kong (2005)

Farrel · Post by **Farrel** » June 28, 2005, 11:58 am

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef23952443 ... large.html

looks nice so far.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 28, 2005, 12:17 pm

Looks like it will be a fun movie.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 28, 2005, 12:54 pm

I think the Xbox 360 will have a Kong game to go along with this.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » June 28, 2005, 2:06 pm

King Kong remake will destroy Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 28, 2005, 5:01 pm

Who's playing Kong this time around? Cedrick "The Entertainer"?

On a serious note...it looks damn good. I have much man love for Jack Black.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 28, 2005, 5:26 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Who's playing Kong this time around? Cedrick "The Entertainer"?

er...

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 28, 2005, 6:00 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Who's playing Kong this time around? Cedrick "The Entertainer"?
er...

Yeah, sylvus, I know...

To dispel any "black man plays giant primate" stereotypes, Andy Serkis of Gollum fame is doing the mocap for King Kong. He's also got a part in the movie as Lumpy the Cook or some shit.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 28, 2005, 6:05 pm

Jackson must have some pretty hardcore confidence in this one. How many remakes will this make it, three? I remember at least one remake from the 70s...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 28, 2005, 7:29 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Who's playing Kong this time around? Cedrick "The Entertainer"?
er...
Yeah, sylvus, I know...

To dispel any "black man plays giant primate" stereotypes, Andy Serkis of Gollum fame is doing the mocap for King Kong. He's also got a part in the movie as Lumpy the Cook or some shit.

Nah wasn't about that. LOL

It was about how Cedric stars in Re-Makes all the time.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 28, 2005, 9:29 pm

yeah he does remakes all the time. the honeymooners and...

Mawafu · Post by **Mawafu** » June 28, 2005, 10:47 pm

kyoukan wrote:yeah he does remakes all the time. the honeymooners and...

Back to School, Charlotte's Web..

Still, I had the same reaction as others who posted. For a guy who many blame to be racist you'd think he'd be a little more careful on choice of words.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 29, 2005, 2:10 am

Mawafu wrote:
kyoukan wrote:yeah he does remakes all the time. the honeymooners and...
Back to School, Charlotte's Web..

Still, I had the same reaction as others who posted. For a guy who many blame to be racist you'd think he'd be a little more careful on choice of words.

Youd think so. But since I know I am not and also don't care what people who don't know me say about me, I will continue to speak freely and honest.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 29, 2005, 9:32 am

Mawafu wrote:
kyoukan wrote:yeah he does remakes all the time. the honeymooners and...
Back to School, Charlotte's Web..

Those haven't come out yet. Both are still in production actually.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 29, 2005, 10:38 am

Cedrick shouldnt even be making movies. I cant believe people think this guy is funny. He almost fucking ruined the original kings of comedy.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 29, 2005, 10:54 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Youd think so. But since I know I am not and also don't care what people who don't know me say about me, I will continue to speak freely and honest.

honest? you spew racist garbage and then come back with some weaksauce excuse (yeah cedrice the entertainer is the fucking king of remakes) and then say you are being honest?

valryte · Post by **valryte** » June 29, 2005, 11:39 am

Anyways....

When I heard he was remaking King Kong, I was like oh noooo not another fucking King Kong. Enough already....But after seeing that trailer...hmm, I don't know, it looks pretty cool.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 29, 2005, 1:08 pm

Looks to me like they just remade Jurassic Park 2. Then again, King Kong was the original story, I've just never really seen any of the kong movies.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 29, 2005, 1:17 pm

Jessica Lange was hot in a slutty kind of way in the 1976 version of King Kong. I would have liked to have seen a pr0n remake of that movie.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2005, 2:10 pm

king dong?

anyways, trailer looked pretty cool. i like the stylelized look of the movie, and the casting looks interesting.

it definitely looks to be a fresh take on something which to me is not a particularly compelling original.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 1, 2005, 11:24 pm

I still like my idea of casting Jack Black AS King Kong.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 2, 2005, 12:11 am

Classy Midnyte, real classy.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » July 2, 2005, 12:36 am

The trailer looks badass certainly--a remake, yeah, but still a fresh look with all new techie advancements to expand the idea.

As far as King Kong himself--I am thinking Tony Gwynn--wow! What a porker he is now!!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 2, 2005, 8:50 am

Nick wrote:Classy Midnyte, real classy.

haha

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 4, 2005, 12:43 am

Dregor Thule wrote:
Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Who's playing Kong this time around? Cedrick "The Entertainer"?
er...
Yeah, sylvus, I know...

To dispel any "black man plays giant primate" stereotypes, Andy Serkis of Gollum fame is doing the mocap for King Kong. He's also got a part in the movie as Lumpy the Cook or some shit.

damn, you will go out of your way to find any excuse to attack midnyte...looks pretty fucking desperate when to try to fabricate a racist comment out of every post he makes, and I thought the godamned conservatives were judgmental

nice to see adrian brody playing a major role in a decent looking movie, hes one of the most talented and versatile actors out there right now imo

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 4, 2005, 4:42 am

Holy crap I was able to read that post! Mavis Beacon earned every penny she got from you.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 4, 2005, 10:01 pm

I'm pretty surprsied they actually showed Kong in the trailer. Even if you have an idea of what to expect, the surprise of seeing it larger than life in this day and age of technology is usually the status quo.

That being said, it certainly looks interesting.

Farrel · Post by **Farrel** » November 4, 2005, 5:12 pm

<a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/">new trailer</a>

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » November 4, 2005, 5:54 pm

I think the story has been played to death. The only redeeming factor for me is that Jack Black is in it. That may make it worth a rental if not a download.

Farrel · Post by **Farrel** » November 4, 2005, 8:28 pm

Im more of a naomi fan myself.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 13, 2005, 1:51 pm

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 03002/1023

4 stars from Ebert. Didn't really have an interest in it but sounds interesting from the review so will get around to watching it eventually.

Roger Ebert wrote:This is one of the year's best films.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » December 13, 2005, 4:01 pm

It's not just Ebert, apparently a lot of critics are going gaga over the film.

I had no interest in seeing this in the theater as I hate sitting through 3 hour movies. I may have to break down and sit through this one now though.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 13, 2005, 4:36 pm

I've heard people say Kong needs to make 500 million just to break even.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 13, 2005, 5:29 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I've heard people say Kong needs to make 500 million just to break even.

Well the production budget was $207 million. Not sure where the other $300 million would come from 'just to break even'. Obviously there is additional costs such as advertising and all (unless that's already included in the budget total) but I think that $500 million figure is too high.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » December 13, 2005, 5:39 pm

I've been told that Peter Jackson acquired the original 1930's script and did the movie according to that original script.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 13, 2005, 7:25 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I've heard people say Kong needs to make 500 million just to break even.
Well the production budget was $207 million. Not sure where the other $300 million would come from 'just to break even'. Obviously there is additional costs such as advertising and all (unless that's already included in the budget total) but I think that $500 million figure is too high.

Apparently that extra 300 million is made up of promotional costs, plus Peter Jakcson is due to get some sicko number like 20% of the gross. Prolly just rumors though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » December 14, 2005, 4:37 am

marketing and promotions is factored into the budget of a movie.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » December 14, 2005, 8:32 am

Runtime: 187 min

Um...over 3 hours long!!! wtf! Did they like say, fuck editing, lets get this shit out the door?!?!?

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » December 14, 2005, 8:45 am

You only edit when there's bad scenes to take out.

And what the hell, some of you are acting like it's surprising to see a 3 hour movie. Welcome to Peter Jackson's world. Newsflash, he did 3 major 3+ hour movies over the last few years. Lord of the something.. maybe you heard of them?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » December 14, 2005, 12:37 pm

Not true. Movies are VERY often editted down for length. Look at Lotr for example, plenty of good scenes were taken out. Why? The movie was too fucking long. Not many people are going to sit through a 4 hour movie.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » December 14, 2005, 1:09 pm

Not many people are going to sit through a 4 hour movie.

My crystal ball of common sense says you'll be proven astronomically wrong when the box office takes are posted.

The reason these epic blockbusters are edited down is because it effects how many viewings per day, per theater, the film can be shown. This effects $$$$$ and that is why studio execs often push the producer for cuts.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » December 14, 2005, 1:13 pm

valryte wrote:Runtime: 187 min

Um...over 3 hours long!!! wtf! Did they like say, fuck editing, lets get this shit out the door?!?!?

Doesn't really sound like what they said at all.

There was a stir when Jackson informed the home office that his movie would run 187 minutes. The executives had something around 140 minutes in mind, so they could turn over the audience more quickly (despite the greedy 20 minutes of paid commercials audiences now have inflicted upon them). After they saw the movie, their objections were stilled. Yes, the movie is a tad too long, and we could do without a few of the monsters and overturned elevated trains. But it is so well done that we are complaining, really, only about too much of a good thing. This is one of the great modern epics.

Personally I have no problem sitting through a three+ hour movie if it's good.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 14, 2005, 1:22 pm

Kong movie instructions:

-don't drink anything starting one hour before the movie
-buy your tickets, grab your seats and then make sure all members of your viewing party get to the bathroom starting ten minutes before the movie begins. This may mean missing previews.
-cross your legs around the 160 minute mark and hope for the best
-be sure your movie theater has adequate bathroom facilities for the mad rush after the movie ends.

They should start charging per minute for movies. Some movies out there don't even last 90 minutes. They should be half price!

I like 3 hour movies. Braveheart, Gladiator, etc etc.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » December 14, 2005, 1:50 pm

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised this is 3 hours long. It is a Peter Jackson movie after all.

Shit, the man actually puts out Extended Editions of films that were over 3 hours long in the theathrical release.

Clatis · Post by **Clatis** » December 15, 2005, 1:53 am

OH MAH GAWD IT WAS AMAZING

valryte · Post by **valryte** » December 15, 2005, 4:31 am

And what the hell, some of you are acting like it's surprising to see a 3 hour movie. Welcome to Peter Jackson's world. Newsflash, he did 3 major 3+ hour movies over the last few years. Lord of the something.. maybe you heard of them?

Don't be such an ass. There is a big difference between LOTR and King Kong. Saying it's ok for King Kong is like saying, it's ok to make a 3 hour movie about Godzilla. Come on....

Anyways....I'm still looking forward to seeing it, my opinion still stands that I don't see how King Kong has to possibly be 3 hours, maybe he'll convince me when I see it Friday. I seriously doubt it takes that long to tell the story on film. Unlike, LOTR which even at 3 hours each, still leaves a lot out. Gawd, like I have to explain this cause some idiot can't tell the difference between LOTR and King Kong...

Trias · Post by **Trias** » December 15, 2005, 4:06 pm

this movie was around 40 minutes too long

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » December 16, 2005, 1:56 am

Initial character development phase of the movie ran a little long, if you are a member of the ritilin generation. I think that vewing the movie as a whole, it was time well spent because you actually gave a shit about the characters and had emotional attachment to what was going on, unlike just about any Jurrasic Park or other typical short attention span hack job. I can't say as there is anything I would choose to remove from the movie except the whole insect and leech scene. There are things they could have built on, like the natives and the nature of the island itself, that they obviously cut back on. I am willing to sit through a long movie that makes good use of its time, but the money men in hollywood want 90 minute cliche fests that make bank. Hopefully movies like this one will reverse the trend that 80s style movie making did to the industry.

If you go into this movie expecting a monster movie, you are going to be dissapointed. The action is there and its excellent, but this movie is a carefully paced tribute to film noir, with the special effects taking a back seat to the story and the emotional impact on the characters. If you went in expecting to see an old style classic hollywood movie with a strong buildup, you won't be dissapointed. The acting is excellent and the feel of the movie is spot on, especially the 1930s new york atmosphere. As a remake, its probably the single best remake I have ever seen, hands down. I think that the only movies this year that compare to it are Batman Begins and Walk the Line. A lot of how you view this movie will depend on how short your attention span is and whether you prefer story to effects, however.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » December 17, 2005, 5:11 am

Fucking AMAZING movie. I agree that it's probably the single best remake ever. It didn't seem too long to me at all. All the extra time allowed for more character developement for the main characters, including Kong, as well as adding depth to Skull Island. The CGI for Kong himself is so fucking amazing- every emotion is perfectly expressed so that you can see the humanity with in him.

IMO it is better than the original. Not because of the CGI or better acting, but because the story, the setting, and the characters were so much more interesting. I didn't care jack shit for Kong in the original, he was just a big evil black beast who stole some pretty blonde white lady. In this he's a protagonist that you grow to understand and care for. Plus he's incredibly fucking badass.

I agree about the leech/insect scene. It was too grotesque to be enjoyable. A couple of my friends had to walk out for the duration of that scene because they felt like they were about to puke. May not have been "gory" but it sure was disturbing.

Kwonryu DragonFist · December 17, 2005, 7:42 pm

Explain more about the leech/insect scene!

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » December 18, 2005, 2:21 am

Explain more about the leech/insect scene!

[Show]: To sum up the part of the "leech scene" that everybody is undoubtedly referring to...:

About five of these huge, worm / leech creatures (replicas of Sand Worms, to the Final Fantasy fan), which are about as tall and wide as a human, take their gross lips to different appendages of this poor guy's body. The way the scene is filmed is slow and especially gross, as if Jackson was trying to get a repulsive response from the audience.

A few of the worms start out on one of his legs and arms, which was all right to watch. What made the scene absolutely horrifying was when the final worm started sucking on the guy's head. It started on the hair, then lowered itself over his entire head. It was so closely filmed, and so detailed, and the sounds were so masterfully performed, that it actually made me feel squeamish. I'm the type of person that can watch open heart surgery and not bat an eye, but I was wholly repulsed.

I suppose it was Jackson's intent to disturb the audience, and if so, he succeeded with a gritty panache. I will probably turn my head the other way the next time I watch that part of the movie (which was otherwise greatly entertaining).