Gojira or King Kong?

[TheSaintofKillers]

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.

Don't feel ashamed. It's a very fun movie.

 

[Flexo]

I would also like to add that Kong felt very large at several points. Such as his last moment with Ann, and when Kong landed next to her to finish off the last rex.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

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.)

Well then, his aim is an insulting one to me. It's a huge finger to us fans of the older movies. Bleh.

This is the kind of mentality that brought us insulting wrecks like the Texas chainsaw remake and the Dawn of the dead remake. They are all waste, that tries to force concept on viewers not apt to go and appreciate the originals in all their glory. Such audience do not deserve it.

Sure, the money's half there, but all it does is make the creator a sellout more than anything else. Bleh again.

 

[Flexo]

Don't feel ashamed. It's a very fun movie.

Not really man.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I would also like to add that Kong felt very large at several points. Such as his last moment with Ann, and when Kong landed next to her to finish off the last rex.

Felt more like a bluescreen and CGI fest to me then a large and impressive scene. But that's me, heh.

 

[Flexo]

Well then, his aim is an insulting one to me. It's a huge finger to us fans of the older movies. Bleh.

This is the kind of mentality that brought us insulting wrecks like the Texas chainsaw remake and the Dawn of the dead remake. They are all waste, that tries to force concept on viewers not apt to go and appreciate the originals in all their glory. Such audience do not deserve it.

Sure, the money's half there, but all it does is make the creator a sellout more than anything else. Bleh again.

No, those remakes simply stole from the orignal. Kong is an homage.

Look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That tried to go in a different direction from Willy Wonka, and many people hated it for that.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Not really man.

It's a cheap movie made for kids. Watch it with such a mentality. It never tried to be anything else, and probably couldn't in such an industry back then.

The 60's were a much better area for Godzilla, though.

 

[Flexo]

Felt more like a bluescreen and CGI fest to me then a large and impressive scene. But that's me, heh.

To each their own. Kong, to me, seemed like he had actual fur, and real eyes. (Which really sold the effects.) Yet I can't stand the effects when there's just a man stumbling around in a suit stomping on model buildings.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

No, those remakes simply stole from the orignal. Kong is an homage.

Look at Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That tried to go in a different direction from Willy Wonka, and many people hated it for that.

I don't see Charlie that way. They tried to be more faithful to the book. It is not the same thing here. Why was Carpenter's the Thing such an enjoyable horror experience? For his quality, of course, but also because of his originality. If you are going to adapt or remake something once again, bring something new.

Kong was already a masterpiece in his own genre. Topping it is absurd. What you need to is make something else. Well, imo, of course.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

To each their own. Kong, to me, seemed like he had actual fur, and real eyes. (Which really sold the effects.) Yet I can't stand the effects when there's just a man stumbling around in a suit stomping on model buildings.

The Rancor was a small toy in Return of the Jedi, and yet it feels much more real, and much bigger than Kong CGI could ever hope to.

Especially in the new dvd remastered version of RoTJ (I hate the added stuff, but the way they fixed the Rancor scene is glorious to look at)

The Rancor is still to me the best exemple of why a giant monster should never be in 3D.

 

[Flexo]

No, they tried to be more faithful to the book. It is not the same thing. Why was Carpenter's the Thing such enjoyable ? For his quality, of course, but also because of his originality. If you are going to adapt or remake something once again, bring something new.

Kong was already a masterpiece in his own genre. Topping it is absurd. What you need to is make something else. Well, imo, of course.

Kong was brilliant for its time. I love the orignal Kong, but it can be improved (And was.) The acting, for instance. Nowadays it seems hammy. The emotional impact of the story has been lost over the years, and Jackson managed to bring it back.

Jackson gave us more creatures, improved apon the 76 version's ideas, and gave us the spider pit. (I don't care that it was already made, Cooper and Co. were about the only folks to see it.)

As for The Thing, it's a terrible adaptation of The Thing From Another World. But, it's a decent adaptation of Who Goes There? The Thing isn't recognisable as a remake and shouldn't even be considered one. It just happens to share part of another film's title.

 

[Flexo]

The Rancor was a small toy in Return of the Jedi, and yet it feels much more real, and much bigger than Kong CGI could ever hope to.

Especially in the new dvd remastered version of RoTJ (I hate the added stuff, but the way they fixed the Rancor scene is glorious to look at)

The Rancor is still to me the best exemple of why a giant monster should never be in 3D.

The Rancor never felt real; it seemed especially bad when Luke shoved a bone in its mouth. Ugh.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

When I look at the queen alien from Aliens

Or the t-rex in Jurassic Park, I see marvels on the screen. Real giant monsters.

In Kong, they could have made a giant Kong robot, and a smaller version (and yes, with REAL fur, wow, incredible concept, not cgi fur, but real one).

And they could have had the robot fight other t-rex robots, and etc. Many things can be done with animatronics, puppets, miniatures and costumes. 3D is the easiest way to go. It's easy, and not impressive anymore, since every big company can do it nowadays. While things like the t-rex or the alien queen are unique, and grandiose.

When I look at the queen alien, I ask myself, how the **** did they ever manage to pull that ???

When I look at kong, the answer is so easy it remove any magic blockbuster movies should have.

20 years after the release of Aliens, the movie is STILL impressive. Same with Jurassic Park. They both will always be. But Jackson's kong ? In 2 years it will begin to feel dated. And i'm pretty sure even you know it.

 

[Flexo]

When I look at the queen alien from Aliens

Or the t-rex in Jurassic Park, I see marvels on the screen. Real giant monsters.

In Kong, they could have made a giant Kong robot, and a smaller version (and yes, with REAl fur, wow, incredible concept, not cgi fur, but real one).

And they could have had the robot fight other t-rex robots, and etc. Many things can be done with animatronics, puppets, miniatures and costumes. 3D is the easiest way to go. It's easy, and not impressive anymore, since every big company can do it nowadays. While things like the t-rex or the alien queen are unique, and grandiose.

A robotic dinosaur would never be capable of doing the things needed for the story. Even if other methods were used, the look wouldn't be consistant and would come off as fake. Besides that, a robotic Kong would feel exactly like that; a robot.

 

[Flexo]

20 years after the release of Aliens, the movie is STILL impressive. Same with Jurassic Park. They both will always be. But Jackson's kong ? In 2 years it will begin to feel dated. And i'm pretty sure even you know it.

Well, at least it was impressive when it first came out, unlike a guy in a suit.

Besides, look at Kong 33. It's still impressive to people because of the effects at the time. I think Kong 05 will have a similar legacy.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Kong was brilliant for its time. I love the orignal Kong, but it can be improved (And was.) The acting, for instance. Nowadays it seems hammy. The emotional impact of the story has been lost over the years, and Jackson managed to bring it back.

Jackson gave us more creatures, improved apon the 76 version's ideas, and gave us the spider pit. (I don't care that it was already made, Cooper and Co. were about the only folks to see it.)

As for The Thing, it's a terrible adaptation of The Thing From Another World. But, it's a decent adaptation of Who Goes There? The Thing isn't recognisable as a remake and shouldn't even be considered one. It just happens to share part of another film's title.

Terrible adaptation ? It's a novel adaptation, not a direct remake of the original movie (but you know that). It felt new (and still does) because it didn't regurgitate the same thing from the past. That's what new movies should do.

Jackson gave us more creatures ? And that's what makes the movie better ? The more the better ? Great way to impress me, jackson.

I know that's his philosophy. And I knew the first time I read an interview, and he said he wanted Kong to fight with not one t-rex, but THREE, that there was something wrong. Jackson is a fan, the kind of that thinks the more the better. And that's one of the big reasons why the movie drag and feels so ****ing long and mostly useless. He should have concentrated on making the best goddamn 2 hours giant monster movies, instead of wanting to throw us 3 hours of "the more, the better".

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

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.

Well...Kong and MOST of the environment in Jackson's remake was exclelent AND believable, UNLIKE how I keep saying, Rick baker moved in the 76 version.

WETA's better than ILM.

Spielberg's War of the Worlds is Teletubbies compared to Kong...sure, it was suspenseful and fun, but nowhere near as emotional. The only reason you are saying the FX in WotW were good is because they don't dominate the picture, it focues on the scientology bag and his two kids, only one of whom can actually act.

Kong wins hands down compared to WotW. I can't believe you'd prefer what you prefer, but then again, peple can't understand why I like atwoman, so I guess it's okay.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Well, at least it was impressive when it first came out, unlike a guy in a suit.

Besides, look at Kong 33. It's still impressive to people because of the effects at the time. I think Kong 05 will have a similar legacy.

Nah, come on. You can't really believe that. It took years for people to understand what Stop Motion was. Willis O'Brien had invented a new technique for cinema, and didn't spill the bean about the concept until years later. And because of that (and of his own mastery of his technique) it took years before we saw people like Ray Harryhausen being able to challenge him (funny when you think about it, since Harryhausen was O'Brien's student).

But a big Gorilla in 3D ? What's new in that ??? We'll have other 3D character every years for the next decade. People will get tired. Kong will not stand apart from them. He will be forgotten. You know that. Very few movies stands out with their FX years later. The original Kong still does. Same with the original Godzilla movie, or Aliens, or Jurassic park. Heck, the original star wars movies were miles ahead of their competition back then, etc.

But Kong ? Spider-man 3 will be just as great, same with Superman returns, etc. It will be forgotten, and will not age well as far as FX does. Same with Hulk, and the 3D creatures in lord of the rings and so many other big FX movies.

 

[Flexo]

Terrible adaptation ? It's a novel adaptation, not a direct remake of the original movie (but you know that). It felt new (and still does) because it didn't regurgitate the same thing from the past. That's what new movies should do.

Jackson gave us more creatures ? And that's what makes the movie better ? The more the better ? Great way to impress me, jackson.

I know that's his philosophy. And I knew the first time I read an interview, and he said he wanted Kong to fight with not one t-rex, but THREE, that there was something wrong. Jackson is a fan, the kind of that thinks the more the better. And that's one of the big reasons why the movie drag and feels so ****ing long and mostly useless. He should have concentrated on making the best goddamn 2 hours giant monster movies, instead of wanting to throw us 3 hours of "the more, the better".

Let me clarify; I love The Thing. But, as a remake, it's terrible. The only thing it shares with the original is a location, partial title, and the idea of an alien. You might as well think of it as a new movie with no ties to The Thing From Another World.

Now you're just being stuck up. You claim Jackson didn't give anything new, then you act offended when I point out he did.

As for the three rex thing, I loved that. He manages to stay true to the original, yet add a new twist to it and show us why Kong is the creature Denham wants. He can take out three of the toughest dinos on the island by himself, with one hand holding Ann.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Well...Kong and MOST of the environment in Jackson's remake was exclelent AND believable, UNLIKE how I keep saying, Rick baker moved in the 76 version.

WETA's better than ILM.

Spielberg's War of the Worlds is Teletubbies compared to Kong...sure, it was suspenseful and fun, but nowhere near as emotional. The only reason you are saying the FX in WotW were good is because they don't dominate the picture, it focues on the scientology bag and his two kids, only one of whom can actually act.

Kong wins hands down compared to WotW. I can't believe you'd prefer what you prefer, but then again, peple can't understand why I like atwoman, so I guess it's okay.

Wow, great way to argument there. You sure showed me with the bag word and the catwoman revelation.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Well, at least it was impressive when it first came out, unlike a guy in a suit.

Besides, look at Kong 33. It's still impressive to people because of the effects at the time. I think Kong 05 will have a similar legacy.

100% agree. And one of my friends said he saw a clip from the original and said it was crap. First I yelled "Blashpemy!!!" but then said:

You have to keep in mind that back then they didn't have the technology we have today, plus they didn't have a huge budget (RKO was going bankrupt, remember?) so it's pretty awesome considering those facts.

When I first saw it the night before I saw Jackson's Kong, sure, I laughed at what would now be considered stupid effects if done now, but I watched my special edition DVD and delved deep into the history of it and have really dug it.

But I have to admit, for the 76 version, it was an interesting decision for Rick to be in a suit. But he couldn't move like Andy Serkis did.

 

[Flexo]

Nah, come on. You can't really believe that. It took years for people to understand what Stop Motion was. Willis O'Brien had invented a new technique for cinema, and didn't spill the bean about the concept until years later. And because of that (and of his own mastery of his technique) it took years before we saw people like Ray Harryhausen being able to challenge him (funny when you think about it, since Harryhausen was O'Brien's student).

But a big Gorilla in 3D ? What's new in that ??? We'll have other 3D character every years for the next decade. People will get tired. Kong will not stand apart from them. He will be forgotten. You know that. Very few movies stands out with their FX years later. The original Kong still does. Same with the original Godzilla movie, or Aliens, or Jurassic park. Heck, the original star wars movies were miles ahead of their competition back then, etc.

But Kong ? Spider-man 3 will be just as great, same with Superman returns, etc. It will be forgotten, and will not age well as far as FX does. Same with Hulk, and the 3D creatures in lord of the rings and so many other big FX movies.

Kong utilized a great story with great special effects, which is why it will be remembered. Same reasons as the original.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Let me clarify; I love The Thing. But, as a remake, it's terrible. The only thing it shares with the original is a location, partial title, and the idea of an alien. You might as well think of it as a new movie with no ties to The Thing From Another World.

Now you're just being stuck up. You claim Jackson didn't give anything new, then you act offended when I point out he did.

As for the three rex thing, I loved that. He manages to stay true to the original, yet add a new twist to it and show us why Kong is the creature Denham wants. He can take out three of the toughest dinos on the island by himself, with one hand holding Ann.

You seem to easily forget The thing is not a remake.

It would be like me saying that Bela Lugosi's 1931 Dracula is a terrible remake of Murneau's Nosferatu.

Laughable ? Of course, but it's the same logic here.

And the more doesn't equal bringing something new. If I see Batman Begins, and then wants to remake the same thing, by only adding MORE ninjas in the fights, I do not bring innovation, I bring the same thing to the table.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Kong utilized a great story with great special effects, which is why it will be remembered. Same reasons as the original.

The original movie is mostly remembered because of his FX. It's easy to see why, especially since it brought such innovation back then. The reasons sure aren't the same here.

Jackson's version brings nothing more to the FX world than Lucas did with his new Star Wars movies.

 

[Flexo]

I think we're overlooking something. Kong is just a CGI skin wrapped over an actor. It enhances Andy Serkis' performance.

Essentially, Serkis is doing the same thing as a dude in a lizard suit, but his performance is made even better by CGI. CGI allowed him to do everything a guy in a suit can and more.