 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.93.208.175
In Reply to: I'm not taking a position on King Kong. I'll reserve judgement, although I'm mildly optimistic; here's why: posted by Audiophilander on December 3, 2004 at 12:26:36:
AuPh,Jack Black, Naomi Watts, and Adrian Brody.
I'm shivering already.
I really dig Jack Black as a comedic actor, but not as CD.
The one bright spot is that there will be bi-planes in Jackson's version and not Huey gunships or F-18s.
How F@^%#&#& bad was the remake...Bridges and Grodin make me so queasy.
Tosh
"I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell them you're Jewish"
Follow Ups:
Naomi Watts is a bad actress? Hmmmm. Why would you choose to pidgeonhole Jack Black. It doesn't make sense to decry "Hollywood" mentality and then adopt it.
Loud and crowdy.... I wonder if Jacksonīs " King Kong " will have the humanity you could read in the big ape eyes!
"Loud and crowdy...."Have you read the script?
"I wonder if Jacksonīs " King Kong " will have the humanity you could read in the big ape eyes!"
I'm sure the creature will be vastly superior to the original. There is nowhere to go but up from there. Even the muppets were better than that POS.
Want to bet it will be loud and crowdy? A bottle of champagne?
Define loud and crowdy and explain how the original was neither. We may then have a bet.
I was ready for it.
Loud: ear shattering digital effects .
Crowdy: all synthetic soulless people.The difference?
It should be evident. But in the magnitude of, say, the first Star War and the latest one.Bet?
"I was ready for it."Good.
"Loud: ear shattering digital effects ."How does one determine that? The volume will vary from theater to theater. If you are betting that the sound editing will be digital I would agree. So what? May as well complain that it will be in color too. You will be very hard pressed to find any films that are all analog sound films these days.
"Crowdy: all synthetic soulless people."Interesting. You found the characters to be natural and soulfull in the original?
"The difference?
It should be evident. But in the magnitude of, say, the first Star War and the latest one."Fine example. So the characters simply have to be as natural and soulfull as the original? Who gets to decide?
"Bet?"
Possibly. Not about whether the sound effects editing is digital or analog.
Different languages.
And I am at pain to try to communicate the different world between an intimate film and the big blockbusters of today, or if you want the form over contend.
Still I only PRESUME that it could be that way!
I maybe wrong and we may find a film with a soul, which, of course I seriously doubt!
But the proove has to be seen.PS: When I write " digital " it is more the whole concept that I take to the pilori as segments.
You still didn't answer the question. Who gets to decide whether the remake has more or less natural soulfull characters? If there is a bet there has to be a way to determine who wins the bet. Of course we will still have to iron out just what the bet is over.
Experience, which I do not doubt will not satisfy you! But it should spring to our eyes.
The problem will be inherently between us, hehe...As you certainly did find LOTR a film with qualities I did not.
So as you said, a difficult task.
I answer your question but with a "periphrase"...
Short I see no way to make this bet alive.
But if you find a possibility and some " rule of the game " I am, of course, in. As you maybe.
Experience? Who is that? *Someone* has to make the call if there is going to be any bet. If you wish to suggest a *person* to judge I'll consider your suggestions. Indeed we disagree on LotRs. But you are also at odds with many people with tremendous experience and knowledge in both film and literature. It's OK not to like something that is excellent like LotR and it is OK to like something that is dated and not really very good like the original King Kong. I like them both.
Many people...Hum...I would not hide between ANY people, as I rely on my point of view without been closed minded, I let always a place to misjudgement.
BTW, Bernardo did not like this film too, even we seldom agree on pictures, I must say he is right on this one...Hehe.
And then why would we not take him has a " judge " ?
If you are willing then we may have a bet?PS: And he must be too! ( willing )
Why does Jack Black seem so wrong for this part? In the original, the wise-cracking loudmouth producer (Carl Denham, essayed by Robert Armstrong) was a mixture of determination, energy, annoyance and occasional comic relief; Jack Black not only looks the part, but if reined in could give the performance of his career to date. Naomi Watts also looks the part and her career hasn't been too shaby; can she pull off a believeable Faye Wray type? Who knows, but it it doesn't come across as bad casting on the surface. Adrian Brody "seems" an odd choice for Naomi's romantic lead, and I'm assuming that that is the role in which he has been cast, but his acting credentials aren't bad at all based on the roles he's essayed.The one thing which really stands out to me is that there are no BIG name stars have been cast, and to my way of thinking this hints at Jackson's ability to mold his vision of the period classic unencumbered by stale stereotypical performances where an established STAR (i.e., such as a Mel Gibson or a Nicholas Cage or a Keanu Reeves or a Renee Witherspoon, etc., etc.) gets a huge payday in order to open a film based on name recognition. This bodes well for the film, IMHO.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
