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.

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.

How about Kong vs a gigantic corndog?

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.

It's 3 hours long.

The previews really didn't show that much.

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.

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.

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.

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