And no you're not going to have to work hard to see it: NBC Universal will be showing on every channel they own -- from NBC to MSNBC to USA to Sci-Fi Channel and even their HD channel -- on Mon 6/27 at exactly (drum roll) 8:59pm.
We can debate the merits of producing this remake -- and I'm guessing with Jackson attached the whole movie will be shot with a hazy green filter -- but I'm hopeful it will be entertaining.
Still...Jack Black as Carl Denham? And in a period piece too? Adrien Brody as a leading man/romantic lead? Umm...no comment!
KING KONG Trailer 6/27
Ok- just saw the trailer. Looks like JURASSIC PARK meets LOTR. I don't remember the original too well (it's been years since I saw it). However, I like Kong's movements (much more ape-like than previous films); I like that last shot in the trailer (when Kong is growling into the camera). I was afraid that they'd keep Kong's CGI look out of the trailer to build anticipation, but I'm glad they didn't.
The dialogue in the trailer sounds very hokey- I hope it's not that sub-par in the film. Basically I think this movie isn't going to cover any new ground- Jackson is probably going for a straight remake of the original with some LOTR thrown in there. I'm anxious to see what Shore's score is going to sound like.
It doesn't look all that original at all (visually or stylistically), but I don't care. A December release???? I don't know if I can wait that long. I am going to be positive about this film and expect that it will be entertaining. Jack Black doesn't look too convincing though-
The dialogue in the trailer sounds very hokey- I hope it's not that sub-par in the film. Basically I think this movie isn't going to cover any new ground- Jackson is probably going for a straight remake of the original with some LOTR thrown in there. I'm anxious to see what Shore's score is going to sound like.
It doesn't look all that original at all (visually or stylistically), but I don't care. A December release???? I don't know if I can wait that long. I am going to be positive about this film and expect that it will be entertaining. Jack Black doesn't look too convincing though-
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I want to be positive as well, but I had a real problem right off the bat looking at those scenes on the island.
Say what you will about the '76 KING KONG, but it used real locations and looked terrific -- especially in its first half.
Looking at this version, it's clear almost NOTHING is real -- the ocean, the ship, the backdrops. Even the fly-over shots of the island they showed in the trailer were entirely CGI...like something out of LORD OF THE RINGS. The shot they showed of Jack Black directing Naomi Watts was also, entirely, as CGI as anything in Lucas' STAR WARS prequels (and at least he had an excuse -- it was taking place in that galaxy far far away!). I'm sure they did some location scouting (?), but it certainly looks like a "digital film" from the trailer.
I guess in this day and age I shouldn't be surprised, but it pains me to see things like cinematography and location filming scrapped in favor of the convenience of technology. To me a movie like KING KONG doesn't need to be entirely CGI -- it annoyed me that Jackson couldn't even show a real ocean at the end of RETURN OF THE KING, but here, it's even worse......quite frankly it takes away from the realism even a fantasy-adventure like this needs to have in order for you to meet it halfway.
The rest of the ad didn't rock my world either. Kong looks identical to MIGHTY JOE YOUNG in that remake from a few years back...and I'm not sold on Black whatsoever in this part (and possibly even less than I was going in). (And what's up with Adrien Brody -- did he even have a line of dialogue in the trailer?).
Anyway my expectations are lowered, though I'm still hoping for the best. Visually, though, I was anything but impressed by it, and I agree with Michael about the tepid dialogue.
As far as Shore's score goes, he hasn't exactly written much of a "love theme" in his career (certainly not his forte), so he'll have a tough time trumping John Barry's superb score for the '76 version. My guess is it'll be a throbbing, bombastic work like the more blaring sections of THE TWO TOWERS...I'll be very surprised if it's restrained.
Say what you will about the '76 KING KONG, but it used real locations and looked terrific -- especially in its first half.
Looking at this version, it's clear almost NOTHING is real -- the ocean, the ship, the backdrops. Even the fly-over shots of the island they showed in the trailer were entirely CGI...like something out of LORD OF THE RINGS. The shot they showed of Jack Black directing Naomi Watts was also, entirely, as CGI as anything in Lucas' STAR WARS prequels (and at least he had an excuse -- it was taking place in that galaxy far far away!). I'm sure they did some location scouting (?), but it certainly looks like a "digital film" from the trailer.
I guess in this day and age I shouldn't be surprised, but it pains me to see things like cinematography and location filming scrapped in favor of the convenience of technology. To me a movie like KING KONG doesn't need to be entirely CGI -- it annoyed me that Jackson couldn't even show a real ocean at the end of RETURN OF THE KING, but here, it's even worse......quite frankly it takes away from the realism even a fantasy-adventure like this needs to have in order for you to meet it halfway.
The rest of the ad didn't rock my world either. Kong looks identical to MIGHTY JOE YOUNG in that remake from a few years back...and I'm not sold on Black whatsoever in this part (and possibly even less than I was going in). (And what's up with Adrien Brody -- did he even have a line of dialogue in the trailer?).
Anyway my expectations are lowered, though I'm still hoping for the best. Visually, though, I was anything but impressed by it, and I agree with Michael about the tepid dialogue.
As far as Shore's score goes, he hasn't exactly written much of a "love theme" in his career (certainly not his forte), so he'll have a tough time trumping John Barry's superb score for the '76 version. My guess is it'll be a throbbing, bombastic work like the more blaring sections of THE TWO TOWERS...I'll be very surprised if it's restrained.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34272
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Between the relentless merchandizing and advertising Universal is sure to do, you have to think KING KONG will be the big winter movie hands down.I wonder if this or The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe will be THE big Christmas season movie.
Still, it's interesting because it's an American myth and a cultural "icon" if you will -- but one that hasn't been around in some 30 years. Will younger viewers care? More over, the cast holds no commercial appeal really at all, which poses a problem if the earlier sentiment holds true (on a similar line, though, one could have said the same thing about LORD OF THE RINGS, which brought viewers in because of the movie, not because of the cast).
I still see this movie topping -- at the least -- $200 million simply because "it's from the director of LORD OF THE RINGS" and the advertising behemoth the movie is be.
That trailer, though, is anything but impressive (especially the second time around).
-
Harry Chen
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:16 am
- Location: Hong Kong
Are you in there?
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef23952443 ... large.html
Well, cuz it's Peter Jackson... hope it works. I do remember the version with Jessican Lange and Jeff Bridges, by DeLaurentiis, bit silly towards the end, but Rick Baker as Kong was really cool. I also seem to remember that it had a song in it, and it was called something like "Are you in there?" or it had that line throughout anyway...
But what I've seen so far of the new version is good.
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
Well, cuz it's Peter Jackson... hope it works. I do remember the version with Jessican Lange and Jeff Bridges, by DeLaurentiis, bit silly towards the end, but Rick Baker as Kong was really cool. I also seem to remember that it had a song in it, and it was called something like "Are you in there?" or it had that line throughout anyway...
But what I've seen so far of the new version is good.
Harry Chen
Hong Kong
I thought the trailer was very boring... the story is 1:1 the original, almost shot by shot.. yawn... cast sucks, though Watts is fine, but I cant imagine a girl wanting to get saved by Adrien Brody... 
the rest had some surprisingly bad effects (the island, the dinos, the cloeup of Kongs face) and overall it just looked like JP4 (and nobody is waiting for that!) and I cant see anyone getting really excited about a giant ape going ape in NY. The audience with me was laughing out loud when the title came up... not a good sign!
the rest had some surprisingly bad effects (the island, the dinos, the cloeup of Kongs face) and overall it just looked like JP4 (and nobody is waiting for that!) and I cant see anyone getting really excited about a giant ape going ape in NY. The audience with me was laughing out loud when the title came up... not a good sign!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7059
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
I think a new film version of King Kong is ridiculous.
The original was made during an era when the world was still not nearly as well explored as it is today, and ape behavior was barely understood.
But in the post-Dianne Fossey era, the notion of a gorilla falling in love with a human female is laughably absurd. Viewers can excuse the original film, it being a product of a scientifically more ignorant time, but no one's going to buy the story in this day and age.
Beyond that, Adrian Brody is not my idea of Jack Driscoll. A career merchant seaman would be brawny and weathered -- not thin, frail and nerdy-looking like Brody.
The film also looks mostly CGI-generated. I don't understand -- Peter Jackson lives and works in one of the most beautiful, majestic-looking countries in the world, yet Skull Island appears to be largely CGI-rendered (that beach scene looks ridiculously fake).
Paul
The original was made during an era when the world was still not nearly as well explored as it is today, and ape behavior was barely understood.
But in the post-Dianne Fossey era, the notion of a gorilla falling in love with a human female is laughably absurd. Viewers can excuse the original film, it being a product of a scientifically more ignorant time, but no one's going to buy the story in this day and age.
Beyond that, Adrian Brody is not my idea of Jack Driscoll. A career merchant seaman would be brawny and weathered -- not thin, frail and nerdy-looking like Brody.
The film also looks mostly CGI-generated. I don't understand -- Peter Jackson lives and works in one of the most beautiful, majestic-looking countries in the world, yet Skull Island appears to be largely CGI-rendered (that beach scene looks ridiculously fake).
Paul