• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Rate King Kong

How do you rate Peter Jackson's King Kong?

  • 0 - My eyes are melting out of my head! Make it stop!

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 1 - You know, maybe I should have scheduled root canal...

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • 2 - Plan 9 from Outer Space makes sense to me now!

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • 3 - I have seen worse, but not many.

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • 4 - Mediocre, but not brain numbing.

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • 5 - Okay.

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 6 - It had its moments.

    Votes: 6 5.7%
  • 7 - Glad I saw it.

    Votes: 15 14.3%
  • 8 - Very good!

    Votes: 24 22.9%
  • 9 - Excellent, a great movie!

    Votes: 41 39.0%
  • 10 - God is here, and his name is Peter Jackson!

    Votes: 9 8.6%

barsoomcore said:
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.
I don't know if that's true for most people. My wife and I are definately fans of the theatrical experience, but that aspect of it is not a part of why we are.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Storm Raven said:
Virtually everyone remembers the key action sequences of LotR in print, even though they only take up handful of pages of the narrative.
Actually, a very significant portion of the audience finds LotR in print to be too slowly paced for their tastes. I know (in real life, as opposed to here online at a D&D website where we skew the other way heavily) more people who have attempted to read Fellowship and quit because it was too boring for them than I do people who are actually big fans of the books.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
Actually, a very significant portion of the audience finds LotR in print to be too slowly paced for their tastes. I know (in real life, as opposed to here online at a D&D website where we skew the other way heavily) more people who have attempted to read Fellowship and quit because it was too boring for them than I do people who are actually big fans of the books.

Even among people who have only made it partway through the books, the scenes that stick in their memory are the handful of action sequences. I have found that most people who make it to the chase sequence where Frodo is pursued by the ringwraiths to Rivendell tend to stick through the rest of the books, and they always remember the key moments thereafter.
 

Kai Lord said:
And your sound won't hold a candle to state of the art auditorium systems. I don't care if you've spent 50 grand.

I beg to differ.

I'll happily put my mid-range HT system up against the best you'll find in a theater...and the 50K home systems are so superior sonically to what the theaters offer it's laughable.

The reality is that a good home theater set up easily rivals the movie going experience...and the best home theaters blow it away.

I like that ticket prices are going up. Helps keep the riff raff out.

Unfortunately the "riff-raff" comprises the majority of the ticket buying audience.

Mass market
business models that stress exclucivity over value tend to fail....horribly.
 
Last edited:

Storm Raven said:
Even among people who have only made it partway through the books, the scenes that stick in their memory are the handful of action sequences. I have found that most people who make it to the chase sequence where Frodo is pursued by the ringwraiths to Rivendell tend to stick through the rest of the books, and they always remember the key moments thereafter.
That's probably quite true.

However, it's completely beside the point.
 


Storm Raven said:
My point was that the rarity of the action in the written LotR makes it memorable. I'm not seeing where that is being contradicted.
I wasn't contradicting it. In fact, I agree with it. However, your point is irrelevent to the post you were responding to, though. Yes, the action is more memorable, but that's because it's so seldom that many people are turned off by the slowness of the book. The original point was that Jackson wasn't necessarily making a bad move when he upped the action for the movies.
 


History of Skull Island page 190 has the worms, I was flipping through the book in the book store the other day, very interesting, and really cool art work, but I don't have the money to blow on stuff like that.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
The original point was that Jackson wasn't necessarily making a bad move when he upped the action for the movies.
I wasn't saying it necessarily made the movies worse by upping the action. In fact, the action sequences were utterly memorable, and the trilogy quickly took the place of "My Favorite Movies".... I just noticed that PJ has a 'more is better' viewpoint, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I did think that the long drawn out battle of Kong vs. 3 T-Rexes was a bit too long and too much.... that whole sequence of everyone hanging on vines down in the canyon was pretty silly, IMO.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top