 
|
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 |
24.0.75.215
In Reply to: The trilogie of King-Kong------- posted by patrickU on April 8, 2006 at 04:19:05:
...to the Euro-trash Dino De Laurentiis version.Yes this version of King Kong may not be "perfect," but Peter Jackson's vision wasn't far off the mark. I had no problem with the lack sexual tension between the leads; after all, it was the unrequieted love affair of Naomi Watt's character (Ann Darrow) with Kong that was the centerpiece of the film.
FYI, I liked the character development over the first half of the film and most of the CGI effects; it's beautifully filmed and conveys the period quite well, IMHO. The ONLY over-the-top excesses that I felt the Director should've pulled back from were the brontosaurus stampede and the Kong "ice-follies" in New York City's Central Park. Other than that, maybe a little judicious tightening to shorten the sea voyage to Skull Iskand and it would've been supurb from start to finish.
Patrick, what you can't seem to fathom is that Peter Jackson has loved this film all his life, perhaps to the point of it inspiring him to become a Director; as a result got a bit carried away with his passion for it. He never viewed King Kong as "product" as did the notorious De Laurentiis, who reputedly wanted to burn all the existing prints of the '33 version so that no one could compare any version with his.
So, your calling Peter Jackson's King Kong "the biggest shit ever" is not only an insult to his film, but an insult to the original '33 version as well.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
I quite disagree. the orignal was amoung other things, original. It scared the lving daylights out of it's audiences. The remake is a study in excess. To dislike the remake is not to dislike the original. I agree with Patrick's sentiments fully on this movie. Perhaps biggest shit is hyperbole but shit is pretty on the money IMO. It breaks my first rule of film making. Don't be stupid. I am a big fan of good genre movies and will accept most premises but I don't buy into the idea that because something is make believe that it is a licence to do anything no matter how ridiculous it may be. If there were to be dnosaurs and an ovesized gorilla on a mysterious island that would not cause the laws of physics to stop working, nor would it lead to a ridiculous chain of near impossible follies that couldn't be choreographed and performed with trained animals nor would it cause every human involved to suddenly turn irrational. In the days of the original there was a certian level of stylization that was conventional in cinematic story telling. People don't buy it any more and it forces film makers to take different avenues to convey a narrative. What may have been acceptable choices by characters in the 30s because of that stylization are often now simply stupid choices by todays standards of realism. Jackson needed to adapt the story so the character's choices wouldn't be patently stupid. Instead he spent time and money on the ridiculous. CGI is like dynamite. In the hands of the wrong person it is destructive.
With all respect to a film director, this film was just " merde ". But of course I could have said " a complete idiocy " which may have beeen more elegant but not in the style of this ..Forum...
And that is it.PS: As for your remarks on this film I think it completed mine.
He's wrong because Peter Jackson's film is NOT "shit" as he so 'crapily' put it, and you're mistaken to agree with his views out of hand without giving full consideration to the possibility that this version of Kong was a homage of sorts.> > > "It breaks my first rule of film making" < < <
In film, there are no clearly defined rules, and conventions are broken all the time. As I see it, Peter Jackson wasn't TRYING to make a "better" Kong than the first one or to do a verbatim remake, he was trying to tell the well known story in a slightly different way that would connect with contemporary audiences and make them want to see both films.
> > > "In the days of the original there was a certian level of stylization that was conventional in cinematic story telling. People don't buy it any more and it forces film makers to take different avenues to convey a narrative." < < <
Exactly my point, and this is where I think Peter Jackson had a pretty savvy take on what the public would find interesting.
> > > "Jackson needed to adapt the story so the character's choices wouldn't be patently stupid. Instead he spent time and money on the ridiculous. CGI is like dynamite. In the hands of the wrong person it is destructive." < < <
I differ with your take on the character's choices being "patently stupid" and Peter Jackson only being interested in the expending huge amounts of time and money on CGI. This movie begged for cutting edge CGI and Jackson delivered, but ironically, the emphasis on character development is what most of PJ's critics point to when finding fault with this version of Kong.
Some folks want it both ways, that the CGI was too over the top or the emphasis on character development caused the story to drag. I've already given my opinion that a little judicious editing would've significantly tempered the perceived flaws, and I stand by that. Yes, PJ's King Kong has several problems that one could point to as Directorial excesses, but it isn't "shit" by a long shot.
Of course YMMV, but I wouldn't walk a mile in patrick's shoes if I were you, at least not without suitable fungicide to treat his truffles, ...err triffles. ;^)
AuPh
"He's wrong because Peter Jackson's film is NOT "shit" as he so 'crapily' put it,"how can one be mistaken about an opinion that is purely subjective?
"and you're mistaken to agree with his views out of hand without giving full consideration to the possibility that this version of Kong was a homage of sorts."
Why do you assume that i have agreed with his views out of hand or not considered that this version was an homage of sorts? Just because Jackson pays homage to the original in cute little sublime ways doesn't excuse the gross inadequacies of this film. The film has to stand on it's own and IMO it fails misreably.
> > > "It breaks my first rule of film making" < < <
"In film, there are no clearly defined rules,"
That does not stop me from having rules regarding the merits of a film.
" and conventions are broken all the time."
Indeed they are but there better be a good reason for it. Thee are no good reasons I can see for the stupidity of this film.
"As I see it, Peter Jackson wasn't TRYING to make a "better" Kong than the first one or to do a verbatim remake, he was trying to tell the well known story in a slightly different way that would connect with contemporary audiences and make them want to see both films."
I don't have a problem with that. He just failed to do so in an inteligent manner. There were many diferent ways for him to tell this story. he managed to find some really bad ways.
> > > "In the days of the original there was a certian level of stylization that was conventional in cinematic story telling. People don't buy it any more and it forces film makers to take different avenues to convey a narrative." < < <Exactly my point, and this is where I think Peter Jackson had a pretty savvy take on what the public would find interesting.
I found it idiotic and haphazzard. A study in the ridiculous, thoughtless and excessive. his ideas did a good job of preventing me from suspending disbelief or caring about most of the characters.
> > > "Jackson needed to adapt the story so the character's choices wouldn't be patently stupid. Instead he spent time and money on the ridiculous. CGI is like dynamite. In the hands of the wrong person it is destructive." < < <I differ with your take on the character's choices being "patently stupid"
OK name one thing that the character played by Jack Black did that was in any way not stupid. that shoudl be easy enough. How smart was it to establish a relationship between the lead character and Kong via Kong's appreciation for Vaudville? Everything thes characters did on that island was patently stupid. All the set ups leading to the capture of Kong was ridiculous. The very foundations of this movie as built on gratuitist stupidity. Not only was it stupid it was totally unneccessary.
" Peter Jackson only being interested in the expending huge amounts of time and money on CGI. This movie begged for cutting edge CGI and Jackson delivered,"
What? Cutting ende CGI that was again, ridiculous. No thank you. I have seen more believable action between the Coyote and the Road runner on WB cartoons. At least those were supposed to be ridiculous. Jackson had no excuse. And, again, the ridiculousness of the action served no purpose other than to destroy any possibility of suspension of disbelief
" but ironically, the emphasis on character development is what most of PJ's critics point to when finding fault with this version of Kong."
It was weak and most of the characters were shallow and unbelievable.
"Some folks want it both ways, that the CGI was too over the top or the emphasis on character development caused the story to drag."
Some people want it both ways as in CGI tht actually suspends disbelief and helps tell the story and characters with depth that act and do things one would expect from those characters in those situations. With this movie we got niether.
" I've already given my opinion that a little judicious editing would've significantly tempered the perceived flaws, and I stand by that. Yes, PJ's King Kong has several problems that one could point to as Directorial excesses, but it isn't "shit" by a long shot. "
I disagree. Ithink its flaws so dominate the film that it is shit. The shittyest ever? Nooooo but still shit."Of course YMMV, but I wouldn't walk a mile in patrick's shoes if I were you,"
I don't borrow anyone ese's shoes. My opinions are quite independent. I often disagree with Patrick. Neither my agrrement nor diaagreements have anything to do with Patrick other than his opinions on any given film.
" at least not without suitable fungicide to treat his truffles, ...err triffles. ;^)"
I prefer to keep my opinions indifferent to the personaities behind other peoples' opinions.
We both saw flaws in PJ's King Kong, but I saw past them and appreciated those parts of the film that worked. You did not, and apparently can't get beyond the scatological references that folks like patrick & Victor trade in.> > > "how can one be mistaken about an opinion that is purely subjective?" < < <
Subjective is fine, informed is better, and scatological references are rarely necessary. You are mistaken in that you apparently decided to up the offensive "kaka" petard that p-u and Victor hoist themselves on so frequently.
> > > "OK name one thing that the character played by Jack Black did that was in any way not stupid." < < <
Everything he did early in the film was exactly in the manner of a depression era con-man/filmmaker desperate to escape creditors and legal obligations in order to cash in on that one last pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow. His take on the Carl Denham character was that of a self-centered, single-minded hustler, capable of recklessly endangering all who he tricked into his scheme. In retrospect, Jack Black obviously wasn't the strongest actor that could've been cast in that role, but even his oft tongue-'n-cheek portrayal carried a certain cynical edge that worked most of the time; his ruthless determination and impatience quickened the film's pace somewhat, IMO.
Like I said, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree; while this isn't a great film, especially as a follow-up to the phenomenal LoTR series, it isn't in the "manure scategory" either! That's my 2 cents, but please, feel free to toss your chump change in with the grey poupon folks if that is your wish; no personal offense taken.
AuPh
In Reply to: Re: "I agree with Patrick's sentiments fully on this movie." - And IMHO, he's wrong and you're mistaken. posted by Analog Scott on April 9, 2006 at 10:59:53:
"We both saw flaws in PJ's King Kong, but I saw past them and appreciated those parts of the film that worked. You did not,"
No it's just that IMO they dominated the film. There were plenty of flaws in TLOTR trilogy but they were small problems in what I saw as great films. So i has nothing to do with an ability to se past small flaws as much as an intolerance for so many large flaws.
"and apparently can't get beyond the scatological references that folks like patrick & Victor trade in."
I'm not sure why you are so worried about this. Words are just tools to convey ideas.
> > > "how can one be mistaken about an opinion that is purely subjective?" < < <"Subjective is fine, informed is better,"
The three of us seem to be equally informed in so much as we all saw the movie in question. That is all the information one needs to form an opinion.
"and scatological references are rarely necessary."
Sharing opinions on movies is hardly necessary eiher. So what? If it conveys an opinion I see nothing wrong with it.
"You are mistaken in that you apparently decided to up the offensive "kaka" petard that p-u and Victor hoist themselves on so frequently."The only time I find their Kaka comments offensive is when they go unsupported. I thought Patrick did a decent job of explaining why he disliked the movie. That is all I would ever ask of anyone who makes objective claims about anything, at least give us an explination. If I say I hate a movie I don't feel I owe anyne an explination since it is a personal reaction although I may offer an explination anyway. But if i or anyone else declares something to be bad that is different. It goes beyond pesonal. It should be supported with some reasoned argument IMO. That has been my only objection to comments that are no more than claims of Kaka. The language is not an issue to me.
> > > "OK name one thing that the character played by Jack Black did that was in any way not stupid." < < <
"Everything he did early in the film was exactly in the manner of a depression era con-man/filmmaker desperate to escape creditors and legal obligations in order to cash in on that one last pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow."
That is simply not true. Nme one instance of a director being fired and then running of with the film elements in a Keystone cop like chase only to make a narrow escape on a boat to a mysterious island. the whole thing was ridiculous and completely unnecessary. It was a stupid attempt to create gratutous action and tension. It was utterly unbelievable and left all the characters looking phoney, shallow, and unlikable not to mention unbelievable. It just made a bad movie all that much longer and badder.
"His take on the Carl Denham character was that of a self-centered, single-minded hustler, capable of recklessly endangering all who he tricked into his scheme."One can do that without all the ridicluous chases and unbeleivable set ups. That is how so many film makers are in real life yet you don't find them running away with stolen goods making narrow, unbelievable escapes onto chartered ships. It killed the believability of the movie. It was a pattern that continued throughout. Narrow escapes from shyically imposible chases ad nauseum. I think the giant gorilla was arguably the most believable part of the movie when all is said and done. That is abd thng by the way.
" In retrospect, Jack Black obviously wasn't the strongest actor that could've been cast in that role, but even his oft tongue-'n-cheek portrayal carried a certain cynical edge that worked most of the time; his ruthless determination and impatience quickened the film's pace somewhat, IMO."
I actually don't have such a big problem with jack Black. It was the writing that stank. i don't see a better actor fixing it without fighting with jakson over the script.
"Like I said, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree;"
That is fine and i don't have a problem with other people enjoying this movie I just hope that people can distigish between personal enjoyment and genuine excellence." while this isn't a great film, especially as a follow-up to the phenomenal LoTR series, it isn't in the "manure scategory" either!"
I agree to disagree.
" That's my 2 cents, but please, feel free to toss your chump change in with the grey poupon folks if that is your wish; no personal offense taken."I have little tolerence for psuedo-intelectual snobbery. I love a good popcorn movie. And there objectively good ones out there.
... in the hands of folks like Victor & patrick who turn to scatological references at every opportunity to show disrespect for popular films considered too bourgeois for their menu, words can become the "tools of fools."> > > "The only time I find their Kaka comments offensive is when they go unsupported." < < <
That's almost all the time in my humble, albeit well informed, opinion.
> > > "The language is not an issue to me." < < <
It is with me, perhaps because I take language seriously and consider articulate communication and non-inflammatory rhetoric essential for expressing informed opinions that don't devolve into personal exchanges. Of course, I also believe in measured responses, and when someone attacks a film or series of films in such a manner as to indirectly attack the tastes of another, then turnabout is fair play as the saying goes.
> > > "Nme one instance of a director being fired and then running of with the film elements in a Keystone cop like chase..." < < <
As a film historian I could describe many similar instances where directors were forced to run across the border into Mexico in a Keystone Kop manner and schemed to hide their films from process servers during the period when Keystone and other California based studios were at odds with the MPPC (Edison's Patent cartel).
I could also cite examples of esteemed directors like Eric Von Stroheim who bucked the system, were fired during the production or removed after filming was completed and barred from participating in the editing of their work.
Then there's the case of Orson Welles and Citizen Kane! At one point Welles apparently DID abscound with the negative and hid it because William Randolph Hearst was applying pressure on several studios to either buy the film from RKO and burn the negative and all existing copies after columnist Hedda Hopper caught a private screening and reported the contents back to her boss.
I know that some of the stuff you saw in Kong relating to Carl Denham's harrowing escape seemed far fetched to the point of implausability, but I've read quite a few film history books which recorded many such bizarre events during the early days of film, and whether embellished or not, it's all based on actual events.
> > > "I agree to disagree." < < <
We can agree on that, unfortunately. My biggest problem was with patrick's inane scatological remarks that not only insult PJ's Kong, but by implication the tastes of anyone who appreciates the movie; I find such comments out of place here. If you simply dislike the movie and feel that it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but avoiding the use of scatological euphemisms makes it easier to discuss differing views and find common ground to appreciate contrasting opinions.
That's my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation. :o)
AuPh
You did not, and apparently can't get beyond the scatological references that folks
like patrick & Victor trade in.What you need is a good spanking!
...feel free to toss your chump change in with the grey poupon folks if that is your wish...
And you dare to write to AS " no personal offence taken!
.
h
His argumentation for defending a film was one of the weakest until now.
Maybe he was drunk, or maybe the problem was, he was not....
* Who anyway does not rank to the highest...Beside his self being in love with himself...If I may ( and I do ) say so....
.
I absolutely HATED Independence Day, and didn't care much for the Roland Emmerich Godzilla remake either. There's a lot of FX films I don't care for, including Ronald Reagan's bio-flick! ;^)Now Farenheit 911 has no FX per se and tells a good believeable tale; maybe Victor can get on-board for that one! :o)
AuPh
It is...
the WH crew nears impeachment, F9/11 will enjoy a resurgence of popularity, with Moore appearing on all the talk shows. I can't wait.
For you it is a political crusade but for me just a very very bad picture.
A friend of mine would say: an overblowed " Ka-ka ".
become "topical."
Anyhow, not every film is timeless. This was an excellent film about a specific topic which did excellent business and influenced an entire nation. Not bad...
If it would not havee been so full of blind hate, and with totally missing any kind of humour and so biased, short if it would habe been a good satire, then....
... to the right of center found it full of "blind hate" and biased.> > > "...if it would habe been a good satire, then..." < < <
Fahrenheit 911 does NOT lack strong satirical content; in fact, it may be the first documentary that could also be classified as an unscripted, real-world black comedy.
Tinear made a very good point here, and you've apparently missed it completely, perhaps because of your own right-leaning political biases or those of your soul-mate Victor. This may make you a rebel of sorts in Europe, where Bush's international policies are generally viewed with a more critical, jaundiced eye, but in posting to these sacred forums you're just another armchair philosopher, and unfortunately, it's a folding chair of poor construction.
I would suggest quiting while you're ahead, but tinear appears to have already crossed the finish line and you're still trying to find the gate. ;^)
AuPh
nt
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Ha-ha
The two of you being bow-legged and anal retentive adds a distinctive cur-mudgeonly aire to those doggy (dodgy?) film critiques based on a cur-sory observation of your scatological vernacular, but don't expect me to follow in your paw prints, Mademmoiselle Nobs. OTOH, feel free to continue developing this new wag-the-dog sceario; it's an amusing side of your personality. ;^DCheers,
AuPh
...can't you guys keep your private scatological explorations out of this discussion? The idea of your's & Victor's grey poupon fantasies turning brown is NOT the kind of image that anyone wants in his or her head. ;^)AuPh
.
it be creating an intelligent expression?
Yes it was better than the DDL on the whole because no one could do worse....
I have problem with it because it was, if I may say so one of the main attraction, I mean the sexuality surrounding the original. It made it the " Kong " we cherish and not this castrate version on this big teddy bear without penis and so politically correct, no it did not have to be " Fritz the Cat "...But from an adult plesure PJ made a big " give me one more tear " a la Hollywood ending.
No, I hate this artificial surrounding particulary at the second hald, the scenes in New York, missing details and reality.
Far better until now was the more naive original, it transpired some real men behing the camera, and no wizzard.
Yes the ice- follies give it the death kiss. After that scene nothing was anymore possible.
It was like this over blowed brontosaurus debacle, from then on, it goes rapidly down the road.
But even earlier the savages coming from a Tourneur film, a weak copy of his work was disatrous and far too long too.Your logic is totally at fault! Because mister J. love the original film that has ( for luck ) nothing to do with creating a big merde.
No, if you would be honest, you could only constate that is a great failure, and in a way I am sorry for the film, but also it was superfluous to make a remake of one of the best in its own right.
I hope that he, as director, will make as a next move, a small scale picture and show us what he really can. But can he? Having all this special effects on his back...
Yes, biggest shit like the Lucas monstruous last films.
I call them " noises for nothing ".
.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
Not quite so faint, IMO. :o)AuPh
as ANY kind of benchmark weakens your case.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
That's the point I was trying to make to him. Here is a verbatim quote from one of patrick's little grey poupon rants:(patrickU, Oct. 28, 2005) - "Yes what a piece of merde was this Dino di Laurentis remake, and I am more that skeptical for this one to come."
He had already pre-judged Peter Jackson's film because he has a hard-on when it comes to criticism of PJ's LoTR series.
AuPh
spaced grad student in the 70s version.
The sliding of those massive logs across the door latches wins at least honorable mention in "Freudian Scenes of True Merit."
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 ]
