Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

But I'll stop rambling and just say this: King Kong is probably the only film you'll find that can answer yes to both of these questions:

1. Can Peter Jackson create a film that can stand up to his previous endeavor in almost every way imagainable?

The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts.

I'm surprised that this movie is doing so poorly in terms of revenue.

I guess 'twas length that killed the beast.

KISS-Cringle 66 wrote:

The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts.

I don't think The Lord of the Rings had "pointless parts", it's just that LOTR is a long story.

FireBird wrote:

KISS-Cringle 66 wrote:

The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts.

I don't think The Lord of the Rings had "pointless parts", it's just that LOTR is a long story.

Well, with LOTR, bear in mind a lot of the "pointless parts" were actually cut out for the regular theater versions and left in only for the extended versions, so if he really had to be strictly faithful to the series and include the whole story, I'd think all of them would have had to be A LOT longer.

Oh, also: I seriously could have done without the Big Pit O' Gross scene in the middle of the movie. Didn't further the plot or characters at all (except insofar as it killed a few of them off, which could easily have been done in the previous scene) and seemed to exist only to let the WETA kids show off while giving the rest of us the willies.

I thought that overall the movie was great, but seriously Peter--three hours?? Way. Too. Long.

Plus, i love how they just randomly decided to throw dinosaurs in there.

Too many long, drawn out scenes with Kong and the woman, though.

Nobody spoil anything in this movie because I want to see it. It looks really cool. Peter Jackson has done it again!!

Oh well. it was humorous how the film crew just saw the dinosaurs and began filming without the slightest question as to why the obvious contradictions to the dinosaur extinction theory were not 20 feet away.

A Kevin DuBrow Christmas wrote:

Nobody spoil anything in this movie because I want to see it. It looks really cool. Peter Jackson has done it again!!

Spoil.... King Kong?? It's one of the most famous stories in American cinema. How can you "spoil" it? That'd be like spoiling Titanic. Everybody knows the ship sinks!

Er.. if you don't want it spoiled, you probably shouldn't read this (language warning).

1537 original film...

Duct Tape Patrol wrote:

Well, you have to understand that in 1933 paleontology was nowhere near what it is today. The predominant dinosaur extinction theory, i.e. the giant meteor, wasn't even proposed until the late 1970s. It wasn't until 1822 that the first dinosaur species was identified, which means that at the time the original film was made (and the new film was set) the actual study of dinosaurs was barely a century old. This was in a time period when exotic new species and places were still routinely being discovered all and the world was still filled with uncharted islands (remember, no satellites to take photos, no Google Earth to look at them). To the people of 1933 finding an island filled with completely new species was completely plausible--indeed, Darwin had done it only 100 years prior. On top of all that add the fact that Carl Denham is a fearless opportunist (as Jackson spends a laborious amount of time establishing) and Bruce Baxter is especially interested in glory and money, and there really is no contradiction.

I've seen the 1537 original film...

i did not know about that dinosaur fact. Oh well. it was humorous how the film crew just saw the dinosaurs and began filming without the slightest question as to why the obvious contradictions to the dinosaur extinction theory were not 20 feet away. Oh well. My new favorite scene in movie history is the kong-lady ice scene. They just begin to have peace together, alone, and you start to get around the fact the one is a massive gorilla and one is a tiny blonde woman and that they are happily prancing along a frozen pond that is somehow supporting the expansive weight undoubtedly offered by kong's presence on the surface, only to be suddenly attacked by the american government.
Woo, good times right there.

Author:	The_Other_White_Meat [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:	King Kong
Whoa. This movie was really awesome. Everyone says Narnia was awesome, but personally, n my opinion, its gonna have a hard time standing next to this in my mind. Let me first say this: I know that both the movies are perfect candidates for LOTR junkies - King Kong was directed by Peter Jackson, and LWW is Disney's answer to Jackson's epic. That being said, the fatc that Jackson has created a movie that can stand up to his three-film saga with dignity is a very surprising thing, but its something he's accomplished using incredible techniques that only a master would know. But I'll stop rambling and just say this: King Kong is probably the only film you'll find that can answer yes to both of these questions: 1. Can Peter Jackson create a film that can stand up to his previous endeavor in almost every way imagainable? 2. Could a giant gorilla beat a horde of T-Rexes in a fist fight?

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I thought that overall the movie was great, but seriously Peter--three hours?? Way. Too. Long.

Author:	cyco [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:
King kong and narnia were both awesome. King kong was way better, but i still want to give narnia credit.

Author:	Encountering Gremlins [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Wow, I admit I'm very, very skeptical about the idea of how necessary it could be to remake King Kong in this day and age, but based on the opinions of not just critics but people I respect (not to mention that I also thought the LOTR movies were great), I may have to check this out. And the same holds true for Narnia, I guess. And It also amused me how a friend of mine described it by saying, "I like how the way Peter Jackson doubled the length of King Kong was by taking the original and shoving Jurassic Park into the middle of it. Fun flick, though, hardly a waste of my time."

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Oh, also: I seriously could have done without the Big Pit O' Gross scene in the middle of the movie. Didn't further the plot or characters at all (except insofar as it killed a few of them off, which could easily have been done in the previous scene) and seemed to exist only to let the WETA kids show off while giving the rest of us the willies.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

King Kong http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6315	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Hi Guys [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, it's awesome. The dude that did Gollum in Lord of the Rings played the guy with the squinty eye AND did the CGI for King Kong.

Author:	Mr.KISS [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:
I haven't seen this movie, but it looks fantastic. I'm surprised people aren't saying it's cheesy considering it's a giant gorilla and dinosaurs and all sorts of crap. The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts.

Author:	FireBird [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: King Kong
The_Other_White_Christmas wrote: But I'll stop rambling and just say this: King Kong is probably the only film you'll find that can answer yes to both of these questions: 1. Can Peter Jackson create a film that can stand up to his previous endeavor in almost every way imagainable? Uh, King Kong is the only answer to this question (that is, until the The Lovely Bones comes out, and still, Kong may be the only answer to this question). But still, King Kong was an amazing movie. Although I too would've liked it to be a bit shorter. Both the first and last act drag a bit. KISS-Cringle 66 wrote: The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts. I don't think The Lord of the Rings had "pointless parts", it's just that LOTR is a long story.

Author:	Mr.KISS [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: King Kong
Encountering Gremlins wrote: FireBird wrote: KISS-Cringle 66 wrote: The only thing I wouldn't have done is make it so long, Peter has to learn how to tell a story without all these little pointless parts. I don't think The Lord of the Rings had "pointless parts", it's just that LOTR is a long story. Well, with LOTR, bear in mind a lot of the "pointless parts" were actually cut out for the regular theater versions and left in only for the extended versions, so if he really had to be strictly faithful to the series and include the whole story, I'd think all of them would have had to be A LOT longer. Ya, I wasn't really talking about LOTR as much as I was this movie. It was more this movie I was talking about. I have a hard time wording things the way I'd like sometimes.

Author:	Bad Graphics Ghost [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:
It looks good, I'll have to see it sometime.

Author:	Acekirby [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:42 pm ]
Post subject:
Ah, I saw it the other day and thought it was all right. Too many long, drawn out scenes with Kong and the woman, though. I also thought the T-Rex scene was too drawn-out. They just kept coming back. I got a case of the jibblies from a couple of places, namely the natives killing the crew and the scene where the bugs killed some of the people. InterruptorJones wrote: Oh, also: I seriously could have done without the Big Pit O' Gross scene in the middle of the movie. Didn't further the plot or characters at all (except insofar as it killed a few of them off, which could easily have been done in the previous scene) and seemed to exist only to let the WETA kids show off while giving the rest of us the willies. Arg, I agree. A bit too gruesome if you ask me. And here's something: How could a multi-ton, giant gorilla skate on an ice pond and not fracture it in any way, shape or form?

Author:	Rhin Beoulve [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:55 pm ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: I thought that overall the movie was great, but seriously Peter--three hours?? Way. Too. Long. Heheh, yeah. When Adrian and Naomi were being attacked by those giant bats, I looked at my watch and said to myself, "For the love of God, they're still on the island!?" InterruptorJones also wrote: Oh, also: I seriously could have done without the Big Pit O' Gross scene in the middle of the movie. Didn't further the plot or characters at all (except insofar as it killed a few of them off, which could easily have been done in the previous scene) and seemed to exist only to let the WETA kids show off while giving the rest of us the willies. In my opinion, the scene with the bugs was cool. But then again, I'm all for the huge creepy crawlies in any movie. Okay, overall, I really liked the movie, but I have to be nit-picky. 1. Everything on that island was either abnormally large, carniverous, and often both. This would not last on an island, and the ecosystem would have surely crumbled long before Jack Black and his crew got there. 2. That wall was supposedly built to keep Kong and the other beasts out, but Kong and many of the bugs could have easily climbed it, and several other creatures were able to fly. The natives would most likely have been killed. Very quickly. 3. I'm not even going to get started on the physical improbabilities of Kong's skeletal system.

Author:	Speckeldorf [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:51 am ]
Post subject:
I wanna see this movie! It looks soo good! And I heard critic-type people thought it was soo good, too!

Author:	Duct Tape Patrol [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:24 am ]
Post subject:
yep, it's pretty much great. It's like...when you want to see madness and violence and giant monkey with senses of humor, go see king kong. Plus, i love how they just randomly decided to throw dinosaurs in there. Plus it's not like a scary type deal. It's surprising, not haunting. Except the natives. They gave me my fair share of jibblies.

Author:	Jello B. [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:36 am ]
Post subject:
A Kevin DuBrow Christmas wrote: 1537 original film... Holy gosh. Film is really old. Yeah, nobody spoil the ending. I never really paid any attention to it, even though I watched it once. Sigh... Short attention spans never do anybody good. EDIT: Nevermind, I remember what happens. Proper noun gets verbed and noun verbs.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:31 am ]
Post subject:
Duct Tape Patrol wrote: Plus, i love how they just randomly decided to throw dinosaurs in there. Well I wouldn't say they "randomly decided" to do that. The dinosaurs were in the original King Kong as well. Acekirby wrote: Too many long, drawn out scenes with Kong and the woman, though. I thought these were among the movie's best scenes. Without them the audience would never have been able to feel any compassion for Kong, which is the whole point of the movie.

Author:	Kevin DuBrow [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:33 am ]
Post subject:
Nobody spoil anything in this movie because I want to see it. It looks really cool. Peter Jackson has done it again!!

Author:	StrongRad [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:49 am ]
Post subject:
That's hillarious.. I spoiled the last Lord of The Rings movie for a roommate. 2 reasons: 1, he was a jerk, and 2, he said he'd read the books. I had only read the books, so, how would telling him what I knew be a spoiler? He knew the same thing I did. I love how people are so up in arms about dinosaurs.. I didn't know this until I asked a movie buff.. He said he was suprised that they put the dinosaur in there, given the "WTF factor".

Author:	Cleverdan [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:10 am ]
Post subject:
Im seeing King Kong soon, real soon. Itll be really good to beat Narnia, though.

Author:	Jello B. [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:12 am ]
Post subject:
I didn't really like The ChronicWhat?cles of Narnia that much. The White Witch didn't look imposing, or tall, or even good looking. Her hair was all over the place and her wardrobe sucked. They didn't even take the time to explain the characters. Near the end, it's like "Are you with me?" and the centaur was like "To the death." and I'm like "Who the heck is he? I wouldn't trust him, if I were you.". I really liked the first half. The first half was magical. But the other half was just ugh. Another thing was that there was no blood. NO BLOOD! I didn't see one drop of blood in the entire movie. AND THERE'S EVEN A HUGE BATTLE AT THE END! So no, I didn't like it that much. I think King Kong wouldn't have to try too much harder to be a better movie.

Author:	Kevin DuBrow [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:33 am ]
Post subject:
InterruptorJones wrote: A Kevin DuBrow Christmas wrote: Nobody spoil anything in this movie because I want to see it. It looks really cool. Peter Jackson has done it again!! Spoil.... King Kong?? It's one of the most famous stories in American cinema. How can you "spoil" it? That'd be like spoiling Titanic. Everybody knows the ship sinks! Er.. if you don't want it spoiled, you probably shouldn't read this (language warning). I've seen the 1537 original film, but they have probably tweeked it up and added some parts...just don't tell me anything, k?

Author:	iKipapa [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:42 am ]
Post subject:
A Kevin DuBrow Christmas wrote: I've seen the 1537 original film... Roffle. Now that's an old movie! No, I haven't seen Kong. And, I don't plan to. My brother will force me to watchit when he gets it on DVD, so, I guess I'll watch it then.

Author:	Hi Guys [ Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Duct Tape Patrol wrote: i did not know about that dinosaur fact. Oh well. it was humorous how the film crew just saw the dinosaurs and began filming without the slightest question as to why the obvious contradictions to the dinosaur extinction theory were not 20 feet away. Oh well. My new favorite scene in movie history is the kong-lady ice scene. They just begin to have peace together, alone, and you start to get around the fact the one is a massive gorilla and one is a tiny blonde woman and that they are happily prancing along a frozen pond that is somehow supporting the expansive weight undoubtedly offered by kong's presence on the surface, only to be suddenly attacked by the american government. Woo, good times right there. The entire time I was watching that I was thinking, "How is that ice holding up, like, two tons?"