| Hi again, especially big red 760. I wish I had the posting up here where I could remember everything. Yeah, I love older films just as much as newer ones. I'm 60, I first saw the original King Kong in an actual theatre, on re-release, when I was probably ten. Re the Natives: well I understand the question. Here is one way to put it: when all white film makers depict savages, the savages are never white, are they? They are always people of colour, i.e., Black. There are many different kinds of peoples who live on islands, including Black people, Asian people, Polynesian people. Some of these are people of colour, while some look white. PJ and crew made a deliberate decision to have people who kind of looked like Maoris, a group decimated in parts of Australia and New Zealand, if I recall. PJ could have had white savages. But maybe white savages would not be something a white audience would relate to.... I absolutely agree that the CGI used has wonderful possibilities, some of which were fulfilled. But they were also part of the problem. At times, all you were watching was CGI and not a whole lotta content. What is problematic is the sense that PJ was aiming for something with content (hence the change in Carl Denham's character) but then got totally distracted by the CGI stuff. For example, the spider pit sequence. PJ did it as a labour of love. I have the DVDs released for the original Kong which include a loving recreation of this lost scene. Unfortunately the scene was cut from the original for a very good reason, something PJ lost sight of. That is, it slowed the storyline. I find it hard to believe, based on what I've seen and read, that it disgusting the audiences that much that RKO was willing to go to the expense of cutting it. More likely it was simply a brutal sequence that had no real reason to be in the film. As far as how Kong looks in CGI, yep you can see all that hair and his nostrils flare and etc. etc. Frankly, though, a pot bellied Kong might be more realistic, but is much less scarey or impressive. The original Kong was a bizarre mix of ape and human. Please do not think,as others have, that 1930's people were stupid & didn't know how a gorilla looked. Merian C. Cooper had travelled the world filming wild animal pictures. He obviously knew how a gorilla looked, and wanted a more fierce, leaner gorilla for his movie. For my money, the old Kong looks tougher and scarier than the new one. In short, a whole lot of effort went into making Kong's hairs look individual and real, while ignoring the actual character. What we got was a mix between human and ape, which worked more often than not. But, frankly, when Kong got angry because Ann would not do more flips, although I enjoyed it...though I don't want to admit it...though you may hate me for it...that seemed kinda stupid. It gave Kong petty feelings. Kong was a jerk. Am I overstating? You bet! Meanwhile, if I want really good special effects in a new movie, it would not necessarily be KK I go to. It would be Wallice & Grommitt, which had a charm KK could not begin to acquire. |