Rate King Kong

[Rykion]

I don't think anyone was saying that they thought movie theaters would go away completely, just they would be fewer and less important to the movie industry's bottom line. Kind of like the decline of videogame arcades compared to the rise of gaming on PCs/consoles. Arcades are still around, they just aren't as common and most have attached themselves to other businesses such as pizza parlors.

 

[David Howery]

finally saw this yesterday (along with Narnia)... I give it an 8.... it is a good movie, but it had it's flaws... pacing was wierd; several action scenes had weird slowmo segments....
One thing I've noticed is that PJ has a real "More is better" fixation... the first Kong had him fight a T-Rex, so PJ has him fight three of them... the first Kong had him fight a Pteranodon, so PJ has him fight a whole slew of giant bats... the first Kong smushed one of the airplanes sent against him, so PJ has him take down three of them... etc... you can see some of the same thing in the LOTR trilogy... the rather brief cave troll scene in the book is a whole drawn out fight in the movie.. etc...

 

[Desdichado]

Interesting commentary on your blog about Kong, there barsoomcore. Of course, I disagree with much of it, so I had to reply in the comments section.

 

[Storm Raven]

And I'm sorry but 60 inches in no way equals 60 feet, thank you very much.

Is 60 inches seen from 10 feet away really substantially different than 60 feet from 120 feet away?

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

finally saw this yesterday (along with Narnia)... I give it an 8.... it is a good movie, but it had it's flaws... pacing was wierd; several action scenes had weird slowmo segments....
One thing I've noticed is that PJ has a real "More is better" fixation... the first Kong had him fight a T-Rex, so PJ has him fight three of them... the first Kong had him fight a Pteranodon, so PJ has him fight a whole slew of giant bats... the first Kong smushed one of the airplanes sent against him, so PJ has him take down three of them... etc... you can see some of the same thing in the LOTR trilogy... the rather brief cave troll scene in the book is a whole drawn out fight in the movie.. etc...

Well... in the LotR books, I would argue that there is not *enough* action (the last battle in Fellowship is what... 3 pages?) and that doesn't translate to screen. You can only highlight so much camping, setting up camp, and eating before your movie gets incredibly, incredibly boring. But - I suppose - that's a topic for a thread entitled "Reasons I Did Not Enjoy the LotR Series in Print." Hehehehe.

 

[Sushi]

I just see the ratching up of the "action" as the result of the increased jadeness of the public. It takes more and more to impress a person today than it took in the 1930's. So thats why you need 3 T-Rexs when one was enough in the original movie. Movies today almost demand more excitement, more action, more special effects or people will call it slow or boring. It is sad really.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Mark this day, folks. I agree with Kai Lord.



We've got plenty of those style of cinemas up here in the Great White North -- with all sorts of food options, big comfy reclining seats where you're NEVER blocked by someone else's head.

And I'm sorry but 60 inches in no way equals 60 feet, thank you very much.

Watching movies in your living room is a fine thing, and believe you me, I do plenty of that. It's great to be able to pause, to sit around in your pyjamas, to eat whatever you want, all that.

But the theatrical experience is fundamentally different. You DON'T have that control, and that makes it feel different. You surrender to the glow of the big screen, and you let the story envelope you thereby. And also, you SHARE the experience. You're there with a couple hundred other souls, all gasping, cheering or weeping together. You can't get that in your living room.

Now if you don't like any of that then sure, theatres offer not much (60 feet aside). But I do.

I agree with you, the problem is that we are a demograghic, as we age we fall out of the group Hollywood has 'windowed' as the market, we move into another market 'window' and get targeted by someone else.

 

[barsoomcore]

Is 60 inches seen from 10 feet away really substantially different than 60 feet from 120 feet away?

Yep.

It's the witnessing of people and events being portrayed as much, much bigger than you that defines a good portion of the theatrical experience.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yep.

It's the witnessing of people and events being portrayed as much, much bigger than you that defines a good portion of the theatrical experience.

But if you are far enough away that they look just like they would look on your screen at home, how is the experience substantially any different?

 

[Storm Raven]

Well... in the LotR books, I would argue that there is not *enough* action (the last battle in Fellowship is what... 3 pages?) and that doesn't translate to screen. You can only highlight so much camping, setting up camp, and eating before your movie gets incredibly, incredibly boring. But - I suppose - that's a topic for a thread entitled "Reasons I Did Not Enjoy the LotR Series in Print." Hehehehe.

I, on the other hand, found that it made the actual action much more noteworthy. Books in which every third page has an action sequence get dull - nothing is exciting when everything tries to be. Contrasting everyday experience with excitement keeps the exciting material actually exciting. Virtually everyone remembers the key action sequences of LotR in print, even though they only take up handful of pages of the narrative.