Stoo said:Hi, kongisking. Yes, I read about the bigger & more ambitious "Song of Kong" in the book, "King Kong - From Fay Wray to Peter Jackson". Amazing book. What a cryin' shame that was never realized.
The first few pages are available to read on the Amazon website but the premise seems absurd, IMO.kongisking said:Oh, yeah! I remember seeing this once, but I unfortunately did not buy it then and there, as I have now been unable to find it since DAMN!!!
EddyW said:I love it too! Somehow I can reason that it's not really that great, but it hits me in the heart everytime I watch it, despite it's flaws. The directors cut is a big improvement for me though. The Piranhadon sequence is my favorite of all the creature scenes. The stampede probably the weakest. But still, I love this flick.
HenryJunior said:Which would ALMOST be cool except they're gonna make us run another lap through an origin story movie...
HenryJunior said:Wrong, I love Peter Jackson's version. I just said I didn't like the excessive Dinosaur bits (c'mon you know Peter loves padding his movies as much as possible) and it sounds like we're basically gonna get a movie that's even more of that. I'm trying to hold as much judgement as possible until that teaser goes wide, but I'm not particularly welcoming of this just yet.
I feel like the story of King Kong is a standalone, one shot deal that doesn't need even more reboots or sequels. It's like making sequels to Jaws or Psycho, yeah they exist but did we really need them when the first one was perfection?
I'm not judging your taste, I'm just working through my own frustration.
AndyLGR said:I have to say that the prospect of another Kong film set on Skull Island is exciting and interesting. I've loved the original from a kid when BBC used to show black and white classics at a Friday tea time or as a Saturday matinee, films like King Kong, the Basil Rathbone Holmes, John Mills war movies, 50's b-movie sci-fi.... etc etc
It will be interesting to see where they go with this new Kong, it has to have speaking parts, so does someone discover the island and Kong? Do they also run in to the tribe on there? What will be the story to grab our interest?
The Jackson movie I really enjoyed, he captured the 30's setting and the naievity of the period beautifully I thought. Dinosaurs were in the original movie, so I really liked that he took that to a new level in his version. I had no problem with that at all, and the fact it was like Jurassic Park just added to the enjoyment of the film.
This is GREAT NEWS!!! I'm wondering if this is in any way related to the Fantastic Films planned adaptation of, "Kong: King of Skull Island", which we talked about here in this thread back in 2009.kongisking said:For all we know, its not connected to Jackson's movie, but I won't be shocked if it does take some influence from his remake. I'm just blown that this is even a thing. Total surprise from C*********
I've said it before in this thread but the '76 version has become better with age and is even more special now because it features NYC's World Trade Centre so prominently. Not to mention the excellent John Barry music! I still have my soundtrack LP (which came with a giant poster) and have played it many, many times but a Deluxe Edition CD recently came out with new cover artwork.HenryJunior said:and then there's one with Jeff Bridges....
There hasn't been an "origin story movie" for Kong yet so I don't understand your gripe. As a matter of fact, *6* of the 7 Kong films take place during the time in which they were made. The 2005 remake is the ONLY ONE which takes place in an earlier period so this new movie will be the first original story that is not a contemporary tale.HenryJunior said:Which would ALMOST be cool except they're gonna make us run another lap through an origin story movie...
YES! More Kong? Bring it on!AndyLGR said:I have to say that the prospect of another Kong film set on Skull Island is exciting and interesting.
Stoo said:This is GREAT NEWS!!!
Stoo said:Oddly enough, there seems to be *2* new Kong movies in the works with almost the SAME title! The other one is called, "Skull Island: Blood of the King" by Radar Pictures and is supposed to take place in 1958 with Carl Denham's son.
Stoo said:I've said it before in this thread but the '76 version has become better with age and is even more special now because it features NYC's World Trade Centre so prominently.
What's wrong the suit? There were different kinds (depending on the scene) and were all state-of-the-art..."at the time".kongisking said:I admit I've not watched '76 Kong in years. I probably should. I remember finding it entertaining enough, but it honestly worked better for me as a kind of spoof of King Kong. The campy tone honestly hurts the mythic, tragic nature of the story for me. But, oh well. To each his own.
If nothing else, I need to see it again for Jeff Bridges, now that I actually know who he is! And poor Rick Baker, trapped in that damnable suit...
Put away your Disney princess movies and watch the '76 Kong again. Then follow it up with the not-so-great sequel, "King Kong Lives".kongisking said:I love anything Kong…
---
It's just my sworn duty as a Kongphile...
Stoo said:What's wrong the suit? There were different kinds (depending on the scene) and were all state-of-the-art..."at the time".
Re. the campy tone/spoof aspect: Huh? It's no more campy than the other 2 versions and is played pretty straight. At least there's no 'romantic' swirling around on an ice pond like the Peter Jackson film!
Jeff Bridges rules this movie! For me, the scene below was one of the defining, cinematic moments of the '70s.
Jack Prescott: "Look?Just stick close by me, O.K.?"
When you say that you "remember finding it entertaining", it sounds like you don't actually own the '76 version and that you rented it once or saw it on TV one night. If that's the case, I find it hard to believe for someone who wrote these things:
Put away your Disney princess movies and watch the '76 Kong again. Then follow it up with the not-so-great sequel, "King Kong Lives".
Good..but even so, you've still only seen it once? You should try to get a hold of the longer, NBC broadcast version because it has all kinds of extended & extra scenes! There's also a 2003 boxed set from France that includes those scenes as a bonus feature. Any Kong fan worth their salt should get a hold either one.kongisking said:Oh, I do own it, just not really bothered to rewatch it since I purchased it. I do need to give it another whirl.
I have that book, too. One has to wonder if a main reason for why De Laurentiis kept siding with Carlo Rambaldi was because Baker wasn't a fellow, Italian 'paesano'.kongisking said:I kid about the suit. It's honestly not too bad looking. I just feel bad for Baker being trapped in that thing, and his contribution being totally disrespected, even covered up by the producers initially, to try and hype the big robot Kong they built to cash in on the press over Jaws' Bruce. I re-read that King Kong: From Fay Wray to Peter Jackson book a month back, and its really angering how they treated the man.
The concept alone is camp! Who was it that defined camp as "tragically ludicrous or ludicrously tragic"? That's what Kong is, a ridiculous concept so I wasn't talking about the acting in the '33 film. Speaking of that, it seems hammy because it is hammy. There are plenty of early '30s films with stellar performances and "King Kong" is not one of them. It's essentially a B movie with utterly amazing technical effects.kongisking said:I personally felt the '76 Kong was openly aiming for camp, as opposed to the '33 film, where the camp was simply how the filmmaking worked at the time. To modern audiences, the 30's style of acting and line delivery is immensely hammy, but it helps the film feel like a special artifact of a dead era, a priceless treasure. '76 Kong seemed to be deliberately going for cheese. Compare to Jackson's film, which was trying to treat it as this grand, epic mythical tragedy. Sure, the Central Park scene is rather goofy, but hey, even in the darkest, most profound stories you need light moments. That was their attempt to do such. '05 Kong is overall a pretty serious, pretentious version of the story, and I definitely like it for that.
I guess to me, Dwan flipping her sheet and babbling things like 'chauvinist pig-ape' strikes me as forcibly cheesy, while bits like 'beautiful' in Jackson's film feel real and poignant. Different tastes strike again!
Stop watching "Frozen" over & over again and give yourself a 2nd viewing of '76 Kong!kongisking said:And now to check your new post on my Frozen thread... *braces for impact*