Kong: Skull Island

Stoo

Well-known member
Just wanted to add that I'm aware "King of Skull Island" is a sequel AND a prequel but "Island of the Skull" is supposed to be a prequel that features both Carl Denham and Ann Darrow. How the heck does that work?:confused:
 

kongisking

Active member
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.:(

Indeed, it is... God, I love Ray Morton! Such a godsend. And I'm glad you realize the tragedy of this lost concept!

[/QUOTE]Speaking of books, there was one I saw in a store and didn't buy it (for reasons I don't recall) and I really regret it because now I don't remember the title! It was a small paperback that had LOADS of photos of test shots, outakes, etc. including many more shots of the legendary missing spider scene that I had never, ever seen before (for years there was only *1*). Would you happen to know of this book?[/QUOTE]

*shrug* I don't really know what you're talking about. I need more information to jog my memory. Sorry!

[/QUOTE]While searching for it on the 'net, I stumbled across this one. "King Kong: The Island of the Skull":

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416516697

It's another novel from 2005. Apparently it's a prequel :)confused:) to "King Kong". Have you read this?[/QUOTE]

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!!!
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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!!!
The first few pages are available to read on the Amazon website but the premise seems absurd, IMO.

As for the pocket book with the amazing photos...guess I'll have to keep searching but will give a "heads up" if I find it!;)
 

kongisking

Active member
Always incredibly weird reading these old threads of mine, and seeing how insanely sugar-high I was when posting. Probably gonna be impossible to shake the childish hyperactive rep I gave myself in those days...

But never mind. You all thought I'd stopped gushing about my beloved Kong? Nope. Re watched Jackson's film the past weekend, since it had been a while, and it's still a great thrill ride with a heart.

I'm definitely more aware of the flaws, such as the pointless Jimmy/Hayes subplot (screen-time which, if anything, needed to be given to Jack and Anne's romance), some more goofy, cartoony action moments (Jimmy miraculously shooting all the wetas off of Jack without hitting him once. Screw the nuked fridge, THAT's crazy!) and a general issue with indulgence...but I still love the passion Jackson threw into this thing. This is his 'thank you' to the classic movie, and as a Kong fan myself, its like a huge bursting-at-the-seams birthday present. Great movie, even nine years later. :D
 

EddyW

Active member
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.
 

kongisking

Active member
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.

The stampede suffers from some obvious green-screen work, but I love the concept of it, and its still pretty exciting in any case. And the Piranhadon scene is great too---awesome Jawsian moments in there. Though, that too has some effects issues: the dry-for-wet technique does NOT look good in that one.

Honestly, I'd hoped the Extended Edition would restore some of the major character-based subplots in addition to cut setpieces, as then, it would truly justify a extended cut (we get, what, ten or so extra minutes of footage, all of it basically action scenes?). What made the LOTR EE's so incredible was the wealth of new character stuff that just enriched the drama of the story being told. Pity Kong's EE didn't go for that. Oh well...

While this thread's actually alive again, I'll share a video I made after re-watching it. Hope you all like it:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/l-7lW_bYN6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

HenryJunior

New member
ner_zps79bfaac1.gif


We already got this one done right, TWO TIMES in fact!
and then there's one with Jeff Bridges....

1.) Absolutely nothing is sacred.
2.) When did Universal give away the rights to Legendary?!?!
3.) GET READY FOR THIS:

344ec1d2-7c59-4cfa-805e-9b962d9df3c3_zpsf5b89457.jpg


Which would ALMOST be cool except they're gonna make us run another lap through an origin story movie... :dead:
 

kongisking

Active member
HenryJunior said:
Which would ALMOST be cool except they're gonna make us run another lap through an origin story movie... :dead:

Um...the announcement seemed to be for an original story more centered around Skull Island itself. 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 Comic-Con.
 

HenryJunior

New member
From the press releases it appears Skull Island is supposed to be a part of the larger world of the new Godzilla.

King Kong is just gonna be some heavy in the new zilla-verse. thanks.

What the movies look like right now:

Godzilla 2 with all of it's monsters Mothra, Rodan, King Ghidora (i don't know why we couldn't get that in the first place, now it just seems like over-kill :p)

"Skull Island" who knows exactly what that will entail yet, but it sounds like a movie made out of the Kong versus Dinos scenes from Jackson's version. Idk how much of a rehash they're aiming for, but I would almost guarantee it's leading to a cross-over of Avengers proportions.

See, Marvel/Disney made bank with The Avengers, and now everyone else is playing catch up so that they can get a piece of the over-bloated action.
 

kongisking

Active member
I'm going to take a wild guess you really didn't like Jackson's version, did you, HenryJunior?

For Kong fans like me, who wish our big guy got a little more in the way of movies and stories set in his world, this is an exciting announcement. Different strokes, I suppose.

And heck, I actually loved MUTO: The Movie (with special appearance from Godzilla), so I'm probably just a moron with bad taste no matter what... :p
 

HenryJunior

New member
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.
 

kongisking

Active member
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.

I gotcha. It's just my sworn duty as a Kongphile to support ANY new project with the big fella and try to be optimistic about it. And to be clear, we know nothing about this movie other than a title and release date. So...really not fair to blanket-assume it will be an indulgence-fest like Jackson's movie. I acknowledge his movie is bloated and indulgent, but damn, his insane passion for Kong is immensely endearing to me. I love the movie, warts and all.

But the Jaws analogy is apt...but for the fact that Jaws is a naturally really limited concept. Its a killer shark eating people and then it gets hunted down and blown to bits. Whereas Kong...you got a whole darned island of dinosaurs! And a lost civilization! And its in the 30's, when people were still exploring the world! Why not try to explore that some more, make some new awesome adventures following other people that stumble upon Skull Island before Denham gets there?
 

AndyLGR

Active member
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.
 

kongisking

Active member
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.

Hell, if they really want to do something cool...have the human cast be entirely made up of the islanders. Make it their story, of how they arrived at the island, and made their culture there, and how they came to revere Kong. There will, of course. need to be some tweaking of their portrayal, given their unfortunately un-PC depiction in the '33 film...

Then the last shot can be set years later, and you see a certain reckless filmmaker peering through the bushes at a ceremony...cut to black. :D
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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*********
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.

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.
HenryJunior said:
and then there's one with Jeff Bridges....
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.

KingKongSoundtrack_2012_zps742f256f.jpg

HenryJunior said:
Which would ALMOST be cool except they're gonna make us run another lap through an origin story movie... :dead:
There hasn't been an "origin story movie" for Kong yet so I don't understand your gripe.:confused: 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.

---
The 1976 version makes reference to other encounters which are ripe for story-telling and I've always imagined what those stories would be.

1605 - Pedro Fernandez de Queirós, south of Tematang. Part of his account was "suppressed by the Holy Office in Rome".
1749 - Empty, water-logged lifeboat with image & message drawn in blood.
1944 - Message in bottle from dying Japanese submariner
AndyLGR said:
I have to say that the prospect of another Kong film set on Skull Island is exciting and interesting.
YES! More Kong? Bring it on! (y):whip:
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
This is GREAT NEWS!!!

Can we just cyber-high-five, and call it a day? No? Lovely. :D

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.

I had no idea about this. Odd. What interesting timing for our big furry guy to make a comeback.

It's especially eyebrow-raising that Legendary Pictures is working with Universal for this new Skull Island movie. I don't know if I buy entirely the idea of a possible Kong VS Godzilla movie, but who the heck knows. No idea how they'd make it work without being a completely laughable disaster.

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.

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! :p And poor Rick Baker, trapped in that damnable suit...
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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! :p And poor Rick Baker, trapped in that damnable suit...
What's wrong the suit?:confused: 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?:confused: 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!:sick:

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.?"

Kong76_Flower_zps6668685e.jpg


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:
kongisking said:
I love anything Kong…
---
It's just my sworn duty as a Kongphile...
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".:whip:
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
What's wrong the suit?:confused: 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?:confused: 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!:sick:

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.?"

Kong76_Flower_zps6668685e.jpg


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".:whip:

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 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.

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! :p

And now to check your new post on my Frozen thread... *braces for impact*
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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.
Good..but even so, you've still only seen it once?:confused: 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:
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.
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 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! :p
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.

I like Jack Black a lot but his portrayal of Denham in the '05 film is goofy, over-the-top and not serious at all. That's camp.

Despite what you think, the '76 film was not meant to be intentionally cheesy. De Laurentiis even said things like, "Intellectuals gonna love this new Kong movie" and "When the shark in 'Jaws' died, nobody cry. When da big-a monkey dies, everybody gonna cry". This take was an attempt to give the story a more serious treatment & more emotional depth than the original.

Maybe you don't know but Women's Lib was still going strong in the mid-'70s and "male chauvinist pig" was a common term so Dwan's line was very fitting. If you can overlook certain aspects of the '33 film for being of it's time, then you should be able to do the same for the '76.

By the way, what do you mean by Dwan "flipping her sheet"?:confused:

Also, I'm not saying that the '76 movie is the greatest version, I said that it has become better with age. It has some dodgy effects here & there but most of the film is done well…and it was a HUGE success back then! It also has a message that the other 2 versions don't (which is even more relevant today than it was before).

'76 Kong sure ain't a spoof (as you call it). That would be "Queen Kong"...also from 1976!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0nLIwuHzAng" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

kongisking said:
And now to check your new post on my Frozen thread... *braces for impact*
Stop watching "Frozen" over & over again and give yourself a 2nd viewing of '76 Kong!:whip:
 
Top