If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Badass Digest)   Neil Marshall to direct King Kong sequel. No word on potential Godzilla battles   (badassdigest.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, King Kong, Godzilla, Dino De Laurentiis, sequels, Skull Island, RKO  
•       •       •

835 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Oct 2013 at 8:14 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-05 08:33:52 AM
Sequel to the 1933 film, the 1962 film where he battles Godzilla, the 1976 film or the 2005 film?
 
2013-10-05 08:35:14 AM
fta The big question is what the budget of this will be,

Silly me. I was hoping the big question would be about the story or the characters.
 
2013-10-05 08:36:23 AM

Aboleth: Sequel to the 1933 film, the 1962 film where he battles Godzilla, the 1976 film or the 2005 film?


Luckily there's not a lot of modern Kong fanboys otherwise the continuity would drive them all nuts.
 
2013-10-05 08:45:43 AM

Confabulat: Luckily there's not a lot of modern Kong fanboys otherwise the continuity would drive them all nuts.


I'd pay to watch a movie about modern Kong fanboys being driven nuts by the continuity.

/obviously I DRTFA. snort.
 
2013-10-05 08:49:43 AM
the big question is whether we will see giant furry swinging ape balls and penis.
 
2013-10-05 08:58:13 AM

GungFu: the big question is whether we will see giant furry swinging ape balls and penis.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-05 09:27:46 AM
Peter Jackson's King Kong was amazing, if a bit too long.

We don't need another Kong film until FX have moved to another level, at which point they should remake it again without all the masturbation.

It is a 90 minute film.  it doesn't need to be 3 hours, and it doesn't need a sequel that makes no damn sense.

Unless the sequel is actually a straight sequel to Jackson's film, and a crew goes to Skull Island to explore and the entire film takes place there.

Because if we are subjected to Kong in a lab...  well, fark that.

Jackson's Skull Island was the best part of his movie, and could use some exploring.
 
2013-10-05 10:18:24 AM
I'm more interested in the upcoming Godzilla movie.  All the early coverage is really optimistic about it.
 
2013-10-05 11:25:23 AM
Peter Jackson's King Kong was ruined by Peter Jackson.

And Jack Black.
 
2013-10-05 11:47:59 AM

SpdrJay: And Jack Black.


How so?  He played "sleazy hollywood leech" perfectly.  you may not like the actor, but he was not the problem with that movie, if there was one.

It was just way too damn long.  it took too long to get to the island.  the entire stampede can be cut.  most of the crap in New York once they get back can be cut.  Edit that film down to just under two hours, or even somewhere around 110 minutes and it is fantastic.
 
2013-10-05 12:19:21 PM

Confabulat: Aboleth: Sequel to the 1933 film, the 1962 film where he battles Godzilla, the 1976 film or the 2005 film?

Luckily there's not a lot of modern Kong fanboys otherwise the continuity would drive them all nuts.


Kong shot first!
 
2013-10-05 01:19:46 PM

SpdrJay: Peter Jackson's King Kong was ruined by Peter Jackson.

And Jack Black.


What was the problem with Jackson's work?

As for Jack Black...what actor do you think would have better filled the role of "smarmy douchebag director?"  Christ, the man was born to fill that role.
 
2013-10-05 01:26:04 PM
Finally! Just what the moviegoing public has seen demanding! Can't wait for CGI shiatfest 2
 
2013-10-05 01:43:13 PM

Shrugging Atlas: SpdrJay: Peter Jackson's King Kong was ruined by Peter Jackson.

And Jack Black.

What was the problem with Jackson's work?

As for Jack Black...what actor do you think would have better filled the role of "smarmy douchebag director?"  Christ, the man was born to fill that role.


Problem is, I think, is that Carl Denhem wasn't intended to be a swarmy douchebag director-he was a swashbuckling,fighter pilot, globe trotting, A-hole,war hero, successful,  adventure, type. He was patterned after Marion C Cooper himself and he wasn't a check bouncing used car salesmen that Peter Jackson made him into. I was kind of surprised by this, since the stuff Jackson made for the Special Edition of the 1933 original went into great detail about how much Jackson loved the original and how he'd always wanted to re-make it. And yet, when he does, he drastically changed one of the main characters(I say for the worse)
Looking back, I'd say Jackson had/has an incredible fascination with the lost scene from the original where monster bugs eat the crew that falls into the canyon. He talks a lot about it in the Special Edition and even re-made it himself with stop-motion effects, then put in an extended version in his 2005 remake. He almost seemed more interested in doing that scene that anything else.


frepnog: SpdrJay: And Jack Black.

How so?  He played "sleazy hollywood leech" perfectly.  you may not like the actor, but he was not the problem with that movie, if there was one.

It was just way too damn long.  it took too long to get to the island.  the entire stampede can be cut.  most of the crap in New York once they get back can be cut.  Edit that film down to just under two hours, or even somewhere around 110 minutes and it is fantastic.


The stampede is mind blowing bad. There's many, many sweeping effects/landscape shots that are right out of the LOTR films (ancient ruins all over Skull Island?) He combines all the creature fights into one three on one, vine swinging....thing. The dance on in Central Park is weird. But one thing that really stood out to me was what I'd call The Speech.
The Speech is in both the 1933 and the 1976 film, it's one of the few really good parts of the 1976 movie. It's where someone (Denhem in '33, Jeff Bridges' Jack Prescott in '76) explains the legend of the island and Kong. It's the Why We're Here speech and Peter Jackson has freaking Lumpy the cook deliver it in his version. The cook. Yeah, I know Andy Serkis played Lumpy and he and Jackson have a pretty good relationship. But still...the cook.
 
2013-10-05 02:25:20 PM

Your_Huckleberry: Problem is, I think, is that Carl Denhem wasn't intended to be a swarmy douchebag director-he was a swashbuckling,fighter pilot, globe trotting, A-hole,war hero, successful, adventure, type. He was patterned after Marion C Cooper himself and he wasn't a check bouncing used car salesmen that Peter Jackson made him into.


Because the film is about Denham's failure, and Carl Denham needed to FAIL.  He didn't need to be a super hero - that role was transferred over to the douchbag lead actor that found heroism in himself that he was unaware of.

Your_Huckleberry: Looking back, I'd say Jackson had/has an incredible fascination with the lost scene from the original where monster bugs eat the crew that falls into the canyon.


It is also one of the best scenes in the film.  It is absolutely terrifying.

Your_Huckleberry: It's the Why We're Here speech and Peter Jackson has freaking Lumpy the cook deliver it in his version. The cook.


The cook isn't delivering a "why we are here" speech.  He is just an old sailor passing on what amounts to superstition and folk tales, much like old sailors might do, while trying to creep out the new guy because it's funny.  He might as well asked one of the landlubbers to fetch him a bucket of steam.
 
2013-10-05 02:27:11 PM

Your_Huckleberry: Problem is, I think, is that Carl Denhem wasn't intended to be a swarmy douchebag director-he was a swashbuckling,fighter pilot, globe trotting, A-hole,war hero, successful,  adventure, type. He was patterned after Marion C Cooper himself and he wasn't a check bouncing used car salesmen that Peter Jackson made him into. I was kind of surprised by this, since the stuff Jackson made for the Special Edition of the 1933 original went into great detail about how much Jackson loved the original and how he'd always wanted to re-make it. And yet, when he does, he drastically changed one of the main characters(I say for the worse)
Looking back, I'd say Jackson had/has an incredible fascination with the lost scene from the original where monster bugs eat the crew that falls into the canyon. He talks a lot about it in the Special Edition and even re-made it himself with stop-motion effects, then put in an extended version in his 2005 remake. He almost seemed more interested in doing that scene that anything el


OK, in that context I can definitely see the complaint.  I hadn't seen or heard of any of the special edition content but that does change the scope of things.
 
2013-10-05 02:30:56 PM
Off topic, but there is actually a stand alone Godzilla movie coming out...I just looked and apparently a teaser trailer was at comic-con over the summer but nobody has kindly leaked it online from what I could tell.

I'll just stick to Pacific Rim for now.  Which incidentally just came out on video.
 
2013-10-05 02:35:56 PM

Shrugging Atlas: I'll just stick to Pacific Rim for now. Which incidentally just came out on video.


already watched it like 3 times and have it on my phone just in case i need to see it again.

/GODDAMN what a great movie.
 
2013-10-05 05:41:03 PM
King Kong and Tarzan are two characters I've never, ever been interested in. Plus, the movies about them, the ones made after the sixties, don't seem to do well either. It's like old studio execs are convinced everybody's just waiting to rush in theaters at the mentions of these names. That and both characters being in the public domain.
So I'm not surprised they're back at doing two movies with them.

/I actually liked Greystoke, it was an interesting take on the Tarzan character
//I wish they'd do a Mandrake the Magician movie with RDJ and the Rock as Lothar
 
2013-10-05 08:18:01 PM

Dancis_Frake: King Kong and Tarzan are two characters I've never, ever been interested in. Plus, the movies about them, the ones made after the sixties, don't seem to do well either. It's like old studio execs are convinced everybody's just waiting to rush in theaters at the mentions of these names. That and both characters being in the public domain.
So I'm not surprised they're back at doing two movies with them.


Both stories rely on the idea of Africa being the "dark continent", full of things unexplored and unexplained which doesn't work so well when you can get a satellite view of virtually any part of the continent via Google Earth.
 
2013-10-06 09:45:08 AM

frepnog: Your_Huckleberry: Problem is, I think, is that Carl Denhem wasn't intended to be a swarmy douchebag director-he was a swashbuckling,fighter pilot, globe trotting, A-hole,war hero, successful, adventure, type. He was patterned after Marion C Cooper himself and he wasn't a check bouncing used car salesmen that Peter Jackson made him into.

Because the film is about Denham's failure, and Carl Denham needed to FAIL.  He didn't need to be a super hero - that role was transferred over to the douchbag lead actor that found heroism in himself that he was unaware of.

Your_Huckleberry: Looking back, I'd say Jackson had/has an incredible fascination with the lost scene from the original where monster bugs eat the crew that falls into the canyon.

It is also one of the best scenes in the film.  It is absolutely terrifying.

Your_Huckleberry: It's the Why We're Here speech and Peter Jackson has freaking Lumpy the cook deliver it in his version. The cook.

The cook isn't delivering a "why we are here" speech.  He is just an old sailor passing on what amounts to superstition and folk tales, much like old sailors might do, while trying to creep out the new guy because it's funny.  He might as well asked one of the landlubbers to fetch him a bucket of steam.


Well, yes. Jackson's film was about Denham's failure, you're right. I was was just surprised that Jackson chose to change the character so much. Consider Jack Driscoll: in the original, he's a tough first mate of the Venture who saves Ann and falls for her. He's also sexist, limited emotionally and really not that deep a character. Jackson pays homage to this by using the dialogue from the 1933 movie as Denham's movie being filmed on the ship. Jackson's version of Jack Driscoll isn't as rough and tough, until he has to be. Plus he's smarter and deeper. I liked the change to him, he was more interesting. I thought the original Dehnam was more interesting than this newer one, though.

As for the bug scene, the story goes that the original scene freaked people out so much that Cooper removed it himself and apparently destroyed it. Jackson clearly tried to re-capture that and it did work, I got he impression that scene may have been the main reason he wanted to do the movie.

Lumpy giving the speech is really more of a pet peeve of mine. Sure, as the "salty dog", he'd be one to tell such a tale to less experienced travelers. But I still say that speech is an important part of the story and a bigger character should have delivered it. Denham in '33 is the only one on the ship who knows where they're going, it's his will and his will alone that drives them. In the '76 remake, Jack Prescott isn't the only one who knows where they're going-Charles Groden and Odo do, but Jeff Bridges is the only one who knows the legend of Kong and thinks there's something there beyond oil. I personally think the Venture's captain should have given this speech in Jackson's version, or perhaps a combination of him and Lumpy( maybe the captain is starting to tell a watered down version and the season and leery old cook corrects him) The scene just didn't have the same weight to me as the other two versions.

But I still liked the movie quite a bit, just not as much as the original and not as much as I had hoped I would. The '76 version is overall pretty crappy- dude in gorilla suit, but it did feature elements that the original did not that made it into Jackson's movie. Mainly that Ann and Kong connect and Ann is actually pretty damn bummed out when Kong is killed at the end. Kong is a monster in the original, Fay Wray's Ann is not sad when he get dusted there.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report