Films/DVD Asylum

• Re: Kong-King-- dubious doings - halfnote 20:16:01 10/31/05 (2)
  In Reply to: Kong-King------ posted by patrickU on October 27, 2005 at 09:27:19:

  I am not expecting much from this re-make. In fact, having seen the trailer almost makes me think I've seen it already. Yes, Kong will get the latest computerized animation and look as good as Spielberg's (though it wasn't REALLY Spielberg's) t-rex and raptors. In fact, the trailer shows a t-rex that might have walked right out of Jurassic Park. And I'm sure Jack Black will bring his usual verve to the role of Carl Denim. And whoever is to replace Fay Wray will surely be quite a peach. But what can be added to this film? In the end, it's going to be an exercise in comparisons between the original and the new. It's going to have to work very hard not to be as pointless as the last remake. I'm afraid it's going to amount to a "colorized version" (in the Turneresque sense) of the original and nothing more. But I suspect it's going to be a companion piece to that most pointless remake in film history "Psycho."
  
  

  ---

  • "I'm afraid it's going to amount to a 'colorized version' (in the Turneresque sense) of the original and nothing more." - Audiophilander 21:02:01 11/01/05 (1)
    In Reply to: Re: Kong-King-- dubious doings posted by halfnote on October 31, 2005 at 20:16:01:

    The difference:

    Psycho was intended as a B&W film and will always work best that way due to the noirish atmosphere and desolate, nightmarish location. King Kong, OTOH, almost begged to have color from the outset, but not "colorized" & "updated" version as DeLaurintis travesty. With smooth realistic effects, camera mobility, DTS sound and an almost limitless budget to film his vision, an accomplished Director of Mr. Jackson's caliber should achieve an involving re-envisioning of the original story. In fact, the new version will probably be much longer than the original Kong with additional scenes and story content perhaps only hinted at in the 1933 film.

    Peter Jackson seems to have a great deal of respect for the original Kong and having axchieved so much with LoTR I don't believe that his version will take anything away from the reverence accorded the 1933 film. Sharing that reverence for the original I'll purchase the box set of the restored/remastered King Kong, Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young later this month when the DVD's are released, but I'm also planning to attend Mr. Jackson's film on openning weekend.

    AuPh
    
    

    ---

    • Re: "I'm afraid it's going to amount to a 'colorized version' (in the Turneresque sense) of the original and nothing mor - halfnote 21:42:10 11/01/05 (0)
      In Reply to: "I'm afraid it's going to amount to a 'colorized version' (in the Turneresque sense) of the original and nothing more." posted by Audiophilander on November 1, 2005 at 21:02:01:

      I hope you're right. And I agree that Peter Jackson is a very capable director. But sometimes more is less, and the new Kong is rumored to be running about 3 hours. We'll see if he manages to capture the poetry of the original, which shines though all of its quaintness and creakiness.

      And you points with regard to Psycho are well taken. It's true that modern cinematic technology has much more to offer a King Kong than a Psycho. Yet I don't see that Psycho had to be a black and white film, even though it was intended to be. North by Northwest didn't suffer too much from being in color.

      But one of the absolute WORST, and most eagerly anticipated, remakes ever made (it was SOOO bad, it qualifies as one of the worst MOVIES ever made, let alone remakes) was another classic monster thriller ...

      GODZILLA. All the cinematic wizardry and sound effects couldn't stop this overstuffed turkey from falling off the bone. Now, I'll grant you that Godzilla had the feeling of a movie that was scripted in an afternoon "brainstorming session" by a couple of Hollywood marketing hot shots who could smell box office. And Jackson's handling of the Ring Trilogy might give one cause for some hope. But something seems to happen when these fragile relics of old taken out of their display cases and passed around, disected, and "improved" upon.

      I wonder if there's something in the time, the ethos of the era, in which movies like Kong were made that just won't translate into our modern vernacular.

      But, like so many of us, I am eagerly awaiting the release of this film. Again, I hope you're right about it, and that Jackson can succeed where almost everyone else seems to fail.
      
      

      ---
• $207,000,000 actually and probably growing... - ToshiroofKreplachastan 07:46:45 10/28/05 (1)
  In Reply to: Kong-King------ posted by patrickU on October 27, 2005 at 09:27:19:

  Patrick,

  To Jackson's credit, he and his wife (nice to have such funds) put up the remaining amount of money, which also tells you that he's not willing to release a film that he feels is not finished.

  I voiced my displeasure at the news that he was remaking this film last year (almost typed "here on Outside...heheee), but from what I've read and seen so far (the trailers are very good)...he might have done a decent job on this film.

  'Kong' looks very scary, and I like the fact that they spent time on the fur (making fur move is very difficult when it's CG). It's the little things that make/break a film sometimes.

  The 'Kong' from the piece of shit film with Lange/Bridges looked like a guy in a suit. It was bloody awful. The original classic 'Kong' was far more realistic looking.

  Did you notice the length of the film? 3 hours. That's almost double the length of the original.

  Hmmm...

  Tosh
  "I think this place is restricted Wang, so don't tell em you're Jewish"
  
  

  ---

  • Re: $207,000,000 actually and probably growing... - patrickU 08:07:07 10/28/05 (0)
    In Reply to: $207,000,000 actually and probably growing... posted by ToshiroofKreplachastan on October 28, 2005 at 07:46:45:

    Even this amount of money is ridiculous for a motion picture, well that is not really my problem.
    I voiced my displeasure too and so I wrote it too.
    No the trailer did not pleased me, as I found it too be a very digital pain to look at, but someone told me that it is normal for as the film was not in final stage of production.
    Yes what a piece of merde was this Dino di Laurentis remake, and I am more that skeptical for this one to come.
    Will it ever has the poetic sense of the original, will the actress little breast be like two small breasts jingle jangle under her blouse?
    Three hours that is a " Full " LOTR...
    Well I do not think there will be a surprise for me.
    We will see, Tosh!
    
    

    ---
• That's a lot of money to pay a hack to squeeze out a sub-aesthetic turd. -nt- - Donald 20:15:40 10/27/05 (4)
  In Reply to: Kong-King------ posted by patrickU on October 27, 2005 at 09:27:19:

  .
  
  

  ---

  • Not so fast; Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker - grinagog 20:59:23 10/27/05 (3)
    In Reply to: That's a lot of money to pay a hack to squeeze out a sub-aesthetic turd. -nt- posted by Donald on October 27, 2005 at 20:15:40:

    LOTR excluded

    Forgotten Silver + Heavenly Creatures are stellar viewing

    The studio is gambling the Big Monkey might just be the ticket to attract that other large knuckle-trailing primate; the American public

    Great film or no; I bet it will

    Grins
    
    

    ---

    • You have a point. - Dalton 23:59:52 10/27/05 (2)
      In Reply to: Not so fast; Peter Jackson is a brilliant filmmaker posted by grinagog on October 27, 2005 at 20:59:23:

      Clearly, Americans are not as sophisticated as the Japanese. Perhaps we should watch more Godzilla movies....
      
      

      ---

      • The previews show raging dinosaurs in the new "Kong". All the bases are covered! * - mr grits 18:01:10 10/29/05 (0)
        In Reply to: You have a point. posted by Dalton on October 27, 2005 at 23:59:52:

        .
        
        

        ---
      • You may recall that the original 'Godzilla'* was dumbed down for audiences here.. - PCL 13:40:03 10/29/05 (0)
        In Reply to: You have a point. posted by Dalton on October 27, 2005 at 23:59:52:

        ..so you may be on to something there.

        *'Gojira'
        
        

        ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---