Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

"I agree with Patrick's sentiments fully on this movie." - And IMHO, he's wrong and you're mistaken.

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on April 9, 2006 at 09:48:07

In Reply to: Re: It made money, and in spite of it's flaws was vastly superior ... posted by Analog Scott on April 9, 2006 at 08:28:25:

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

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 ]

---

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

---