| Posted by: Joe McC at April 20, 2008, 5:31 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message news:4bhl04d13l2rk74so27ucb8jodmn6d63n8@4ax.com... Quote:Only someone who had never seen the original could miss how much Jackson loves the original movie. And, that I think is its most endearing quality: this was the most obvious labor of love I think I've ever seen. PJ's devotion was clear - and, yes, endearing. Yet this affection also gives rise to the movie's weaknesses. Just too much of everything. (Is there really a 3hr story in there?). I rather think PJ *knew* he was making his folly - I hope so. Quote:You are exactly right that the ape in Jackson's version is more fully realized than the original. Kong has a personality, feelings, even needs and aspirations. There's a world of pain and longing behind those eyes. The original had none of that, though I admit it's been many years since I've seen it, and I could be remembering amiss. The realization of Kong, for me, was one of those weaknesses - it went a few notches too far. The origina... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Anim8rFSK at April 18, 2008, 10:09 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:Alric Knebel wrote: Jackson's movie was beautiful to look at, from beginning to end. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise. It is NOT! I HATED it!! Any given still from it is probably pretty (although I didn't like the Skull Island shore at all). It's only when it moves that it gets ugly. -- Star Trek 09: No Shat, No Show. http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg | | Static Link |
| Posted by: David Oberman at April 18, 2008, 8:27 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Alric Knebel wrote: Quote:Jackson's movie was beautiful to look at, from beginning to end. It's ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise. It is NOT! I HATED it!! | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 18, 2008, 7:08 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Paul Clarke wrote: Quote:Alric Knebel wrote: The major difference is that the 1933 version presented the best special effects up to its time (I've seen much of O'Brien's earlier work, and what his team accomplished on "Kong" is superior to anything I've seen from earlier efforts). The effects-work in the 2005 version, on the other hand, was not so good (as I said, I found it laughably bad, but I'm sure others are more forgiving). The CGI dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park", made 12 years earlier, were far more convincing in their movement, design, relation with the space around them, etc. I disagree with that. The T-Rexes in KK were far better. And the gorilla itself was just an awesome accomplishment. And all of those insects seemed real enough, too. That was top-notch effects. And I saw this in the theater, and twice at home. To say they're "laughably bad" is laughable in itself. I have to chime in here, Kong and visual f/x in general being an interest of mine. I don't agree that the V-Rex f/x in Kong 2005 were ba... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Anim8rFSK at April 15, 2008, 6:52 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:"Alric Knebel" wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? The problem? Like usual, they really over did the >special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," >where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins >(?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the >dinosaur stampede? Rich Wagner I had to laugh when I watched the dinosaur stampede scene, because I think they achieved better results with the process screen in 1933 then they did with that badly-shot sequence. There was abs... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 15, 2008, 6:31 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Matt Barry wrote: Quote:"Alric Knebel" wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? The problem? Like usual, they really over did the >special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," >where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins >(?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the >dinosaur stampede? Rich Wagner I had to laugh when I watched the dinosaur stampede scene, because I think they achieved better results with the process screen in 1933 then they did with that badly-shot sequence. There was abs... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Matt Barry at April 15, 2008, 5:30 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Alric Knebel" wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? The problem? Like usual, they really over did the >special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," >where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins >(?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the >dinosaur stampede? Rich Wagner I had to laugh when I watched the dinosaur stampede scene, because I think they achieved better results with the process screen in 1933 then they did with that badly-shot sequence. There was absolutely no illusion of d... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: dgates at April 15, 2008, 1:08 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:15:06 -0700, David Oberman wrote: Quote:"Steven L." wrote: It's why the older FX, even though they were done by artists physically painting matte paintings and sculpting miniature models, still had an artistic flair and charm to them that the new photo-realistic CGI just can't duplicate. Absolutely agree, Steven. With the exception of a few good scenes in the beginning of TITANIC, which show the ship at dock, CGI has almost never been used for anything except action so extreme that it simulates animation on vast scales, but always with the emphasis on (hyper)realism rather than believability. I think that this is basically right, except that I think that, even in the films with the hyper-real scenes, you'll still find individual, credible scenes. Usually toward the beginning, I suppose. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Howard Brazee at April 14, 2008, 7:55 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:59:38 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote: Quote:My thoughts exactly. In the original, Fay Wray was absolutely terrified of that big ape, and couldn't have been more relieved when he fell to his death. After reading all the reviews that talked about the "romance" between them, I thought I had seriously missed something. Personally, I can see nothing but terror and fear in her every reaction to Kong. Then you must have missed something. First, it wasn't so much a "romance." She felt pity for him, and he was like this unmanageable pet. And she was his owner. There wasn't seriously a "romance." I saw the YouTube trailor of _Queen Kong_ at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlHxg2UzCag The relationship was different here. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Lookingglass at April 14, 2008, 6:37 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Alric Knebel" <alric@cableone.net> wrote Quote: And do you think the original was some great dramatic accomplishment. It was a movie about a giant ape. There was an island with stiff-moving dinosaurs on it. IT WAS DRECK! Alric Knebel http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html http://www.ironeyefortress.com It was brilliant...FOR ITS TIME. You mistakenly judge a 1933 special effects film with 2008 standards. "...And when he had crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him." -Nosferatu www.Shemakhan.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 14, 2008, 4:01 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Matt Barry wrote: Quote:bigsilentfan@msn.com> wrote in message news:df759c8a-2468-4bac-b41c-e22e23996f6c@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... On Apr 13, 9:49 am, Rich T wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? The problem? Like usual, they really over did the >special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," >where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins >(?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the >dinosaur stampede? Rich Wagner I had to laugh when I watched the dinosaur stampede scene, because... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 14, 2008, 3:59 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Matt Barry wrote: Quote:"Rich T" <rich_tintera@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d51e3b50-3583-4fd7-802c-8f73b64319a8@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? My thoughts exactly. In the original, Fay Wray was absolutely terrified of that big ape, and couldn't have been more relieved when he fell to his death. After reading all the reviews that talked about the "romance" between them, I thought I had seriously missed something. Personally, I can see nothing but terror and fear in her every reaction to Kong. Then you must have missed somet... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 14, 2008, 3:57 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Joe McC wrote: Quote:"Alric Knebel" <alric@cableone.net> wrote in message news:0vCdnU9czNrH7p_VnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@giganews.com... El Klauso wrote: Just to echo and amplify an earlier comment, there was much of merit in Jackson's stab at "Kong," but time and again during the film I had the uneasy feeling that sequences were being included for the sake of forthcoming theme park rides or video game tie-ins, versus the true narrative needs of the movie at hand. I think Jackson understood that the appeal of the original was the dinosaurs and creatures of all sorts. So he put them in. Not to do that would be unthinkable. Like Jackson himself, I'm a Kong nut. But on first viewing, I have to admit my reaction was still similar to most of the posters. Too much, too fast, too breathless, too acrobatic. I gleefuly accept big apes and head-sucky penis creatures, but humans who don't obey the laws of physics - well, that's too much disbelief for me to suspend In some ways, this was Jackson's "1941" - a subject matter ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Matt Barry at April 14, 2008, 3:12 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | wrote: Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? The problem? Like usual, they really over did the >special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," >where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins >(?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the >dinosaur stampede? Rich Wagner I had to laugh when I watched the dinosaur stampede scene, because I think they achieved better results with the process screen in 1933 then they did with that badly-shot sequence. There was absolutely no illusion of depth what... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Matt Barry at April 14, 2008, 3:08 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Rich T" <rich_tintera@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d51e3b50-3583-4fd7-802c-8f73b64319a8@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? My thoughts exactly. In the original, Fay Wray was absolutely terrified of that big ape, and couldn't have been more relieved when he fell to his death. After reading all the reviews that talked about the "romance" between them, I thought I had seriously missed something. Personally, I can see nothing but terror and fear in her every reaction to Kong. The remake, with the romance that blossomed betwe... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Joe McC at April 14, 2008, 12:56 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Alric Knebel" <alric@cableone.net> wrote in message news:0vCdnU9czNrH7p_VnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@giganews.com... Quote:El Klauso wrote: Just to echo and amplify an earlier comment, there was much of merit in Jackson's stab at "Kong," but time and again during the film I had the uneasy feeling that sequences were being included for the sake of forthcoming theme park rides or video game tie-ins, versus the true narrative needs of the movie at hand. I think Jackson understood that the appeal of the original was the dinosaurs and creatures of all sorts. So he put them in. Not to do that would be unthinkable. Like Jackson himself, I'm a Kong nut. But on first viewing, I have to admit my reaction was still similar to most of the posters. Too much, too fast, too breathless, too acrobatic. I gleefuly accept big apes and head-sucky penis creatures, but humans who don't obey the laws of physics - well, that's too much disbelief for me to suspend In some ways, this was Jackson's "1941" - a subject matter close to his he... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Bill Anderson at April 13, 2008, 7:42 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | David Oberman wrote: Quote:Bill Anderson wrote: I have a sense (and I hope that someone who knows more about these thing can confirm) that most of the CGI I've seen lately has gone unnoticed by me. Things like missing telephone wires and denser forests and unreflected camera crews and taller buildings and so forth and so on -- nothing to do with dazzling action but more to do with painting the picture. Am I right? No? Quite possibly, Bill. I don't know. How have you been, by the way? I've been pretending I grasp statistics. But I'm over it now and feel much better. -- Bill Anderson I am the Mighty Favog | | Static Link |
| Posted by: David Oberman at April 13, 2008, 7:09 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Bill Anderson wrote: Quote:I have a sense (and I hope that someone who knows more about these thing can confirm) that most of the CGI I've seen lately has gone unnoticed by me. Things like missing telephone wires and denser forests and unreflected camera crews and taller buildings and so forth and so on -- nothing to do with dazzling action but more to do with painting the picture. Am I right? No? Quite possibly, Bill. I don't know. How have you been, by the way? | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Bill Anderson at April 13, 2008, 6:50 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | David Oberman wrote: Quote:"Steven L." wrote: It's why the older FX, even though they were done by artists physically painting matte paintings and sculpting miniature models, still had an artistic flair and charm to them that the new photo-realistic CGI just can't duplicate. Absolutely agree, Steven. With the exception of a few good scenes in the beginning of TITANIC, which show the ship at dock, CGI has almost never been used for anything except action so extreme that it simulates animation on vast scales, but always with the emphasis on (hyper)realism rather than believability. Older films gave us more (not always, but at their best). The final scene in EXCALIBUR, where Perceval glimpses the body of his king being borne along the waters to the Isle of the Dead, lasts just a moment or two, but in that single glimpse (in which there is almost no subjective movement), there's a cosmic calmness & a true visionary power, as if you were seeing one of the most important moments in human history -- one epoch dy... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: David Oberman at April 13, 2008, 6:15 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Steven L." wrote: Quote:It's why the older FX, even though they were done by artists physically painting matte paintings and sculpting miniature models, still had an artistic flair and charm to them that the new photo-realistic CGI just can't duplicate. Absolutely agree, Steven. With the exception of a few good scenes in the beginning of TITANIC, which show the ship at dock, CGI has almost never been used for anything except action so extreme that it simulates animation on vast scales, but always with the emphasis on (hyper)realism rather than believability. Older films gave us more (not always, but at their best). The final scene in EXCALIBUR, where Perceval glimpses the body of his king being borne along the waters to the Isle of the Dead, lasts just a moment or two, but in that single glimpse (in which there is almost no subjective movement), there's a cosmic calmness & a true visionary power, as if you were seeing one of the most important moments in human history -- one epoch dying & another daw... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: David Oberman at April 13, 2008, 5:52 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Anim8rFSK wrote: Quote:Because producers won't let you. That's why all the endless mocrap directors make everybody flap their arms like chickens all the time -- they feel they're getting more for their money if there's more motion in the shot. 10, 20 years ago, it was the same thing with rotoscope. I think you're right. Also, in a weird way, I'd like to see a CGI film production of THE CHERRY ORCHARD. Wouldn't that be weird? | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Steven L. at April 13, 2008, 5:06 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | David Oberman wrote: Quote:bigsilentfan@msn.com wrote: The problem? Like usual, they really over did the special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins (?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the dinosaur stampede? Or what about the experience with the insect, spiders and scorpions? Those were my exact thoughts as I was watching it the other day on commercial TV. Whenever I see this fancy CGI, it always seems to be taken to an extreme of unbelievability because its primary (or perhaps only) goal is to render me breathless. Why can't it be used in more subtle ways from time to time? That's why people say it reminds them of being on an extreme rollercoaster or playing a video game on a big screen. It's just one split second of _extremis_ after another. It's ridiculous. Those T-rexes caught in the vines, suspended over a chasm, continue to snap at the tiny human (sometimes wriggling into even more dang... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Lookingglass at April 13, 2008, 4:54 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Alric Knebel" <alric@cableone.net> wrote Quote: Jackson's KING KONG might have a FEW faults, but having watched it three times to date, the only one I could really think of was casting Jack Black. He wasn't TERRIBLE, but he has a slightly comic presence. The rest of the film was superb. It honored the original while building on it. It was a fantastic movie. The original has its place in film history, but the greatness of Jackson's rendering can't be denied. Alric Knebel http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html http://www.ironeyefortress.com Agreed. I think he was wrong for the part. He played it *buffoonish*. Otherwise, a *Saturday matinee-ish* entertaining film. "...And when he had crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him." -Nosferatu www.Shemakhan.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Anim8rFSK at April 13, 2008, 4:12 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:bigsilentfan@msn.com wrote: The problem? Like usual, they really over did the special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins (?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the dinosaur stampede? Or what about the experience with the insect, spiders and scorpions? Those were my exact thoughts as I was watching it the other day on commercial TV. Whenever I see this fancy CGI, it always seems to be taken to an extreme of unbelievability because its primary (or perhaps only) goal is to render me breathless. Why can't it be used in more subtle ways from time to time Because producers won't let you. That's why all the endless mocrap directors make everybody flap their arms like chickens all the time -- they feel they're getting more for their money if there's more motion in the shot. 10, 20 years ago, it was the same thing with rotoscope. -- Star Trek 09: No Shat, No Show. http://www.disn... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 13, 2008, 3:56 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | El Klauso wrote: Quote:Just to echo and amplify an earlier comment, there was much of merit in Jackson's stab at "Kong," but time and again during the film I had the uneasy feeling that sequences were being included for the sake of forthcoming theme park rides or video game tie-ins, versus the true narrative needs of the movie at hand. I think Jackson understood that the appeal of the original was the dinosaurs and creatures of all sorts. So he put them in. --
_________________
Alric Knebel http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html http://www.ironeyefortress.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 13, 2008, 3:52 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | bigsilentfan@msn.com wrote: Quote:On Apr 13, 9:49 am, Rich T wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? When they varied from the original script, it never improved the story in my opinion. Kong chasing the Yellow Cab was thrilling, but really STUPID (just as Ann walking down the middle of the street in the cold was). The ending of the film was probably the biggest disappointment of a already disappointing film. I watched this for the first time last night on TNT (it also plays on TNT again tonight, Sunday, April 13th). I skipped through the commercials, turning this fo... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Alric Knebel at April 13, 2008, 3:37 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Warchild wrote: Quote:In article wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:49:57 -0700 (PDT), Rich T <rich_tintera@yahoo.com wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? And, Watts sure didn't seduce him .. The review is an example of nostalgia replacing the truth. Watts displayed a lot of sympathy for the beast. The reviewers here are projecting their own sympathy for the beast of the original. Fay Wray's performance doesn't project any particular sympathy for Kong. Peter Jackson's Kong has plenty of faults. Watt's performance is perfect. Jackson's KING KONG might have a FEW faul... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Bill Anderson at April 13, 2008, 3:33 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Rich T wrote: No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did Quote:they? I suppose one might read some sympathy into this line: Carl Denham: And now, ladies and gentlemen, before I tell you any more, I'm going to show you the greatest thing your eyes have ever beheld. He was a king and a god in the world he knew, but now he comes to civilization merely a captive - a show to gratify your curiosity. Ladies and gentlemen, look at Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the World. And maybe some empathy in this exchange: Police Lieutenant: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him. Carl Denham: Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast. But in the first movie, anyway, Carl Denham wasn't losing a lot of sleep over the poor love-besotted creature's fate: Carl Denham: We'll give him more than chains. He's always been king of his world, but we'll teach him fear. We're millionaires, boys. I'll share it with all of you. Why, in a few months, it'll be up in lights on Broadway: Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Magnus, Robot Fighter at April 13, 2008, 3:01 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:49:57 -0700 (PDT), Rich T wrote: Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? Denham? "Twas Beauty that killed the Beast" | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Lookingglass at April 13, 2008, 1:48 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | <bigsilentfan@msn.com> wrote The problem? Like usual, they really over did the special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins (?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the dinosaur stampede? Or what about the experience with the insect, spiders and scorpions? That was thrilling until they got carried away. I'm sorry, everybody died over and over in this story. There's no way that I can feel anything in this NEW story the way I always do when watching the original. I can't care about the characters when they all seem to have the abilities of Spiderman and Superman. The only creature in this film that was even remotely believable was Kong (he wasn't in the original). That's funny, because in the original, it wasn't Kong, but all the other dinosaur creatures that looked like real breathing animals (complete with saliva and blood as they fight very believably). All of the computer generated masses o... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Lookingglass at April 13, 2008, 1:17 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "George Peatty" wrote: Peter Jackson's Kong has plenty of faults. Watt's performance is perfect. I don't agree with the first sentence, but the second is spot-on. Jackson's remake is really Ann Darrow's story, and how she came to understand and care about Kong. Watts delivers; she is the center of attention in every scene where she appears .. Some folks are never happy. To complain about a film that is all artifice, is wrong-headed. For that matter all film is artifice, to varying degrees. We can gripe about the primitive *effects* of fantasy movies of bygone days, but those movies used the *effects* that were available at the time. (The actors' performances are a different argument.) Jackson's KING KONG is of today. The effects techniques are not perfected that will supplant *real* actors (let alone *real* dinosaurs!!!) with CGI actors. Green screen still has some flaws to work out. I like a good story...even if flawed technically, a film as old as THE CABINET OF DOCTOR CALIGARI or NOSFERATU or KING KONG (19... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Hal Erickson at April 13, 2008, 1:07 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Rich T" <rich_tintera@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d51e3b50-3583-4fd7-802c-8f73b64319a8@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? Maybe they got KING KONG mixed up with SON OF KONG. Helen Mack definitely thinks that Sonny Boy is cute, and even provides a bit of her skirt to bandage the big lug's finger. But Fay Wray just can't see Kong's POV, and remains scared throughout. Hal E | | Static Link |
| Posted by: David Oberman at April 13, 2008, 1:07 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | bigsilentfan@msn.com wrote: Quote:The problem? Like usual, they really over did the special effects, making the story totally unbelievable! Like "I Robot," where Will Smith fights off hundreds of robots at one time, and wins (?), how in the world can we believe anyone could survive the dinosaur stampede? Or what about the experience with the insect, spiders and scorpions? Those were my exact thoughts as I was watching it the other day on commercial TV. Whenever I see this fancy CGI, it always seems to be taken to an extreme of unbelievability because its primary (or perhaps only) goal is to render me breathless. Why can't it be used in more subtle ways from time to time? That's why people say it reminds them of being on an extreme rollercoaster or playing a video game on a big screen. It's just one split second of _extremis_ after another. It's ridiculous. Those T-rexes caught in the vines, suspended over a chasm, continue to snap at the tiny human (sometimes wriggling into even more dangerous positions) as i... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: George Peatty at April 13, 2008, 12:48 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:33:20 -0600, Warchild wrote: Quote:Peter Jackson's Kong has plenty of faults. Watt's performance is perfect. I don't agree with the first sentence, but the second is spot-on. Jackson's remake is really Ann Darrow's story, and how she came to understand and care about Kong. Watts delivers; she is the center of attention in every scene where she appears .. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Lookingglass at April 13, 2008, 12:47 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | "Rich T" <rich_tintera@yahoo.com> wrote Quote:No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) did. "...And when he had crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him." -Nosferatu www.Shemakhan.com | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Warchild at April 13, 2008, 12:33 pm | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | In article wrote: Quote:On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:49:57 -0700 (PDT), Rich T <rich_tintera@yahoo.com wrote: After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? And, Watts sure didn't seduce him .. The review is an example of nostalgia replacing the truth. Watts displayed a lot of sympathy for the beast. The reviewers here are projecting their own sympathy for the beast of the original. Fay Wray's performance doesn't project any particular sympathy for Kong. Peter Jackson's Kong has plenty of faults. Watt's performance is perfect. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: George Peatty at April 13, 2008, 11:48 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:49:57 -0700 (PDT), Rich T wrote: Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? And, Watts sure didn't seduce him .. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: El Klauso at April 13, 2008, 10:51 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | Just to echo and amplify an earlier comment, there was much of merit in Jackson's stab at "Kong," but time and again during the film I had the uneasy feeling that sequences were being included for the sake of forthcoming theme park rides or video game tie-ins, versus the true narrative needs of the movie at hand. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Guest at April 13, 2008, 6:57 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | On Apr 13, 9:49 am, Rich T wrote: Quote:After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? When they varied from the original script, it never improved the story in my opinion. Kong chasing the Yellow Cab was thrilling, but really STUPID (just as Ann walking down the middle of the street in the cold was). The ending of the film was probably the biggest disappointment of a already disappointing film. I watched this for the first time last night on TNT (it also plays on TNT again tonight, Sunday, April 13th). I skipped through the commercials, turning this four hour telecast down to ab... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Rich T at April 13, 2008, 3:49 am | | Topic: "King Kong" new v old Forum: groupsrv | | After watching part of Jackson's Kong the other night, I decided to head over to Rotten Tomatoes and check out a few reviews. In the Time article, by Richards Corliss and Schickel I read this curious line: "In the original, Fay Wray came to sympathize with the beast. But Watts plays Ann as a seductress, consciously leading the big lug on." When, in the original, did Ann ever express anything but outright fear/horror? No one in the original sypathized with the poor guy, did they? | | Static Link |
|