Jackson's King Kong: 3 Hours.

[Flexor the Mighty!]

avrop asdpovja dsr;lt p4t9[u sdflm a[psdfgi ghksl opetwu hltj dx;lfn wer[otu

(barsoomcore resorts to beating his head on his keyboard to express his frustration with the world)

How do you not LOVE LOVE LOVE King Kong? How is it possible? I don't get it. The 1933 King Kong is flat-out the greatest film of all time. It just friggin IS. It has dinosaurs! Native dancing! Biplanes! Beautiful women! Sarcastic sailors! Gunfire! Civic disobedience! It's romantic and violent and thrilling and real and gripping and full of pathos and power and imagination and humour and

ITS THE BEST FILM EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

(pantpantpantpantpantpantpantpant)

Okay, sorry. Under control again. All I'm going to say is that if you're basing your opinion of Kong on Japanese monster movies or other crappy pop-culture crapity crap crap crap, PLEASE. You owe it to yourself to watch the original movie -- it is honestly one of cinema's greatest triumphs. I honestly can't imagine how you could NOT love this picture.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a weirdo. But I just wanted to plead for Kong -- if you watched it and didn't like it, I guess there's nothing more to be said. But he's gotten the Frankenstein treatment over the years -- so much pop culture ripoff action that the original's brilliance has nearly been eclipsed. Don't confuse the crap that rides on the coat-tails with the real Fred Astaire.

King Kong is a GREAT film. Even the AFI agrees. You wouldn't disagree with the AFI, now would you?

Seen the original several times. It didn't get better with repeat viewings. I still can't understand why it's being remade AGAIN. What wasn't put across in the two prior versions? I really hope it bombs so talented filmmakers stop wasting thier time remaking old stuff and start making new stuff.*

*Of course I know that no matter how bad this movie may or may not do it will not change Hollywood's "play it safe" mentality.

 

[WayneLigon]

Kong! Kong! Kong! Can't ... wait. Three hours sounds perfect to me; most epic or event movies need to be about that long anyway.

The King is back, bay-be.

 

[Desdichado]

Seen the original several times. It didn't get better with repeat viewings. I still can't understand why it's being remade AGAIN. What wasn't put across in the two prior versions? I really hope it bombs so talented filmmakers stop wasting thier time remaking old stuff and start making new stuff.

Yep, like Van Helsing, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or The Chronicles of Riddick.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

That is a hat trick of crappy movies man.

*throws hat*

 

[Henry]

How do you not LOVE LOVE LOVE King Kong? How is it possible? I don't get it. The 1933 King Kong is flat-out the greatest film of all time. It just friggin IS. It has dinosaurs! Native dancing! Biplanes! Beautiful women! Sarcastic sailors! Gunfire! Civic disobedience! It's romantic and violent and thrilling and real and gripping and full of pathos and power and imagination and humour and

ITS THE BEST FILM EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

God, my Serenity flashbacks are astounding!

It's always neat to see someone with passsion about a movie.

 

[Joshua Randall]

barsoomcore -- for what it's worth, Roger Ebert (partially) agree with you:

On good days I consider "Citizen Kane" the seminal film of the sound era, but on bad days it is "King Kong."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020203/REVIEWS08/202030301/1023

As for me, I'll eventually see Peter Jackson's take on Kong, but only because I'm a geek and, y'know, I'm obligated to do so. I have no inherent excitement for the movie. (And yes, I've seen the original. *shrug*)

 

[Desdichado]

As for me, I'll eventually see Peter Jackson's take on Kong, but only because I'm a geek and, y'know, I'm obligated to do so. I have no inherent excitement for the movie. (And yes, I've seen the original. *shrug*)

Huh? How is King Kong a geek movie? The original is a true classic of cinema; one of the most influential movies ever made (as Roger Ebert alludes in this review there.) It had huge mass audience appeal. King Kong is a fixture in pop culture; even folks who have never seen a King Kong movie of any stripe know the basics; he's a giant ape that abducts women and fights planes on the top of the Empire State Building.

I'm pretty excited to see the movie, but not at all because I think it has any geek cred. But I admit to being a huge fan of the original.

 

[demiurge1138]

I don't think it's Kong specifically that has geek cred - it's Jackson. There's now a geekly obligation to see his movies. But for those who are somehow unfamiliar with the original's classic status, it's easy to see how it could have geek cred. A giant ape fights dinosaurs and rampages through New York City. In a world where all fantasy is viewed as outside of the mainstream, that's plenty geeky.

But yes, I've been thrilled about this movie ever since I heard that it was in preproduction (the original is one of my favorite movies ever, and I trust Jackson with the task of remaking it), and I've been getting steadily more thrilled ever since. And I've been easily converting people from the "oh, who cares?" to the "must see it now" camp very easily. I just show them the trailer

Demiurge out.

 

[Flyspeck23]

*Of course I know that no matter how bad this movie may or may not do it will not change Hollywood's "play it safe" mentality.

King Kong was PJ's pet project (literally ), so it wasn't like some studio decided to do a remake.
A studio hiring a director to do a remake (or a TV show or book adaption, or a sequel...) is "play it safe". This case is slightly different - and IIRC the studios weren't too keen on the idea prior to LotR.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Yup, I just heard that Peter Jackson did LotR as basically a step on the path to making King Kong.