KING KONG

Originally Posted by ava lilly

when I heard there'd be a remake of King Kong, I thought it'd be a flop just like most of the other remakes that have been showing up at the box office. I went and saw it though, since I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies and wanted to see how Peter Jackson would handle this one, and I thought it was great.

this is the type of movie that you go to the movie theatres to see. it's story telling and entertainment all wrapped up in a nice pretty package. granted, it was longer than most movies you'll see, but I mean you can't really compress an epic down into 90 minutes without botching the character development. if you have a short attention span, then just rent the DVD so you can pause it whenever your feeble mind can't take it anymore.

it wasn't a perfect movie by any means, but I still think it's a hell of a lot better than most of the shit raking in money at the box office recently. if you only went to see it for the CGI, sure you might be disappointed, but look at the animation in the original movies. did that make their stories any less enjoyable? no. I could have done without most of those would never happen dinosaur scenes though. they went on far too long, making them way over the top, so if they were shortened down they would have been a lot better.

I like how Ava stomped all over Mega with this post. Lith, as always, you prove yourself to be the simple little boy we all think you are. If it has lightsabers or planes, you love it, if it has character development and a subtle plot, you hate it. You really need to stop watching movies. People like you are the reason why we get Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious sequels out the ass.

Kong was a fantastic movie. It was driven, it was entertaining, and yes, the CG was less than perfect. I winced at the kid running over the collapsing rocks. It just looked awful. However, the STORY, you know the important part of the movie was awesome. Also, the relationship on the ship had nothing to do with the crew and everything to do with setting up the parallels between Heart of Darkness and Kong. You must have missed that part while you were grumbling about why they kept showing the 'boring' parts.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Tascar

I don't quite understand what the obsession is over short films? I'm quite glad that in the last decade or so we are starting to see the return of the three-hour-long epic that used to be a tentpole of the cinema.

Absolutely. Errol Flynn is the height of the action genre, and it's good to see a return to form in this regard.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I just hated how parts of the movie seemed to be in the middle of the film for no reason. Why would we hear so much about the boy and the black guy - for the black guy to die and to never see the boy again?

I don't mind long movies, if the length is necessary. This movie could have easily lost a half an hour and retained every bit of the plot necessary.

Still, wasn't bad for an evening at the movie theatres.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Also, the relationship on the ship had nothing to do with the crew and everything to do with setting up the parallels between Heart of Darkness and Kong.

And we have an answer.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Tascar

In looking at the example of Peter Jackson's The Fellowship of the Rings theatrical and extended versions, I am anxiously waiting for a longer version of King Kong to see how the Jimmy and Hayes plotline changes.

I say this because I remember that when I saw the theatrical version of The Fellowship of the Rings, I absolutely hated the entire Lothlorien sequence. It just didn't seem to contribute anything particularly significant to the plot and was just boring. What I realized after watching the extended version was that the Lothlorien sequence probably might have worked better if they used the longer extended version since the added depth and length of the sequence gave the sequence a purpose to be there whereas the original did not.

As such, I wonder what might have been cut out with the Jimmy and Hayes plotline that might have justified their earlier scenes. Because for me, the film felt very well paced on the first watching. It was only during the second and subsequent watchings that scenes like these felt boring, not because the scenes were intrinsically boring, but because nothing ultimately came out of it.

November for the extended version, I think.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.