Gojira or King Kong?

[Flexo]

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.

Please. You mean to tell me the idea of a monster making his last stand on the Empire State Building isn't important to Kong?

People remember the original for the great story that was enhanced with great effects. Same as Kong 2005.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

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.

Exactly.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

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.

That, I do applaud. Serkis is a genius. But it makes it all the more tragic. He was wasted on the big screen, imo.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Please. You mean to tell me the idea of a monster making his last stand on the Empire State Building isn't important to Kong?

People remember the original for the great story that was enhanced with great effects. Same as Kong 2005.

I said mostly.

Kong had an original idea 70 years ago. The same story 70 years later is NOT original nor is it innovating.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Then why are you praising the 76 remake?

Because the character's names got changed and the settings and circumstances were different?

 

[Flexo]

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.

Nosferatu is an adaptation of Dracula. The Thing is an adaptation (And John Carpenter called it a remake of The Thing From Another World.) of Who Goes There.

Your logic is flawed. It makes sense to add more ninjas if it has a meaningful impact on the story. Adding more V-Rexes added importance to the story. It showed Kong as the greatest creature on the island, and that he is THE creature to be brought back to New York. It also makes us like Kong even more, since he did it all to save Ann.

 

[Flexo]

That, I do applaud. Serkis is a genius. But it makes it all the more tragic. He was wasted on the big screen, imo.

Serkis is doing exactly what a man in a suit would have. The CGI just allows a better performance.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Nosferatu is an adaptation of Dracula. The Thing is an adaptation (And John Carpenter called it a remake of The Thing From Another World.) of Who Goes There.

Your logic is flawed. It makes sense to add more ninjas if it has a meaningful impact on the story. Adding more V-Rexes added importance to the story. It showed Kong as the greatest creature on the island, and that he is THE creature to be brought back to New York. It also makes us like Kong even more, since he did it all to save Ann.

And it amps up even more with Ann's reactions.

 

[Flexo]

I said mostly.

Kong had an original idea 70 years ago. The same story 70 years later is NOT original nor is it innovating.

If you're remaking a classic film like Kong, you can't take out the Empire State Building. It's part of the King Kong experience, and everyone would have been disapointed if it wasn't included.

It's a remake, it's supposed to be like the original. You know that heading in. Sure some bits are changed, but it should bare a good resemblance to the original while paying homage to it, which Kong did.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Nosferatu is an adaptation of Dracula. The Thing is an adaptation (And John Carpenter called it a remake of The Thing From Another World.) of Who Goes There.

Your logic is flawed. It makes sense to add more ninjas if it has a meaningful impact on the story. Adding more V-Rexes added importance to the story. It showed Kong as the greatest creature on the island, and that he is THE creature to be brought back to New York. It also makes us like Kong even more, since he did it all to save Ann.

How is my logic flawed ? You said the Thing was a terrible remake. It was NOT a remake, but rather another adaptation of a great short story. The same applied to Nosferatu and Dracula, that is why I gave the exemple.

Btw, i've got nothing against Kong fighting more creatures, (i'm a giant monster battle freak and proud of it), but in no way does it bring anything new to the table. Kong kicking the ash out of a t-rex, a pterodactyle and that marine monsters in the original movie proved just as much back then. The point was already made 70 years ago.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Kong, easily.

PJ's Kong film blows away any and every other giant monster movie.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

If you're remaking a classic film like Kong, you can't take out the Empire State Building. It's part of the King Kong experience, and everyone would have been disapointed if it wasn't included.

It's a remake, it's supposed to be like the original. You know that heading in. Sure some bits are changed, but it should bare a good resemblance to the original while paying homage to it, which Kong did.

It should bare a ressemblance, yes. But it shouldn't repeat the whole same thing, which it did.

When I watched Spielberg's War of the worlds (and no, I do not care if people here liked the movie or not, that's not the point), I had no idea where it was going. And yet it kept most of the story's basic elements. I mean, I had read the book, heard Orson Well's radio version, and seen the old 50's movie, and yet Spielberg's version felt new from the beginning to the end.

Jackson should have brought that feeling with his Kong version. He didn't, and that was another of my big disappointment.

 

[Flexo]

How is my logic flawed ? You said the Thing was a terrible remake. It was NOT a remake, but rather another adaption of a great short story. The same applied to Nosferatu and Dracula, that is why I gave the exemple.

Btw, i've got nothing against Kong fighting more creatures, (i'm a giant monster battle freak and proud of it), but in no way does it bring anything new to the table. Kong kicking the ash out of a t-rex, a pterodactyle and that marine monsters in the original movie proved just as much back then. The point was already made 70 years ago.

I said The Thing was a decent adaptation of Who Goes There. But, if John Campbell had never been given credit for the story, I probably wouldn't have connected the two. Hell, with a few minor changes The Thing would be a completely original movie, which would make it great all around.

And Kong's V-rex battle did have a point. If he had only fought one monster at a time, we would have thought he was just tough. Having him fight multiple monsters at the same time while holding Ann makes him seem like the ultimate.

 

[The Dark Defender]

It should bare a ressemblance, yes. But it shouldn't repeat the whole same thing, which it did.

When I watched Spielberg's War of the worlds (and no, I do not care if people here liked the movie or not, that's not the point), I had no idea where it was going. And yet it kept most of the story's basic elements. I mean, I had read the book, heard Orson Well's radio version, and seen the old 50's movie, and yet Spielberg's version felt new from the beginning to the end.

Jackson should have brought that feeling with his Kong version. He didn't, and that was another of my big disappointment.

I found it blatantly obvious where WOW was going, since it was just the same action sequence on a loop for 2 hours where the pods blow **** up, and the characters I don't care about run away for one laughably convenient escape after another as everything around them is incinerated, and rinse and repeat...

Spielburg's WOW film was easily one of the worst of 2005.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I said The Thing was a decent adaptation of Who Goes There. But, if John Campbell had never been given credit for the story, I probably wouldn't have connected the two. Hell, with a few minor changes The Thing would be a completely original movie, which would make it great all around.

And Kong's V-rex battle did have a point. If he had only fought one monster at a time, we would have thought he was just tough. Having him fight multiple monsters at the same time while holding Ann makes him seem like the ultimate.

You liked the movie. I'm glad some people did. I would have been overjoyed had Jackson delivered the goods. But for me, he didn't.

But did Jackson's version truly feel new to you ? Did you truly find he brought enough to warrant a remake instead of his own original idea for a big monster movie ? How cool would that have been if he had let his inspiration for Kong help him to create something new and exciting ?

That might have been delicious.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

Kong, easily.

PJ's Kong film blows away any and every other giant monster movie.

Especially Roland Emmerich's crappy Godzilla remake.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I found it blatantly obvious where WOW was going, since it was just the same action sequence on a loop for 2 hours where the pods blow **** up, and the characters I don't care about run away for one laughably convenient escape after another as everything around them is incinerated, and rinse and repeat...

Spielburg's WOW film was easily one of the worst of 2005.

Didn't I say I didn't give a **** what people thought of War of the worlds ?

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

You liked the movie. I'm glad some people did. I would have been overjoyed had Jackson delivered the goods. But for me, he didn't.

But did Jackson's version truly feel new to you ? Did you truly find he brought enough to warrant a remake instead of his own original idea for a big monster movie ? How cool would that have been if he had let his inspiration for Kong help him to create something new and exciting ?

That might have been delicious.

If he let inspiration take over, there;s a good chance he would have ended up with a sub-par concept that would be similar to Kong.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

I found it blatantly obvious where WOW was going, since it was just the same action sequence on a loop for 2 hours where the pods blow **** up, and the characters I don't care about run away for one laughably convenient escape after another as everything around them is incinerated, and rinse and repeat...

Spielburg's WOW film was easily one of the worst of 2005.

It's not one of the worst in m book, but it is pretty "summer blockbuster".

 

[The Dark Defender]

It was new and exciting, and it had actual characters rather than action figures with zero depth(and that applied as much to the humans in the original as the monsters).

I never felt a damn thing between Ann and Kong in the 33 version, she was his little bone to carry around, and she scared to death of him, she never loved or even liked him. His death meant nothing because he was nothing but a big stupid dumb brute that liked to break stuff and growl alot, and she selfishly shows up when he's put on display for the purposes of money-grubbing without an ounce of caring for him.

I've never felt more between two characters than I did between Kong and Ann in PJ's film, where Kong is a character with depth to him that actually feels joy and hurt like an actual character, where as the only message of the 33 film is "Be afraid of 25 foot apes."

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Especially Roland Emmerich's crappy Godzilla remake.

Well, that's not exactly hard to do. Even Gamera's worst movie blow Emmerich's Godzilla movie out of the water.

Jackson respect for the original Kong movie alone was enough to make his movie better than Emmerich's turd.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Didn't I say I didn't give a **** what people thought of War of the worlds ?

I wouldn't know, since I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't give a **** what you thought of Kong either.

 

[Ultimate Movie-Man]

WHOO BURN!

Sorry I like burns.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

It's not one of the worst in m book, but it is pretty "summer blockbuster".

Jaws and Jurassic Park were pretty "summer blockbuster" also. I don't see how that's an insult or make the term an inferior one.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

I wouldn't know, since I haven't read the entire thread, and I don't give a **** what you thought of Kong either.

Well, this is a Kong and Godzilla thread, so it does matter a bit. My point was that I was using war of the worlds as an exemple, not as a quality product (which I think it is, but I guess can be discussed, but somewhere else) but as an FX movie. I especially said I didn't want people to respond and tell they liked or didn't like the movie, since it's quality overall didn't matter here.