The Guns of "King Kong" (2005)

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cosmoline

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
23,646
Location
Los Anchorage
The trailer to this latest Jackson effort actually looks pretty good. It can't be as bad as "Sky Captain And the World of Horrid CGI" or the "League of Extraordinarily Stupid CGI." One promising item--the trailer appears to show the Skull Island expedition using Mauser Gewehr rifles and at least one Thompson. Thank the lord no anachronisitic pseudo-assault rifles or double rifles that shoot targets at 500 meters. The trailer's closeup of a Mauser bolt closing tells me all is well. It's a reassuring sound. Hopefully the film does not take a left turn.
 
Sky Captain freakin' rocked.

And King Kong is gonna rock even harder. Funny how it's taken seventy some-odd years to be able to top a movie that was made in the days when "the talkies" were just getting their footing.
 
Hehe, I agree with you that League of Extraordinary Gentleman completely sucked, but they actually used almost no CGI in the film. It was all done the old school way with hand made models. Still sucked though. Sky Captain was fairly good, but should have been much better.

King Kong does look amazing though. Can't wait to see it next week. I must have missed the Mauser in the trailer.
 
Only thing about skycaptian that bothered me was the P-40 flying to the top of the himalayas. Pretty cool flick though. I just hope jackson brought his A game to king kong. He's supposed to be making the Halo movie next. And THAT will have some cool guns in it.
 
Funny how it's taken seventy some-odd years to be able to top a movie that was made in the days when "the talkies" were just getting their footing.
Click to expand...

Justin, at best you've only seen the trailer and you've already decided that Jackson's new version has "topped" the 1933 classic by Cooper and Schoedsack?

From what I have read and heard, Jackson's film might be spectacular (I sure hope so). But, too many people have seen the 1933 Kong on television and therefore have NOT seen the original. I recommend to all to buy the newly released, remastered King Kong. Watch it and then watch it again, the second time with the commentary turned on. Oh, then watch the documentary that comes with it on the life of Cooper. After that, go see the new one on December 14th.

As for me, nothing can "top" the original because it's apples and oranges. Kinda like comparing the Garand to the M16, without considering time, context, technological breakthroughs, and all. Oh, you can do it, but when you do, it's a disservice to both. If Jackson's turns out to be the very best it can possibly be, it will then sit on my mantle alongside the '33 version.

One man's opinion.

Frandy
 
In The Context Of "Available Technology"

Ultimately, the results are in the hands of the director/producer. I've seen analog efforts on film that far surpass digital in every regard...like an old pistol someone blames for a bad shot:"It's old, can't hit a thing with that!" But, give that same beat up piece of iron to someone who knows what they're doing, and they can nail the target everytime.

Take Care

BTW, while we're on the subject of guns 'n flicks..I rented the last season of "24" (best way to watch a series..dvd, commercial free) and was wondering if anyone knows what the weapon is that K. Sutherland uses.../ Thanks!
 
Frandy- I grew up with a bad dub of the '33 version that was taped off of AMC. To this day, it is still one of my favorite movies. I think Peter Jackson has more than proven himself as a director, and, as far as I've concerned, he's replaced George Lucas as one of the three best big-budget A-list superdirectors. (Stephen Spielberg and James Cameron being the other two.)

As such, I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's on record as saying he's wanted to do this film for a long time, he's shown that he can run with the best of the big dogs with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and so far the previews for this look fantastic.

When I said that this version may very well top the 1933 version, I meant that as a compliment. The 1933 version will always be a ground-breaking classic. Heck, it far surpassed the utterly insipid (and completely forgettable) 1976 remake and 1986 sequel. Ugh. Talk about dreck.
 
Not To Mention...

...the fact that Jackson shot and edited all Three (3) Films simultaneously to protect the integrity of his character's appearance. The end result is proof the man is an incredible artist...and pretty much guarantees future efforts will be, at the very least, worth a look.

Take Care
 
Yeah, that was what made me sad. Huge accomplishment of LotR and what does he do next? A remake. However good, still a remake. Remake of a remake for that matter. I wish somebody had trusted him with something worth his metal. I like hard science fiction and space opera and would have liked to follow The Search For Kimball Kinnison, but there is plenty of other good material out there to work from.
 
"Silent Running", "Outland"...

I can only imagine what he could do with those two examples...but, something new by Jackson along the lines of "Blade Runner" would be something, and could show case weapons way beyond my imagination!

I have a hunch he may have wanted a shot at remaking Kong for any number of personal reasons..'cause the the line of people with offers must go out the door and around the block!

Take Care
 
From what I've read recently, Jackson saw the original King Kong when he was 9, and next day was making a stop-action movie, his first movie.

Also, from what I've heard in the last few days, this movie sounds like "King Kong: Enhanced".

Same story, just expanded and enhanced into a 3 hour version with better standards, better special effects, and more filled out.
Reviews are raving about the quality and story, and it appears there's a new King in Hollywood, named Jackson.

Kong Sounds like a much more sympathetic character, and the "blond and the beast" story is more "person to person" than person to awful monster".

In general, this sound like it breaks out of the usual crappy remake of a classic movie, and actually does Kong Justice.
 
That's kind of picky Jim. ;)

Technically Jackson could be accused of just having made a live action version of Bakshi's LoTR cartoons. This Kong at least looks like a remake/reenvisioning of the original script/concept, not the later versions.

There's not a lot of true original source script material out there and, personally and irrelevently, I consider making a book into a movie "remaking" it anyway.

And it's "mettle". :neener:
 
I played the game and there were:

I played the game and there were:

A Luger

Either a Springfield 1903 or a Mauser, couldnt tell the difference

A Thompson SMG

Winchester 1897

And spears, spears are your best friends in this game.

Its a really good game, but short, rent it.
 
Frandy- I grew up with a bad dub of the '33 version that was taped off of AMC. To this day, it is still one of my favorite movies. I think Peter Jackson has more than proven himself as a director, and, as far as I've concerned, he's replaced George Lucas as one of the three best big-budget A-list superdirectors. (Stephen Spielberg and James Cameron being the other two.)

As such, I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's on record as saying he's wanted to do this film for a long time, he's shown that he can run with the best of the big dogs with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and so far the previews for this look fantastic.

When I said that this version may very well top the 1933 version, I meant that as a compliment. The 1933 version will always be a ground-breaking classic. Heck, it far surpassed the utterly insipid (and completely forgettable) 1976 remake and 1986 sequel. Ugh. Talk about dreck.
Click to expand...

Justin, we agree.
 
Justin said:
Frandy- I grew up with a bad dub of the '33 version that was taped off of AMC. To this day, it is still one of my favorite movies. I think Peter Jackson has more than proven himself as a director, and, as far as I've concerned, he's replaced George Lucas as one of the three best big-budget A-list superdirectors. (Stephen Spielberg and James Cameron being the other two.)

As such, I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's on record as saying he's wanted to do this film for a long time, he's shown that he can run with the best of the big dogs with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and so far the previews for this look fantastic.

When I said that this version may very well top the 1933 version, I meant that as a compliment. The 1933 version will always be a ground-breaking classic. Heck, it far surpassed the utterly insipid (and completely forgettable) 1976 remake and 1986 sequel. Ugh. Talk about dreck.
Click to expand...

Let me say if the game is any indacation, the movie will be good.
 
On the Robot Chicken show on CartoonNetwork, they had a skit with the explorer saying to the natives - Why the Wall? He's a monkey - why doesn't he climb over it?

Which he did - hilarious! When I was a kid, Million Dollar Movie played King Kong for a solid week, twice a night on Channel 9 in NYC. I watched every showing.
 
I'm just glad it won't be another overly commericialized, poorly acted, poorly executed Godzilla remake. That was absolutely terrible.

I've been really liking the trend that's been going on in the film industry whereby a studio actually seeks out a good director to make a movie that's a sure cash cow, rather than just relying on the name alone to make the movie big at the box office. The best example, I think, would be Raimi doing Spiderman, but we can't forget Spielberg doing WotW (which was hit and miss, but probably as good as it could possibly be given that story), Bryan Singer doing XMen (though not X3!?!?!?), and Christopher Nolan doing the brilliant Batman Begins.
 
I don't know if anyone here reads the Wheel of Time series(I started reading it when I was 12, I'm now 24 and its still not done). Its been compared to LoTR, it would just make my day if Peter Jackson made a movie on those books.
 
Was there any "source" material before the 1933 movie? King Kong isn't based on a book, is it? I do recall having an illustrated "King Kong" book as a kid that was essentially a novelized script from the 1933 movie. But it had the ravine spider attack that was cut from the movie (and unfortunately lost to time) so they must have had an original script/concept to work from reather than just the movie we all know.

I'm glad Jackson kept it "historical". Trying to do Kong in a more modern age doesn't ring true, as animal power just can't make up for our technology (I think a sub-theme in the original is that animal power can ALMOST match '30's technology). Same thing with "War of the Worlds". The concept works fins for a 19th century setting, but it is hard to believe that any level of technology would be immune to our weapons yet still rely on manually picking up people.

I do dread the lingering close-ups of eyes that Jackson so loves. We had a million of them in LOTRs and I exepct many more in Kong.
 
I don't know if anyone here reads the Wheel of Time series
Click to expand...
Unfortunately. Will it never end? :banghead:

Its been compared to LoTR
Click to expand...
Whoever made that comparison needs his head checked. That's like comparing a soap opera to Citizen Kane.

Tolkien could do in one page what takes Jordan 50 pages of interminable dialog, plot rehashing, and detailed descriptions of the outfit a character happens to be wearing that day...
 
"Same thing with "War of the Worlds". The concept works fins for a 19th century setting, but it is hard to believe that any level of technology would be immune to our weapons yet still rely on manually picking up people."

Or some kind of technology to see whether or not the atmosphere would be safe for sustained living. Millions of years in planning and they didn't even bother to check the air! And not a single advancement in their weapons technology in that time either?


Anyway, I can't wait for this. I just love when genuine care is shown for a huge blockbuster undertaking such as this. Spiderman is what I always use as an example. It has real heart, which is rare for a film of that magnitude.
 
Not to thread hijack to much but the Cruise WoW absolutely stunk. The 1953 version made more sense.

About the 1890's version, the other day I bought a tape at WalMart of a strange UK version of the WoW which does the HG Wells original story in period mode in England. The special effects are really bizaare but fit with the old fashioned nature of the film. It is very compelling and the characterization - again strange - is true to the book and the feel of England. It was worth the $5.00 as compared to the Cruise fiasco.
 
Foot Note

Not two miles from my secured abode is KTSA radio. In the late '30's Orson AND H.G. Wells were "In Studio" guests discussing H.G.'s "W.O.T.W.". Of course, the topics covered were many in those days prior to WW2.

It was great radio..if you're ever at the Television And Radio Museum in NYC, go to the listening room (using their headphones) where the selection is extensive and varied and give it a listen.

Point is, I know an engineer who was working at the station then, and always tells of the "cowboy" guns that H.G. Wells had with him!

Take Care
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top