Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Newsweek gets the first look at KING KONG!

fo'schnizzle by Cottonwood	Nov 27th, 2005 10:09:50 AM

Sounds good... by swinky	Nov 27th, 2005 10:13:22 AM
but I do wonder if 3 hours is a bit long. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to this as much as anyone, except for Harry! It should really be a fun ride. And I guess this means that AICN is about to be inundated with press screening reviews of Kong!
I'd be looking forward to this if.. by The True Priapic	Nov 27th, 2005 10:19:34 AM
..I didn't have to watch it vis a shitty pirate here in China.Fuck,its either that or sit in a movie hall with Kong in Chinese and about 500 chin's hecking up greenys in their throat and spitting them out on the floor.Fucking horrible.
Can't wait by Bean_	Nov 27th, 2005 10:21:33 AM

Any guesses on opening weekend numbers yet? by tHEmOOG	Nov 27th, 2005 10:41:41 AM
I say 130M. Worldwide release.
what is this Kong movie everyones talking about? by flamingrunt	Nov 27th, 2005 10:47:16 AM
I mean if they want it to be successful surely they should start to promote it? Maybe if this site has any spare room they could squeeze in an inch or two to mention it? And maybe Empire magazine could spare a few lines for it because otherwise this babys gonna bomb
Opening weekend 165 million! by Orionsangels	Nov 27th, 2005 10:50:28 AM

3 hours long?.... by movieman742	Nov 27th, 2005 10:58:29 AM
and Peter Jackson can't even explain why. Thats bad. I'm not sitting through a so-so movie for 3 hours. I'll pass for a few weeks and see what some of my friends think of it. Those who aren't obsesed with King Kong. It might be considered biased.
What link? by Nate Champion	Nov 27th, 2005 11:06:49 AM

I hope PJ has an enjoyable "plain" flight by Total Geekazoid	Nov 27th, 2005 11:13:41 AM
After his heir plain lands in America, I hope he has a bawl. Maybe he'll have a bowl of serial and discuss the movie'scymbalism.
Can't wait for this... And I'm thinking a 75-90M opening by Negative Man	Nov 27th, 2005 11:16:34 AM
In the end though, I can really give a flying leap about what a movie makes. Who really should care other than those monetarily invested in the end? I only care if it was good and worth my time/money I'm spending on it. But that's my guess. It's three hour running time will cut into profits. Plus Harry Potter is still going to have a showing and Narnia should be going strong as well. Three high end fantasy movies in the same time frame may split the cash pot smaller for Kong.
Well... by RKO Classic	Nov 27th, 2005 11:17:41 AM
We all know that 'Gink Gonk' will beat 'King Kong' this Christmas.
So Kong is pushing 50, by Stan the Bat	Nov 27th, 2005 11:21:48 AM
and is all grizzled and battle-scarred, and is "tell(ing) a story of being alone." Sounds like PJ is really identifying with his leading monkey. I'd actually be more interested in this if it were about a 50-foot Peter Jackson rampaging through New York. Come on- mentally replace Kong's face with PJ's in the footage you've seen so far. Pretend it's Mad Magazine, only with CGI. Admit it- it's more entertaining that way.
Kong will make approxiametly $100 over the first 5 days release. by R.C. the "Wise"	Nov 27th, 2005 11:27:03 AM
It will probably make around $70 million over that first weekend.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1021 6525/site/newsweek/ by Windfola	Nov 27th, 2005 11:32:10 AM
Thats the link to the article
ANYONE CAN MAKE THE SAME MOVIE< JACKSON YOUR FAT ASS YOUR OVERAT by Tommy West	Nov 27th, 2005 11:46:52 AM
PETER JACKSON IS THE MOST OVERATED F**CKER IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't wait for the opening of next years MTV Movie Awards. by DerLanghaarige	Nov 27th, 2005 11:58:16 AM
I'm sure it will be Kong related. But...3 hours? If Jackson is really able to make a 180 minute long film about a giant gorilla, that feels like a much shorter film, he will be my hero forever! Worst case: 180 minutes which feel like Pulp Fiction.
Kong will make more money than Titanic. by Batutta	Nov 27th, 2005 11:59:03 AM
It will run until next summer and rule the world...Last time I made such a preditction was for Harry Potter#1, and I said it would be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time, which it was until ROTK came along.
Well, did he like it? by Cpt Kirks 2pay	Nov 27th, 2005 12:01:27 PM
Is this supposed to be a review here or what!? Stop wasting my time.
Peter Jackson is a genius by zooch	Nov 27th, 2005 12:03:57 PM
He's the only working director in Hollywood right now with enough creative freedom to tell the studio "I'm gonna make a 3 hour movie" and they won't think twice about letting him do it. Do you know how many directors would love to have that freedom? Besides, directors should be allowed to make 3 hour films if they want to. Who are you to give a time length on their work? When the studios cut up a directors work it loses crutial elements that the director specifically wanted in their to tell the story he was trying to tell.
my parents want to indulge this freaking movie... by jig98	Nov 27th, 2005 12:11:45 PM
over and over again ever since the trailer that was on access hollywood 3 weeks ago my parents were all like, "oh, we'll all go see king kong when it comes out" and they gape at the poster for 11 minutes every time it pops up at our movie theather or the mall but i am thinking everytime this goes on "my parents don't even know that when this come out, they will be sitting though 3 FREAKING HOURS OF A HUGE MONKEY, the pianist, jack black and the main reason we HAVE lord of the rings movies in the first place! my dad won't even sit though a effin' movie that long. he won't even watch a movie without an aisle seat. and my mom can't even go on a roller coaster and she sat through two hours and seven minutes of spider man 2. i was never a fan of king kong because i used to think king kong was the most cringe-inducing, frightning thing ever. when i was 6 years old i was dragged on the universal studios ride and i was so scared i hid myself under my dad's shirt. ugh. well, now that my fears of the big ape have been put to rest because that was an unpleasant moment that only lasted 4 minutes and they replaced the king kong ride for the mummy ride and i'm 19 in a month from thursday, i can say this about everything i just typed..... i can't wait till the movie comes out and blows us all out of the freaking water, the burger king promotion will be dynamite and if i do see this with my awesome parents...i'll hope for the best.{beats chest like king kong and roars}.
3 hours is a good length.. by mmm_free_wig	Nov 27th, 2005 12:16:58 PM
...and wankers, stop wasting talkback space with box office predictions. Your guesses are ultimately useless and mean nothing. There's entire sites dedicated to this nonsensical activity where you can rant and rave all you like. Box office is very important, but your guesses are not.
Boring... by jrbarker	Nov 27th, 2005 12:21:17 PM
big monkey
Genius or not, not all directors should be given carte blanche s by W3bzpinn3r	Nov 27th, 2005 12:23:24 PM
Certain movies, yes.... more time would be wonderful... such as Goblet of Fire. The Triwizard Tournament seemed to be in fast forward... by the time I thought "Damn, that dragon looked cool!" the other two challenges were over, and Raph Fienes was whisper/mumbling his lines. An extra 10 or 15 minutes for the Triwizard tournament, as well as the Quidditch cup at the beginning, would have been perfect. however, other movies, the director should have been given far LESS time. such was the case for Revenge of the Sith... should have had the opening crawl, Sidius's overacting with Mace & Anakin's pledge, Anakin strangling padme, cut to Kenobi slicing Anakin into the lava, cut to NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!, fade to twins being born, end credits. The whole movie SHOULD have been only 15 minutes long. That being said, I give full props to Jackson if he manages to make me love this Kong as much as the original. Hopefully the 3 hours are about Kong, and not another Jurassic Park... the trailer has WAY too many dinosaur shots for my liking. Wow... my post took 3 hours!
great article by reckni	Nov 27th, 2005 12:27:32 PM
Counting down the days until release is painful. PAINFUL!!
Flame on, losers by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 12:35:40 PM
you'd think Peter Jackson actually did something to these dweebs to deserve the hate-trips they spew here. what is it that creates the kind of psychological make-up to drive someone to spend the time and energy to come up with that shit? early childhood molestation? sexual identity confusion? deforming acne? severe diaper rash? a third nipple? just think how infuriating it will be to them watching King Kong get positive reviews and rack up big numbers at the box office, since they seem to take Jackson's success as some sort of personal affront to them, as if their lives are somehow adversely affected because other people enjoy Jackson's work. fucking pathetic.
talkbacks are #1 by Vern	Nov 27th, 2005 12:44:22 PM
Here are my favorites so far: the guy who called Peter Jackson a fatass, and the guy who asks if he liked it or not and stop wasting my time. Would you rather click on this story and it just says "guy from Newsweek liked King Kong" and that's it? Or maybe Harry could establish abbreviations so it would just say something like "NW: KK+" and then it would waste less of your time. Also I wanted to let you know they got this new invention called Gogurt, so you don't have to waste your time actually eating yogurt with a spoon, you just drink it so it's faster because you're so on the go and what not. Same thing with soup, soup on the go so you can drink both soup and yogurt, pour some nodoz and some speed in there and chug those bithces while you're driving hurriedly to your important destination and not reading an article about King Kong or some stupid bullshit like that because your life is way too important for that although not too important to write a talkback about it, adding to the time wasted by accidentally seeing that there was part of an article about King Kong printed on the internet rather than a summary. Anyway, the answer is yes, he liked it. Now I'm gonna end this talkback because I have imp. things 2 do & it waste time
worst exclusive ever Newsweek by vicious_bastard	Nov 27th, 2005 12:57:20 PM
Reads like a plant - no opinions, recycled quotes and tells us nothing new.
Plants can read? by blackwood	Nov 27th, 2005 01:06:14 PM
I thought they were more, like, bushy and indifferent. Go ape go!
zooch by AshFett	Nov 27th, 2005 01:08:54 PM
"He's the only working director in Hollywood right now with enough creative freedom to tell the studio "I'm gonna make a 3 hour movie" and they won't think twice about letting him do it." Hmm, I'm thinking Spielberg, Lucas, Scorcese (sp?), Cameron (if he ever works again) could all do the same. Probably others like Zemeckis, Howard and Tarantino too.
I can't help but feel almost spoiled by that article by BendersShinyAss	Nov 27th, 2005 01:10:35 PM
I mean seriously, it might look like everything is wonderful, but it also looks like the appologists are in full swing readyness for an over long over blown film. You can see this in a) the reporter has been flown by Jackson b) The reporter does make mention of the films length, pretentious, maybe not. But definately self indulgent. Thats great, but unfortunately the couple million people seeing this film 'are not' Peter Jackson! And whats this shit, Jacksons going to sit with the original ape on his lap? Whats that going to prove? That he's a mad man and nothing but a show off. Fine line between pretentious and self indulgent I think. But yeah I'm looking forward to seeing this thing. Can't wait for the 'after' talkback. Soooo Can't wait.
my god bendersShinyAss... by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 01:21:21 PM
...you really need to get laid.
Who told you slappy jones by BendersShinyAss	Nov 27th, 2005 01:28:26 PM
This is not hate email, this is observation. you did read the article, yes? no? or are you just reading over talkback looking for someone to fuck with?
so, because the writer liked the movie... by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 01:32:37 PM
...that diminishes his credibility? what kind of logic is that?
did he like it? by BendersShinyAss	Nov 27th, 2005 01:37:47 PM
did he?
Bender, did you even read the whole article? by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 01:44:12 PM
because its pretty obvious that the writer did like it very much, he just didn't write the words, "i like it".
King Kong by emeraldboy	Nov 27th, 2005 01:44:26 PM
This movie inspired PJ to be become the filmmaker he is today and according to the Article in Empire that the Universal Top brass have seen the final film and it blew them out of the private studio. One exec was shcoked to discover that the film was three hours long because he was under the impression he just seen 2 hr film. So this is one film I will be going to see....
He ate yoghurt and muesli exclusively for weeks by hamo455	Nov 27th, 2005 01:45:29 PM
But that doesn't matter, cos his Kong will whup all your asses. How do I know? Because he's a hugely successful film director, and we'r sitting here posting on talkback. You know it's true.
King Kong post 2 (or to those who hate PJ) by emeraldboy	Nov 27th, 2005 01:52:23 PM
Lets see those people make three previously unfilmabale books back to back and win 11 oscars. Go on off you go......
"JACKSON WANTED SENSE THAT KONG IS 'GRIZZLED AND SCARRED BEC by Indiana Clones	Nov 27th, 2005 02:08:00 PM
Great. A film about and for losers. This is gonna be so popular. Strand, anyone?
I'll accept the film if it handles this one scene better tha by Citizen Arcane	Nov 27th, 2005 02:09:24 PM
Kong's rampaging through the city, the army's blowing shit up trying to kill him and suddenly everything becmes quiet and Kong sneaks up behind Ann (or Dwan) and deftly picks her up like a pickpocket lifting a wallet. Goofy scene in both films. I want to see how Jackson handles it. Maybe she willingly goes with him. Once you go Kong you need that huge dong. There's a new book out that details all the creatures of skull isle. There are like dozens of them and I know most of them won't be in the film but I wonder if there are a few that we haven't seen yet. It is a 3 hour film afterall.
I'm glad the article says Serkis "got tight" with a female g by ol' painless	Nov 27th, 2005 02:09:34 PM
Rather that "went tight!" *Rimshot Monkey love!! Now THAT would be some method acting!! This is no gorilla, sir!! This is my wife!! What does Kong rhyme with?? You got it!! Hey!! I'm using too many exclamation marks!! Maybe the thought of monky love has got me unreasonable excited!! I hope not!! I'm a married man!!
Ok, you guys have to knock off the "well you go make your own mo by Citizen Arcane	Nov 27th, 2005 02:13:27 PM
I know it's hip to rip on all the TBers now that Kevin Smith came in here with all his bitterness but being a filmmaker is not a pre-requisite to criticizing a film. I'm a software developer and I don't tell end users to get a CS degree before they can bitch about my work. What you're saying is that you don't agree with the very concept of a TB so you shouldn't be here to begin with.
IndianaClones will never be alone... by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 02:16:13 PM
because he'll have his Howard the Duck action figure to keep him company.
Almost here. by Thirteen 13	Nov 27th, 2005 02:31:34 PM
And three hours of Kong isn't too long for me. I would have been dissappointed if it was only 100 minutes. I hope most of the movie is on Skull Island.
Since ROTK people have been pissy over movie lengths. It's t by performingmonkey	Nov 27th, 2005 02:34:02 PM
People are SO FUCKING OBSESSED with movie lengths now that it's gone too far. It's ever since ROTK's 'endings' became a media story. People feel that their fragile world is being damaged if they have to put themselves through the immense pain of seeing a long movie. I think it's because the idea of not fucking with your phone or iPod for three hours is worse than death. Seriously, I challenge you to sit through a movie of any length without texting someone. Fuck you. King Kong will be the greatest movie of 2005, hands down. However, I assume that the phrase 'Jackson's 3 hour monkey movie' will follow it everywhere and disuade people from seeing it. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Best quote in article: by dr_nerdikus	Nov 27th, 2005 02:49:03 PM
Over dinner and a few glasses of white wine at an Italian restaurant in downtown Wellington, she (Philippa Boyens)lavishes praise on her boss. "I know I shouldn't say this," she begins, "but when other directors see this movie, they're going to fucking give up."
The true nature of haters... by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2005 02:59:11 PM
...becomes all the more evident the more we hear positive things about the film. As the premiere approaches and good word of mouth begins to circulate, the haters grow increasingly virulent, irrelevant and rabid in their arguments. They'll even complain publically about their weak bladder control in an effort to slam Jackson and KK rather than entertain the notion that the film might be entertaining. "Waaah, I'll have to pee! Waaaah, nobody will sit through a 3-hour film! Jackson, you hack!" One word, you incontinent Mountain Dew-sucking bitches: Titanic.
"some guy's head being digested into white goo by a giant sl by DocPazuzu	Nov 27th, 2005 03:03:53 PM
Cool.
Ringbearer, you defeat your own point by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 03:26:50 PM
by bringing up the Frodo-Sam scene on Mt Doom. fact is, that scene had tons of heart, and so obviously Jackson has proven he can handle genuine emotion in a scene already, so whats to question? Jackson may have said he was not as sure of himself in handling a scene like that as he is with action/visual stuff, but in the end he pulled it off. and so what if his wife and Boyens helped, they are working on KK too, so there is no reason to think the same kind of emotion and heart that was in LOTR won't also be in KK.
gorillas have pot bellies by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 03:33:48 PM
thats just how they are built. whats next, his fur isn't the right shade of brown? you know, anyone with the motivation can find something to criticize in anything.
Insider info by WolfmanNards	Nov 27th, 2005 03:38:54 PM
I heard in this one, Kong is gay, and when he finds out that Ann Darrow is a chick, he flips out, and rips her head off. He then proceeds to poke his finger into her neck cavity for ONE HOUR. Thats the word on the street anyway.
Gorillas have pot bellies by Gheorghe Zamfir	Nov 27th, 2005 03:55:50 PM
I know someone beat me to it, but just wanted to chime in on the repitition, it has nothing to do with how "in shape" a gorilla is, they're never gonna have a six pack. They have big bellies cause they have big intestines, cause they need a more rigorous digestive system.
All Ringbearer criticisms are discredited in advance by the fact by FluffyUnbound	Nov 27th, 2005 04:03:44 PM
...that Ringbearer by his own admission would have preferred that the LOTR films be cartoony, filmed in "happy happy joy joy" primary colors, and peopled by actors who never looked tired or dirty or hurt. It's hard to take his word about Kong, or any other film, seriously.
I am wating until I see it to post my opinion. by uberman	Nov 27th, 2005 04:28:41 PM
However, I did just the other day watch STAR WARS: REVENGE of the SITH and I have to say it was almost unwatchable. It was friggin horrible, with some of the worst acting and dialoge I have ever witnessed. I had a freind watching who is has zero opinion on this sort of geek stuff and he remarked without any prompting on anyones part on how bad the dialoge was. "This sounds like a bad soap opera' were his comments. PS-I am certain that 99.9999% of the negative posts about Peter Jackson are from geeks that are jealous that he has knocked Lucas off the pedastal and made vastly superior films to the entire Star Wars trilogy combined. BTW-the first 3 star wars are good films and I enjoyed them all very much.
THREE HOURS!?!?! by Saluki	Nov 27th, 2005 04:35:43 PM
What the FUCK, man?!?
i'm watching shrek tonight with a brand new king kong previe by jig98	Nov 27th, 2005 04:37:53 PM
on nbc. merry movie fest. watch it. oh, yeah.
Then again, there is this one part where a guy gets his head bit by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 04:39:54 PM
"Well," says Jackson, "he doesn't so much get it bitten off. It's more like his head gets swallowed and digested by acidic juices and it slowly dissolves into a sort of creamy pulp.".... come on...this sounds fucking awesome..... and for anyone doubting if this guy liked the film... ...."he proved once again that he might be the only guy whose films are worth getting on a plane and flying halfway around the planet to see. If the 44-year-old Kiwi felt any pressure over following up "The Lord of the Rings," you won't find a hint of it on screen. Some critics will complain that the film's length is an act of Oscar-drunk hubris, but while "Kong" may be indulgent, it's not pretentious. And it's certainly never dull. Jackson has honored his favorite film in the best possible way: by recapturing its heart-pounding, escapist glee." sounds like a good review to me....
hey Goatblower, you forgot to mention the Kongaroos i'm wear by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 04:48:25 PM
middle ground my ass, you little fraud. if that was true you'd take a shot at the haters as well, but you only seem to have a problem with those who are looking forward to the movie. oh yeah, thats because you are one of the troll haters. so what if i expect this to be a good, fun flick. does that somehow threaten your obviously fragile psyche? how is it any skin off your green teeth? or did you just want to add to the world's number of random acts of prickishness? get over yourself boy; while you are experiencing angry goat-love, those of us without your obvious lack of joy for life and cinema will be having fun at the theatre. aaaww, and won't that make you sooo mad?
It's All Good by BenFerris	Nov 27th, 2005 04:49:54 PM
No matter what reviews I read, I know that it will be good in my eyes. Thank goodness I don't have to worry about that, because there won't be a bad review. The most negative thing out of that was the corny part, which probably won't bother me as much, I don't mind corny. Bring it on KONG!
Looks awesome...but 3 hours? by crackerfarmboy	Nov 27th, 2005 04:55:05 PM
How in the world are they going to tak on 80 extra minutes to this film? Don't get me wrong this movie will rock, but that running length is a little much. Here's to hoping someone does a quality re-make of the original Godzilla!
This just in: AICN Talkbackers upset at 3 hr. run time because t by Monkeybrains	Nov 27th, 2005 04:59:45 PM
Idiots. Yes, you will have to deal with the humiliation of having to bring your mommie along to hold your hand to take you to the bathroom half way through the movie. "Oh poor me. My mind can't grasp having to sit down for 3 hours. Oh boo hoo hoo. I don't think I can stay quite for that long. Oh Boo hoo hoo. Look at me, I'm going to be cool because I'm a troll and piss everyone off". It's not working, children. No one is swayed by your stupidity
Aint It Hostel Reviews by BannedOnTheRun	Nov 27th, 2005 05:19:01 PM
That is, if'n your serious about renaming the site.
Haven't got time to read the whole talkback at this exact mo by seppukudkurosawa	Nov 27th, 2005 05:29:11 PM
but a few comments: Goatzinger, Drooling sychophantic fan-boy are four words not one...but they are four very beautiful words, each of them a beloved cornerstone behind AICN, take one away and you'll just have ICN or ACN or some such shit.---- Vern, one of the reasons why that guy said this review was a waste of his time was because it was a pretty weak review by any standards (as in the standard set by a Vern Review for example). Agree or not, but I'm waiting for the obligatory Drooling sychophantic fan-boy review, because at least they know what we're looking for in this beast. I get your point though, it is fucking annoying how people are so busy jittering about (gotta love the word jittering, huh?) that they can't actually read through the thing. Do these very same people wake up in the morning and complain about the ambling pacing of Friends, wish the milk would pour faster into their Cheerios and then drive to work on the pavement so as to save them the hassle of negotiating all those female drivers on the road? The answer to this question is yes of course. And finally, Spazuzu made a good point, what is it with this bladder obsession here? You can't hold it in for three hours? Watch the fucking film and relax, and if you piss yourself so fucking what...you'll just have to endure a bit of discomfiture on the way home, and your wife will probably be so sickened by your urine-doused hobosity that she'll leave you, but at least you got to think about something other than your own schatological urges for once.
"And I don't really know. We've been asking that ourselv by CerebralAssassin	Nov 27th, 2005 06:07:23 PM
Quote of the year. A filmmaker who's let his film completely get away from him. A director who's lost complete control over his product. He can't even explain the structure of his film...he's gone insane.
As interesting as this all is, all I really want to know by Ingeld	Nov 27th, 2005 06:09:58 PM
is when will the Hobbit go into production. Some news on that would be really COOL. (I am probably not alone in wondering that.)
re: the 3 hours thing by Ribbons	Nov 27th, 2005 06:12:04 PM
This is really pissing me off. It's a non-issue that's been turned into an issue by the press, which likes controversy, and by a vocal minority of fanboys who like to bitch. How do you guys know that 3 hours is too long? Have you been to a double secret screening of this movie? They told a story and it ended up taking 3 hours to tell, is all I know. Whether or not that story is any good remains to be seen. I'm sure someone's gonna say "the original was 100 minutes" like that has anything to do with anything. Bottom line: if you are actually so terribly busy and/or important that you can't be bothered to watch a 3 hour movie? Don't. The way you guys tell it, it's going to suck anyway.
that was a pretty funny quote by Citizen Arcane	Nov 27th, 2005 06:16:36 PM
"Uh guys, what the hell are we doing?" (blank stares) The way I figure it, it can go one of two ways. Kong falls off the building at the two hour mark, it takes 20 minutes for him to die and 40 minutes for the epsilogue. OR, the movie will end with him climbing the building and then later someone will mention that he died, his actual death to be saved for the SE.
This Movie is a Fanboy's Wet Dream! by MrStinger	Nov 27th, 2005 06:17:06 PM
The starlet has her choice, and sleeps with the WRITER! How cool is that? And as far as a three hour running time, just one word: Depends.
You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 06:21:28 PM
George Lucas has been bashed nonstop by Peter Jackson fans ever since Peter Jackson's sucess with LOTR. Now that there is a little backlash against Jackson, those same people, like Pevin and uberman are crying about it. Talk about hyopocrits! Taste your own medicine.
I Can't Wait. by Evil Chicken	Nov 27th, 2005 06:30:47 PM
Really. It'll be great.
Looking forward to the movie and to make up my own mind. by MontyPigeon	Nov 27th, 2005 06:33:23 PM
The game sucks though, Its just a Turok clone so far. Thank the Lord I bought Half Life 2 at the same time.
Lucas by potvsktl	Nov 27th, 2005 06:35:12 PM
Sure, but George Lucas makes shitty movies and deserves to be criticized.
lucas was being bashed way before LOTR came out... by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 06:39:35 PM
...the lucas bashing started around 1999 when he released the biggest disappointment of all time....
Yes, I too am excited about King Kong! by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 06:40:04 PM
For the record, I love Peter Jackson as a Filmmaker. I just get sick of people bashing Lucas constantly. Yes he made a lot of mistakes with the Prequels, but they are still good movies, and Lucas doesn't deserve the disrespect he gets. I am one of those movie fans that respects and loves Peter Jackson's, as well as others Directors movies. I am really looking forward to King Kong. There is nothing wrong with a 3 hour Kong movie. In fact I am glad Kong is 3 hours, because that means more bang for the buck.
Harry Potter was three hours long. by Christopher3	Nov 27th, 2005 06:50:23 PM
What's the big deal?
The 3 hour run-time will most likely be a non-issue, but I say t by Ted Striker	Nov 27th, 2005 06:55:21 PM
I think PJ knows how to balance a movie, even action/fantasy movies, not just dramas. It is much more difficult to make an action flick that is over 2 hours in length, without wearing out the audience. It depends on how slow you start the film, character development, how soon the action begins, rest-time between action sequences, the writing, etc. Considering PJ has 3 great action movies under his belt that ran substantiall longer than 2 hours, I'll give the benefit of the doubt. However, that doesn't mean it won't work. Regardless, everyone is going to go see this, even if it was only 15 minutes long.
Lucas fanboys brought it on themselves by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 07:01:12 PM
fact is, most of the criticism of Lucas was brought down in response to the unprovoked hating on LOTR by the Lucas fanboys who couldn't stand seeing someone beside their idol being lauded and having success for making a fantasy trilogy. i'm still waiting for one of them to explain away Lucas, after garnering the vast wealth and power from the first 3 Star Wars movies, making Howard the Duck. i mean, think about it. Lucas had the ability to do whatever he wanted, the cinematic world was his oyster....and he chose to make a movie about a spaceduck. what is his next project? is he doing anything that doesn't involve milking Star Wars? oh yeah, that Indiana Jones thing, which is simply more milking.
I agree wholeheartedly!!!!!! by seppukudkurosawa	Nov 27th, 2005 07:22:32 PM
Who do I agree with? In the words of Number 2, "that would be telling", but the fact is I completely and 100% agree.
Bring on the Hobbit, PJ!!!!!!!!!!! by Forestal	Nov 27th, 2005 07:23:52 PM

Hey I like long movies... and since nobody's said it yet... by Johnno	Nov 27th, 2005 07:24:33 PM
"I HATE EVERY CHIMP I SEE... FROM CHIMPAN-A TO CHIMPANZEE... NO YOU'LL NEEEEEVEEERRR MAKE A MONKEEEEY OUT OF MEEEEEEE!!!!"
But Ringbearer, I can see everything in each of the Kong trailer by FluffyUnbound	Nov 27th, 2005 07:29:51 PM
Everything. What didn't you see? The MOST negative thing one can say in terms of the visuals on the special effects in LOTR is that the Balin's Tomb sequence is choppily cut in the theatrical version [a failing which disappears almost entirely in the Extended Edition]. And when you see the Kong trailer in a theatre, you can count individual strands of Kong's fur, if you so desire. What's being hidden? // In terms of where the additional running time is coming from - I can't be the only person who found the concluding New York sequences in the original to be a little undeveloped, relative to the rest of the film. It's got the iconic Kong on the Empire State Building shot, sure - but still. It's a big city, Kong could certainly productively and entertainingly smash more of it. So a lot of the extra time could be in New York. If you look at the entire course of the original and try to imagine where the additional time might go, I think you could easily bulk up the "Voyage to Skull Island" parts with about ten more minutes of content, add thirty minutes to events on the island, and add forty minutes to the climax in New York [devoting one third of the additional time to character interaction and the rest to set pieces] without the length becoming excessive.
Lucas did not make Howard The Duck! by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 07:31:52 PM
George Lucas did not make Howard The Duck! He only gave some financial support to it, so he was mentioned as an Producer. That is all. Do some research before you criticize.
Re: "who DID make Howard the Duck?" by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 07:44:49 PM
Willard Huyck Directed Howard The Duck. That's who. Check imdb for yourself. http://www.imdb.com/title//tt0 091225/
Sorry! here is the right link. by Lavaman	Nov 27th, 2005 07:48:21 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00 91225/
peter jackson has been cursed by gypsies by JudgeNXcutioner	Nov 27th, 2005 07:48:59 PM
Kong is a genetic science experiment gone wrong and is voiced by james earl jones.
for the record, i actually like 3 out of 6 of the Star Wars flic by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 08:01:38 PM
and was a Star Wars fan before most of you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. how many here can say they waited all afternoon in line to see ROTJ on opening day? excuse the fuck out of me if i ended up walking out feeling let down thanks to the muppet ewoks and ending that made Barney the dinasaur seem dark and edgy. its just a shame that the first two prequels were not as good as Sith. went to see the re-releases of the Star Wars and ESB in the theatre too even. if Jackson makes the Hobbit and it is as lame as Phantom Menace or ATOC i'll have no problem in saying so either.
im not buying the hype. by dr.bulber	Nov 27th, 2005 08:01:54 PM
just because the monkey is big doesnt mean he can act.
Sammo by Ribbons	Nov 27th, 2005 08:03:28 PM
Maybe it was the sputtering that obscured the message, but I addressed both points in my post, you jackass.
you made sure you were were tuned in to see it though... by Peven	Nov 27th, 2005 08:05:41 PM
...so how ridiculous does that make you mack?? fucking dweeb.
Three hours of Jack Black, a dream come true!! by Silver Shamrock	Nov 27th, 2005 08:09:23 PM
not really. A three hour Kong movie is self indulgent. What's wrong with a tight 2 hour film with an hour of deleted scenes? PJ has become Kevin Smith, but without anyone to say no to him.
Weak! by Modus	Nov 27th, 2005 08:11:25 PM
That preview was corny. I think I just lost complete interest.
kong, star wars etc by seanpb	Nov 27th, 2005 08:13:57 PM
i think as a few talkbackers have said previously, the 3 hour thing can be both negetive and positive. if the film is great, 3 hours is awesome, if it isnt so good the running length just adds fuel to the fire. the main concern is that the original is just over half as long, with harry potter theyre dealing with a book, an especially long book, so 3 hours is probably what was expected from it. uve just gotta hope that extra 80 minutes is somthing of substance and relevance that the audience needs to and will be pleased to have seen. im really sorry for adding star wars to this rant but if kong takes any oscars (in the technical dept of the film-making process) of ep. 3 ill be so disapointed, especially for ILM and john williams who really pulled out all the stops on ep.3 to deliver their best performances to date, i know thats a big call on williams, but his ep.3 score was brilliant. it was complete, compelling, totally in sync with all that was visual, it complemented the film brilliantly. i understand it is very early days, but anything ive heard from kong has been fairly so-so. heres to hoping its good, and that 3 hours aint an issue.
Opening weekend - 80 million and then it will severely taper off by the_pissboy1	Nov 27th, 2005 08:21:32 PM
Why? What's gonna draw families or women to this film? It's about a big fucking ape...that's it folks. A big goddamn ape with a thing for blondes? WTF would an ape want with a stupid tiny human? Masturbating his giant kong would be more interesting to an ape than spending time with a tiny human. Do fanboys really think women/moms/teen girls are waiting around to watch a film about a primitive monster tormenting a woman? They can just watch Streetcar Named Desire and get that story, plus some acting, not lousy CGI.
i was wondering what modus' interest levels were... by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 08:53:56 PM
thanks for filling us in....
The death of cinema, ladies and gentlemen! by heywood jablomie	Nov 27th, 2005 09:02:37 PM
I don't care what anybody says: the original Kong is of interest only for the effects. The movie itself is rubbish. The '76 Kong is okay as it didn't take itself too seriously, had three good central performances...kind of a fun movie. The idea of spending three hours on "big ape likes girl, big ape gets shot by biplanes" is absurd...but then I found the last ten hours of Jackson's moviemaking boring beyond belief.
God Harry, don't tell me you've got that Kong poster in by 007-11	Nov 27th, 2005 09:13:16 PM
MOVE! Move it now! It may not be too late! I think a porfessional can restore the colors with some sort of lemon juice treatment if the damage has already been done. It might be worth less on the open market, but I doubt you're going to try to sell it anyway.
heywood jablomie..... by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 09:16:44 PM
tell me something. i am not trying to be a dickhead or get into a silly messageboard fight with you although i am sure that is about to happen but if you thought all of the LOTR films were boring how come...well...let me put it this way...if you saw fellowship and it was "boring beyond belief" why did you go and see two towers? o.k so maybe you thought you would give it a chance and see if it was better than fellowship but then you see it and you think that that too is "boring beyond belief" so why on earth would you go and see the third three hour film of a series which so far you had found to be boring "beyond all belief"? i don't get it.....people who say "all three LOTR films were boring" why the fuck would you watch all three of them then? it doesn't make sense to me.....you pretty much know what you are going to get after the first 3 hours.......they were all made at the same time..by the same people.....what on earth would compel you to watch all of them? and then there are people like ringbearer9 who hates these films so much not only has he/she seen them all at the cinema he/she can directly quote the fucking directors commentary??!!?? guys there are so many other things you could be doing with your lives other than dedicating over nine hours to films you hate or in ringbearers case over fucking 20 hours watching films you know you will hate....he/she can quote the commentaries for god sake...doesn't that strike anyone else to be a little fucking deranged?
the prequels are a completely different situation sammo by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 09:56:46 PM
they were not filmed back to back all at once.... they were filmed seperately and therefore could possibly lead to better films...for example jar jar binlks being swept under the carpet after the hatred of his character swept the world. that was a direct result of lucas actually listening to his fans. because if anyone thinks jar jar wasn't meant to be main player through the perquels they are crazy. of course he was. if he had been a smash and the fans had loved him he would have been there up front the whole way... plus it is star wars...there were already three awesome films to begin with so you just knew he had it in him to make a great film again...which he did with SITH which was great. I knew he would eventually make a great star wars film. plus what star wars fan wasn't going to go and see the return of vader? i know plenty of people who hated TPM and didn't bother seeing the other 2..... but LOTR was made by the same director..with the same crew...with the same cast at the same time. the prequels were spread out and they did get better. TPM was a disappointment. there were flashes of greatness in there....so i thought maybe he will get it right with AOTC. but AOTC is the worst movie of all star wars films..i would take caravan of courage over that fucking film any day...but then he promises us a darker story more in line with empire strikes back featuring the return of darth vader. hard to resist. jackson promised three hours of the same "boring" stuff you guys hated in the first two. you really can't compare the two at all. plus the only "big budget" hollywood film jackson had made before was the frighteners which most of you rip on as well .. he didn't exactly have the history of three of the best films of all time behind him...lucas did....not to mention his involvment of being one of th guys behind the indiana jones films too....
Nic Cage should have played Kong by Trik	Nov 27th, 2005 09:58:01 PM
they would have saved on some cgi. He probably wouldn't have even needed a hairsuit. and the face is perfect. Ook for us Nic! Wave those hands around! Knuckle Walk. This part would fall right in to nic's acting range.
ringbearer9..... by slappy jones	Nov 27th, 2005 10:10:40 PM
can you please let me know the purpose of dredging up that article....do you have s file of things you store away..are you the killer from seven?? why are you so obsessed with jackson and his work? that article is ancient.....you memorise commentaries....you continually post on anything related to kong or jackson.... please.....why? what drives you to do all this. there has to be something else going on in your life...surely?
Typical. by Ribbons	Nov 27th, 2005 10:11:26 PM
You use the pretext of my failing to address a specific concern that certain naysayers have aired about Kong's running time (when, in fact, I have) as an excuse to call me a "sputtering dolt," and when I point out a mistake on your part, you stick to your guns and pretend that circumstances haven't changed. Maybe if I disguised my agression in flippant semantics like you do then I wouldn't seem so "surly," but I'm not interested, and you're still a jackass. Now I don't really know you and I don't know what the hell I've done to get your attention, but if you've got some problem with me that compelled you to keep bothering me after a mini-argument I consider settled, then I really wish you'd drop the bad Kevin Smith impersonation and actually talk to me straight; we chimps, we're not so good with abstract concepts, after all, and we zoo-bound chimps have a world view limited to what we can see from inside our cages. Then again, that would rob you of the opportunity to try out all of your ornate insults on me.
3hr running time is an issue, just not to fanboys! by Kampbell-Kid	Nov 27th, 2005 10:19:28 PM
Fanboys will never get their head out of the clouds and realize Hollywood is still and always will be a business for making profit. A three hour plus film is a big risk for a studio and theater franchise. From a multiplex theater business point of view they will make less profit from a 3hr running time film versus a 90min pixar film. Why? Because with a 90min film you can schedule more showtimes in a day than you can with a 3hr epic, hence more profit within a day. Theater owners dread getting another 3hr "Meet Joe Black" because if they bomb, your stuck making no profit and wasting scheduling space. At least with a shorter film that shows more often during a day, but bombs, you can make ends somewhat meet. Anything can be made into a 3hr golden turd, it's just you need to make sure that turd keeps your attention well throughout. The real craft comes from taking something 3hrs and making it still seem brilliant in 90mins. Save your epic bullshit for your directors cut, extended or special edition dvds. If I wanted to spend the day watching a movie in a theater I'd goto Butt-Numb-a-thon. :)
Kong was an allegory for the black man in america... by Chriss	Nov 27th, 2005 10:29:17 PM
Somebody should remind this to Jackson if he wants to update the film. Yes, Kong was an allegory for the white man who comes and captures Kong, sends him by ship back to the US in chains, where kong breaks free and when he goes after the white woman he is murdered. If Jackson wants to really do a modern interpretation of Kong, he is recruited by an NBA coach and given a lucrative contract, becomes a media celebrity, marries a gorgeous white woman, makes some commercials, records rap album as MC Kong, however his success leads to him becoming a coke addict and kills his wife after they divorce by stabbing her, however he is acquited by an ignorant jury of fellow apes spends the rest of his days in Malibu playing golf with Godzilla.
Kong will NOT be eclipse Titanic, let alone be the #1 movie of t by acroyear77	Nov 27th, 2005 10:30:59 PM
...reality check! It'll be a modest success, with a relatively strong openening (it WON'T break any records), but'll fizzle in the second week.
The number of screenings issue is negligible by Citizen Arcane	Nov 27th, 2005 10:38:28 PM
Most of the bigger movies in recent years have been over two hours. A half hour more or less isn't going to significantly affect the numbers, especially given the number of screens they show a big film at nowadays.
bzzzt wrong... by Chriss	Nov 27th, 2005 10:43:50 PM
distributors fight for how many theaters they get shown in. You get your film placed in 5 theaters, an extra half hour in a film may mean that that they can only show your film 5 instead of 6 times. That equates to a 17% revenue difference. To make up for that you have to be put in 6 theaters. However with so many other competing films, a theater may opt to put in something that is 1/2 the length, can be shown 8 times for the same amount of money and get nearly the same number of seats filled.
$207 million! WTF? by rivercb	Nov 27th, 2005 10:48:43 PM
That's an insane amount of money to make a movie. Add another $100 million+ in marketing.
Three Hours... Ow my brain. by Saluki	Nov 27th, 2005 11:01:14 PM
I'm still getting over this one. Really, this isn't hyperboyle. This just blew my MIND when I saw that lil factoid. Like hell I can get my family to watch it now.
Jackson's best work by OwnedbyGeorge	Nov 27th, 2005 11:06:07 PM
While the first LOTR is good, Jackson is at his best when his own imagination is overloading as in the Frighteners or Dead Alive, when the entire reality of the worlds he creates threaten to fall apart under the pressure. ROTK seems to be lacking that creative spark and seems more an example of how tired and withdrawn a director can get trying to do 3 movies without a break. Lets hope he can bring that manic fire to Kong, and he doesn't just deliver a generic, good-looking epic that bores the world into submission like ROTK or Titanic did.
It'll break the opening weekend record... by Jaka	Nov 27th, 2005 11:16:09 PM
..because it will be in 4500 theaters on 15000 screens. lol. I say 150 mil is possible. But the second weekend will be 60-80...which doesn't suck I suppose.
I don't know why everyone hates longer movies by 007-11	Nov 27th, 2005 11:44:27 PM
I'm getting more movie for the same price I'd pay for an hour and a half. Hell, the $10 dollar nacho and drink combo seems like a reasonable purchase in this scenario. I'd still be out 2 dollars, but I can live with that.
Torrent link up! by Riff Randall	Nov 28th, 2005 12:19:41 AM
http://www.mininova.org/tor/16 3952
(for the 4 min preview shown on NBC tonight, that is) by Riff Randall	Nov 28th, 2005 12:20:41 AM
Gorgeous!
Tonight's footage? by DinoBass	Nov 28th, 2005 12:22:00 AM
Kong looks great. Certainly a bit of Sky Captain look to Skull Island, with all the fake sets (I know a lot of miniatures were involved instead of just virtual stuff, but it still creates the same effect once live actors are composited in). Jackson said that part of making the movie longer was about developing more of the Ann/Kong relationship on the island. In general, I think sensitive conversations with giant monsters is a tricky business, still I'm hoping Jackson pulls it off. It was hard to tell from tonight's footage if he can or not, though.
Hey by Darth Thoth	Nov 28th, 2005 01:05:14 AM
Let's not forget the "primitive" Zulus did kick the crap out the British imperialists when they first tried to destroy the Zulus. Maybe the Zulus didn't have guns but they sure did hold a higher level of morality than the British slimeballs who came to imprison them, burn their lands, and exploit their wealth. Just a little FYI reminder ;)
This has... by BCfreeB	Nov 28th, 2005 01:08:34 AM
absolutely NO news in it. Nothing we dont know. It's a puff piece, and then this site links to the piece as if it's earth shattering. I wanna love the movie, but come on. A little honest judgement about what is and is not worth a headline, please. www.unseenfilms.com
I liked Howard the Duck. by BCfreeB	Nov 28th, 2005 01:33:19 AM
So suck on that! BWAHAHAHA www.unseenfilms.com
NBC Footage torrent link here by Nivek666	Nov 28th, 2005 01:48:17 AM
http://www.mininova.org/tor/16 3952 very emotional, very dramatic footage. I think the people exspecting overt sexual beastiality between Kong and Ann will be dissapointed, but I think audiences and critics, and children will love it. You really get the sense of Kong being Master of his Domain, but very very lonely. The cinematography was outstanding. The CGI was shaky in a few parts, but who knows what the completed completed stuff will be like.
i don't expect this to make a billion dollars by slappy jones	Nov 28th, 2005 01:53:14 AM
but it is not going to bomb...... i have a feeling once people see this film and word of mouth gets out it is gonna be huge....i really think we are about to see a truly great film. so it is three hours long? haters seem to clutch to that fact like no three hour film can be successful. i tell you one thing..well loved novels or not king kong has more mass appeal than a series of films about what is generally considered to be d and d nerd type horseshit and LOTR didn't do to badly now did it? oh and i too fucking love howard the duck...i don't know why it gets such a bum rap....it's a talking duck and he bangs lea thompson...what is not to like? anyway, i guess we will all know in two weeks whether the film is good or not. except for ringbearer9, indiana clones etc etc i mean they won;t be seeing it will they? of course they fucking will...see ya opening night....
Jackson creative? by spectrebeeyatch	Nov 28th, 2005 01:55:01 AM
LOTR were book translations and King Kong is a remake of a movie that already has a remake, so when actually comes up with his own ideas and pushes them around Hollywood, I'll be impressed. I'm seeing Kong but I'm not sure if it will do as well as many of expect it to. I saw the trailer one or two weeks ago in a packed theater and people were laughing at it. Mind you younger generations probably think this is a rip off of Mighty Joe Young and just ignore it, not connecting to the original film.
What the fuck... by nsomnia	Nov 28th, 2005 02:01:30 AM
do THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES & REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE have to do with KING KONG?
Hey haters, how's the hating? by DocPazuzu	Nov 28th, 2005 02:03:15 AM
Man, there's nothing like a Jackson/Lucas-themed talkback to bring out the most odious of drooltards. You hatecocks really can't be told to fuck off enough times. My new favorites are the ones who talk about the running time of the film as if it actually means something in terms of revenue if the film strikes a chord with audiences. You could make the same argument about Titanic. Yes, if Titanic were a lean 100 minutes it could have been shown more often and increased the ticket sales by a wide margin, but who's to say Titanic would have been as successful if it hadn't been three hours long? Besides, how much more money did Titanic need to make in order to prove itself to almighty Mammon? Maybe it's length was an integral part of the story's appeal; did that ever occur to you? Of course it did -- you're just trying to impress people with your knowledge of how soulless box office economics tend to work. Where does it all end? Hell, why not make one-hour McMovies that even the most ADD-afflicted viewer can see without suffering a breakdown? Think of all the money one-hour movies could make if they're a hit. Why, you could almost double the amounts of showings in any given day! Ka-ching! At times I find it virtually impossible to believe that some of you assholes are movie fans on even the most rudimentary of levels. If you want to impress people with your home theater system, you're better off getting one of those effects-laden, show-offy calibration discs because your love for actual movies is obviously next to infinitesmal.
More film for the same price by BendersShinyAss	Nov 28th, 2005 02:36:22 AM
The reason people are scared about this films length, aside from numbum syndrome and 'I can't hold this fart in Any longer....' (fffffffffffrrrrrrrr) [crowd all react] "oooooow" "Take it out side man" "This movie stinks!" ** People fear a 3 hour film because we've all been to 3 hour films. And RARELY do they zip by. Titanic masterfully filled every frame with something. But it had something going for it. Tits for one thing... and lots of screaming dying people on a sinking building sized ship - with monstrously good special effects. But having said that, look at it now. 3 hours of an annoying 'top 10' flute motif playing in the back ground. 'Lawrence of Arabia' I adore this film. But IT'S SO BLOODY LONG! Argh!! Dert scene. More desert scene. walking through the desert. 'opps, i just tuned out, what happened in thnose last couple scenes.' 'Dances with Wolves' pulled off the 3 hour film very nicely. But it gave Costner the idea that he should make every film 3 hours - thus his downfall. 'The Postman' yeah you know what I'm talking about. 'Lord of the rings' (here we go again) People keep saying that the films were cut down from the books to much as is. Ok, so now we have these cut down screenplays that follow the books. This is MY ISSUE now. The screenplays are now half arsed. So what they should have done, IMO? Concetrate on each screenplay and re-draft each one into a nice tight 120 pages. THATS what adaption is all about. I fully understand people love the books, and like the EE films just fine. But they are 'in the moment' films. 10 - 20 years from now I'm keen to see if ANYONE (bar the hardest of hardcore) will truely be bothered to take them all in. On a side note: theres talkbackers who keeps saying they just watched Episode 3 and it is 'unwatchable'. What exactly is unweatchable?? The space battle at the begining? yeah, I know what you mean. The crashing ship? what were they thinking? Palpatine seducing Anikin. ow Stop, my eyes! The appearance of the Emperor.... the battle between Obie-wan and Anikin, Sidious and Yoda in the senate. It truely was excrutiating wasn't it!! I'm fully with you guys. This film is UNWATCHABLE** I might go watch it again for the 10th time, just to make sure. Oh and what I said about LotR. I hold the same view over Harry Potter too. Ok, there's 2 kinds of 3 hour films. BAD and boring ones. GOOD but hard to revisit multiple times ones. King Kong is going to be one or the other.
'Love of primitive cultures'?! I love it by kiwiguy	Nov 28th, 2005 02:58:29 AM
Is this Harry guy for real? His love of primitive cultures? Are you having a lend mate? What bizarre sort of racist society do you live in you reactionary prick? Or are you simply trying to devise more reasons to spruik what is shaping as the most bloated, useless waste of celluloid this year. What a clown.
Yeah, but will it be as good as The Escapist? by Alonzo Mosely	Nov 28th, 2005 02:58:30 AM
Not that it matters, The Lion is about to start making his movie which will eclipse every other movie ever made...
Kong and the Square Root Law.. by ljeaster	Nov 28th, 2005 03:14:25 AM
I dont mean to shit on the big guy, okay maybe I do a little, the bugger, but the very idea of Kong is impossible due to our little friend the Square Root Law of physics fame. You see, take an average gorilla (no, not the funny guys in berrets with fixed bayonets chopping off people's appendages in the jungle), no the anthropoid ape, that slightly resembles a human in form. Say you double the length of it's arms and legs (which is square) the area of the gorilla's arms and legs is now increased by a degree of four. Also, as a consequence of this, the volume and weight of the gorilla's body has increased by 8 or cubed. In effect, this would crush the poor animal under his own weight. Plus, Kong's head is slightly proportional to his body, an incongruity with nature, as the larger the body of an animal, the smaller it's cranium or head is in relation to it's body. This is for convervation of energy and ties into the circulatory and other networks within the creature, so as no to over tax the system. Therefore, King Kong is a physical impossibility and cannot exist. Think about it, in order for a gorilla of his size (guesstimating about 1,000 percent larger than a silverback) his endoskeleton and internal organs would not be able to support his massive structure, and he definitely couldn't swing from cliff edge to cliff edge or across skyscrapers 80 stories off the ground. Might as well have the on screen Kong throw giant wooden barrels at a massively enlarged plumber in downtown NY; it would be just as believable. Yeah, Im a genius too, PJ.........Science!
fuck remakes by CuervoJones	Nov 28th, 2005 03:35:24 AM

you can't give us too much Kong, Harry by Rupee88	Nov 28th, 2005 03:54:00 AM
Ignore those party poopers. True geeks are pumped for this film. Don't hold back.
Lucas Bashing by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 28th, 2005 04:22:46 AM
George Lucas was being bashed way before 1999, in fact the bashing started right after Jedi's release. Here are some of the bashing highlights along the way... 1) RETURN OF THE JEDI - Bashed due to death of Boba Fett, Ewoks, bad acting...hello Harrison Ford, and generally not being a patch on Empire. 2) Not making any more Star Wars movies immediately after Jedi. 3) The Ewok TV movies/cartoons/Droids TV show. 4) Howard the Duck... 5) Labyrinth... 6) Willow...sure it's fun but when are you going to make more Star Wars? 5) Young Indiana Jones...bashed, bashed, bashed. 6) Radioland Murders...ouch. 7) The Special Editions, where the bashng reached a national level, truly the start of the Holy War. 8) The prequels... 9) The original version DVD debacle... So to say that Lucas bashing started with The Phantom Menace is simply wrong. And I haven't even mentioned the Holiday Special...
hehe by BendersShinyAss	Nov 28th, 2005 04:25:58 AM
I remember the same argument about Godzilla. taking into consideration the proprotions and natural logistics, his bones would have to be the strength of titanium. Proportionately. And his skin would need an elastisity that goes beyond the realms of science. To not would have his skin ripping and falling off on the first building corner. I wish Kong was more of a monster than a big ape :(
Kong by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 28th, 2005 04:37:54 AM
This movie will be pretty good, due to the fact that Peter Jackson is too much of a grade A movie geek to make a fuck up of something like King Kong. Plus i've hardly seen any footage of the film so will be nice to walk into a movie theatre and see a new film as opposed to one ive seen just about every frame of on the internet. Will also be interesting to see how Jackson copes without Tolkien as all the moments I loved in the Lord of the Rings films were due to Tolkien rather than Jackson. Having said that the Mines of Moria sequence in Fellowship was just about the greatest thing ever put onto movie screens and Heavenly Creatures is a masterpiece. I can't wait to see his version of The Lovely Bones too. In the meantime King Kong ahould do just fine.
Re: Opening weekend 165 million! by MachinaMan	Nov 28th, 2005 05:22:40 AM
Seeing that Harry Potter has already pulled in $200 million gives me hope that this film, opening weekend, will pull in at least $100 million, though I think that it's length could work against it. Though I get the feeling that Universal will play up the romance angle, so that it brings in more of the 'Titanic' crowd.
Ogod... more Jackson V Lucas on a TB... by Lone Fox	Nov 28th, 2005 05:48:48 AM
To put it straight (as if anyone listens) the Lucas hating was not as a result of SW fans attacking LOTR way back when anybody gave a damn, rather the other way round. It was the natural progression for all the Matrix fanatics that balled out Phantom Menace and then realised it was actually THEIR trilogy that failed miserably ('their'!) If you ever visited forums for these respective series, it was LOTR that were full of anti SW postings. Cry all you want, it's a fact. Same with these TB's, always an anti Lucas rant whenever Jackson is mentioned. As for walking out of ROTJ in disgust... if that's the case, you were too old back THEN to go see it, what the fuck are you complaining about 20 years later? What was this TB about anyway... oh yeah, Kong. The lure of a big monkey smashing things is too strong, I'm looking forward to it, though I've yet to enjoy any film by PJ so far. But it's a giant monkey. And Jack Black's in it.
"Zulu spears, Amazonian Arrows, a dagger from Borneo... then you by SalvatoreGravano	Nov 28th, 2005 06:01:53 AM
...them over and see 'Made in China'".
You can pull all the number out of your ass as you want. The fil by Citizen Arcane	Nov 28th, 2005 06:14:01 AM
I've heard that argument too many times and it's always proven wrong. People who want to see it are going to see it. At the very most they'll spend some extra bread to get it in a few more theaters but we're in government spending territory with this film's budget as it is so it hardly matters. As for the film itself, I'm reserving jedgment until I see it because I know they can literally work on the FX until the studio pries it out of their hands but damned if it doesn't look cartoony. They can be as snobby about declaring that the village is a model if they like but it looks CGI to me because everything around it is CGI. Once you white wash everything in digital resolution, the whole thing might as well be animated. And the Frighteners, whee did this revisionist shit come from? It was pretty unanomous that The Frighteners was a piece of shit. What? Peter Jackson directed it? Well then it kicked ass. As for Dead Alive, while it does have the distnction of being the goriest film ever made and it's a lot of fun to watch whilst high, let's be honest here people.I for one hope there's a little Dead Alive in this film though. Jacksons obviously been playing this in his head with his dick in his hand since he was a kid, there must be some juvinile splatter porn in there somewhere.
"See you opening night" by Indiana Clones	Nov 28th, 2005 06:23:07 AM
I've never understood the widespread propensity for accusing TBers of seeing a film they know they are going to dislike. You'd have to pay me to see Kong or the LOTR sequels (i was loaned FOTR).
PJ did NOT have the freedom to make it 3 hours. His contract sa by minderbinder	Nov 28th, 2005 06:34:15 AM
He only got permission to make it longer when he showed them a rough cut and they signed off on a longer cut.
Anyone think that the '33 Kong looks like the abominable sno by droids22	Nov 28th, 2005 06:38:41 AM
The people that complain that the CGI in this new Kong looks fake should take a look at the Kong of '33! And even the one from '76. This is definitely the Kong I've been waiting to see. I remember people complaining about the length of Titanic but like after the DVD came out they were all looking for the 4 hour version. ;->
RE:"You'd have to pay me to see Kong or the LOTR sequels ( by Citizen Arcane	Nov 28th, 2005 07:09:31 AM
And yet you waste time posting on a messageboard on a film you won't see just to explain to anyone who will listen that you're no going to see the movie. Ok. As for Titanic, I wasn't waiting for the 4 hour version. I was waiting for the version that shot a laser beam from the screen that would mercifully kill me if I had to sit through that dreck again. But I know, I'm in the minority on that one.
"I've never understood the widespread propensity for accusin by DocPazuzu	Nov 28th, 2005 07:27:27 AM
It's because most haters, like you Mr. Clones, are phonies. The screaming and masturbitching is just a way to throw some internet weight around, nebulous though it may be to everyone but themselves. Haters in fact harbor a secret geeky love for the very films and directors they claim to loathe. They simply suffer periodic spells of anguish and rage as a result of once again realizing how small and lifeless their genitals are while taking a shower and must therefore stride forth and punish the world of filmmaking for this slight dealt to them by nature. Lucas and Jackson, being fundamentally geeks who have actually made headway in the real world, are the perfect target for their foam-flecked fury. This is why haters, as a rule, smell so pungently. Tiny genitalia + avoided showers = malodorous internet rageoholics.
Citizen Arcane & DocPazuzu by Indiana Clones	Nov 28th, 2005 07:39:44 AM
I bear no malice against Jackson. I've said many times that he is a pleasant, hardworking, infectiously enthusiastic guy, whose films just happen to majorly suck. All me and my fellow detractors are doing is adding a much needed counterpoint to the outrageous Jackson fawning and creepy mutual backslapping. Oh, and Titanic was fantastic.
"a much needed counterpoint to the outrageous Jackson fawning" by DocPazuzu	Nov 28th, 2005 07:45:54 AM
Would your assertion that LOTR has a "communist subtext" be a part of that counterpoint-making?
No by Indiana Clones	Nov 28th, 2005 07:49:25 AM
Tolkien needs taking down a notch too.
"Tolkien needs taking down a notch too." by DocPazuzu	Nov 28th, 2005 07:51:20 AM
Shower day, Mr. Clones?
I'm afraid so by Indiana Clones	Nov 28th, 2005 07:54:02 AM
I take hygiene very seriously. And i have a nice big cock.
"And i have a nice big cock." by DocPazuzu	Nov 28th, 2005 07:55:18 AM
I'm sure Ringbearer9 tells you that all the time.
"I hope theres a bit of 'dead alive' in this" by BendersShinyAss	Nov 28th, 2005 08:00:05 AM
As long as it's not people drinking vomit or eating shit
Better than Bush Jr. by MinasTirithII	Nov 28th, 2005 08:03:20 AM
Kong will own.
"Seriously, guys- Coke Zero (TM) is really pretty good" by BendersShinyAss	Nov 28th, 2005 08:05:31 AM
How bout 'No!!' I have no beef with Sugar. I love sugar. I flog sugar cane and chew on it when I'm driving through the mountains. Sugar is awesome! jelly beans. caramel late. chocholate fucking cake!! SUGAR. Yum. better than that crumbled up super sweet shit they put in it's place. bla! I read a conspiracy theory that said it was toxic.
Benderass, the opening battle sequence in Episode III is, in fac by FluffyUnbound	Nov 28th, 2005 08:08:38 AM
It is easily the worst, most uninvolving battle in any of the six films. I'd rather watch the Ewoks fight the Storm Troopers 100 times than watch that battle. First rule of film battles: it has to be at least theoretically possible for the audience to pick up visual cues concerning who is on what side and who is winning or losing at any particular moment in time for the scenes to work. Put a lot of pointless and unexplained shit on the screen, and I will yawn - ESPECIALLY when the intercuts are mainly shots of Hayden delivering his lines unconvincingly. // What everyone leaves out of their discussion of movie lengths is that it's not time that's the issue. It's your willingness as a viewer to give the story that time. For example, I have little to no problem with the length of the LOTR films, because they are crammed with incident, and each incident bridges the time to the next incident, so I get through 3+ hours without much of an issue. A much shorter film like TPM, however, loses me so utterly in the first forty minutes that I am too annoyed with the film to buy into it at any point. Three hours of a good film is more tolerable than 90 minutes of a film from which you have withdrawn your charity.
"Benderass, the opening battle sequence in Episode III is, in fa by BendersShinyAss	Nov 28th, 2005 08:16:32 AM
Are you serious! Man those buzz droids and their little noices just keeps bringing me back. So do the guns. So do the sound effect. I'm keen on the wide open space battle over a planet scope too. Ewan McGreggor was a champion. and when they got on that ship and jumped out with their Lazer Swords, with a back drop of the battle taking place. Well... You're not a true star wars fan so why do I care what you think?? I'll watch the ewoks battle straight after it, because it intercuts with the emperor, vador and luke. And strangle that scene NEVER did anything for me before Sith came along. Besides, I've never been lost ina star wars film. they're not that hard to follow, man. But evidently they are when people really think Vador in the PT is different from Vador in the OT. This LOTR incidence which lead to incidence moments, yeah sure your right.... but some of those incidences are pretty dull and coule be merged with other Incidences - not to mention the incessive cutting back and forward. Star wars does this, but not for over an hour and a half on one scene.
3 hours? by NightArrows	Nov 28th, 2005 09:02:51 AM
I love the Jackson camp talking about how brilliant he is for "having the balls" to make a three hour movie. Did you idiots even read WHY he made it three hours? He said he doesn't fucking know. The LOTR films could have been shorter, and or, been filled with more content from the novels if Jackson had some idea of how to pace a movie without resorting to fucking slow mo every time Frodo or Sam said something or anytime had to turn their head and speak. I'm not a Jackson hater or lover, he did a good job with LOTR visually, but I don't give him the credit others do because it wasn't his story. He connected the dots reasonably well, but he totally fucked a good portion of the story up with his meddling (Aragorn, Helm's Deep, Faramir, the Army of the Dead, etc etc.) and therefor it will never be LOTR, but his weak ass interpretation. How the fuck do you effectively DOUBLE the original (Kong) movies run time??? Are we in for more slow-mo bullshit from Jackson and horrid pacing? Is he going to slow the film down everytime Kong looks at Anne? 3 hours indeed. I hope we get a 4 hour extended version showcasing Kong rubbing one out to Anne bathing in a river nude, or Kong trying on a tuxedo and getting a new haircut to impress Anne on their New York trip. Maybe even a cute scene where he slips and scampers like Bambi on a frozen pond in Central Park, oh wait....
BendersShinyAss by Mr Nice Gaius	Nov 28th, 2005 09:06:39 AM
Dude..."Lazor Swords"??? If you are going to try to make some point that the Star Wars prequels are better than The Lord of the Rings movies (which is of course preposterous), at least use the proper terminology = Light Sabers. Thank you.
UPDATE THIS SIGHT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Cpt Kirks 2pay	Nov 28th, 2005 09:07:04 AM

"Benderass, the opening battle sequence in Episode III is, in fa by Cpt Kirks 2pay	Nov 28th, 2005 09:15:31 AM
I dounno about you guys, but I ma sooooooooooo pissed off that fuck all happens in that Space Battle. It's over in 5 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is GL doing that deliberatley to piss us off??? I couldn't believe it. After all the hype and build up to this scene all this time and we get hardly anything. A few Clone Ships get blown up, Buzz droids adn that's that!!! Whenever I think about that brilliant opening pan shot I just get dismayed when I think about how it was a build up to virtually nothing. No this was supposed to be the Space Battle to end all Space Battles, beat the pants off the Jedi battle etc, especially with it's scope and the technology to make it happen. But it's probably the worst. To ignore all of that epic battle in that scene and just turn it inot background fodder and f*ck it all off!? Is GL dead or what?
You know what bothers me about the "LOTR isn't Jackson's by FluffyUnbound	Nov 28th, 2005 09:20:16 AM
The fact that Jackson was the DIRECTOR of the films. And except for the cases where the director also writes the screenplay for a film, directors ALWAYS are working with someone else's story. "Goodfellas" wasn't Scorcese's "own story", either. Neither was "Raging Bull". Just about none of Lean's work was Lean's "own story". "The Godfather" was Mario Puzo's story. Etcetera, etcetera.
THE 9TH WONDER OF THE WORLD!! by TheBoyFromUlster	Nov 28th, 2005 09:24:23 AM
Any wonder Skull Island is sinking what with King Kong doing Kong size dumps all over the place!! They must be fucking HUGE!!!
The money issue... by NightArrows	Nov 28th, 2005 09:33:58 AM
Why is it that people are dragging Titanic into this discussion with regards to Kong and it's possible quality vs. box office intake? Titanic was a piece of shit movie, that had ticket sales bolstered by legions of Leo worshiping teens going to see the film over and over and over again. Yet, for the sake of Kong you drag that film into the fray as if final dollar amount means quality of product. Can't the hypocrisy stop? The length is of issue not because people can't sit through a long film, but rather why SHOULD you if the story can be done, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY, in a shorter time frame? So he pads Kong out to 3 hours, does that mean it's going to be "extra special" or just overly long?
For those arguing a real Kong... by NightArrows	Nov 28th, 2005 10:01:54 AM
http://tinyurl.com/758u7
Did they borrow the sunset sky for the finale from James Cameron by Drath	Nov 28th, 2005 10:08:12 AM
I know sunsets and sunrises can look like that (sometimes), but the pics of Kong in the Empire State building make me think of the big "I'm flying" scene in Titanic. Same colors I guess. I wish I knew why these talkback wars get so silly and so repetative. Is it the same exact people whining or baiting the whiners that were doing this back in 99 or 98? That's the first time I remember it really taking off, and by now it's like a steady stream of idiocy over every blockbuster. You can almost guess what's going to be a hit just based on how stupid/rabid/huge the talkback for it gets! Not that I'm saying anything new (even on this Talkback I bet), but good grief it never stops!
KONG was not an intentionally sympathetic character by MOSDEF	Nov 28th, 2005 10:11:57 AM
My greatest fear about this new Kong is that the big ape will be played too sympathetic. For 90% of the original 1933 version Kong is a terrifying force of nature. I mean when he pummels the subway car full of people, that's just... terrifying. Watching the original version I was struck by just how scary it must've been when it was first released. This new Kong I don't know... I'll make judgements after I see it, but it seems like PJ sucked out all the terror. KONG is a slightly smarter than average wild animal. NOthing more. And he's a scary motherfucker.
Ahhh yezzz... by Blue_Demon	Nov 28th, 2005 10:13:03 AM
3 hours of dinosaurs and a huge gorilla kicking their scaly asses. I'm THERE. And the beauty of it is, none of the haters will be in the theater with me! I mean...why would anybody waste their time on it if they hate it? Right? Think I'm going to waste my time on Bloodrayne? Hell no. To my fellow Kong fans: Have fun! The best holiday movie is just around the corner!
I'm curious to know if Kong will suffer the same fate as Jur by K\|LLDOZER	Nov 28th, 2005 10:13:05 AM
any of us who took kids, nephews or neices to Jurassic Park back when, realized the fatal flaw in Spielberg's once-tempting Dino-gasm: kids were bored for 35 minutes until the creatures slowly emerged onscreen. Kong's 3 hour running time has me wondering just how much character development, exposition and plot advancement needs to take place until Big Poppa appears. any guesses? i'm betting on about 45 minutes before Ann is even tied to that altar.
I wish Peter Jackson was making "Superman Returns" by Snookeroo	Nov 28th, 2005 10:16:07 AM
at least the boy of steel wouldn't be wearing brown speedos and a cape made out of leather seat covers. Don't get me wrong, Singer is much, much better than the train wreck "reimagined" by Tim Burton. I'm just sayin'.
I've never heard anyone whine about the pacing of Jurrassic by Citizen Arcane	Nov 28th, 2005 10:25:48 AM
I think the ADD/Mtv mentality is reaching critical mass. We didn't see the shark for the first hour in that Deep Blue Sea rip-off that Spielberg also made but people still liked that flick.
teen girls the secret to box office blockbuster? by Peven	Nov 28th, 2005 10:35:10 AM
get a grip on reality dude. i'm no fan of Titanic by any means, but to dismiss the BILLION dollars that Titanic made as a result of teenage girl obsession is clueless. if teenage girls had that much money and influence on a movie's box office then Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants would have at least broken the $100 million mark by that reasoning. there were hordes of people in their 20's, 30's, 40's, etc who went to see Titanic, repeatedly. in fact, i bet it was more popular among middle-aged women as it was for teenagers. shit, my parents, who are in their 60's, get out to the movies maybe once a yr tops and they went to see it, for example. the ultimate chick-flick date/couples movie, sure, but waaaaay beyond pure teenybopper fare. now, to continue on that line of thought, if Kong's 3 hours are padded and dull, the general public won't stay with it and no matter how forgiving Kong/Jackson fans are the box office will be limited, its a simple matter of math. but if it makes big money, it can't be credited to just the geeks/fanboys either. so, as the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding, and in a few weeks we'll know the answer.
citizen arcane by K\|LLDOZER	Nov 28th, 2005 10:42:54 AM
I'm not necessarily talking about the adults in the theater - but since Kong will most likely go for a PG/PG13 rating, you KNOW there will be plenty of kids in the theaters with which this will be an issue. When i took my nephew to JP when he was 13, that's what i got out of him. I wouldn't chalk it up to the MTV generation either - it simply comes down to what the picture promises in trailers, and what it delivers. Will Jackson be able to hold our kids' attentions long enough? I hope. He'll have no trouble holding mine, i'm certain. Perhaps he'll begin the picture with a bang, and not a build up.
Emeraldboy, you wrote... by Nachokoolaid	Nov 28th, 2005 10:58:10 AM
"Lets see those people make three previously unfilmabale books back to back and win 11 oscars." If you want to get technical, LOTR won 17 Oscars. ROTK alone won 11.
Peven... by NightArrows	Nov 28th, 2005 10:58:30 AM
I think it is you who is clueless and should take a trip back in time and realize just how huge Leo was, and how much of Titanic's success was due to the worldwide cult of Leo. But hey, if you went in to see Kate Winslet's tits, that's fine, that's the only reason I went to see that pile. Does Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants have one of the biggest "teen heart throbs" in recent pop culture history? No. There's your answer. Do you even understand how much money teens have had to toss away in the last 15 years? I guess all the fucking cellphones, video games, designer clothes aren't a big enough hint at their disposable income. You get a group of teenage girls with a massive crush on a heart throb, put him in a giant love story at the peak of his popularity, you get a HUGE percentage of the final take accounted for by their dollars.
so genius, why didn't Romeo&Juliet make big numbers? by Peven	Nov 28th, 2005 11:38:34 AM
according to your logic all it takes is for DiCaprio to have been in a movie and it would make big money, yet aside from Titanic, your theory falls flat on its face. how much did The Beach make? Gangs of New York? Man in the Iron Mask? anywhere close to a billion fucking dolars? how about half that much? one fourth? see, your point simply does not hold up any scrutiny, plain and simple. it takes a whole lot more than some swooning teenage girls to generate a BILLION dollars. maybe your problem is math, you simply have no concept of just how much money that is.
but GWTW is a great movie along with being a chick flick by Peven	Nov 28th, 2005 11:44:10 AM
and Clarke Gable was as cool as it gets, though i could never stand that wimpy Ashely Wilkes, lol.
Even if the movie is shit it will still be a high grossing movie by Mr. Profit	Nov 28th, 2005 11:47:47 AM
But the anticipation for this one seems to be at a crazy level. People were seriously cheering in the theater when Kong smacked the plane. I am going to see it opening day. It looks like fun. And if a mediocre crappy sappy love movie like Titanic can bank with a 3 hour run time, Kong should have no problems.
And wasn't Spiderman 2 a boring 2 hour romantic comedy with by Mr. Profit	Nov 28th, 2005 11:52:05 AM
Yet people loved the hell out of that piece of shit movie. So hey, if Kong has more action than that it should do well.
The teen girls were only one demo that Titanic appealed to by Citizen Arcane	Nov 28th, 2005 11:53:34 AM
It was a chick flick with some action and breif nudity for the pre-www teen boy crowd (not everyone had access to the www in '97). Fortunatly for Cameron, chicks can be forgiving in the writing dept so he got away with that terribly contrived and cliched love story. But enough of that. To hear Jackson talk, he didn't blow his whole load on the trailer, as it appears, so maybe there's a lot more action and monsters than we think. As for Gone With the Wind, it's really hard to make comparisons between how much movies made back then and how much they make now and I'm not talking about inflation. It was an entiely different culture. Movies were huge events then. There were very few movies released every year and they stayed around for a long time. And when they were gone, they were gone. You didn't have a 3 month wait until you could watch it in your home theater after purchasing it for $15 Excuse me, $.05, adjusted for inflation. It's a lot more difficult to make a definitive list of the most watched films ever made than simply adjusting for inflation. But it was popular and it, like most of the biggest films of all time, did have a chick flick aspect to it. Kong could too, if done a certain way. It might be hard not to trip over that line into the absurd. On paper it looks like the guy who did Dead Alive making a movie about beastiality with Jack Black. Sounds better than Snakes on a Plane.
Back then, they did not count gross right? Just admission? by Mr. Profit	Nov 28th, 2005 11:58:52 AM
I swear I read that somewhere before. Titanic made the most money, but GWTW had the highest admissions for any film. Can someone clear that up for me please?
Anyone else think that.... by Nachokoolaid	Nov 28th, 2005 12:04:04 PM
that Ask Jeeves ad up at the top right of the page looks like he's stroking an invisible cock? Maybe it's just me. And if Kong is half as good as LOTR, it will be great, and certainly worth seeing in the theater.
Ah, who cares about Kong? by vinceklortho	Nov 28th, 2005 12:04:56 PM
I think what we all really care about is that Nick and Jessica broke up.
One more factor for Kong's success... Older people in their by Mr. Profit	Nov 28th, 2005 12:05:07 PM
Who don't go to movies. But will turn out for this one. I was over at my mom's house and she asked me if my brother and I could take her to see Kong when it comes out. I dont even remember the last movie she saw in the theater.
by Hobbs	Nov 28th, 2005 12:07:07 PM
I'm new the Kong discussion. I'd only seen bits and pieces of the original so I rented it over the weekend and saw it. I thought it was very good. Obviously for the 1930's the effects were remarkable. As for the Peter Jackson version, the problem will be that the original was great because it was groundbreaking, and as far as I know, we're not going to see effects that we haven't seen in Jurassic Park, The Hulk, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and a bunch of other movies that run the gamet from lousy to outstanding. So as we say so often, there has to be something more substanative than just the special effects. The story of Kong then seems pretty simple. A savage beast finds a bit of humanity in him when he encounters the beauty, but ultimately, his own brutal nature and the savagery of man lead to his destruction. It's not a bad theme, but it is pretty straightforward. It's a bit like the simple fairy tale theme of good vs evil from Star Wars which featured groundbreaking special effects, but when the new episodes were released and the effects weren't quite so amazing compared to it's peer films of the day, well, I think in most people's opinions the new trilogy was lacking. True, those were prequels, not a remakes, but the same result may apply - a considerable financial success, but a muted critial one. It's not apples to apples, but I suspect that this film will ultimately be considered good, but not great. Then again there was a film with a pretty simple theme a few years ago - love conquers all - t

Talkbacks

Newsweek gets the first look at KING KONG!