King Kong out today!

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Well all of you across the pond will be lucky enough to see it today, but here in the UK we have to wait til tomorrow. Let us know what you think of it. I haven't looked forward to a film this much for a long time.

[Monarch]

Well I've not seen it and probably wont until its rentable, but if Jackson's direction of LOTR is anything to go by, then Kong will be awesome :)

[master of the puppets]

OMFG BEST MOVIE EVER YOU HAVE TO SEE IT

or so the commercials say, i have yet to see it:san_tongue:

[Geoffrey S]

Not certain about this. Some bits look real good, some sequences I've seen have awful acting; hopefully Peter Jackson can get this just right, unlike RotK which did feel rushed. Could be very good, could be the most over-hyped film ever.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

master, the commercials really said "OMFG" ? Some one could sue...:san_wink:

I really don't know about King Kong. It doesn't appeal to me too much. Especially the paying part of watching the movie. It'll probably be a very good King Kong version because of Jackson, but I don't know... I'll see it when it's out on DVD probably...in a few years...:san_smiley:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well I saw it last night. Nice to be in the bussines ay :san_laugh: I was impressed to say the least. King Kong was my favorite movie as a kid. We had a show called the million dollar movie and they would show the same movies twice a day for a week. Id watch Kong twice a day everday for a week:san_rolleyes: Well enough of that. The scenery and shots of old NY are incredible, The most startling feature however is the facial expressions and most of all Kongs eyes. You really feel for this big gorillia. I was disapponited in only a few things. Some of my favorite scenes werent in there like the fight with the Ptsaurous (sp) (flying dino)and the snake like thingy. Also no trampling the natives or attacking the train on the L in NYC. Most of all there was no trace of the original stirring and signature soundtrack . But over all I have to give this movie an A plus. Yes I cried at the end just like i did when I was kid watching it for the first time. A truly remarkable and worthy remake.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Actually mate you're wrong about Max Steiner's score - they do play parts of it when Kong is in the theater and when he's rampaging through New York (so I've heard from many sources anyway).

Does the spider sequence live up to the hype?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually mate you're wrong about Max Steiner's score - they do play parts of it when Kong is in the theater and when he's rampaging through New York (so I've heard from many sources anyway).


Yes in the theatre it started up for maybe 30 seconds . I started to think hurray at last. But its when he climbs the Empire State building in the original where it reaches its peak and there was none of it there and was barely recognizable in the theatre or rampaging through the streets. It was familiar in those instances but culd have been done much better.


Does the spider sequence live up to the hype?

Well the spiders dont do much but the other insects are trully disgusting. Yes its one of the best parts of the movie.

[Lemur]

Must ... find ... babysitter ... must ... see ... big ape ...

(This is the kind of film that, well, even if it sucks it's gonna be fun. Anybody know a good babysitter in southeastern Wisconsin?)

[Crazed Rabbit]

I've got some relatives in the Milwaukee area.

Crazed Rabbit

[Beirut]

I saw some clips on TV and I thought Kong looked too small. They say he's 25' tall. Gah! Shouldn't Kong be about 50' tall?

[doc_bean]

I thought kong looked pretty fake in the TV adverts, however, in the same advert in the cinema he looked pretty convincing. I'm not too interested in the movie though, I know how it's going to end already ! :san_rolleyes:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Just got back. Absolutely fantastic - funny, dramatic, exciting and incredibly moving. I don't mind saying I was in tears by the end. I can't think of anything I didn't like. Frankly if you're not moved by this you're stone dead! Lived up to my expectations and more.

[Taurus]

Original movie was really cool and the re-make of that was pretty crap.

Going to see the newest one tommorow hopefully. :san_wink:

[Craterus]

I'll be seeing it tomorrow too. It'll be the first version of Kong that I see the entire way through. Can't say I've really been looking forward to it though.

[Steppe Merc]

Man oh man. I just saw King Kong, and it was incredible. Best Movie of the Year. Man, I ended up hating Jack Black, and hoping that Kong would somehow win. I got a bit teary eyed when he fell... The only other time that happened was in Lord of the Rings. :san_embarassed:

[Craterus]

Man oh man. I just saw King Kong, and it was incredible. Best Movie of the Year. Man, I ended up hating Jack Black, and hoping that Kong would somehow win. I got a bit teary eyed when he fell... The only other time that happened was in Lord of the Rings. :san_embarassed:

Much the same.

It was very moving.

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, Peter Jackson is the only director that can make me cry. :san_sad:

[GFX707]

Another remake.

More ropey CGI.

Woo.

[Steppe Merc]

I wondered when the insulters would come. I'm outa here before I get myself in trouble.

[GFX707]

I wondered when the insulters would come. I'm outa here before I get myself in trouble.

Sorry, it's just my opinion!

Not wanting to start a flame war.

[Aurelian]

I saw Kong last night.

I give it three ratings: a 10, a 7, and a 4. The first part of the movie, up until the first dinosaur shows up, was a 10. Very engaging. Great characterization. Jack Black was in good form. Scary natives.

The rest of the time on Skull Island gets a 7 or 8. Still fun, but Peter Jackson has a tendency to smash right through my "suspension of disbelief" with his action scenes. The insects were disgusting. I did like the Tyrannosaurus fight. Poor blondie took a beating from Kong that Wonder Woman might not have survived (especially when he was knuckle-running while holding her).

The final section of the movie only gets a 3 or 4 from me. 1930's New York was really well-done throughout the movie. Other than that, the slower pacing and emotional bit between gorilla and blondie didn't really work for me.

Overall, it was enjoyable enough, but there were a few times during the movie when I wished I had a fast-forward button.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Just came back from seeing it half an hour ago, and my opinion is....

OMFG BEST MOVIE EVAR!!!

I may exagurate (sp?) a bit, but it was one hell of a good movie. Especially the giant bugs. Nasty things.

One very creepy bit in the canyon of the bugs when one guy is climbing up the canyon walls, only for some gigantic claw to shoot out and snatch him. Yikes! Jack Black was very good as the evil uncaring director i though. When in this hideous 'valley of the bugs', there are dead people everywhere and giant bugs trying to kill his friends, and all he cares about is the fact his film has been ruined. You really come to hate his character by the end.

[Puzz3D]

King Kong is a poorly made movie. Bloated beyond belief with sub-plots that go unresolved, developed characters that disappear from the movie, and plot holes that you can drive a truck through. What happened to the menacing natives or the ship's captain? Where is the coast guard to go after the freighter that makes a "fast" getaway. Where did Denim get the map? How did 8 men get Kong onto the freighter? How did the native get Ann off the ship with no one noticing? Doesn't she know how to scream?

King Kong himself is remarkably rendered and animated very well by Andy Serkis, but some of the other animation is poorly done. The brontosaurus stampede is very fake looking, Ann Darrow looks like a toy doll in the long shot of Kong as he runs through the jungle and Skull Island looks like Mordor. The New York skyline is well done, but the street scenes look like a cartoon where nothing ever gets dirty especially the yellow taxi cabs.

Peter Jackson has changed all the main characters. Carl Denim is now an unscupulous movie producer who is wanted by the police. Jack Driscol is a nerdy script writer instead of a strong and handsome member of the ship's crew. Ann Darrow has become an animal rights activist. King Kong is a lovable teddy bear compared to what he was in the 1933 movie, and Ann Darrow was terrified of him. Jackson substitutes closeups for dramatic moments I guess so we have time to figure out what the character is thinking. Naomi Watts must have 50 closeups. She does very well acting to the blue screen, and I hope this movie doesn't ruin her career.

The laws of physics are thrown out the window. T-Rex's hanging from apparently tensile steel vines. Kong getting bitten on the arm by them multiple times with no effect. Ann uninjured when Kong fights 3 T-Rex dinosaurs without putting her down. Men falling 300 feet and getting up uninjured to fight bugs. Jack and Ann gliding down to the ground holding onto a bat's leg. They run through the jungle, I kid you not, for 5 seconds and are back at the wall. Why aren't Ann Darrow's feet ripped to shreds running through the jungle barefoot? A kid who has never shot a gun shooting bugs off of Jack with a tommy gun that's jumping all over and Jack doesn't get hit at all. The captain and his men somehow finding them at the last second before the bugs get them and miraculously shooting all the bugs from way up above the valley floor. Ann Ripped from her bindings by Kong without her hands being ripped off. Her clothes never get dirty. Kong sliding around on thin ice in New York without falling through. The freighter bashed up against rocks by very rough seas and the hull broken but somehow it's all fixed in no time. Skull Island shrouded in impenetrable fog, but once they get onto the island the fog is gone. Jack uninjured when Kong flips the car he is driving 30 feet in the air.

There is no erotic element. There is no suspense. The pacing is terrible. The script is awful. The killing is all antiseptic. Ann Darrow wears only a silk dress in wintertime New York with snow on the ground, and climbs to the top of the Empire State building that way. How did Jack Driscoll get up there when the ladder was shot away? Jack Black's delivery of the final line "beauty killed the beast" is poor. How do you reconcile than with the fact that she was doing everything she could to save Kong?

Even the 10 year old boy I went to the movie with felt manipulated by the sappy sentimentality, and the movie didn't impress him.

[Duke Dick]

Yeah; great review mate. Who did you copy it off?

I loved the film. Some people can't look past small discrepancies to see the quality this film has.

Un-Frontroomish language - Beirut

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Puzz mate don't you think your judging the film abit? I think your looking for faults that are not really there. Skull island looks nothing like Mordor and who really cares about the laws of physics and inaccurate things on that level, its a fantasy film with a 25 foot gorilla fighting dinosaurs, insane red eyed natives (who i thought were great but prayed they would get trampled on. In fact that is only grip that the natives didn't get blitzed by Kong and also taking the swamp scenes out) and sailors getting onvolved in in a Bronto stampede.

The men who survived the fall into the insect pit held on to the log, none of the guys who fell directly off it survived. The spider pit sequence that was cut out of the 33 version saw men fall off a log with some 50-60 foot drop then apparently fighting with insects till eaten and ripped apart. That is wrong as well as they couldn't have survived that sought of drop but would you judge that in the same way?

I'm not trying to be harsh on the 33 classic but that has its faults as well, the story, the acting but i still love it like i loved Jackson's film. Its just abit of escapism dude and i think your just being harsh on it.

[Puzz3D]

Puzz mate don't you think your judging the film abit? I think your looking for faults that are not really there. Skull island looks nothing like Mordor and who really cares about the laws of physics and inaccurate things on that level, its a fantasy film with a 25 foot gorilla fighting dinosaurs, insane red eyed natives (who i thought were great but prayed they would get trampled on. In fact that is only grip that the natives didn't get blitzed by Kong and also taking the swamp scenes out) and sailors getting onvolved in in a Bronto stampede.
The film is a mess, and you know it. King Kong isn't supposed to be a 25 foot gorilla. He's supposed to be KING KONG who everyone, including Ann Darrow, is petrified of. What is sitting on the cliff or on the Emipre State building looking at the sunset all about? Do the bats come out and attack King Kong every evening or just when Ann Darrow is there?


The men who survived the fall into the insect pit held on to the log, none of the guys who fell directly off it survived. The spider pit sequence that was cut out of the 33 version saw men fall off a log with some 50-60 foot drop then apparently fighting with insects till eaten and ripped apart. That is wrong as well as they couldn't have survived that sought of drop but would you judge that in the same way?
Meriam Cooper edited out the spider sequence for good reason. The men who fall off the log in the 1933 version die when they hit the ground. The 15 minute bug fight in Peter Jackson's version is stupid, and detracts from the flow of the movie. The things on Jack Driscoll look like giant crickets, and if they were all over him supposedly trying to eat him, how come he has no bites on him?

In one place in the jungle there are small flying insects buzzing around the party and landing on them. They move a short distance away from that spot, and the flying insects are all gone. What happened to them? That spot in the jungle is off limits to bugs?

Why is there almost no blood in this picture? Well, I know why because they have to get that PG-13 rating for all the kiddies. Well the kiddie I saw the picture with thought it was silly. So, I as an adult am supposed to think it wasn't silly?


I'm not trying to be harsh on the 33 classic but that has its faults as well, the story, the acting but i still love it like i loved Jackson's film. Its just abit of escapism dude and i think your just being harsh on it.
It's a poorly made film, and it alters the original story by having Kong follow Ann Darrow because she was nice to him. In Peter Jackson's movie Kong is such a sad and lonely creature that getting killed was putting him out of his misery. I felt more sympathy for the Kong in the 1933 version.

You're right this is a fantasy movie. I rate this a fantasy on the level of The Never Ending Story. Peter Jackson might as well have given Kong wings so that he could fly away from the airplanes with Ann Darrow on his shoulder and they could live happily everafter on Skull Island.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The film is a mess, and you know it

Do I? Well no i don't think its a mess. I think you are being really hard on it. I think you have watched the wrong film because it doesn't sound like the one i watched.

I think the film is trying to show Kong not as a monster but an animal who can feel pain both emotionally and physically. I don't know if the bats would attack Kong without Ann Darrow but the scars on his body suggest he has been in countless battles with the creatures of Skull Island. But then again christ its only a movie how the hell would i know!

Did you just go into the cinema wanting to hate this film? Its sounds like you did. If you feel more sadness for Kong of 33 version well thats up to you but i find the death of Kong in jackson's version as deeply saddening and it broke my heart watching his demise. If he is such a monster in the 33 version why are people are moved by his death? I know the 33 version is sad but the way Kong has been created on the screen by jackson and WETA is truely awe inspiring.


Meriam Cooper edited out the spider sequence for good reason. The men who fall off the log in the 1933 version die when they hit the ground

Cooper actually took the spider sequence out because it scared audiences and after the film the crowd talked more of the giant spiders tearing apart sailors than Kong himself


You're right this is a fantasy movie. I rate this a fantasy on the level of The Never Ending Story. Peter Jackson might as well have given Kong wings so that he could fly away from the airplanes with Ann Darrow on his shoulder and they could live happily everafter on Skull Island.

Mate what are you on about? Ok the film is altered in parts but not all. I really don't think you watched this film with an open mind and just let your love of the 33 version cloud your judgement. I love both versions and despite the praise the new film has got it will never over shadow the 33 classic and with Jackson loving that film to death i'm sure that wasn't his intention.

I'm not going to get in an arguement about it with you but you seem not even willing to like it mate.

[Puzz3D]

Do I? Well no i don't think its a mess. I think you are being really hard on it. I think you have watched the wrong film because it doesn't sound like the one i watched.
I watched the same film you watched. That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it. I do that as well when I watch films, but this one just overwhelmed my capacity to overlook things.



I think the film is trying to show Kong not as a monster but an animal who can feel pain both emotionally and physically.
That's what's wrong. He's just Kong the gorilla in this picture. He's not KING KONG. Jackson could have imbued his Kong with this emotional aspect without beating the audience over the head with it. If he were a good director, he would have just hinted at it and let the viewer find that quality in Kong if the viewer was looking for it.



I don't know if the bats would attack Kong without Ann Darrow but the scars on his body suggest he has been in countless battles with the creatures of Skull Island.
The bats have to attack Kong so that Jack Driscoll and Ann Darrow can escape because Kong has seen Driscoll. The sequence is backwards. Instead of Jack taking advantage of a diversion to escape with Ann, the diversion has to occur to save Jack. If Kong startled the bats by going after Jack, why do they attack Kong instead of flying away? This mechanism of something happening just in the nick of time to save the main characters occurs at two other places in the film when the captain shows up at the last possible moment before they are killed.


Did you just go into the cinema wanting to hate this film? Its sounds like you did.
No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years. Part of the problem is I took some people with me. I was disappointed that this picture was just another standard CGI action extravaganza with some sappy sentimentality, but also embarassed that I had taken people to see it. None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.



If you feel more sadness for Kong of 33 version well thats up to you but i find the death of Kong in jackson's version as deeply saddening and it broke my heart watching his demise.
I felt relief for Kong in Jackson's version. I remember it clearly because I was wondering what I was going to feel at the moment he died.



If he is such a monster in the 33 version why are people are moved by his death?
That's the striking thing emotionally about that picture because there is nothing endearing about King Kong in the 1933 movie.



I know the 33 version is sad but the way Kong has been created on the screen by jackson and WETA is truely awe inspiring.
They did an excellent job rendering Kong and his movements, although, I though he moved too fast for a massive creature in some sequences.



Cooper actually took the spider sequence out because it scared audiences and after the film the crowd talked more of the giant spiders tearing apart sailors than Kong himself.
That's right. He took it out because it detracted from the focus and flow of the picture just as it does in Jackson's version. The guys who fall off the log don't make it in the 1933 version. Jack Driscoll makes it because he didn't fall since he made it to the other side. He's then separated from the Carl Denim who made it back to the opposite side. Driscoll has no choice but to go on and Denim to go back. In Jackson's version, Driscoll is at the botton of the ravine and climbs up on Kong's side while everyone else including the courageous captain declines to go with him. They don't even give him a gun.



Mate what are you on about?
I'm on about the fact that you said the laws of physics and inaccuracies don't apply because this is a fantasy. So, where do you draw the line? A flying Kong would be ok? Everytime physics is violated or inaccuracies show up this picture is hurt by it because it's supposed to be grounded in the physical world we live in despite the fact that King Kong is implausable. King Kong is supposed to be the only implausable thing in the picture so that you can maintain a suspension of disbelief. You can't maintain a suspension of disbelief once they get to Skull Island in Jackson's picture. You have to treat it as a complete fantasy.



Ok the film is altered in parts but not all. I really don't think you watched this film with an open mind and just let your love of the 33 version cloud your judgement. I love both versions and despite the praise the new film has got it will never over shadow the 33 classic and with Jackson loving that film to death i'm sure that wasn't his intention.
I watch films with all the films I've ever seen in mind. This one doesn't even come up to the level of Jurassic Park for thrills. Part of the problem is that he's remaking the original so you know what's going to happen, but that doesn't expalin the ho-hum attitute to the picture of the 10 year old boy who was with us who had never seen the original. I don't know why Jackson tried to stick close to the original story since he tampered so much with all the main characters including Kong. I think he would have done better with an original story if he could think of one worth filming. Jackson isn't showing his love for the original picture by tampering with the character's motivations. He's even added an extra main character who mocks a scene in the original film.

Emotionally the film is confusing. From whom is Jack Driscoll trying to save Ann Darrow? From Kong who is her protector? From herself? From commiting suicide? From accidental death? How come Jack and Ann can only be together after Kong dies? Is she in love with Kong as you would love a pet or as a human? Is she mad at Jack because he wouldn't let her save Kong at the wall?



I'm not going to get in an arguement about it with you but you seem not even willing to like it mate.
I just posted what I thought of the picture. Then someone called me a fag, and you started disagreeing with me.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you? Am I suppose to agree even if i think your totally wrong and picking at a film which might have some bad points but with the good far outweighing the bad?


That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it

I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about. As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.


No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years.

Then mate you obviously haven't some of crap i've watched:san_rolleyes:


None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.

But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did



If he were a good director

Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you? Am I suppose to agree even if i think your totally wrong and picking at a film which might have some bad points but with the good far outweighing the bad?


That's a great gift you have to be able to dismiss the obvious problems in this film, and focus in on what's good about it

I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about. As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.


No. I went wanting to like it. I can't remember disliking a film that I went to the theater to see this much in the last 10 years.

Then mate you obviously haven't seen some of the crap i've watched over the years, of which i can name hundreds of garbage, i just don't understand how you can hate this film so much:san_rolleyes:




None of the people that came with me really liked the picture.

But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did



If he were a good director

Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?



I watch films with all the films I've ever seen in mind. This one doesn't even come up to the level of Jurassic Park for thrills

Now that is fantasy mate

[Geoffrey S]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you?
Just to make it clear, Puzz3D in no way states that; it was Duke Dick flinging provocative insults around, and it would be much appreciated by me if he edited out the gratuitous rudeness.

Keep it nice, guys. No need to get personal over a movie. I'm looking forward to seeing it as soon as possible, myself.

[Beirut]

Some fags can't look past small discrepancies to see the quality this film has.

Interesting.

Now, please exercise your typing skills and erudite proclivities and explain to us all how homosexuality causes one to view film discrepancies with a greater scrutiny than heterosexuality.

Or you could edit your post lest ye be spanked with a warning point offence for using un-Frontroomish comportment. :san_wink:

[Strike For The South]

Meh it was alright Walk the Line will be beter (hopefully) The chick was insane anyone else think so?

[Puzz3D]

I didn't call you a fag dude and whats wrong with saying i disagree with you?
I said someone called me a fag not you. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me, but you said you weren't going to get into an argument with me about the film. So, I don't understand why you rebutted my post in the first place. You already stated previously what you thought of the film. I did the same. You're the one who picked an argument with me.



I think you have a great gift in finding problems that are not even there and going on about physics that the majority of people probably doesn't care about.
And what about the people who do care about a certain level of realism? The 1933 movie set a certain level of realism, and I'm disappointed that the new film lowered it. I know I'm in the minority in my opinion of the film.


As I was watching Kong fight the V Rex i didn't once stop and say "Oh that wasn't right, how could those vines hold his weight?" because I was being very entertained by the movie. I personally go to the cinema for a bit of escapism not to make notes on apparent bad points and moan about it later. Call me old fashioned.
I didn't make any notes, and I was trying to overlook the things that didn't strike me right. The T-Rex fight was one of the high points of the film, but there are things about it which detracted from it being believable.

First, there are three T-Rex's instead of one. Possibly they are Allosaurs which is a smaller ancestor of the T-Rex. I actually wasn't sure if there were three of four the way it was edited. Increasing the number of T-Rex's might at first seem to increase the danger to Kong, but in the end we see that they have to be made less formidable just because there are so many of them. We see this because Kong gets bitten on the arm at least twice, but it has no noticable effect on him. For me, that dissipated some of the tension in the fight because getting bitten by a large carnivorous dinosaur should be very bad.

Second, because there are multiple dinosaurs Kong can't put Ann Darrow down. This leads to even more incredulity because he has to fight multiple creatures simultaneously with one hand, and she's getting jerked around with enough force to snap her neck many times over. So now Ann Dorrow is unbelievably resilient to injury. As I recall, she even gets knocked out of his hand at one point without injury.

Third, the tension picks up when Kong gets near the edge of the cliff, but it dissipates when you realize that the vines catch all of them as they fall over the cliff. I felt cheated by this because there wasn't any real danger to falling over the cliff. In the same way I felt cheated because the T-Rex bites were not dangerous to Kong after all.

Fourth, we get the inane trapeze act between Ann and one of the dinosaurs. Maybe one snap or two would be ok, but why does it go on and on, and what is keeping them swinging back and forth without the range of the arc decaying?

Finally, we get to the part where Kong breaks the jaws of the last T-Rex, but, instead of it being the climax of defeating a very tough adversary, it's anti-climatic because Kong does it so easily. Just the same, thie whole fight sequence is probably the best part of the movie because Kong is depicted as very strong and dominating unlike the rest of the picture where he's depicted as much weaker.



Then mate you obviously haven't seen some of the crap i've watched over the years, of which i can name hundreds of garbage, i just don't understand how you can hate this film so much.
That's not the point. I'm not just comparing it to the 1933 version. I'm looking at the overall filmaking technique. It doesn't matter how many garbage films are inferior to this film. What matters are how many films are superior to it. I'm using the best films for my standard and saying this one not very good while you seem to be using the worst films and saying this one very good.



But i'm sure alot of other people watching it did.
Yes, but it's viewer rating at IMDB is dropping. It was 8.5 on Sunday and is down to 8.2 now with something like 17,000 opinions.



Let me guess, you hated Lord of the Rings right? Are you judging him on his past film work and taken the dislike into the cinema with you?
I didn't hate Lord of the Rings, but you can see Peter Jackson's tendency to resolve impossible situations quickly and easily. In the second LOTR movie when the Riders of Rohan save the day they charge down a steep embankment with the sun behind them into the orcs who have their pikes braced for the impact. I couldn't figure out how that charge could be effective with the horses impaling themselves on the pikes. I never read the Tolkien books, but someone who has explained to me the the orcs got scared and ran away. I didn't get that impression from the movie because the orcs seemed ready to receive the charge. What I got was a detailed build up of the hopelessness of the situation at Helms Deep, and then a very quick resolution. I thought it was a bit anti-climatic the way it was handled in the movie.

In the last LOTR movie, the same thing happened when the ghost army showed up. All of a sudden it was over, and the massive enemy threat evaporated in a few seconds as a green wave swept over it. For this, I did go and read Tolkien's version of this. Well, it wasn't the piece of cake that Jackson makes it out to be in the movie. As I recall, there was still a half a day's battle that went on after the ghost army showed up, and the result was in doubt until the very end.

Personally, I feel cheated of a prper climax when a director wraps up situations, which have been built up using a lot of detail to hopeless proportions, with a quick and easy gimmick.



Now that is fantasy mate
I'm serious. The scenes in Jurrasic Park with the raptors stalking the people in the kitchen and the goup of people out in the tall grass were more thrilling than anything I saw in the new King Kong.

[Dutch_guy]

I didn't hate Lord of the Rings, but you can see Peter Jackson's tendency to resolve impossible situations quickly and easily. In the second LOTR movie when the Riders of Rohan save the day they charge down a steep embankment with the sun behind them into the orcs who have their pikes braced for the impact. I couldn't figure out how that charge could be effective with the horses impaling themselves on the pikes. I never read the Tolkien books, but someone who has explained to me the the orcs got scared and ran away. I didn't get that impression from the movie because the orcs seemed ready to receive the charge. What I got was a detailed build up of the hopelessness of the situation at Helms Deep, and then a very quick resolution. I thought it was a bit anti-climatic the way it was handled in the movie.

In the last LOTR movie, the same thing happened when the ghost army showed up. All of a sudden it was over, and the massive enemy threat evaporated in a few seconds as a green wave swept over it. For this, I did go and read Tolkien's version of this. Well, it wasn't the piece of cake that Jackson makes it out to be in the movie. As I recall, there was still a half a day's battle that went on after the ghost army showed up, and the result was in doubt until the very end.

just to comment on these paragrahps.

As for the first one, just to clear things up :

the orcs were blinded by the light and Gandalf's white light so they lifted their spears, which would have otherwise definatly impaled the horses and riders.
Thank god for Gandalf and the sun.
They could have extended the movie, by letting the fighting scene continue, but the point was made.. the orcs were destroyed and the besieged were victorious.

As for the second part, I agree, I still have not forgiven PJ for letting the ghost army help at MT...that was one of the major movie breakers, in an otherwise great movie.
HAve no idea why he did that, certainly it would have been more exiting to let the people themselves fight and win... instead of cheating evil with a ghost army ;)

THough if PJ would have done this, he would have had to ad lot's of extra scenes and movie time, to make it clear for the audience what purpose the army of the Dead had...which was to kill the corsairs - not the orcs and evil men at MT.

Well this certainly didn't add much to the King Kong good vs King Kong bad discussion, but at least it is out of my system

:balloon2:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm serious. The scenes in Jurrasic Park with the raptors stalking the people in the kitchen and the goup of people out in the tall grass were more thrilling than anything I saw in the new King Kong.

Not for me mate. I wanted the raptors to eat those kids, but then you knew those kids wouldn't die, would spielberg allow those little demon children to be eaten? No of course he wouldn't. So i wasn't thrilled or scared by any of it. I got bored by the raptors fast as well, and as for the second and third films well the less said the better as it was raptor overkill after a while.


I didn't start any arguement with you, i simply stated you were harsh on it then you went off one with the "The film is a mess, and you know it" crap



Yes, but it's viewer rating at IMDB is dropping. It was 8.5 on Sunday and is down to 8.2 now with something like 17,000 opinions.

Do you really care what IMDB has to say? I go on it sometimes but some of the crap those people talk about in the forums benumbs me. So Its dropped abit on the IMDB ratings, does anyone really care? Dude i couldn't care less


I also don't like the Ghost army going on the rampage at Minas Tirith either mate so we are in agreement on that one but as for your verdict on King Kong i think you are very wrong to be honest and really being overly critical and judgemental upon it


The 1933 movie set a certain level of realism

Where and when? A Man eating "brontosaurus"? The point when there is only Carl Denham and JD left after the Log incident and Carl shouts across the chasm "Hey Jack, Jack Driscoll!". What other bloody Jacks would be on the island, Jack Kong maybe? Also in the original you never really felt Kong was in any danger. You might have but i didn't

Dude the first film had alot of faults as well but i can look past that, why can't you look in the same way for the newest release?


And what about the people who do care about a certain level of realism?

This is a film based on an island full of pre-historic monsters, huge killer insects and a 25 foot ape, what realism do you want exactly mate?

[Puzz3D]

Do you really care what IMDB has to say? I go on it sometimes but some of the crap those people talk about in the forums benumbs me.
No I don't, but it does indicate that not everyone thinks it's good. I'm not the only person who thinks the movie has lots of problems.




Where and when? A Man eating "brontosaurus"? The point when there is only Carl Denham and JD left after the Log incident and Carl shouts across the chasm "Hey Jack, Jack Driscoll!". What other bloody Jacks would be on the island, Jack Kong maybe?
There could have been other sailors named Jack. The man eating brontosaurus is really bad.


[QUOTE=The Blind King of Bohemia]Also in the original you never really felt Kong was in any danger. You might have but i didn't.
The dinosaur and that snake like creature seemed to pose Kong some danger. Otherwise, he was dominating which is the way he's supposed to be. Bats certainly didn't pose him any danger, and he easily defeated the flying dinosaur which seemed right. Come to think of it how did Kong defeat the giant bats in the new version? As I recall, Jackson doesn't show how he did it.



Dude the first film had alot of faults as well but i can look past that, why can't you look in the same way for the newest release?
There are fewer issues to look past in the 1933 movie. As I said, I got to my limit in the new movie. It happend around the time that Ann and Kong go ice skating. It starts with the fast getaway by the Venture and continues with it hitting the rocks without being damaged beyond repair. The film crew heading for the rocks in the lifeboat to an impossible landing spot only to suddenly be walking on the island is a good indication of the way Jackson is going to handle practical situations throught the film. How did they get the lifeboat into those high seas in the first place without swamping it?

There is another part that really cheats where the native comes to abduct Ann from the ship. In the 1933 version, Ann is standing with her back to the ship's rail and a native puts his hand over her mouth to she can't scream. Two natives then lift her over the side. In the new version, one native pole vaults over rought waters to the ship and goes to her cabin. You see a closeup of Ann's face, but you don't know what she's looking at. There is no reaction shot. The next thing you see is the native swimming to shore dragging Ann. Jack Driscoll goers to her cabin and sees it's disrupted as though there was a fight there. This isn't good film technique because there is too much the viewer has to mentally construct and you can't really do it because you don't know where the other people on the ship are located. I specifically looked for a rope coming off the side of the ship, and I didn't see one. So now I have to imagine that the native fought with Ann in her room and no one heard anything. Then he carried her through the ship's corridors without being seen and pole vaulted back using that thin pole while carrying her. Either that or he jumped into heavy seas and swam back while dragging her along.

The 1933 movie skips things as well, but compare for example the transition to New York after Kong is subdued. In the 1933 version, it's clear that Kong is captured not killed. Carl Denim says "Go get some tools boys, and we'll build a raft" In 3 months, well be on broadway. We'll be millionares. I'll share it with all of you".

In the new version, the 10 year old I was with, who has never seen the 1933 version, though Kong was killed in the cove. We see Ann crying and Kong possibly expiring. Then the movie cuts to New York. We don't know how Kong got to New York. We don't know how much time has passed. What happened to Kong's leg wound? Why are Jack and Ann no longer together? The 10 year old didn't know what happened. It's was just a big discontinuity in the picture for him.




This is a film based on an island full of pre-historic monsters, huge killer insects and a 25 foot ape, what realism do you want exactly mate?
I don't want to be subjected to things like Ann and Jack grabbing the leg of a bat and that bat just happens to be the right size to allow them to use it as a glider not so big to fly away with them and not so small as to plummet. It's just right as in Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Admittedly, the fall in the 1933 movie wouldn't be survivable, but I almost burst out laughing at the bat escape. I didn't go to see King Kong to see a comedy or a soap opera, but that's what Jackson has made with some roller coaster action sequences thrown in. Parts of this movie are very good, but it's not a good example of how to make a movie unless it's just intended to be a kiddie movie.

[discovery1]

The Biology of B-Movie monsters (http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701757/)

Hmm, looks like Kong is physically impossible, or at least almost certain to get smashed.



The really large terrestrial animals are all extinct, but we still have elephants and rhinos for a bit of insight into this problem. Think of the last time you went to the zoo. True, there was a fence around the elephant compound, but a moment's reflection will convince you that the fence can't be meant to keep the elephants in--all they would have to do is lean against the fence to bring it down. No, the fence is there to keep you out. What really keeps the elephants in is the dry moat around their compound; a fall of half a dozen feet would shatter the bones in the elephants' legs and the elephants know that very well indeed. One of the major flaws of all the Kong movies is that the giant apes are just too active, leaping and crashing around as if they were monkeys, protected by their small size. Remember the elephants, and look on these antics with a bit more skepticism.

A second, more subtle, problem pervades the Kong movies. The strength of a bone is approximately proportional to its cross-sectional area; this is simply another way of saying that there is a maximum mechanical stress, or force per unit area, that a bone (or any other material object, for that matter) can withstand. The load the bone must bear is proportional to the mass of an animal. With an increase in size but no change in shape, the load on the bone will increase in proportion to the increase in volume (length cubed), but the cross-sectional area of the bone will only increase as length squared. Eventually, the animal's bones will break under its own weight.

enlargeGalileo sketched the change in shape necessary for a bone to support a larger animal.
One way around this problem is to change the shape of the bone as size increases, so that the cross-sectional area better follows the increase in the animal's mass. This is a widespread trend in biology--larger animals have proportionally stouter, thicker bones. Compare the skeletons of a cat to a lion or that of a deer to a moose. This observation is not exactly hot news--both the trend and its explanation were given by Galileo in Two New Sciences (1638).

But my colleague Andrew Biewener (formerly at the University of Chicago, now at Harvard's Concord Field Station) has revisited this question with surprising results. At least for the long bones in the limbs of mammals, the changes in shape that accompany evolutionary changes in size are not sufficient to compensate for the increased loads. Since all bone has virtually the same breaking stress, this implies that larger animals increasingly push the limits of their own skeletons' strength. However, Biewener's direct measurements of bone deformations as an animal walks or runs show that the safety factor (the ratio of breaking stress to working stress) only ranges from three to five. This is remarkably risky design--most things that humans build have safety factors from ten to several hundred. Biewener has looked at animals from chipmunks to elephants and finds that the safety factor is constant across this 25,000-fold size range--scaling has been sidestepped. This result is achieved by a combination of the shape changes in the bones described by Galileo and changes in the behaviors of the animals, particularly adjustments in posture to ensure that the loads the bone must bear are directed along the bones to minimize bending.

Andrew Biewener
Chart of peak bone stress
The chart at right describes Biewener's findings. On the horizontal axis is body mass, running from a tenth of a kilogram (about three ounces) on the left to 5,000 kilograms (about 5 tons) on the right. The vertical scale is stress, measured in force per unit area. The strength of bone does not vary from one mammal to another: for all mammals, bone breaks when the stress it carries exceeds about 200 megapascals (Mpa)--the hatched region in the middle of the graph. Say you had an animal the size of a chipmunk (body mass about 0.1 kg). Its bones have been measured to carry a stress of about 50 Mpa during routine locomotion. What if that chipmunk got bigger, either through evolution or the effects of consuming radioactive tomatoes, as in so many of these movies? If the chipmunk's bones simply enlarged proportionally with no change in shape, stress in the bone would follow the solid curve on the left, with stress increasing as the cube root of body mass. Note that at about 10-20 kg body mass (about 20-40 pounds), that line intersects the hatched region. The implication is that at that size, our hypertrophied rodent cannot move--even routine locomotion would generate high enough stresses to break its bones.

But clearly there are mammals larger than 10-20 kilograms--you and I, to name two. Indeed, empirical measurements of the working stresses in bones indicate a very different story. The bars on the graph indicate the working stress levels in the bones of a variety of mammals from mice to elephants; hatched bars are indirect estimates from the measures of the forces the animal exerts on the ground, white bars are direct measurements from strain gauges directly attached to the animals' long bones. As is apparent, bone stress does not grow as the cube root of body mass. Indeed, the working stress in the bones seems to be independent of body size, running about a fourth to a third the breaking stress for all mammals. In a sense, what we have here is nature's "design principle" for mainstream skeletons: all have evolved to have a safety factor of three to five.

enlargeUpright posture allows animals to support greater weight.
As mentioned above, this is achieved by changes in posture. Small mammals run with their limbs bent; large mammals always run with their limbs straight. If you've ever seen a slow-motion movie of a horse running, you may have noticed that the horse's leg is perfectly straight when it contacts the ground and it stays straight as long as it's bearing the horse's weight. This behavior is even more obvious in elephants.

Back to King Kong. Based on some measurements from stills from the original movie, at the beginning of the movie Kong is about 22 feet tall, but by the time he climbs the Empire State Building, he appears to be 50 percent bigger, presumably because he was allowed bananas ad libitum. At 22 feet tall, Kong is about four to five times the size of your garden-variety lowland gorilla. A fivefold increase in height implies a 25-fold increase in bone cross-sectional area and a 125-fold increase in body mass; the stress on the bones thus should be about five times greater than the stress on a normal gorilla's bones. But, remember, according to Andy Biewener's data, a safety factor of five is extreme for mammals; Kong's excessive body size should have exhausted the safety factor. True, Kong stands a bit straighter than the average gorilla so he may gain a bit of the safety factor back, but it's clear that he's pushing the envelope. Is that why he has such a short fuse and is always roaring and bashing things? Not only does he continually run the risk of breaking his legs, but undoubtedly his feet hurt.

Comments?

[Lemur]

Comments?
Yes, of course Kong is physically impossible. But more than that, Peter Jackson had him leaping around like a chimp. Kong looked hyper sometimes, and he certainly didn't seem to have the mass of a 25-foot tall creature. Except when his hands came down. Then there was a giant thump to let us know that this ape is really, really big.

Oh, and loved the three super-agile Tyrannosaurs. They were leaping around like trained terriers, with no regard for their mass.

I just got back from the film. I think this is the worst PJ film I have ever seen, and that's including Braindead. It was just the most hyper, disjointed thing I've ever sat through. Even the editing was beyond weird -- some of the scenes looked as though they had been filmed by four different directors, and then spliced together with no regard for flow or continuity.

I was expecting a big, silly film, with a lot of polish on the technical side. What I got was a big stupid film, with disbelief-destroying CGI, and coke-fiend attention-deficit-disorder editing. I guess PJ's now on my official "wait for DVD or cable" list. It seems as though every bad habit he had in LOTR got five times worse with Kong.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

There could have been other sailors named Jack. The man eating brontosaurus is really bad.

As I said, they were the only two left, everyone else was dead at this point.


The dinosaur and that snake like creature seemed to pose Kong some danger. Otherwise, he was dominating which is the way he's supposed to be. Bats certainly didn't pose him any danger, and he easily defeated the flying dinosaur which seemed right. Come to think of it how did Kong defeat the giant bats in the new version? As I recall, Jackson doesn't show how he did it.

I think there may have been another fight which they cut out the film and could be restored to an Extended Edition DVD - the men make a raft (ala the original) to swim across the swamp but are attacked by a 60ft giant water creature called a Piranhadon (you saw some of this in the original trailer). Here's some artwork:

https://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9591/swampscene0of.jpg

Some men die, great action scene (most likely), definitely filmed. What we don't know however is whether or not Kong fights it. Early indicators said yes, but the current editing of the film says otherwise. Would be good though.

I think if anything Kong struggles with the Bats. At one point they have him down, and he's desperately trying to throw them off. In the end I believe he just sort of throws most of them off him and they fly away, not really that concerned with killing him but just confused and he got in the way.

I never really felt Kong was in any danger in either version because we all know what happens in the end! Certainly the Elasmosaur (pleiosaur in original) was pretty pathetic really.


There are fewer issues to look past in the 1933 movie. As I said, I got to my limit in the new movie. It happend around the time that Ann and Kong go ice skating. It starts with the fast getaway by the Venture and continues with it hitting the rocks without being damaged beyond repair. The film crew heading for the rocks in the lifeboat to an impossible landing spot only to suddenly be walking on the island is a good indication of the way Jackson is going to handle practical situations throught the film. How did they get the lifeboat into those high seas in the first place without swamping it?

There is another part that really cheats where the native comes to abduct Ann from the ship. In the 1933 version, Ann is standing with her back to the ship's rail and a native puts his hand over her mouth to she can't scream. Two natives then lift her over the side. In the new version, one native pole vaults over rought waters to the ship and goes to her cabin. You see a closeup of Ann's face, but you don't know what she's looking at. There is no reaction shot. The next thing you see is the native swimming to shore dragging Ann. Jack Driscoll goers to her cabin and sees it's disrupted as though there was a fight there. This isn't good film technique because there is too much the viewer has to mentally construct and you can't really do it because you don't know where the other people on the ship are located. I specifically looked for a rope coming off the side of the ship, and I didn't see one. So now I have to imagine that the native fought with Ann in her room and no one heard anything. Then he carried her through the ship's corridors without being seen and pole vaulted back using that thin pole while carrying her. Either that or he jumped into heavy seas and swam back while dragging her along.

The 1933 movie skips things as well, but compare for example the transition to New York after Kong is subdued. In the 1933 version, it's clear that Kong is captured not killed. Carl Denim says "Go get some tools boys, and we'll build a raft" In 3 months, well be on broadway. We'll be millionares. I'll share it with all of you".

In the new version, the 10 year old I was with, who has never seen the 1933 version, though Kong was killed in the cove. We see Ann crying and Kong possibly expiring. Then the movie cuts to New York. We don't know how Kong got to New York. We don't know how much time has passed. What happened to Kong's leg wound? Why are Jack and Ann no longer together? The 10 year old didn't know what happened. It's was just a big discontinuity in the picture for him.

I think we can figure out the native snuck his way onto the ship, killed the sailor outside the cabin and took Ann. When we see her looking, it might not necessarily be at him - a lot of weird stuff is happening that seems to forbode that a native is near. Also, the exit to the deck is just next door, so it wouldn't have been too hard to sneak in and out. When there's a storm and everyone is rushing around shouting, trying to save the boat, I shouldn't imagine you'd hear too much, especially as no one alive was in her general vicinity. If you looked closely, the native is being dragged to shore via a rope. He obviously brought it with him and was dragged back to shore; I doubt he polevaulted again, it would have been too difficult.

The discontinuity is solely the fault of the 33 film - that didn't fully explain how they got him back, nor showed anything in between, so neither did this version feel the need to really, as a homage. We know Kong isn't dead - the use of Chloroform clearly indicates that they are merely knocking him out. I believe at one point on the Venture we see a photo in the background showing the men using a boat crane to hoist an Elephant onto the ship - that's probably how they got him aboard. Really there is no need to show it, the audience can put two and two together. Time passing doesn't really matter, we can also figure its a couple of months or so, the original was also vague in that respect, could have been a few months, might have ended up longer. As for Jack and Ann, well she seemed pretty disillusioned with him when he let them get Kong, and seemed to care more for him. We don't know if they are together when they get back anyway, but one kiss doesn't really make them a solid couple in the first place, and with everything that went on it might not have been the relationship it was. Also, when he hears the dialogue in his play, he only seems to realize that he loves her at that point, so clearly it indicates thing have lapsed between them, probably for the reasons I said before.


I don't want to be subjected to things like Ann and Jack grabbing the leg of a bat and that bat just happens to be the right size to allow them to use it as a glider not so big to fly away with them and not so small as to plummet. It's just right as in Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Admittedly, the fall in the 1933 movie wouldn't be survivable, but I almost burst out laughing at the bat escape. I didn't go to see King Kong to see a comedy or a soap opera, but that's what Jackson has made with some roller coaster action sequences thrown in. Parts of this movie are very good, but it's not a good example of how to make a movie unless it's just intended to be a kiddie movie.

It wasn't that bad - I mean the bats looked about the right size anyway; they weren't exactly huge but they weren't small either. Plus they seemed to plummet at a fair old pace. As you said, they wouldn't have survived the 33 one - there's your realism argument out the window again, and rose-tinted goggles showing through. Why is that not funny, and why doesn't that ruin the film? Your arguments seemed to contradict themselves.


Yes, of course Kong is physically impossible. But more than that, Peter Jackson had him leaping around like a chimp. Kong looked hyper sometimes, and he certainly didn't seem to have the mass of a 25-foot tall creature. Except when his hands came down. Then there was a giant thump to let us know that this ape is really, really big.

Oh, and loved the three super-agile Tyrannosaurs. They were leaping around like trained terriers, with no regard for their mass.

I just got back from the film. I think this is the worst PJ film I have ever seen, and that's including Braindead. It was just the most hyper, disjointed thing I've ever sat through. Even the editing was beyond weird -- some of the scenes looked as though they had been filmed by four different directors, and then spliced together with no regard for flow or continuity.

I was expecting a big, silly film, with a lot of polish on the technical side. What I got was a big stupid film, with disbelief-destroying CGI, and coke-fiend attention-deficit-disorder editing. I guess PJ's now on my official "wait for DVD or cable" list. It seems as though every bad habit he had in LOTR got five times worse with Kong.

I don't want to get into an argument with you mate, but anyone who insults Braindead is clearly of no stable frame of mind, pardon the pun!

[Puzz3D]

As I said, they were the only two left, everyone else was dead at this point.
How would Carl Denin know that Jack Driscoll was the guy who survived? He thinks it's Jack Driscoll, but calls him by name to make sure. Just because the viewer knows it's Jack Driscoll doesn't mean that Carl Denim knows.



I think there may have been another fight which they cut out the film and could be restored to an Extended Edition DVD - the men make a raft (ala the original) to swim across the swamp but are attacked by a 60ft giant water creature called a Piranhadon (you saw some of this in the original trailer).
It may well be that the DVD will be much better after Peter Jackson has a chance to properly edit the film, especially after he sees some of the negative feedback on the dropped subplots and characters.



I think if anything Kong struggles with the Bats. At one point they have him down, and he's desperately trying to throw them off. In the end I believe he just sort of throws most of them off him and they fly away, not really that concerned with killing him but just confused and he got in the way.
It certainly appears that they are attacking Kong, especially since they blanket him and "get him down". They didn't just fly by him which is what I expected. Since the bats live in Kong's cave, they wouldn't be adversaries, so the appearance that the bats were attacking Kong didn't make sense to me.



I never really felt Kong was in any danger in either version because we all know what happens in the end! Certainly the Elasmosaur (pleiosaur in original) was pretty pathetic really.
Why do you say that? The elasmosaur is hidden underwater, and doesn't attack Kong. It goes after Ann Darrow when she's left alone, and fights with Kong after he grabs it. So, unlike the bats, the elasmosaur isn't going after Kong. Even if you know what happens, you can look at a fight scene and perceive the level of threat by how its choreographed. The elasmosaur wraps around Kong's neck, and he does seem to be in distress about that until he figures out how to unwrap it. Snakelike creatures do pose that kind of threat in real life. In the fight with the allosaur in the old version, the tension is built around Kong not getting bitten. So, you perceive that the allosaur's jaws are very threatening. Peter Jackson has Kong getting bitten full force at least twice with no ill effect. That makes you think the jaws are not very dangerous to Kong.



I think we can figure out the native snuck his way onto the ship, killed the sailor outside the cabin and took Ann. When we see her looking, it might not necessarily be at him - a lot of weird stuff is happening that seems to forbode that a native is near. Also, the exit to the deck is just next door, so it wouldn't have been too hard to sneak in and out. When there's a storm and everyone is rushing around shouting, trying to save the boat, I shouldn't imagine you'd hear too much, especially as no one alive was in her general vicinity. If you looked closely, the native is being dragged to shore via a rope. He obviously brought it with him and was dragged back to shore; I doubt he polevaulted again, it would have been too difficult.
Great, but why do I have to fill in that amount of detail in what is a pivotal event in the picture. I'd like to see how it was done in detail which shouldn't be that hard to do given the CGI graphic capability at Jackson's disposal. I think it was a missed opportunity to add good dramatic sequence.



The discontinuity is solely the fault of the 33 film - that didn't fully explain how they got him back, nor showed anything in between, so neither did this version feel the need to really, as a homage.
That's certainly a stretch. The 1933 film is the reason Jackson can't fill the viewer in on what's happening? I just gave you the quote from the 1933 film where Carl Denim says to get tolls from the ship so they can build a raft for Kong, and then he says 3 months will pass before the show opens on Broadway in New York. Jackson's film is no homage to the 1933 version. It actually mocks the 1933 version, especially with the inane changes to the main character's personalities including Kong. Jackson can't tell a coherent story in 187 minutes that the original did in 100 minutes. I just watched the original last night, and there are no points of confusion in that film.


We know Kong isn't dead - the use of Chloroform clearly indicates that they are merely knocking him out.
Wrong. Kong is shot with a harpoon as well, and the kid I was with thought he died. Also, chloroform can kill and Kong gets hit right in the face with a full bottle in Jackson's movie.



I believe at one point on the Venture we see a photo in the background showing the men using a boat crane to hoist an Elephant onto the ship - that's probably how they got him aboard. Really there is no need to show it, the audience can put two and two together.
You have to put way too many 2 and 2's together in this film.



Time passing doesn't really matter, we can also figure its a couple of months or so, the original was also vague in that respect, could have been a few months, might have ended up longer.
The original was not vague as the time span was clearly stated. Personally, I think knowing how much time has passed is important so that you don't become disoriented unless it's an intentional aspect of how the story is being told.



As for Jack and Ann, well she seemed pretty disillusioned with him when he let them get Kong, and seemed to care more for him. We don't know if they are together when they get back anyway, but one kiss doesn't really make them a solid couple in the first place, and with everything that went on it might not have been the relationship it was. Also, when he hears the dialogue in his play, he only seems to realize that he loves her at that point, so clearly it indicates thing have lapsed between them, probably for the reasons I said before.
Yes, so it's emotionally confusing when Ann runs into his arms at the end. Is she in love with him or what? She certainly doesn't have to be saved from Kong by Jack. This is just another example of too much being left up to the viewer to fill in.

In the 1933 version, it's clear that Kong's desire to possess Ann cost him his life, but it was in no way her fault. In the 2005 version, Ann is complicit in causing Kong's death because she was nice to him and this resulted in him becoming emotionally attached to her in an interspecies romantic way.

BTW, is was obvious that Ann and Jack were standing in a circle painted on a soundstage instead of on the top of that small platform on top of the Empire State building. They conveyed no fear of falling, and Ann rushing into Jack's arms was a very stupid thing to do with him standing so close to the edge. When I saw that it just struck me as typical of the whole movie, and it's a problem with many of the movies where actors have no set with which to interact.




It wasn't that bad - I mean the bats looked about the right size anyway; they weren't exactly huge but they weren't small either. Plus they seemed to plummet at a fair old pace. As you said, they wouldn't have survived the 33 one - there's your realism argument out the window again, and rose-tinted goggles showing through. Why is that not funny, and why doesn't that ruin the film? Your arguments seemed to contradict themselves.
It does harm the film. I said it wasn't realistic. I also said it's the high number of issues like that which overwhelm the 2005 version. You even said the 2005 version has to be viewed as a fantasy film. The reason is that your suspension of disbelief is constantly being shattered in the 2005 version while the 1933 version does a better job of maintaining it. You have to accept the existence of the dinosaurs and Kong fantasy, but then the movie will succeed in bringing these things to life to the extent that the rest of the picture remains believable. Even without the issue of violation of physical laws or improbable coincidences, the main characters themselve seem like fantasy. The are charicatures of people.

In anycase, I'm not going to comment further on this film, and I'm sorry for saying you know it's a mess. I anticipated a serious treatment of the original story with the original characters intact. Peter Jackson's irreverence for the original is amazing considering his movie is being billed as a homage to the original. His racist broadway show number made my jaw drop. I actually felt embarrasment for being in the theater during that part. I know it's just to show Carl Denim as even more sleazy. Peter Jackson must really hate movie producers. I think this will be the last time Jackson gets a free hand in his movies.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Mate I'll leave it there too, this debate has knackered me. One last thing though:


His racist broadway show number made my jaw drop

You know as well as I do that that was nothing more than a great nod to the original, where they looked exactly like that. The music was the same, everything. If he wanted to be racist he would have done them like that on the island. To me this is clearly showing your biased love for the original - why wasn't that racist? Is different time an excuse, because remember this movie is set in the thirties too.

I'm really sick of people (not saying you) who say PJ is a racist, because the bad guys in LOTR were black. Err, no they weren't. The Easterlings were Eastern looking while the Haradrim were too. This is as Tolkein wrote it that way, and he even had the Haradrim black.