great from you guys and Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith) but this film was torture for me to watch. I just want to make a note to a few of you that people can love movie movies and not like this one.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 23, 2005, 10:56:33 PM
I just want to make a note to a few of you that people can love movie movies and not like this one.
There's this aura of protectiveness going on about the film, both here and at another forum, I noticed. That people like and even love this film doesn't bother me, but those of us who didn't think it was a spectacular film aren't idiots. I didn't absolutely hate it like GT. But it was a flawed but entertaining movie that I probably won't watch again any time soon.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 23, 2005, 10:56:33 PM
... I won't even serve up a review. ... Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith)
no review necessary.
ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.
this movie was fucking perfect. like rene said, it restored my faith in big budget hollywood productions. now, the question begs to be asked, is that a good thing?
this film seems to be very either you loved it a lot or didn't. for me i just liked it. 3/4.
the more i think about it, the one thing that was so stupid was the CSI style slow-mo camera.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 24, 2005, 03:14:53 AM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 23, 2005, 10:56:33 PM
... I won't even serve up a review. ... Hollywood has been making better films of entertainment, (Harry Potter and Mr. and Mrs. Smith)
no review necessary.
ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.
Actually, after I posted I decided later I would review this film. My silence didn't mean I had nothing to say. I just knew my voice would likely anger people. I can imagine a few people do not want to hear why, but I imagine some do.
It doesn't anger me... cause I know you secretly love it.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 24, 2005, 03:14:53 AM
ravi, i hope you don't mean me. i've been arguing points about the movie but i really don't care if someone doesn't like it. i guess it's an acquired taste, a polarizing film like all great works of art.
I don't mean you. I was talking more about this thread (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247438&perpage=30&display=&pagenumber=18) at HTF. As if some just can't understand why anyone wouldn't love the film and others are saying there's no point in criticizing the film because it was the director's vision. Its strange.
I don't even know if anyone's going to read this cuz it's so old. But I'm in the Czech Republic and King Kong just came out about a month ago. I went and saw and I was sadly unimpressed. The graphics were good but with such a lacking storyline, or maybe pacing, the graphics were just cheap thrills. How many more shots are we going to see of Kong beating his chest? How many times and Naomi Watts going to attempt some stupid feat to be with this animal (who, hello, isn't even her species so they couldn't even make babies if they wanted to). I also did not for the Beauty and the Beast crap. What was that last line by Denham? I respect Jack Black as an actor and I think he has a chance maybe at doing some more serious roles, but that line would make anyone look the fool. And then the whole scene with the stampede of dinosaurs. Impossible for two reasons:
1) Dinosaurs are extinct.
2) If some of the dinosaurs in the stampeded themselves didn't survive, how are we supposed to believe that a rag-tag crew could somehow not die. On top of that DIALOGUE!!! How do you have a friggin' conversation in the midsts of crushing prehistoric animals bearing upon your through a canyon. And was it just me, or did the crew grow exponentially during this scene. Suddenly, all these extras are getting stomped but no one you really saw before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I saw some guy in a business suit get smashed by a dinosaur.
And of course, there's all those inconsistency errors with the snow, the grueling three hours, the repetitious of Ann Darrow in Kong's hand as he runs through the forest. Let me tell you my friends, I want my 99 crowns back (roughly $ 4).
Some of what you say is true, yes, but why let that bother you with this type of movie, man? It's just good popcorn fun filled with thought and creativity.
wait, why did you even bother talking sense to this idiot? one of his major problems with the film was that the dinosaur chase is impossible cos dinosaurs are EXTINCT??!! yet he had no logical problem with the movie being based around the existence of a giant fucking ape which he knew full well going into it. "oh shit i thought this was gonna be about the reign of Kong III in 12th century kingdom of Rand McNally."
Crash, unless you're a hot czech chick, or resemble katja kassin in anyway, and your name is not taken from the haggis movie.. consider yourself invalidated for life. a movie like this is clearly beyond your imagination, that bird flu's gone to your brain.
EDIT: nevermind, i just rememberd Crash is the guy with the old marley avatar in love with his buddy jonny.
Quote from: Crash on January 26, 2006, 03:54:41 AM
I don't even know if anyone's going to read this cuz it's so old. But I'm in the Czech Republic and King Kong just came out about a month ago. I went and saw and I was sadly unimpressed. The graphics were good but with such a lacking storyline, or maybe pacing, the graphics were just cheap thrills. How many more shots are we going to see of Kong beating his chest? How many times and Naomi Watts going to attempt some stupid feat to be with this animal (who, hello, isn't even her species so they couldn't even make babies if they wanted to). I also did not for the Beauty and the Beast crap. What was that last line by Denham? I respect Jack Black as an actor and I think he has a chance maybe at doing some more serious roles, but that line would make anyone look the fool. And then the whole scene with the stampede of dinosaurs. Impossible for two reasons:
1) Dinosaurs are extinct.
2) If some of the dinosaurs in the stampeded themselves didn't survive, how are we supposed to believe that a rag-tag crew could somehow not die. On top of that DIALOGUE!!! How do you have a friggin' conversation in the midsts of crushing prehistoric animals bearing upon your through a canyon. And was it just me, or did the crew grow exponentially during this scene. Suddenly, all these extras are getting stomped but no one you really saw before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I saw some guy in a business suit get smashed by a dinosaur.
And of course, there's all those inconsistency errors with the snow, the grueling three hours, the repetitious of Ann Darrow in Kong's hand as he runs through the forest. Let me tell you my friends, I want my 99 crowns back (roughly $ 4).
stop breathing. now.
Well, I can see some of Crash's points.
But Crash, did you ever consider some abstract/existential interpretations? If dinosaurs indeed really are extinct, then the conversation going on underneath the nonexistent beings can be interpreted in a whole lot of ways. Schizophrenia, etc.
If you look at it that way, the scene takes on a certain level of poignancy that wasn't there before.
Quote from: Pubrick on January 31, 2006, 09:54:44 PM
wait, why did you even bother talking sense to this idiot? one of his major problems with the film was that the dinosaur chase is impossible cos dinosaurs are EXTINCT??!! yet he had no logical problem with the movie being based around the existence of a giant fucking ape which he knew full well going into it. "oh shit i thought this was gonna be about the reign of Kong III in 12th century kingdom of Rand McNally."
Crash, unless you're a hot czech chick, or resemble katja kassin in anyway, and your name is not taken from the haggis movie.. consider yourself invalidated for life. a movie like this is clearly beyond your imagination, that bird flu's gone to your brain.
i was rolling when i read this! i am an idiot but only because i try. my apologies. but seriously though...
yes, i was joking about the whole extinct thing (i mean, come on, that's just funny). but really this is me being serious.
the movie was fun to watch, i was entertained and wouldn't really want my money back because i got what i paid for: entertainment.
so i shouldn't complain. i liked the film. BUTT i think the beauty and the beast thing was covered by an ocean of graphics and close ups of Kong and Noami Watt. i saw a nice parallel between kong fighting for the girl and the writer guy (adrien brody) trying to rescue her from a gigantic gorilla. both were attempting an impossible feat but both regarded her only with their "primal instinct". so see, i thought that was nice. and see? i'm not just a yapping wannabe, i have real opinions outside of my lame jokes.
Quote from: Pubrick on January 31, 2006, 09:54:44 PM
EDIT: nevermind, i just rememberd Crash is the guy with the old marley avatar in love with his buddy jonny.
i love you for remembering me. it brings a tear to my eye.
Quote from: Link on February 13, 2006, 06:29:16 AM
Well, I can see some of Crash's points.
But Crash, did you ever consider some abstract/existential interpretations? If dinosaurs indeed really are extinct, then the conversation going on underneath the nonexistent beings can be interpreted in a whole lot of ways. Schizophrenia, etc.
If you look at it that way, the scene takes on a certain level of poignancy that wasn't there before.
you just blew my mind...
levels of parallelism between Barbary apes and prehistoric beings. the notion that ones own pet may have been a savage mantooth, shakes the core of cinema even as far as to re-combobulate our very methods of aspirations towards theatrical formulas.
you cut to the core of me, Link...
you know me...
Sans existential conversations beneath nonexistent beings, I was also disappointed by Kong.
Peter Jackson does exactly was George Lucas has been accused of doing and people praise Petey Boy. King Kong is an exercise in overindulgance. I admire things about the movie, and I realize and recognize what a daunting task it was, but I think it was a failure.
One mistake that was a creative choice that I felt hindered the movie was Jackson's concious decision to not make it totally realistic, to add that "fantasy" element. The element that makes everything glossed over or that defies logic.
I feel that the picture would have been more effective, at least for me personally, to make this as realistic as possible. I know that this issue is kind of a matter of taste, but I wanted to see a movie that convinced me that there's a huge ape on the Empire State Building. But with the use of too many fancy cg camera moves and "digital doubles" that don't look like a double at all, it pulled me out of the film. The Kong vs. V-Rexes fight was okay as it was, but after a while I wish he would get it over with already. The original Kong had Kong going over, beating the snot out of the creatures, all in one take, and walking away. Bam, done. And I found it more exhilirating than swirling cameras and Naomi Watts pasted onto Kong's fist.
I still recommend everyone see it. It's a spectacle, and it's fairly entertaining (though I fell asleep). It's got some good stuff too. Even with my gripes, I liked him up on the ESB, even if it was a tad drug out.
But again, a lot of this can be just a matter of taste.
i really don't intend this to sound like snobbery, but to link and crash: are you familiar with the original?
i think this movie was a really stunning tribute to the original. ... a lot of the dialogue was lifted directly, costuming choices, the joke about RKO, etc. jackson's love for the orginal really came through magnificently. i think that that's what he was trying to do.
Title: King Kong
Released: 28th March 2006
SRP: $29.98 & $30.98
Further Details:
Universal Home Video has sent over artwork for single and double-disc editions of King Kong which stars Jack Black, Naomi Watts and Adrien Brody. Both will be available to own from the 28th March, with the single-disc retailing at around $29.98, and the double-disc setting you back $30.98. Each will carry an anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. I'm afraid Universal has yet to unveil the extra material for either disc - but we'll bring you further details very shortly. As always, make sure you stay tuned. For now though, here's our first look at the official region one package artwork:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fkong1.jpg&hash=64400a6771862c2a0dea5de781c2ca37bf011aaf)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xixax.com%2Fimages%2Fdvd%2Fkong2.jpg&hash=28aeb308de6721c21c25f7446ede4b838e89c097)
weird they went with different artwork than from any of the many previous posters. guess none were 'action packed' enough. atleast it doesnt totally suck. and it looks like universal is going to be getting their money back on this one way or the other, by releasing a super 2 discer now and YOU JUST WAIT cause you know a 3+ disc edition is coming.
Quote from: permanent username on February 13, 2006, 10:29:41 AM
i really don't intend this to sound like snobbery, but to link and crash: are you familiar with the original?
Quote from: Link on February 13, 2006, 07:00:13 AM
The original Kong had Kong going over, beating the snot out of the creatures, all in one take, and walking away. Bam, done. And I found it more exhilirating than swirling cameras and Naomi Watts pasted onto Kong's fist.
Yes, I'm familiar with the original (as well as the first remake), which is actually why I dislike Jackson's version. I'm a fan of homages and tributes as well as one-upmanship, but it felt like Jackson didn't know when to move on, which surprises me, because he did that so well in the Rings trilogy (that is, handled lengthy material he was a fan of).
Someone mentioned early that the post-slow-mo was a bad thing. It's actually a shutter speed effect, and i think it's very self-aware, but it really worked when it was used.
I FINALLY saw this. At the dollar theater. I really liked it. 3 hours felt like 2. Everything everyone said has validity, everything from the most positive to the most negative (except that idiot's dinosaur stuff). This film made me love Kong so much, like P said, you want Watts to have Kong-human love babies. It was very sad. And Kong falling was a lot like Gollum falling, kinda. It's interesting to find auteur evidence in a work dominated by CGI.
Kong Extended Edition Due
The epic remake adds two discs and a deluxe extras slate in Nov.
On November 14, 2006, Universal Studios Home Entertainment will release King Kong (Deluxe Extended Edition) on DVD. The three-disc set will feature an exhaustive collection of bonus materials, including behind-the-scenes footage, deleted scenes and a commentary track by Peter Jackson. It will be available for the MSRP of $34.98, while a special, Limited Edition Gift Set of the film, containing a figurine, will be available for a MSRP of $79.98.
The King Kong (Deluxe Extended Edition) DVD set will feature the following bonus materials:
Disc One
Commentary with Director Peter Jackson & Producer Phillipa Boyens (Part One)
16 Deleted Scenes
Disc Two
Commentary with Director Peter Jackson & Producer Phillipa Boyens (Part Two)
The Eighth Blunder of the World Featurette
The Present Featurette
A Night in Vaudeville Featurette
King Kong Homage
Weta Collectables
Multiple Trailers
Disc Three
The King Kong Archives
Introduction by director Peter Jackson
The Origins of King Kong Documentary
Pre-Production Part 1: The Return of Kong
Pre-Production Part 2: Countdown to Filming
The Venture Journey Featurette
Return to Skull Island Featurette
New York, New Zealand Featurette
Bringing Kong to Life Part 1: Design and Research
Bringing Kong to Life Part 2: Performance and Animation
The 1996 King Kong Video Gallery
The Venture Video Gallery
Skull Island Video Gallery
New York Video Gallery
Kong Video Gallery
Arrival at Skull Island Pre-Viz Animatic
Bronto Stampede Pre-Viz Animatic
T-Rex Fight Pre-Viz Animatic
Kong's Capture Pre-Viz Animatic
Empire State Building Battle Pre-Viz Animatic
Ann Disarms Kong Motion-Capture/Animation Comparison
Kong's Capture Motion-Capture/Animation Comparison
Kong in New York Motion-Capture/Animation Comparison
1996 and 2005 Scripts (DVD-ROM)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdvdmedia.ign.com%2Fdvd%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F719%2F719955%2Fking-kong-2005-deluxe-extended-edition-20060720013942091-000.jpg&hash=78d0c45bd78900cdcd7a85b90cac7529745c9383)
Let the "it was already too long" grumblings begin.