Gojira or King Kong?

[Katsuro]

You know it's funny, I mentioned the Godzilla movie early today, and maybe a few hours later, i'm walking through my living room, and it's on the TV. What a coincidence.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Well one time I was thinking about AvP before its release, went to the loo and sat back down and a TV spot came on.

The same thing happened a few weeks ago: I was going into the living room, and was just about to say something about the fourth harry potter DVD and an ad came on for it (the DVD)...spooky, huh?

 

[Guyverjay]

Gozilla would get his ass handed to him by Kong (especially Peter Jackson's).
.

One of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

Godzillas FOOT is bigger than King Kong. Godzilla can take NUKES for petes sake

 

[TheFalcon]

King Kong

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Um, if it's in a fight, even the least powerful version of Godzilla ever written or directed is more powerful than the biggest and most powerful version of Kong. Anyone saying the contrary doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, plain and simple.

As far as monsters go, i'll go with Godzilla. Sure, I love Kong, but no matter how much I love him, he's still a giant gorilla. Godzilla's the King of all monsters, the baddest and most powerful giant monster to ever hit the silver screen. Watch Final Wars or GMK to remember why (in both of them, he kicks the hell out of multiple other giant monsters nemesis, without any injury). He truly is the king.

But as far as movies go, King Kong's been in the best giant monster movie of all time: King Kong 33. Now THAT'S a movie. Nothing will ever beat that.

But that's the only great movie he's ever been in. He was, and always will be, a one movie monster idea. Sure, Godzilla vs King kong and King Kong escapes were a whole lot of fun, and I love these two movies, but i'll never proclaim they are great piece of filmmaking, even amongst their monster movies counterpart. Kong 76 was impressive, but failed on many levels, and Jackson's version was a mess that shouldn't even be discussed.

But the King of all monsters ? Godzilla ? He's appeared in the second greatest monster movie of all time (the original masterpiece named Gojira) and in 27 sequels. While not all great, most of them are great fun to watch, much more than Kong's remakes. He's THE most lucky Kaiju ever, since he's the one with the biggest number of movies. Kaneko's opus, GMK, is easily a better achievement than Jackson's version or the 76's remake. It's got better FX and is ten times more fun.

Only Gamera is near Godzilla's status as far as franchise goes. Kong is a one movie opus masterpiece, while Godzilla is a 28 movie franchise. It's hard to beat such an impressive number.

Goji for me.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

One of the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

Godzillas FOOT is bigger than King Kong. Godzilla can take NUKES for petes sake

Bias many people dumber. These boards will never cease to amaze me.

 

[Steve Vai]

King Kong, of course.

Maybe when I was little, I wouldve said Gozilla, but
If they decided to make a remake of the Godzilla vs. King Kong,
Gozilla would get his ass handed to him by Kong (especially Peter Jackson's).

Gozilla got old a long, long time ago.

Kong movies were better too.

Isnt king kong like 10 times smaller than gojira?

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Let me clear something up:

THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT WHO IS MORE POWERFUL. I JUST CREATED IT TO SEE WHO PREFERRED WHO. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHO'S MORE POWERFUL, WATCH GODZILLA VS KING KONG.

There. Rant over.

 

[Steve Vai]

 

[Steve Vai]

Let me clear something up:

THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT WHO IS MORE POWERFUL. I JUST CREATED IT TO SEE WHO PREFERRED WHO. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHO'S MORE POWERFUL, WATCH GODZILLA VS KING KONG.

There. Rant over.

Nah - we'll disscuss it here

 

[Flexo]

Um, if it's in a fight, even the least powerful version of Godzilla ever written or directed is more powerful than the biggest and most powerful version of Kong. Anyone saying the contrary doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, plain and simple.

As far as monsters go, i'll go with Godzilla. Sure, I love Kong, but no matter how much I love him, he's still a giant gorilla. Godzilla's the King of all monsters, the baddest and most powerful giant monster to ever hit the silver screen. Watch Final Wars or GMK to remember why (in both of them, he kicks the hell out of multiple other giant monsters nemesis, without any injury). He truly is the king.

But as far as movies go, King Kong's been in the best giant monster movie of all time: King Kong 33. Now THAT'S a movie. Nothing will ever beat that.

But that's the only great movie he's ever been in. He was, and always will be, a one movie monster idea. Sure, Godzilla vs King kong and King Kong escapes were a whole lot of fun, and I love these two movies, but i'll never proclaim they are great piece of filmmaking, even amongst their monster movies counterpart. Kong 76 was impressive, but failed on many levels, and Jackson's version was a mess that shouldn't even be discussed.

If you feel that the '76 version is better than Jackson's version, I can't take your opinion seriously.

I tried watching some Godzilla films, but I couldn't stand them. There was one with a lame robot fighting a mutated turtle and Godzilla seemed to be his tag team partner. Ugh. Godzilla 2000? That was a waste of seven bucks. I can only assume that most of the Godzilla films are that poor.

 

[Steve Vai]

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

If you feel that the '76 version is better than Jackson's version, I can't take your opinion seriously.

I tried watching some Godzilla films, but I couldn't stand them. There was one with a lame robot fighting a mutated turtle and Godzilla seemed to be his tag team partner. Ugh. Godzilla 2000? That was a waste of seven bucks. I can only assume that most of the Godzilla films are that poor.

Even though it's your personal opinion, and I respect it, personally, the 76 version is pretty stupid compared to Jackson's...or the original's. And even though I haven't seen the Godzilla movies, I'ma take a risk and say that the Godzilla movies are apart of Japanese culture, and they make one every few years. You gotta have a fresh, new, freaky creature for him to fight.

Here's a bit of trivia: the city The Bride flies over in Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is the city from the second last Godzilla film: which I assume is this: (Godzilla, Mothra, Mechagodzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366526/

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

The Tokyo miniature sets were leftovers from the then most recent Godzilla film (Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Gidorâ: Daikaijû sôkôgeki (2001)).

There you go.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

If you feel that the '76 version is better than Jackson's version, I can't take your opinion seriously.

The 76's version of King Kong had a guy in a suit (whish was the film's only main downfall [he didn't MOVE like an ape]), so if you can stand that, why can't you stand a guy in a lizard suit destroying a miniature Tokyo?

 

[deathshead2]

So this is a poll for the old kong vs godzilla. Thats cool I made a thread like this for the remakes kong and godzilla fight.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

it;s for ANY version of kong and ANY version of GOdzilla.

I just want to see what users prefer which monsters.

 

[Flexo]

The 76's version of King Kong had a guy in a suit (whish was the film's only main downfall [he didn't MOVE like an ape]), so if you can stand that, why can't you stand a guy in a lizard suit destroying a miniature Tokyo?

That's the problem; Rick Baker in a suit didn't work. (And that was just one of many problems with the 76 version.) It was hokey and made me want to roll my eyes more than anything.

On the other hand, Jackson's use of CGI was astounding and helped make a believable creature (Which can also be credited to Andy Serkis' wonderful acting.)

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

I apologise Flexo. I thought you said that you personally thouhgt the 76 version of Kong was better than Jackson's. Sorry, but yeah. I have to admit though, 76 Kong isn't too bad, if he moved like an ape it would have been at least above average.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

If you feel that the '76 version is better than Jackson's version, I can't take your opinion seriously.

I tried watching some Godzilla films, but I couldn't stand them. There was one with a lame robot fighting a mutated turtle and Godzilla seemed to be his tag team partner. Ugh. Godzilla 2000? That was a waste of seven bucks. I can only assume that most of the Godzilla films are that poor.

Try watching the original Godzilla (uncut and in japanase, of course) if you want to see a masterpiece that puts to shame Jackson's movie, or if you want a more recent movie in the franchise, GMK (Godzilla, mothra and King Ghidorah) is a very well done little movie, that entertains from the beginning to the end, with great FX. I'd recommend beginning with both of these.

And yes, I find the '76 version much better than Jackson's version. I've never been a big fan of the 76 version, but at least it brought something new to a dying genre. Kong felt BIG and impressive back then. With this first remake, a new angle to the Kong Mythos was added: The tragic love story. It sure didn't hold a candle to the original one, but it wasn't a wasted rehashed. It tried something new.

Jackson's version was a rehashed, imo. It brought nearly nothing new to the kong mythos.

Heck, Jackson even went the Lucas way with his FX: everything CGI with lots of ugly blue screen (my god the bluescreens were horrible, even worse than in the newest star wars movies. That brontosaur chase ? Good lord, that was painful to watch...). And what did he do ? He made the same goddamn movie than the first one. Same storyline. Same things. What's the goal of watching the same movie all over again ? A bore from the beginning to the end. We already know everything. What did he change that the first movie didn't have? A tragic love story. Reminds you of something ? Hell yeah, he copied the 76 version. That's low, very low. And he has the guts to blast that one.

In the 76 version, Kong felt both BIG and impressive, especially because of how it was filmed. The way the camera was used to make Kong seem bigger than nature. In an age after movies like Jurassic Park and War of the worlds are out, there is no excuse for a movie like Jackson's version to feel so small in scope. In jurassic park, the t-rex felt HUGE, because of how he used both his fx and his camera. Where was the camera when the t-rex first attack ? In the car, behind Alan Grant and Malcolm. You watch that menacing lizard with the same eyes his prey do. We feel their fear. We see how HUGE the t-rex is. Spielberg used the same technique in his war of the worlds adaptation.

But in Jackson's version, never once he makes you feel like you are watching something huge. Kong feels small, and the people around him feels smaller. You do not see from the human perspective. Sure, that's a filmmaking choice. But after having seen Kong 76, Jurassic Park, Gamera 3 and War of the worlds, it's a waste to go back to the old camera ways. That was highly disappointing.

If someone remakes the original godzilla movie, but double the lenght, and uses bluescreen and CGI everwhere instead of a man in suit, what's the use? It would be a waste of time and of a great franchise. Make something instead, or bring something else to the table.

Jackson's version felt to me like a waste of time and money. He should have either made his own giant monster movie (something totally new), or brought a new aspect to the Kong mythos (make Kong an horror movie maybe ? How cool would that have been ?).

Nah, he prefered to remake his favorite movie in a way only a self obsessed geek could: bigger, longer and CGIer.

Bleh.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Dual ending

There has been something of an urban legend about the possiblity of a dual ending, a victory for Kong in the American version, a victory for Godzilla in the Japanese one. [1] This is false.

* Both versions end with the monsters toppling into the sea, then Kong emerging and swimming away.
o The Japanese version ends with Godzilla's roar, and then Kong's. This was the offscreen equivalent of the monsters "taking a bow." (Though why Godzilla's and Kong's roars came in that respective order is ambiguous.)
o The American version ends with just Kong's roar rather than from both monsters.

Either way, Toho has officially confirmed that it is Kong who was meant to be the victor. Though, one must consider that Kong swims on the surface of the ocean and Godzilla swims submerged. Furthermore, up until 1964's Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster, Godzilla was still the villain, his attacks in the previous two films strongly evoking memories of US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and was thus destined to lose. But to this day, this film's ending has become a very heated debate especially among fans of both monsters.

Hmm...

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Try watching the original Godzilla (uncut and in japanase, of course) if you want to see a masterpiece that puts to shame Jackson's movie, or if you want a more recent movie in the franchise, GMK (Godzilla, mothra and King Ghidorah) is a very well done little movie, that entertains from the beginning to the end, with great FX. I'd recommend beginning with both of these.

And yes, I find the '76 version much better than Jackson's version. I've never been a big fan of the 76 version, but at least it brought something new to a dying genre. Kong felt BIG and impressive back then. With this first remake, a new angle to the Kong Mythos was added: The tragic love story. It sure didn't hold a candle to the original one, but it wasn't a wasted rehashed. It tried something new.

Jackson's version was a rehashed, imo. It brought nearly nothing new to the kong mythos.

Heck, Jackson even went the Lucas way with his FX: everything CGI with lots of ugly blue screen (my god the bluescreens were horrible, even worse than in the newest star wars movies. That brontosaur chase ? Good lord, that was painful to watch...). And what did he do ? He made the same goddamn movie than the first one. Same storyline. Same things. What's the goal of watching the same movie all over again ? A bore from the beginning to the end. We already know everything. What did he change that the first movie didn't have? A tragic love story. Reminds you of something ? Hell yeah, he copied the 76 version. That's low, very low. And he has the guts to blast that one.

In the 76 version, Kong felt both BIG and impressive, especially because of how it was filmed. The way the camera was used to make Kong seem bigger than nature. In an age after movies like Jurassic Park and War of the worlds are out, there is no excuse for a movie like Jackson's version to feel so small in scope. In jurassic park, the t-rex felt HUGE, because of how he used both his fx and his camera. Where was the camera when the t-rex first attack ? In the car, behind Alan Grant and Malcolm. You watch that menacing lizard with the same eyes his prey do. We feel their fear. We see how HUGE the t-rex is. Spielberg used the same technique in his war of the worlds adaptation.

But in Jackson's version, never once he makes you feel like you are watching something huge. Kong feels small, and the people around him feels smaller. You do not see from the human perspective. Sure, that's a filmmaking choice. But after having seen Kong 76, Jurassic Park, Gamera 3 and War of the worlds, it's a waste to go back to the old camera ways. That was highly disappointing.

If someone remakes the original godzilla movie, but double the lenght, and uses bluescreen and CGI everwhere instead of a man in suit, what's the use? It would be a waste of time and of a great franchise. Make something instead, or bring something else to the table.

Jackson's version felt to me like a waste of time and money. He should have either made his own giant monster movie (something totally new), or brought a new aspect to the Kong mythos (make Kong an horror movie maybe ? How cool would that have been ?).

Nah, he prefered to remake his favorite movie in a way only a self obsessed geek could: bigger, longer and CGIer.

Bleh.

At least the CGI was believeable, unlike a guy in a suit not moving how he's supposed to.

I'm assuming you like King Kong Lives, as well?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

At least the CGI was believeable, unlike a guy in a suit not moving how he's supposed to.

I'm assuming you like King Kong Lives, as well?

Lives was dreadful, but at least the FX were impressive. I'll take that over Jackson's infested and ugly 3D movie.

The Man in suit felt big, AND real, unlike badly done CGI effects, which felt like, well, badly done FX.

If you want to be reminded of how to use CGI well, watch again Jurassic Park or Spielberg's War of the worlds. Spielberg's unfortunatly the only one who can still make these kind of 100-200 million dollars movies, and still know how to balance well everything. A shame, especially since today's audience accepts flaws in 200 millions dollars movies so easily. I don't.

Jackson had 2 years, an hell of a big team, and 200 ****ing millions dollars, and yet failed in the FX department. Spielberg had 6 months, half the budget, and succeed once again with his giant monster movie (WoTW). I cannot forgive Jackson in that case. FX should be perfect in these kind of blockbuster. They are in Spielberg's movies, and should be in Jackson's movies. But they aren't. What a waste.

And people dare to call Jackson the new Spielberg. Sigh.

 

[My vengeance]

If you feel that the '76 version is better than Jackson's version, I can't take your opinion seriously.

I tried watching some Godzilla films, but I couldn't stand them. There was one with a lame robot fighting a mutated turtle and Godzilla seemed to be his tag team partner. Ugh. Godzilla 2000? That was a waste of seven bucks. I can only assume that most of the Godzilla films are that poor.

Godzilla vs. Gygan.I deserve much pain for knowing this.I've seen virtually every Gojira movie when I was suffering from insomnia at the age of four.

 

[Flexo]

Jackson's aim wasn't to bring a new Kong to us, he wanted to present Kong to a new generation. (And if you think Kong isn't scary, try watching it with an audience of 15-30 year old women. Marvelous reactions from all of 'em, especially when they see the leaches and Skull Islanders.)

As for the perspective, it makes sense. I'm not going to feel sympathetic to an oversized monster, which is essentially what Kong is. So, by filming Kong in ways to make him seem smaller, he becomes more relatable to the audience. (After seeing the film three times in theaters, I know this worked. A good 70% of the audience was teary eyed by the end. One man was trying to hide his tears from his girl friend by holding his cell-phone up to his face.)