Kong: the movie

[Southern Cross]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

I actually don't remember that many spiders in that scene.Giant centipedes (or are they millipedes?) and those horrible sucking things.

[Neko_Child]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Scanning all thats been said on it just makes me want to see it more... I must go out and rent the original to refresh my memory prior to... and how you can talk so casually about spiders...*shivers and mutters about too many legs*

[Susano]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

I actually don't remember that many spiders in that scene.Giant centipedes (or are they millipedes?) and those horrible sucking things.

 

Hmmm... if any of the sailors are unlucky to fall into a abyssal crevice on the island, they get to face giant multi-legged flesh-eating... "things" and 10' lamprey/leech-like "slugs." The World of Kong artbook for Skull Island also mentions various crab-like creatures as well. And the island is crawling with millipedes -- 3-4 foot long millipedes.

[Susano]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Hmmm... if any of the sailors are unlucky to fall into a abyssal crevice on the island' date=' they get to face giant multi-legged flesh-eating... "things" and 10' lamprey/leech-like "slugs." The [i']World of Kong[/i] artbook for Skull Island also mentions various crab-like creatures as well. And the island is crawling with millipedes -- 3-4 foot long millipedes.

 

Having seen the film, I can say that all the abyssal crevice critters made it from book to movie. Even the owner of the claw that appears out of a cave mouth to snatch a hapless sailor. (You get to see it closer for a moment when all the bugs close in right before the rescue.)

 

Maybe I'll start writing them up first....

[Roter Baron]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Saw the movie yesterday and was impressed - and not impressed at all!

I am impressed with the superb characterization of Depression Age New York, the period in-jokes about not getting the original actress of the original Kong movie etc. and with the performance of the actors which were well chosen (even the supportive actors like the crew of the ship - they were archetypical but believable and we were spared the "I'm the messy cook", "I'm the screaming, cowardly OR kung-fu-master Chinese", "I'm the proud African-American OR Yessirmassa Black" stereotypes.

I especially liked the cook, the captain, the black ex-soldier turned sailor/ first mate and the action hero - epspecially his "I'm not a hero but a fed-up actor with a gun"-quote.

So, acting was good, characters were believable.

 

BUT I think that there are just to damn many critters to make the film good - and it is not that I cannot suspend my disbelieve.

It's just that the original movie from the 30s concentrated on the Big Simian Hero of the story and showed us an undiscovered island populated by lost world creatures with the BSH as its uncrowned king.

Jackson's Skull Island is an overflowing zoo of state-of-the-art-animated computer-beasts of which half are NOT needed to make the story work or to underline that we are far away from paradise on Monster Island.

 

I also did not like his natives: In the original they had to spend their lives on an island with a lot of ghastly beasts on the other side of the Big Wall and to make it they offered virgins to their god, the Ape-King of the Island. Jackson's island dwellers are a degenerated race of half-orcs who kidnap and sacrifice people because of their own inherent evilness - they don't have an Ape-God because Kong isn't the king of the isalnd - not with all them critters running around. They could as easily sacrifice people to the T-Rexes, the big lizards or the millipedes - or to no one.

Generally in the original movie the natives were misled people with an aboriginal culture who thought that offering a "special gift" (white woman) to their god would be a good idea.

In Jackson's movie they are evil sub-humans practically asking to be purged from the face of the island and Mother earth itself. And they somehow did that themselves 'cause they vanished without a trace after the sacrifice to Kong.

 

So, in my opinion the new King Kong does not offer anything new. Jackson fell into the Lord of the Rings trap of "more is better" - which was true for the Lord, but did nothing good for King Kong.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Baron!

Good to see you back. You have been long missed.

 

Keith "Shovel-Toad" Curtis

[Roter Baron]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Yes - the way was long, dark and forbidden, and better it is that MERE MAN (not do speak about loyal henchies with shovels) may never hear nor say (and hearsay is absolutely out of question) about it.

 

But other than that I'm glad to be back - triplane is tanked, machinegun's ready and the OVERLORD OF THE SKY is ready to get all that was, is and will be his:

DIE GANZE WELT!!! BRUHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

BTW: Brought a new,spit-shiny shovel along for you, Schaufelkröte. And a happy new year!

[AlHazred]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

So, during my hiatus, I pick up The World of Kong and think, "This would make great Pulp Hero stuff! I should convert it!" And then I get on and find Susano's already anticipated me...

 

Son of a...

 

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

King Kong was a great 2 hour movie stretched out to 3 hours. The Apatosaurus stampede was simply too long and ended in a tangled heap of quivering grey flesh - I laughed. I don't think I was supposed to. Additionally, Mr. Jackson succeeded in finding the limits of CGI: frequently the actors appeared to be running while CGI effects stampeded around them, as opposed to interacting with the world they were supposed to occupy.

 

The valley of the bugs was needless, disgusting, and ... oh yeah, disgusting. The man eating worms were horrid and pointless, the arachnid thingys were oversized and undersensed, the whole scene just seemed a bit too video-gamey.

 

The T-Rex fight scene was awesome - King Kong is Jet Lee with fur. And the scene was too long by about five minutes or so.

 

The natives were standard pulp fair, which means (to me) that they were wretched caricatures of brown primitive peoples the world over. I won't bother to call it offensive, since there are no actual skull islanders to offend, but "benighted" would fit. They should have made sense - that would have pleased me.

 

Are there no other herbivores on that island except for the apatosauri?

 

I wanted some plot and character development. The trip back to NY would have been worth watching. I'd have taken it over 3 more minutes of stampede.

 

That said, I liked it. It is chock full of gaming ideas.

 

It was just like Titatic, only boat was smaller and the guy in DiCaprio's role had better lines.

[Susano]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

King Kong was a great 2 hour movie stretched out to 3 hours. The Apatosaurus stampede was simply too long and ended in a tangled heap of quivering grey flesh - I laughed. I don't think I was supposed to. Additionally' date=' Mr. Jackson succeeded in finding the limits of CGI: frequently the actors appeared to be running while CGI effects stampeded around them, as opposed to interacting with the world they were supposed to occupy.[/quote']

 

Agreed. I felt the scene went on and on, and needed to be cut short.

 

The valley of the bugs was needless, disgusting, and ... oh yeah, disgusting. The man eating worms were horrid and pointless, the arachnid thingys were oversized and undersensed, the whole scene just seemed a bit too video-gamey.

 

Well, to be fair, a similar scene was supposed to be in the original movie, in which the sailors shaken off the log are eaten by giant spiders.

 

The T-Rex fight scene was awesome - King Kong is Jet Lee with fur. And the scene was too long by about five minutes or so.

 

This fight dragged a bit to, especially the sequence in the vines. I think it started and ended well, but needed to be trimmed in the middle.

 

The natives were standard pulp fair, which means (to me) that they were wretched caricatures of brown primitive peoples the world over. I won't bother to call it offensive, since there are no actual skull islanders to offend, but "benighted" would fit. They should have made sense - that would have pleased me.

 

There is/was a thread on the IMDB board basically saying the film is racist due to this depiction. According to the "Making Of" book, the natives are roughly Indonesians who where stranded there some 4-6 generations ago. They live on a mere scrap of land, with the ocean on one side and the wall on the other. Thus, they have reverted to a really primitive lifestyle in which survival is everything, and there is little to no time to devote to any sort of artistic pursuit. This bit of back story makes the islanders make more sense (to me anyway).

 

Are there no other herbivores on that island except for the apatosauri?

 

Yes -- we see a... a... a... (crud, can't spell it)... Triceratops-looking creature in one peaceful brief scene. The World of Kong shows a few more, but the general impression is everything on the island preys on something smaller than itself. Very Pulp-ish in ecological outlook, but not very realistic.

 

I wanted some plot and character development. The trip back to NY would have been worth watching. I'd have taken it over 3 more minutes of stampede.

 

That said, I liked it. It is chock full of gaming ideas.

 

Yes it was. I did find it a fun ride, and no worse than say... Raiders on the realism scale.

[austenandrews]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

King Kong was a great 2 hour movie stretched out to 3 hours. The Apatosaurus stampede was simply too long and ended in a tangled heap of quivering grey flesh - I laughed. I don't think I was supposed to.

What makes you think that? The giant action sequences were deliberately over-the-top. Both times I've seen it, the audience whooped and laughed and hollered. I suspect that's the point.

[Curufea]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

The CGI scenes all went too long - it would have been a better movie if they were edited down to half their size.

 

The natives though - I assumed didn't live there. They had boats, and they were found in an obvious temple area. I assumend they lived on a different island - but worshiped at Skull Island.

[Mad_Ernie]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

The CGI scenes all went too long - it would have been a better movie if they were edited down to half their size.

 

I agree. They could have cut 20-30 minutes all out of Skull Island and it would not have hurt my feelings one bit. I thought the arrival of the ship to Skull Island up to the time we first see Kong went a little too fast, as did the later New York segment.

 

Peter Jackson has been bitten by the Spielberg/Lucas bug: I can do it, therefore I will.

 

-ME

[austenandrews]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Peter Jackson has been bitten by the Spielberg/Lucas bug: I can do it' date=' therefore I will. [/quote']

The original was largely a series of gratuitous action scenes, for the sake of spectacle.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

I think Darren said it best when he accused Peter Jackson of having a lack of artistic restraint.

 

Keith "The Quotable Watts" Curtis

[OddHat]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

I think Darren said it best when he accused Peter Jackson of having a lack of artistic restraint.

 

Keith "The Quotable Watts" Curtis

 

So you'd support an artistic restraining order?

[Curufea]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

"you are not allowed with 10 feet of the colour black"

;-p

[AlHazred]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

Well' date=' to be fair, a similar scene was supposed to be in the original movie, in which the sailors shaken off the log are eaten by giant spiders.[/quote']Many of the scenes were homages or direct reshootings of scenes from the original, or scenes that were intended for the original release that got cut. Which just goes to show that Jackson can be as much of a fanboy as anybody on this message board.

 

There is/was a thread on the IMDB board basically saying the film is racist due to this depiction. According to the "Making Of" book' date=' the natives are roughly Indonesians who where stranded there some 4-6 generations ago. They live on a mere scrap of land, with the ocean on one side and the wall on the other. Thus, they have reverted to a really primitive lifestyle in which survival is everything, and there is little to no time to devote to any sort of artistic pursuit. This bit of back story makes the islanders make more sense (to me anyway).[/quote']But they were living in the ruins of a civilization much older than that. Which also may have had an impact. I think Jackson gave a lot of thought to the natives -- in the original, they were extremely two-dimensional and you got the sense that they could never survive on Skull Island. In this one, they are obviously stranded in an untenable situation -- the surrounding sea is too treacherous for them to make the nearest island, and they just can't risk getting the wood to make good seaworthy boats. After a few generations, the knowledge of boatbuilding would have deteriorated a lot, as well.

 

The original was largely a series of gratuitous action scenes' date=' for the sake of spectacle.[/quote']I agee -- Peter Jackson wanted to do an homage to that. I think he was successful.

[Susano]

Re: Kong: the movie

 

MBut they were living in the ruins of a civilization much older than that.

 

Right. Apparently, the original civilization was there for thousands of years, and developed a high level of culture. They also built the wall around their city too keep the huge predators out. (This was when the island was much larger). However, Skull Island is unstable, as it sits on a fault line, thus, it is slowly sliding down under the crustal plate, and thus is slowly fracturing (hence the deep rifts and crevices). At some point a huge earthquake shattered the wall, and let in the predators. The civilization collapsed after that.