Kong: King of Skull Island

Sam Fisher

Heavy Meddle
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
2
Points
31
As if the first King Kong wasn't long enough...

Spirit Pictures have secured the rights to the book Kong: King of Skull Island, a well known prequel to King Kong.​
Kong tells the backstory of Skull Island and how Kong became king.
Written by Joe DeVito and Brad Strickland, the story introduces other giant gorillas and dinosaurs that were hinted at in previous King Kong films.
The book was published when Peter Jackson was producing his King Kong remake.
The film will be based on a script to be put togeher by Andy Briggs (Ghost Town / Crusades).
Spirit plan to produce Kong using motion-capture technology similar to how the movies The Polar Express and Beowulf were produced.
No further details are available.

http://www.scifiscoop.com/news/prequel-to-king-kong-in-development/
 
It's in no way affiliated with Jacksons film, and this project is done off a graphic novel not Jacksons film. So I don't understand the whining (as do I not understand about the grief about the hour till you meet Kong, it's been the same in all 3 films, but I can agree that Jacksons was more drawn out IMO) about it.
 
Hmmmmm I'll reserve judgment until I see some footage, I'm not opposed to this idea.
 
I have had enough of King Kong.
 
I don't trust this. But as long as Jackson is not involved in it....
 
Please, it was a little bloated, but Jacksons Kong is no where near as bad as you guys are making it out to be.
 
I saw it 3 times in the movie theaters you wusses. I found it more entertaining then all the LOTR movies put together! TAKE THAT!
 
Maybe this Kong film won't be racist.

Nah, not a chance. :whatever:
 
No, it's just bad.

Is King Kong the new Titanic? An old-fashioned, un-hip, 3-hour state-of-the-art extravanza that everyone pretends they hated because it's not cool to like it anymore?

Anyone who thinks King Kong is really that bad obviously watches very, very few movies. And is probably under 18.
 
I actually really liked KK. But I think Jackson could've saved at least 50 minutes of it for the extended cut.
 
He could have cut the boat ride down considerably and eased up on the Slo-Mo shots, but he got Oscars and awesome Box office with Kong. So regardless of some opinions, he really did some things right.

This film however, has nothing to do with Jackson. It's gonna probably just be another CG cartoon when all is said and done.
 
I personally thought Jackson's King Kong was his fourth masterpiece, I think its a superb movie and cant believe the rep it gets. I would prefer Jackson was involved in this prequel in some capacity and that it wasnt motion capture.

Motion capture probably means Kong will talk, as will the other creatures.
 
Is this going to theaters or DVD?

And the length of the first KK was fine to me.
 
Is King Kong the new Titanic? An old-fashioned, un-hip, 3-hour state-of-the-art extravanza that everyone pretends they hated because it's not cool to like it anymore?

Anyone who thinks King Kong is really that bad obviously watches very, very few movies. And is probably under 18.
On these boards yes. A lot of people just follow the crowd on this forum.
Titanic is not as bad as people say and neither is Kong. Both films were very well recieved critically. And although Jackson's King Kong isn't as good as the LOTR trilogy it is still a very good and entertaining film. Had he cut out 30 minutes of unnecessary scenes I would concider it an amazing film!

I think this film has potential. It could be really interesting and cool. So Im open to the idea.

Motion capture probably means Kong will talk, as will the other creatures
Why would it mean that?
 
I agree that Kong isn't as bad as it's made out to be, but it could benefit from some additional editing to cut down on some scenes. If it were more streamlined, I think it would have been a much better film. But the action and adventure scenes were top notch.
 
Is King Kong the new Titanic? An old-fashioned, un-hip, 3-hour state-of-the-art extravanza that everyone pretends they hated because it's not cool to like it anymore?

Anyone who thinks King Kong is really that bad obviously watches very, very few movies. And is probably under 18.

Whoa, why would you try to call immature people who disagree with you instead of bringing out King Kong’s qualities? I wonder.

he got Oscars and awesome Box office with Kong.

Neither of which means a good movie.

So regardless of some opinions, he really did some things right.

The CGI. Absolutely. :up:
 
Whoa, why would you try to call immature people who disagree with you instead of bringing out King Kong’s qualities? I wonder.

All grammatical nightmares aside, why didn't you? Or is "it's just bad" an insightful critical analysis of it's many "qualities"?
 
I like the storyline of the novel, however it seems very similar to Kong: The Animated Series as well. Personally, I want to see a film of this style to be better than Beowulf or others of time.
 
All grammatical nightmares aside, why didn't you? Or is "it's just bad" an insightful critical analysis of it's many "qualities"?

Aw no. I'm sorry for my English, my only source of learning is internet. And most of times I'm either in a hurry or drunk.

That said, I could add my list of Jackson's Kong's laughable/despicable things in the right thread. Putting it here would only lead to a gigantic off-topic.

In the meantime I'll just put the example by not calling immature to anyone that doesn't like the movies I like.
 
I would rather get drunk than see this movie:up:




You're buying.
 
Last edited:
I loved Jackson's King Kong!

But my favourite part of the movie was after they finally got off that island. The scenes in New York were fantastic, so I don't know how I feel about a movie set only on Skull Island...
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"