"King Kong" - monkey talk and movie talk [Archive]

cstephens

11-29-2005, 12:52 PM

Did anyone see the couple minutes of footage from the movie "King Kong" that was shown on channel 4 Sunday night? I watched my tape of "L&O:CI" last night, and right before the show started, there was footage from the movie. I don't know how much was actually shown, but my tape only caught a few minutes of it. It's with Naomi Watts and Kong in what looks like Kong's "home" atop a mountain.

I've liked the billboard ads that I've seen, one with Kong and a woman and one with the woman in between Kong and a dinosaur, but after what I saw last night, I'm beginning to wonder. The footage was really disappointing to me. It looked really fake. The water pouring down the mountain looked like salt falling out of a hole. The shots of Naomi Watts looked like she was standing in front of a blue screen (almost as bad as the awful swamp shots in "Invasion" where the sky and backdrop are obviously painted. There's a bit where she and Kong are supposed to be touching, and it's really obvious that they are seriously not in the same frame. My husband has already told me that we're going to see this film, but after seeing what I saw, I'm not sure what to expect. We have a decent size and quality TV, so I know it wasn't that. I sure hope it looks better on the big screen.

innerSpaceman

11-29-2005, 01:00 PM

I think it does indeed look better on screen. I didn't see the TV stuff shown on Sunday, but I was (mis)treated to a trailer (before Harry Potter) that was literally a four-minute version of the entire freaking movie.

I know I can hardly be seriously spoiled for a movie based on two previous films, but I saw a piece of nearly every scene in the upcoming film. Bah.

The effects look ok on the big screen. This is a must-see for me, but not because I'm expecting anything great. I fully expect this to be a disaster, and hope that I am pleasantly surprised otherwise.

CoasterMatt

11-29-2005, 01:00 PM

I'll let you know after Dec. 8 :)

Not Afraid

11-29-2005, 03:13 PM

I think there's at least one person on this board who has already seen this film. I think he said it was good. Maybe we'll get lucky and we'll get more info.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

11-29-2005, 05:05 PM

If I talk about it, I could lose my job. We had to sign a contract. It's probably a magical contract. I could probably even lose a limb or boob or something.

€uroMeinke

11-29-2005, 05:07 PM

If I talk about it, I could lose my job. We had to sign a contract. It's probably a magical contract. I could probably even lose a limb or boob or something.

Or be stalked by a giant ape - keep mum ;)

CoasterMatt

11-29-2005, 05:14 PM

I need two souls to join my wife and I at a special screening on Dec. 8 - PM me for details...

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

11-29-2005, 06:46 PM

Or be stalked by a giant ape - keep mum ;)

You know, I - much like Naomi Watt's Ann Darrow - probably wouldn't mind.

That's one manly Kong!

innerSpaceman

11-29-2005, 06:57 PM

If by 'Kong,' you mean 'long' ... and by 'manly' you mean (er, nevermind)

Not Afraid

11-29-2005, 07:10 PM

Long Kong Aper.

Why am I posting this???????

wendybeth

11-29-2005, 07:21 PM

If I talk about it, I could lose my job. We had to sign a contract. It's probably a magical contract. I could probably even lose a limb or boob or something.

One question- is this movie worth losing a boob over?

mistyisjafo

11-30-2005, 12:51 AM

I think I've kind of had my fill of King Kong movies. I mean do we need another one?? I loved the original one with Fay Raye and I liked the 70s version with Jeff Bridges. I'm getting tired of all these retreads, doesn't any one make original movies?

Boss Radio

11-30-2005, 02:44 AM

Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.

Stan4dSteph

11-30-2005, 09:58 AM

Premiere magazine has Peter Jackson on the cover of the current issue. He has lost a lot of weight! He looks like he could be Dominic Monaghan's brother!

Cadaverous Pallor

11-30-2005, 11:14 AM

Premiere magazine has Peter Jackson on the cover of the current issue. He has lost a lot of weight! He looks like he could be Dominic Monaghan's brother!Yeah, saw that! Good for him! He also got laser eye surgery, so no more ill-fitting glasses. I'll bet he spent some money on clothing too.

http://www.obesitycures.com/peter-jackson-weight-loss.html

http://www.ericisrad.com/images/blog_pics/peterjackson_kong.jpg

innerSpaceman

11-30-2005, 12:23 PM

But I see he's still got the hair that's never seen a comb.

Cadaverous Pallor

11-30-2005, 12:48 PM

But I see he's still got the hair that's never seen a comb.Heh. But now, it's "I'm too cool to tame my unruly hair" rather than "I'm a lazy slob who doesn't know what a comb is" ;)

mistyisjafo

11-30-2005, 01:16 PM

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

11-30-2005, 03:25 PM

I'm a bit bummed with Jackson's overhaul. I mean, lose some weight. Sure. Be healthier and all that good stuff. But it just smells of "I'll soon be leaving my goth/hippie wife for some Hollywood starlet" now that I'm no longer wearing ill-fitted glasses and have a waist line.

I hope not. But these things do happen in Unholywood.

Alex

11-30-2005, 04:40 PM

I'm terribly concerned that he has taken what is a relativley straightforward dramatic action film and doubled its length without (apparently) adding anything new.

What I've seen looks great (as well it should) but King Kong isn't exactly an epic tale requiring three hours. Plus, in the trailer, Kong is shown jumping while on top of the building and doing no damage to the structure. This bothers me more than it should (I also wonder if the villagers once again stupidly build a King Kong sized door in their fortifications).

This is one I'll be waiting for the reaction to before seeing it. I did get an invite to a screening but even for free I'm not excited enough to deal with getting up to San Francisco for it.

innerSpaceman

11-30-2005, 05:58 PM

Well, I closed my eyes about halfway through the trailer once I realized they were going to show me a piece of everything imagy-goodness in the movie ... so I didn't see the non-damage skyscraper jumping. But I am reminded of how cool I found it that the Dragon in Harry Potter really messed up the roofs and turrets of every part of Hogwarts Academy that he laid his heavy claws upon. (And I loved the woodrot that caused a window ledge to break away under skinny Harry's weight). Those are the kind of touches that lend proper credence to outlandish fantasy.

flippyshark

12-02-2005, 08:44 AM

I guess I'm the only person who is just panting with unabated anticipation for this movie. No one else in my sphere out here in Florida really cares much about it one way or the other. I'm practically giddy. I do agree that the trailers have shown far too much, though.

Per Alex's question, it looks as though there is NOT a big Kong sized door in the wall. The sacrifice to Kong is lowered across a ravine on a giant bamboo rack. That's a cool visual, and I'm curious as to how Kong is going to get over to the village.

Of course, I may be setting myself up for enormous disappointment. But, even if the movie comes up lacking, I am still grateful that this movie prompted DVDs of the original KING KONG, plus a full array of sequels and spin-offs, including SON OF KONG, MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, and the delirious Japanese kaiju epics KING KONG VS. GODZILLA and KING KONG ESCAPES. I'll be adding all of these to my collection with whatever holiday money comes my way. I already have a volume of the Saturday morning cartoon series from the sixties. ("King...Kong... You know the name of King... Kong... you know the fame of King... Kong... ten times as big as a man!")

Now, if they could just make a movie where Kong goes up against a gigantic shark, I'd be in dumb movie heaven.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-02-2005, 10:55 AM

Now, if they could just make a movie where Kong goes up against a gigantic shark, I'd be in dumb movie heaven.How about Kong vs a gigantic corndog?

innerSpaceman

12-02-2005, 12:04 PM

OMG, I forgot about that 60's cartoon series! Thanks for sing-posting the theme song!

I just watched the new DVD of King Kong last night. (No big surprises for me, as the previously censored material had already been restored to the laserdisc version I have). I wish I'd splurged for the $40 "Tin" package that had 'Son of Kong' and 'Mighty Joe Young' included.

But watching the original just reminded me what folly it is to remake this film. Perhaps the primitive effects just scream out to Jackson that a remake is necessary, but the film is as iconic as they come and I believe any remake attempt is doomed to be inferior. Let's wait and see which movie is remembered in 50 years.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

12-02-2005, 03:13 PM

It's 3 hours long.

The previews really didn't show that much.

Capt Jack

12-02-2005, 03:31 PM

But watching the original just reminded me what folly it is to remake this film. Perhaps the primitive effects just scream out to Jackson that a remake is necessary, but the film is as iconic as they come and I believe any remake attempt is doomed to be inferior. Let's wait and see which movie is remembered in 50 years.

agreed. some movies, regardless of how outdated and old-tech they are, stand the test of time all on their own either by setting the tone for a genre or just for being cutting edge thinking at the time.

"Them" is one that comes to mind for me. Although that one could surely be done better visually now, the original was just masterful in its own right as to stand up to all comers even all these years later.

dont tamper with perfection.

SacTown Chronic

12-02-2005, 03:32 PM

3 hours?

Forget it. I don't go to three hour movies. That's 2 trips out to the car!

Cadaverous Pallor

12-02-2005, 03:44 PM

3 hours?

Forget it. I don't go to three hour movies. That's 2 trips out to the car!Just sneak in some snacks.

innerSpaceman

12-02-2005, 06:05 PM

Um, I don't think he's thinking snack.

Though if you change the "n" in that word to an "m," you might be within the same genre of why the car trips are desired.

Snowflake

12-03-2005, 08:55 AM

Think of it as a restoration - the ultimate tribute from a superfan, in much the same reverence, the same spirit and passion as James Cameron brought to his dream of recreating the Titanic.

But not with the ridiculous plot of Titanic. Cameron, for all the special effects and detail in re-creating the Titanic basically dumbed down the tragedy of the sinking and loss of life to the Kate & Leo show.

I've seen some footage because I arrived at Harry Potter in time to see some preview material. I think Jackson will score mightly with this film. I, for one, was so happy that he kept the film in the period of the 1930s and done with a care that Merian C. Cooper and Willis O'Brien would have done, had they today's technology. I appreciate that the 1970s Kong started Jessica Lange's film career, but that film did absolutely nothing for me.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this on the big screen.

Donna

Alex

12-14-2005, 07:37 PM

Saw it today.

It is a good movie. The first act (the one I've seen most questioned in the reviews) worked very well for me. The last act (back in New York City) also was wonderful. The middle act (on Skull Island) was very hit and miss.

The Kong-Tyrannosaur fight was very well done. But most of the other action set pieces tended towards stupid. The dinosaur stampede (I've not put this in spoilers because I saw all of them mentioned openly in the press covrerage) has been lauded in most of the reviews I've read but it really didn't work for me.

As long as there were no people in the picture with the dinosaurs they looked fine. But whenver they were together it looked really crappy. Most of them could have been cut and I don't think it would have hurt the story at all.

Jackson made one horrible mistake, in my opinion, that is just such a lapse of judgment that I have to wonder if he showed up to work drunk that day. It is really minor but it totally took me out of the moment when it happened. This I will put in a spoiler.

In the dinosaur stampede, the search party is overtaken and the dinosaurs are stampeding around them, over them, and occasionally on them. This part with them running among the dinosaur legs looks horribly fake, but then there is a split second when you see Lumpy (Andy Serkis's human role) running and taking drags off his everpresent cigarette.

Sure, mildly funny but not at all keeping with the otherwise serious and dramatic sequence.

Once everybody is back in New York City though, it really turns into a movie with substance. The extra characterization (particularly of Ann Darrow and King Kong) gives their bond real emotional heft that is missing in the original.

I was always suspicious of the casting of Jack Black. I just don't think he is much of an actor (though he is good at slapstick). He grows into the role a bit but early on he isn't very good and just can't stop with the weird facial expressions he does.

Oh, and the damn village still has a King Kong sized gate built into it. Which makes absolutely no sense. I know why it has to be there from the filmmakers point of view but it is just so incongruous (particularly in the form the fortifications take in this version).

Oh well. Still a very fun and entertaining three hours even with the missteps.

I think it will do boffo the first couple weeks but I wonder if it will have legs
like Titanic (a comparison I've seen for box office projections). At my showing, when the movie ended everybody immediately stood up and started leaving. No applause, no lingering to think about it or watch the credits. My feeling was a crowd that had been entertained but not moved.

€uroMeinke

12-15-2005, 09:12 AM

Our audience applauded. But I agree with your assesment. I enjoyed the film and having taken the pracaution of peeing before entering the theater, I barely noticed the length. I'm not terribly fond of Jack Black either, but he seemed suited to play the role.

Skull Island was week for me in the over the top CGI effects - I can appreciate the genre but some of the stunts just made me unsuspend my disbelief for a few moments to allow the words "fake" and "Oy" to flow through my mind in much the same way the final battle did in Return of the King.

I love this version of Kong, and while I was prepared to scoff at it for trying to remake a classic, I think they did a good job and added a more interesting dimension to the film, a welcome addition to the genre.

Cadaverous Pallor

12-15-2005, 10:33 AM

Um, I don't think he's thinking snack.

Though if you change the "n" in that word to an "m," you might be within the same genre of why the car trips are desired.Pssh! Do I have to put everything in quotes to make it sound right??

I meant "snacks" as in "homebaked with a special ingredient". I'm offended by iSm making me look dumber than I am :p

Not Afraid

12-15-2005, 10:47 AM

While there were some serious things I disliked about the film, I was entertained throughout. The things that made me roll my eyes and return to the reality of the theater were:

The stupid snipits of "father/son" talks between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy.
The obvious CGI fakery throughout. The dinosaur stampeed, the Kong/row boat scene, Kong with tiny floppy Ann in his hand, etc. I hate it that CGI is not perfected yet and it takes me, the viewer, out of the film and into reality. Somehow, the Claymation Sinbad films kept coming to mind. It's just very distracting to me.
While Jack Black is irritating, he could've been worse. He's an actor I really hate to watch. He's always so over the top distracting in the same way Jim Carrey is. But, either I got used to him by the end or I was just distraced by Adrien Brody. ;)I didn't feel terribly emotional at the end, which surprised me. The film had the potential to really toy with my emotions, but the only strong emotion I felt was one of eye-covering fear with both the bugs and the Kong/Rex scene - and even that ended up so over the top that I could watch.

Naomi Watts was really good. There was too many shots of her open-mouthed wonder for my taste but it's hard when all you have is facial expressions to convery your feelings.

Adrien Brody was HOT! OMG, I'd see the film again just for him and his character. The intellectual writer who ends up being the real hero was just too sexy for me. So, I was happy with the eye candy portion of the film. ;)

I didn't notice the length at all, so I was obviously entertained. These BIG action films are not usually a must-see genre for me and, while I didn't love the film, it was fun and entertaining for the most part. I certainly didn't hate is - except I could do without the bugs.

CoasterMatt

12-15-2005, 11:29 AM

I totally dig the bugs :D

Not Afraid

12-15-2005, 11:34 AM

:shudder:

Alex

12-15-2005, 12:25 PM

Adrien Brody was HOT!

I must admit I was suprised at just how cut he is, as shown when seen coming out from the shower.

I think of him as more the scrawny type.

Not Afraid

12-15-2005, 03:27 PM

Yes, I've been swooning over that view all day long.

Hey, Alex, wanna have a threesome - you, me and Adrien? ;)

Not Afraid

12-15-2005, 04:12 PM

Oh, and for Commodore Toot: Jimmy was played by Jamie Bell (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0068260/) who was also Billy Elliott. And, he's actually over 18 now! ;)

flippyshark

12-15-2005, 09:28 PM

Just a quick thumbnail from me. (I just got back from seeing it.)

TOO LONG!

Yes, I really enjoyed it, but I was exhausted by it, especially the whole Skull Island section. I think I would have been quite moved by the finale in New York, but I was just so tired out by the non-stop barrage that I was a little anxious for it to be over. I think I will like this movie more when I can watch it in sections on DVD. (Heck, chances are it will be even longer by then!)

I have always loved the Kong character, in the original movie, in the cheap Japanese epics, the TV cartoon, even the 70's remake. This version of Kong really does top them all. Just amazing. Even if the movie gave me a headache, Kong won me over all by his big hairy self. I'll probably go back in a week or two just to watch him.

In general, others have said here what I thought about the rest of the movie.

Not Afraid

12-15-2005, 09:40 PM

D. Answer your phone.

innerSpaceman

12-16-2005, 11:21 AM

My one word review:

Why?

.

Snowflake

12-18-2005, 03:16 PM

Well, I plunked down my $6.50 for an early matinee today of King Kong. Overall reaction, it had some enjoyable moments.

First off, I have to give some snaps to Peter Jackson for his nods to the original (and better) film and film makers. The nice touch in the first portion of the film, outside the screening room was an insert poster for Chang. It was one of Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack's silent documentary films (and it's a great film too). Of course, to the average person going to see this film that was likely missed.

Secondly, in the theatre sequence when Kong is chained up. Jackson recreates the summoning of kong sequence from the original film down to accurate reproductions of the costumes and using Max Steiner's original music. Steiner's music was used throughout that sequence. I loved that.

As others have mentioned I felt the Skull Island section was overlong, like Flippyshark, I was exhausted by it. There were huge bleeding chunks that could have been trimmed a whole hell of a lot and the film would not have suffered one iota.

The CGI, as NA mentioned, was astonishingly poorly done and took me out of the film repeatedly.

Naomi Watts gets snaps from me for making me believe she was seeing and reacting to Kong. How she ran, fell and swam through all that jungle mess and barely tore her dress or got it dirty is beyond me. Not to mention, not a toe was stubbed. I can barely get through a lunch without dropping food on myself, it's a marvel she managed it!

The one gesture that I missed more than anything is that final, resigned, aching arching move Kong makes in the original before he lets go of the Empire State and falls. Watts provided some emotion in the farewell, kong with all the CGI art available, did not. I missed Willis O'Brien.

Jack Black was only annoying and stupid and I was sorry he got the final line (as Carl Denham did in the original), but it made my stomach turn hearing him say it without any point.

I appreciate that Jackson is a fan of the film and he had some nice touches. But this film missed the mark for me almost as much as the 1970s version did. Call me old fashioned, call me a stick in the mud if you will, but I will keep and treasure the 1933 original.

Donna

Adrien Brody has the dreamiest eyes. I could just fall into them.

Alex

12-18-2005, 05:14 PM

Alex

12-18-2005, 05:14 PM

innerSpaceman

12-18-2005, 06:56 PM

I think Jackson actually did his film a disservice in having so many homages to the original ... as if to point to it and say, "that sure was the definitive version."

As a repudiation of the 1976 film, this new one has a decent place in my heart as not letting the Jessica Lange version stand as the last word of the subject.

But Jack Black's pointless delivery of the final Carl Denham line was the film's fiinal, and 110th, reminder that the original remains a triumph where this remake merely entertains (and sporadically, at that).

Perhaps there was a little more to Ann Darrow in this one, but for every improvement in that regard there was a horribly over-the-top set piece that was absurd, uncalled for, and took me straight out of the film. I can't honestly say that the improvements outweighed the flawed comparisons.

Thanks, Snowflake, for reminding us of the beautiful way the death of Willis O'Brien's Kong was played. For all the CG improvements, based on a human performance no less, the central character of Kong has scarcely been improved upon.

What exactly was the point?

Monorail Man

12-19-2005, 01:17 AM

What exactly was the point?

To make money. :(

Snowflake

12-19-2005, 10:24 AM

I believe Jackson had arranged for Fay Wray to provide the final line but she died last year before doing so. I know I read that, but I don't know whether it was true.

I won't call you a stick in the mud, but the original never did a lot for me so despite it's many flaws I prefer this version over the original where I cared neither about Darrow nor Kong. Here, I at least cared about Darrow.

Listen, I loved Fay Wray in the original, though she had little to do but scream. But for Jackson to consider giving her the final line, now, that smacks to me of cheap sentimentality. Clearly, his film was intended on many levels to be a tribute to Cooper and Schoedsack and O'Brien (and no doubt everyone involved with the original). I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with a film that belabors every single scene with no respct for what some judicious editing could accomplish. Much could be said of Peter Jackson with this film as was said with Erich von Stroheim with regard to his 1924 film Greed. Von Stroheim had to shoot every single page of the book, every single scene, every single awful nasty disgusting moment. Which is why he had 16 hours of film after the first cut. Where Jackson could have done with 3 minutes of a bronto chase, he had 20, etc. It was both exhausting and boring.

Unlike you, Alex, I felt nothing for Ann Darrow or Kong in the new version. Kong was rendered with the highest state of the art, and that was done magnificently. It's clear that is where all the money went. But is was rendered without a soul, to my eyes and heart. Little 1930's Kong made of foam rubber and rabbit fur showed more personality and heart to me. But, this is me.

And here I am, like Jackson, belabouring every point! ;)

Donna

Gemini Cricket

12-26-2005, 03:45 PM

Ralphie and I saw 'King Kong' on Xmas eve.

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

The movie is too long. They could have cut out an hour.
The movie should have been called 'Adventures on Kong Island'. A lot of the CG shenanigans that occurred on the island was unneccesary. The bugs, the stampede, the swinging T-Rex scene... Too much.
The Kong on ice scene made me want to vomit. What the heck was that? That was totally not needed. Pure garbage.
I loved the Jane Goodall 'I'm doing sign language with Kong scene'. That worked for me. It was a nice touch.
I liked how Kong was all scarred up. Living on that island, one would be...
It's nice that Jamie Bell is getting work. Is he old enough that I can say he's cute? Well anyway, he is. :)
Whenever Jack Black is cast in a movie all I see is Jack Black. I don't see the character he's supposed to be portraying. I expected him to be dancing in his underwear in certain scenes. And, sorry, I don't think anyone could pull off the 'beauty killed the beast' line. It didn't work for me.
I like Adrian Brody, but why was he in this movie? It didn't seem to work...
Naomi Watts was okay. She resembles Nicole Kidman in certain shots, I wonder if NK was Jackson's first casting choice...
The scene atop the Empire State Building was fantastic. Exactly as it should have been done. I felt like I was up there. Nice.
There is a huge plot hole in the film. The show with Kong takes place maybe at 8pm? We'll say 10pm... Then all hell breaks loose and he stomps through town and then climbs the building to see the sunrise. We lost 6-8 hours in there somewhere...
They took way too long to get to NY. They should have gotten there sooner.
Loved the ship in the rocks scene. Very tense. Loved it.
Kong Island reminded me of Mordor or Isengaard. Even the people were ork-like. And, by the way, what happened to them? They disappeared...
How'd they get Kong on the ship?
Jackson seemed to be one upping Spielberg. Let's see how many T-Rexes were in 'Lost World'? Two? Then in 'Kong' I'll put three in it... Bleh.
Loved the theatre wrecking scene and the Kong smashing the awnings scene while Brody tried to drive away.
The calm Kong zen moments were kind of cool. And showing him laughing... I bought that...
I liked that Kong was not as big as the 70's version of him.
Anyone catch the Kong skeleton on the island. Maybe he had a girlfriend? :D

All in all, it's a decent film. It's fun in places. I read a review awhile back where the reviewer said he was exhausted after seeing it. I agree.

I still like Jackson, this film was his baby. The original made him want to do movies, which we are all grateful for. But all of his films need not be 3 hours plus....

At one point, Black says something about wanting to cast 'Faye' in the part of the female lead. I thought that was kind of funny...

And this is a shallow thing but I kept staring at Brody's nose the whole way through. Like the way I stare at Owen Wilson's nose in his films. It's shallow, but I couldn't keep my eyes off of it. :D

innerSpaceman

12-28-2005, 01:31 PM

There's nothing shallow about that nose. It goes as deep as noses go.

And if you didn't like the ice scene, be glad it was done as a montage that subbed for the fact that they sat on that ice for 6 hours. Kong's butt was sooo numb. Could've driven a city bus up there and he'd barely have noticed.

Gemini Cricket

12-28-2005, 01:51 PM

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to innerSpaceman again.

innerSpaceman

12-30-2005, 12:18 PM

And the bigger hole than the plot one of having Kong sit on the ice for six hours is the ice one that would happen if Kong sat on the ice at all.

Ponds, like lakes, do not freeze solid. They freeze at the surface, and such ice would never support the weight of a 25-foot tall, 4 ton gorilla (holding a 93-pound Nicole-Kidman look-alike woman).

Not Afraid

12-30-2005, 04:41 PM

UMMMMMMMM............ Brody's nose..........

innerSpaceman

12-30-2005, 06:08 PM

Yes, the ice would not support the weight of Adrien Brody's nose either.

Not Afraid

12-30-2005, 07:52 PM

€uroMeinke

12-30-2005, 08:36 PM

For me suspension of disbelief starts with Kong - if I accept him the rest follows easily

Gemini Cricket

12-31-2005, 06:50 AM

For me suspension of disbelief starts with Kong - if I accept him the rest follows easily
I don't know about that. (It's funny that I'm debating Kong's weight here.) :D
In filmmaking, there is always an attempt at adding plausibility to what's presented. If his weight can crush a theatre balcony, then he should break through the ice. It's the way he's presented in the film. He's not magic.
I don't know it I'm making sense here. Just because we buy the idea of Kong, doesn't mean he doesn't have to conform to the rules just like everyone else being that he's in our world...

innerSpaceman

12-31-2005, 05:49 PM

Yes, rules that the filmmaker himself shows Kong abiding by (very astute to point out that he crushed the theater balcony, GC).

Similarly, I will accept T-Rexes existing on skull island (even though they are regular size while apes and bugs are not), but I will not accept them swinging on vines.

Sometimes it's best not to push the belief-suspension envelope too far, lest it break ... and then ruin the suspension you might have otherwise achieved.

Now that I think of it, it was a mistake to have dinos be "normal size" while mammals and insects were radioactive-huge. True, the spider pit sequence was conceived for the original 1933 King Kong, but it was never included in the film. And the flying creatures played by vampire bats in the new version were portrayed by pterodactyls in the original. Thus Kong was the only giant creature on the island, and the conundrum of why some creatures were big while others were not was sidestepped through Kong being a singularity.