Just back from King Kong 2005

The original Mighty Joe Young and (the original) King Kong were great just the way they were. Seems to me that the new remakes are overly hyped, stay in the theaters just long enough to get some exposure but are primarily designed sell video games and take up space at the video stores for some additional revenue down the line. I wish Hollywood would create new stuff and stop trying, and mostly failing, to remake movies that should not be remade. The stop action photography of the originals were just really great and I am not convinced that computer generated stuff is even on par with it. Oh sure, technologically speaking the computer stuff is obviously more advanced. But I don't think it tells the story any better or gives more eye appeal. For me, the originals are lots more fun to watch and I appreciate them a lot more than the new remakes.
 
The original Mighty Joe Young is a great film! Never saw the remake, but the commercials looked BAD.

-Bob
 
but the commercials looked BAD.

The remake was a lousy film. We go from the elegance of a richly african themed cabaret show, where he has a series of dramatic stage acts, to the back corner of a second rate zoo. All in the interest of ringing Hollywood's favorite anti-hunting gong. I found myself cheering for the cops to shoot the dumb beast just to relieve me from watching the rest of the film.

n2s

ps and lets not forget Son of Kong; the lower budget sequel that benefitted from using many of the same cast and sets as King Kong. It featured the biggest bandaid ever captured on film, a dramatic fight with a tricerotops, and a cute baby King Kong.

n2s
 
Not wanting to ruin King Kong for myself I purposely didnt read anyone's reply regarding the film , sorry folks.

I've always wanted an answer to that question myself. Especially when I saw the remake of Dawn of the Dead. The original was wonderful. But the remake just tried too hard.

Same with Night of the Living Dead. The first one wasn't scary, but it was actually kinda creepy. But the 1990 remake just sucked hard.
Click to expand...
This though , come on man.... Like most of you , those films (the originals) are part of my generation and I respect them for that , I'm a long time zombie film fan. The re-make of NOTLD was a great remake IMO , it stuck along the same storyline as the original , how might I ask did it "suck hard" ??
The 'new' DOTD tried too hard ?? Dude.... The original DOTD is a classic , period. The new one is a classic as well ! How many times have you seen it ? The remake of DOTD has a tense horror that the old version couldnt capture , come on man.... zombies that can actually run and chase you down ? Never been done before in any zombie film. Very original , the special effects were top notch for the type of film it was.
Dont mean to knock you down but , I think you need to watch the remakes again with more of an open eye , instead of just washing them off as bad attempts at redoing a classic.

On topic of King Kong , anyone heard that King Kong is a racist film ? Yea , look it up online. Try not to let your eyes roll too far back into your head though.
 
rebeltf,

No, please, don't make me watch the remakes. I'm beggin' ya, don't make me. ;)
 
Well, I liked it a lot. Didn't need to over think it or spend the three hours comparing it to the original, just enjoyed the well made adventure story with the great effects.
 
Point44 said:
Lucio Fulci is the greatest zombie movie director.
Click to expand...

Aye, that he is.

Maybe I'm being a little too critical of the Dawn remake. It wasn't a bad flick, but to me it didn't have the atmosphere of the original. Of course, neither Dawn or Day of the Dead had the same atmosphere as Night of the Living Dead. I think the camera work and B&W is what set the mood best for Night.
 
Just back from King Kong. Very good adventure movie. That's what it is. It's an adventure movie with a sad ending. Nothing more. I wasn't going in there looking for a drama with a plot twist. Everyone went in there KNOWING that kong is on the island and they bring him back and in the end he dies.

Someone said above that the stop motion was better than CGI but i have to disagree. Usually i prefer stop motion or animatronics but in this film Kong doesn't have that computer generated look. This is certainly something of a breakthrough. Personally i like these type of movies. What's the point in sticking to just the old ones when technology has advanced so much since the original that you could create a realistic kong. It's kong for a new generation. No kid wants to see that old 1930's movie.

If the movie makes millions then it proves that people enjoy this movie and that's what moviemaking is all about.

About zombie movies. Some people keep praising NOTLD but do they like any other zombie movie? If you wanted to stick to black and white horror movies i think that would be very limiting. blood is red...not black.
 
It's kong for a new generation. No kid wants to see that old 1930's movie.
Click to expand...

In the original Kong Danham explains that the island is divided by a huge and ancient wall, an artifact of a once highly advanced civilization, which the natives no longer recall. We are bound to suffer the same fate if we ignore the original classics for these narrow exploitative remakes.

Like the natives Peter Jackson is exploiting and maintaining the wall for all its worth. An as a regressed native of Hollywood's better days, he has ignore everything that made the original film work, and focused instead on mere gimmicktry. Within a few years, CGI will advance to a new standard, and the 2005 version of King Kong will bow and fade to the new standard. It is the original film that will stand out then; not for its special effects - outstanding as they once were - but because it tells an interesting story in an exceptionally entertaining way.

n2s
 
I just got home from seeing it.....pretty much hated it.

The CGI is sorta cool, but this thing was waaaaaaaaaay to long, the first 90 minutes could have had 60 cut and the movie would have been much better.


The last hour or so is good, but this was definitely a "see it once and never again".
 
You guys who are badmouthing King Kong are obviously racists! ;)

How could you not like any movie with a really big monkey??
 
not2sharp said:
In the original Kong Danham explains that the island is divided by a huge and ancient wall, an artifact of a once highly advanced civilization, which the natives no longer recall. We are bound to suffer the same fate if we ignore the original classics for these narrow exploitative remakes.

Like the natives Peter Jackson is exploiting and maintaining the wall for all its worth. An as a regressed native of Hollywood's better days, he has ignore everything that made the original film work, and focused instead on mere gimmicktry. Within a few years, CGI will advance to a new standard, and the 2005 version of King Kong will bow and fade to the new standard. It is the original film that will stand out then; not for its special effects - outstanding as they once were - but because it tells an interesting story in an exceptionally entertaining way.

n2s
Click to expand...

Oh god. You're overanalysing things again. If you put the new kong and the old kong at the movies against each other. Let's see who has the biggest box office. What's the point of classics if MORE people enjoy the newer version? It's not like the old version is going away. Peter Jackson just added another version to what is available.

This just goes to show that different people prefer different things but i can assure you that you are in the minority.

I really don't understand why people are so against remakes. To me if it does well at the movies then it has been a successful remake. Simple. If it doesn't do well at the box office then it hasn't been successful. Why do you have to force people to watch the original when they prefer the newer version. That's what freedom of choice is about. Plus if you think about it when new remakes come people will seek out the old originals and interest in them will go up. Just have a look at the cable tv or satellite tv now and i'm sure there'll be some kong replays on it in the past months.
 
I don't mind remakes if they are well done. However, nearly all the remakes I have ever seen were not as entertaining as the originals to me anyway. Just seemed like something was lost. Like sequels never quite seeme to be as good as the first movie upon which they were based. Or like songs that are remade. Some I like, some I don't.

I suppose it's really just how I remember things from my youth, like movies, music, muscle cars, motorcycles, people, where I was, what I was doing, and having that nostalgia thing going on. I do like most, if not all the original movies that have been discussed here and simply don't find the remakes as satisfying. Maybe it has less to do with the movie itself and more to do with how watching it takes me back to a place and time in my life that I really liked and in some ways I kind of miss. A remake can't do all that and just makes me want to go back and watch the original.
 
yam said:
I don't mind remakes if they are well done. However, nearly all the remakes I hav Maybe it has less to do with the movie itself and more to do with how watching it takes me back to a place and time in my life that I really liked and in some ways I kind of miss. A remake can't do all that and just makes me want to go back and watch the original.
Click to expand...

I agree.

IMHO There are a few remakes that i think are superior to the original.

1) NOTLD 1990
2) Ocean's Eleven (although watching Ocean's Twelve was torture)
3) Dracula (Coppola's version)
4) The Fly (Cronenberg's version)
5) The Thing (Carpenter's version)
6) The Thomas Crown Affair (the one with Brosnan-I know mcqueen was cool but this wasn't his greatest)
7) The Magnificent Seven

It's all i can think of right now but my list of bad remakes is even longer.

Top of the list would probably be Psycho and Avengers.
 
You think the Magnificent Seven is superior to the movie Seven Samurai, or the tv show from the 90's is superior to the original Magnificent Seven?

Two of my favorite movies are both Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven, and I saw one episode of the tv series of the late 90s and didn't like it at all.
 
silenthunterstudios said:
You think the Magnificent Seven is superior to the movie Seven Samurai, or the tv show from the 90's is superior to the original Magnificent Seven?

Two of my favorite movies are both Seven Samurai and the Magnificent Seven, and I saw one episode of the tv series of the late 90s and didn't like it at all.
Click to expand...

I should correct myself. Silly mistake. To me Akira Kurosawa is the greatest director of all time. I cannot say that it is better than Seven Samurai. SORRY...mistake.

However, Magnificent Seven is a worthy remake.
 
I enjoyed both movies equally, but I think that movies like Ran and Yojimbo were on par with Seven Samurai. Kurosawa made a movie about Japanese ghosts, didn't he?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top