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

---

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

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

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

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on April 9, 2006 at 10:59:53

In Reply to: "I agree with Patrick's sentiments fully on this movie." - And IMHO, he's wrong and you're mistaken. posted by Audiophilander on April 9, 2006 at 09:48:07:

"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.

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 ]

---