KING KONG and remakes

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

KING KONG and remakes

#1 Post by mkaroly »

I was talking to a friend of mine at work about how annoyed I was getting with all the remakes coming out- I think his mention of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE spawned the discussion. He made a good point- he said that we've reached a point where the younger generation doesn't even know about these movies from the past- no one has heard of KING KONG or any film you can think of from that era. Plus, not everyone out there is into movies like some are. That being said, studios are remaking a lot of stuff so they can get the younger crowds in; then, at the same time, they re-release the originals in theaters and perhaps hope that those same younger people will be curious enough to see the older film.

The allure of remaking KONG has to be solely in the advances in CGI technology- let's face it, you can make an incredible ape with CGI nowadays! There's also opportunity for political subtext or environmental subtext, etc.- the sky's the limit. The specatcle in cinema is still attractive and will get people into the theaters. I guess in this instance that's the only reason the studio needs- and look at the result...I want to see it!

I remember refusing to see PSYCHO when it was remade because I couldn't imagine that it was better than the original and I didn't understand why Universal would bother to remake a classic of that magnitude. Then I remembered something I heard a co-worker say to me years ago- they refused to see SCHINDLER'S LIST "because it's in black and white and we live in the 90s now and it should be in color.". They would never see the original PSYCHO but would see a remake in color. I guess maybe that's another possible reason why studios remake films. I don't know- I think it's a disturbing trend and I wonder when a remake of CASABLANCA or VERTIGO will happen.... hopefully never.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#2 Post by AndyDursin »

CGI may add much to the FX of KONG, but remember the expression on Kong's face -- the artistry of Willis O'Brien and the other effects artists of the '33 classic -- is something that simple technology alone can't recapture.

You're right, Michael, about the age of viewers and their memories of older movies. Let's face it remakes have been around forever as well, so it's not as if it's a new thing.

On the other hand what IS surprising is how many remakes we're getting of movies not 30, 40, 50 years old, but rather more recent films that are still fresh in viewers' minds: AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE FOG, even THE HITCHER (not even 20 years old!), etc. The latter seems to be a move out of desperation, invalidating much of the rationale for remaking these films int he first place (i.e. the generation gap as you described).

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#3 Post by Eric W. »

The record breaking amount of remakes and prequelitis happening in Hollywood and in books sends me an unmistakeable message:

People are running out of good ideas and/or simply aren't bothering.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

#4 Post by Eric Paddon »

I agree in general with the idea that it reflects lack of creativity and imagination that we're seeing too many remakes in this generation. And so often with less than stellar results. A Kong remake/reimagining in 76 was more understandable at the time given the difference in eras, and the fact that in the pre-VCR period access to the original was limited, but today the remake rationale falls more into the gimmick idea IMO.

romanD
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:18 am

#5 Post by romanD »

in gerneal I dont mind remakes.. as long as movies are remade of which I think you can make a good new one. The PSYCHO thing was ridiculous, especially to remake it shot by shot... I really dont see the sense in that. The only changes they made were the sheep on the street you saw during the murders, which was hilarious.

Anyway... Im looking forward to THE FOG a lot... the original is one of the best horror movies out there, but still I think alone from a visual point of view you can make a really good remake. Havent seen AMIYTIVILLE but it can only be better than the stupid original... THE FLY was already a remake, so no need to cry now and I think the original story leaves enough possibilities for a new spinon it.

With KONG.. I dont know... the story is so old fashioned and silly and to be honest, I dont see any love story in it. It is a truly scary horror movie with bloods and guts galore (which gets pretty tiresome after a while) and I think this is the only way to go with the remake. That a silly love story between a giant ape and a blonde bombshell doesnt work was already proven with the 76 version, which is such a bore. So, remake it as the horror movie it was and still is... but Im sure it will be PG-13 only...

So far nothing gets me really excited about this remake, though I have faith in Peter Jackson. But I dont even check out the kongisking site and recently I got a little bit excited about an article about the movie and then they included an artwork of Kong running through the streets and I was like "well, it is just a giant ape in running through the streets... yawn"... I dont really know what to expect from the movie except great effects, but hardly an involving storyline with scenes Ive never seen before. Add to it a cast Im not very interested in (that ugly Adrien Brody plays an all-american hero? Jack Black as Captain Driscoll? At least Naomi Watts is fine, but that is hardly a part for an actress of her talent)...

bring on THE BLOB.. that will be fun and there are so many possibilities to go with that creature.. just imagine it oozing through the streets of NEW YORK or in the open Sea or stuff like that... that would be something added to the original and not just remaking it...

we'll see...

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#6 Post by AndyDursin »

With KONG.. I dont know... the story is so old fashioned and silly and to be honest, I dont see any love story in it. It is a truly scary horror movie with bloods and guts galore (which gets pretty tiresome after a while) and I think this is the only way to go with the remake. That a silly love story between a giant ape and a blonde bombshell doesnt work was already proven with the 76 version, which is such a bore. So, remake it as the horror movie it was and still is... but Im sure it will be PG-13 only...
It's a horror movie? :shock: :wink:

Roman I can't see an R-rated KONG. It's a kids film, a Giant Monster Movie that started that whole genre. No need to increase the violence -- what would the point in that be?

That said, I can't see Jack Black giving us the o'l "'Twas Beauty That Killed The Beast" line, nor can I see Adrien Brody as a romantic lead...I'll just cross my fingers that it will be better than it sounds.

I'm also not on the Peter Jackson is God bandwagon. People forget he made forgettable horror movies like BAD TASTE and DEAD ALIVE (funny but not a classic, and in a very Sam Raimi-esque vein), plus HEAVENLY CREATURES, which was an interesting but not entirely satisfying film. I won't even mention MEET THE FEEBLES, which is about as entertaining as having a root canal!

romanD
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:18 am

#7 Post by romanD »

when was the last time you saw the original 33 movie? I saw it just recently and was really shocked to see how violent and truly horrific it was.. and you have to keep in mind that audiences back then werent used to something like that! It is really pure horror for most of the time, stretched with endless and repeptitive battles with dinosaurs along the way. I dont see much stroy and ape/blonde-romance in it... the ape munches, stomps people and even throws innocent women from high buildings!
The constant yelling and deathscreams is really hard to take, even nowadays!

For me this is really a horror movie which would easily get an r-rating with that much violence onscreen. It is pure action, horror and mayhem, but hardly anything romantic or sad or whatever.

For the movies you mentioned by Jackson you have to keep in mind with how little money he made them. BAD TASTE was more or less a homemovie, so was MEET THE FEEBLES. Done in a country which had (and has ) almost no filmindustry at all. Im not very into HEAVENLY CREATURES, but BAD TASTE already showed how inventive Jackson is and BRAIN DEAD is fantastic. MEET THE FEEBLES is surely not for everyone, but I remember liking it when it came out, dont know what Id think about it today, but with the money they had it is impressive... no question about that.

Again, Im not excited about Kong, but I wouldnt know which director would be better for a remake right now...

but so far, all the dream projects directors had and finally were allowed to make even with final cut ended up very often as bad stinkers... so, we'll see... but somehow I feel KING KONG is a big miscalculation as absolutely none of my friends is exxcited about it (and they are even excited about THE ISLAND!)...

we'll see...

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

#8 Post by mkaroly »

As much as I liked LOTR, I'm also not willing to buy into Jackson's directing talent. It's interesting that he followed up LOTR with KONG- another film which will be a CGI showcase. I would like to see him do something without the CGI now that he's got the name and the "pick of the litter" of projects (at least I'm assuming he can do whatever he chooses).

One director I have been impressed by is M. Night Shyamalan. Here's a guy who uses "old school" techniques and is a pretty decent filmmaker- I'd buy his talent over Jackson's at this point. Granted, he needs to stop doing those silly cameos in his films (if you love Hitch so much Night, just walk across the screen in a suit with a dog or bump into the closing door of a bus you missed). My favorite is SIGNS, then THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, and THE VILLAGE (props to JN Howard for his scores for SIGNS and THE VILLAGE).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#9 Post by AndyDursin »

It's interesting that he followed up LOTR with KONG- another film which will be a CGI showcase.

What's also interesting -- and why Jackson doesn't get as much credit in my book -- is that he chose a REMAKE of a well-known classic film to follow up the RINGS with (which itself is an adaptation of pre-existing, and well-known, material, albeit a best-selling literary work). Remaking KING KONG for the second time isn't especially ambitious IMHO.

I'd like to see him try something original again. I'm not always high on Shyamalan's films (I hated UNBREAKABLE and thought THE VILLAGE was an admirable failure), but I give the man credit for establishing a body of work that is solely original and has its own voice.

MarkB
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:11 am

#10 Post by MarkB »

mkaroly wrote:As much as I liked LOTR, I'm also not willing to buy into Jackson's directing talent. It's interesting that he followed up LOTR with KONG- another film which will be a CGI showcase. I would like to see him do something without the CGI now that he's got the name and the "pick of the litter" of projects (at least I'm assuming he can do whatever he chooses).
In all fairness, Jackson has been wanting to do KING KONG for a long time. He only moved over to LOTR when Universal pulled the plug on his earlier attempt at KONG. I can't blame him for jumping at the chance to finally get it done.

His next project is reportedly THE LOVELY BONES, which is about as far from the spectacles of KONG and LOTR as you can get. A beautifully intimate and haunting story.

Remember, the majority of the potential audience for KONG (25 and under) probably hasn't seen the '33 original or the '76 remake. Or if they have, they think they were cheesy. I know that sounds like blasphemy to us "true" film fans, but just ask your "average" teenager. They aren't excited because it's KONG; they're excited because it's the next movie from the guy who made LOTR.

Eric W.
Posts: 7569
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#11 Post by Eric W. »

MarkB wrote:
Remember, the majority of the potential audience for KONG (25 and under) probably hasn't seen the '33 original or the '76 remake. Or if they have, they think they were cheesy. I know that sounds like blasphemy to us "true" film fans, but just ask your "average" teenager. They aren't excited because it's KONG; they're excited because it's the next movie from the guy who made LOTR.
I'm 30, I've seen those other Kongs, and I am excited about the next movie from "the guy who made LOTR." :wink:

I have hopes for this project. BTW, who is scoring this new Kong?

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

#12 Post by mkaroly »

Q-BanditZ wrote:
MarkB wrote:
Remember, the majority of the potential audience for KONG (25 and under) probably hasn't seen the '33 original or the '76 remake. Or if they have, they think they were cheesy. I know that sounds like blasphemy to us "true" film fans, but just ask your "average" teenager. They aren't excited because it's KONG; they're excited because it's the next movie from the guy who made LOTR.
I'm 30, I've seen those other Kongs, and I am excited about the next movie from "the guy who made LOTR." :wink:

I have hopes for this project. BTW, who is scoring this new Kong?
I think Howard Shore is slated to do KONG, which I'm also excited about. And if you come across teenagers who haven't seen either KONG film, tell them to skip the '76 remake and go straight to the '33 original. :)

Post Reply