I have to say, as much of a fan of star wars i am. Kong really came to me as a more powerful film, it shouldn't be considered a remake as it is so good, the length may affect it, yes, nut itwas a good film that actually to me was better than the star wars films. I thought LOTR was good but kong i feel has surpassed both series, maybe not in BO but in qualty. I never cried in a film, as embarrassing as it is, i cried in kong. Its a masterpiece and its sad the public isnt appreciating its master beauty

 

it's a boring 1st hour...............jack is all wrong....
1933 version was better and more impressive

 

Kong was too long, but I don't believe that's the reason it's underperforming (not bombing)

I just don't think the Kong name carries the same kind of cultural weight these days that Star Wars, LOTR and Potter do.

LOTR is a phenomenon as a book. Everyone struck it on their way through school or in some context as a child and it has a mythic status as a story.

Potter's been the biggest thing in kids literatute for seven or eight years now and those kids who first struck it are still fans going into early adulthood.

As for Star Wars, everyone here knows all about it's legend.

Kong just doesn't have that kind of leverage with today's audiences. A lot of people I know see King Kong as an old B movie from the 30s. I'm not saying that's the correct perception, but it's a real one.

1933's a very long time ago.

 

I had the opposite effect happen on me, from seeing Kong. I came to appreciate ROTS a hell of a lot more, and the other prequels, especially after discovering just what a monster-size dud Peter Jackson could make out of King Kong. Maybe tha't's a little harsh, but seriously, King Kong was hugely disappointing.

It's going to struggle to make 200 million, domestically. And adjusted for inflation, Roland Emmerich's Godzilla almost made as much. And that was just about universally hated, upon release.

 

Hey everyone!

Check out the front page of today's (December 30th)
Variety magazine. A little recognition for ROTS!


http://www.variety.com/

 

Well I saw Kong on the 26th and I must admit that I didn't enjoy it as much as I had anticipated...

Granted it's a good film. It certainly has great action, drama, and story. However for some reason it just didn't "click" with me. Something was missing.

The biggest flaws for me was the much discussed first hour of the film. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm ALL for character development and getting to know the main people in the film, HOWEVER, that first hour was just soooooo damn boring! We could've gotten the jist of the characters in half the time.

Oh, and another part of the film that I found, well there's no other way to say it...STUPID was that chessy/corny scene on the frozen lake in NY between Kong and Ann. OMG that slo-mo part when they circled Ann I seriously almost .

Those little nit-picks aside, it was a good film and IMHO deserves more than it's receving at the box office.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But apparently, the rest of the country disagrees?

 

What is the point of developing the character in act 1
when only 3 people survive to act 3, and none of them
are really much any different.
It was completely tone deaf character casting,
shame on Wingnut.
As dead on as they were with LOTR, they were off the mark here.

 

Kong was too long, but I don't believe that's the reason it's underperforming (not bombing)


Yeah, in fact I find 3 hour movies great for dvds and wish the ROTS dvd version was 3 hours. But in the theater, its just plain uncomfortable to stay that long. And I see no problem with the dvd versions having more stuff in the main movie than the theater versions. In fact, it would be a great selling point for the dvds. But alas, the movie people are such purists.

 

Hey, JohnWesleyDowney, I love your signature!!! A great line said by a great character from a great film!!!

 

[image=http://www.kino.de/pix/newspics/GALERIE/180704_4.jpg]

 

Never rub another man's rhubarb, He he he he he!!!!

 

Yep ROTS will be box office champ it looks like. But King Kong is a marvelous movie. I urge everyone who hasn't seen it go watch it. It really is fine film making. Not to mention we need Peter Jackson to be allowed to make whatever movies he wants to make in the future without restrictions, so go support Kong! You will love it!

 

Why do we "need" PJ to make whatever movies he wants?

 

I saw Kong and Narnia this week...and I thought both of them were very good.
If I had to pick, I'd give a slight edge to Narnia.

The one thing both films have in common are mediocre (or unfinished) special effects.
Each movie looked like it needed at least another few months work.

 

Yes I really liked Narnia and King Kong as well.
Even War Of The Worlds and Batman Begins.
It´s been a good latter half of the year for
movies but none of them stand a chance
against the stunning ROTS!

 

not sure about your theatre, but in mine it was alright to sit for so long.

and i enjoyed kong so much, i wasn't sure i would ever see a movie like it again. still holding my breath.

 

ROTS will reign supreme.

Kong also didnt have alot of promotion prior to it's release. Godzilla started getting promoted in December 2007 and had billboards all over the place telling us how big he was. Not to mention we never saw what he looked like until the movie came out. I think it had a good box office to.

Kong was a better movie than the 1998 Godzilla, but it had much less hype. Now they both have to fight and cash in on the "versus" movie genre!

P.S. I know Japan made King Kong vs. Godzilla in 1963, but I think someone like Peter Jackson could make an American version. Just make Godzilla more like his Japanese counterpart and less like an Iguana.

 

The one thing both films have in common are mediocre (or unfinished) special effects.
Each movie looked like it needed at least another few months work.



and yet look who will be nominated for special effects. and look who has already faded from the gnat-memory of those who nominate and propel those nominations.


rats - it is RotS who is deserving

 

That's exactly how I feel as well.

IMO, Kong is a good film... but not the masterpiece it should be.

 

Going against the tide here, while I liked Kong and admitt it's not the masterpiece the critics are raving about, my favorite part was actually the first hour. I felt the build-up to Skull Island was excellent but once we got there the film falls apart under a barrage of useless, pointless, subpar CGI and some truly stupid action scenes.

Kong would have been better if they cut out all the bugs, slugs and dinos, save for the T-Rexes. The film is suppose to be about King Kong yet he ends up lost in a jungle of CGI. I think that's why audiences aren't responding to it as well as Universal hoped for. People go in expecting King Kong but they have to sit thru a freakshow as well.

 

People go in expecting King Kong but they have to sit thru a freakshow as well.

Well, if that can be said then can't it also be said that people go in expecting to see King Kong, but they have to sit through an hour of no King Kong at all before King Kong appears on screen?

I really enjoy the movie and feel three hours was definitely doable. KING KONG is a one time shot at telling the story. There are no sequels, no prequels so everything has to be done in this one movie, this one time shot at telling the story.

The thing is, I would think that King Kong, himself, and the island and the other creatures on the island and then Kong's experiences in New York would be the big draw, along with Kong and Ann's relationship, of course. But Kong, the island, the creatures. These are things that are supposed to be new to the characters and the audience and there's only one chance (movie) to show the audience this amazing creature and this mysterious island full of other amazing creatures. Get to the island sooner. Spend more time on the island. The movie is titled KING KONG. Spend more time on Kong, his habitate, the everyday life and dangers he faces and experiences.

The characterization works and I'm all for it, and showing New York as it was at that time period also worked, but, again, the movie is KING KONG. Show more of him. Show more about him, the island he lives on, his experiences on this island.

All that said, I give the movie four stars out of four stars.

Regardless, STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH is the Box Office king of 2005, along with being the best and along with being my favorite. Four stars out of four stars.

 

The thing is, I didn't feel, at all, what we're supposed to feel at the end, when Jack Black's Carl Denham said, "Beauty killed the beast". That basically sums up the experience right there. I almost wasn't even sure, are we supposed to take that seriously?

I can safely say, and I'm a huge Peter Jackson fan, that George Lucas made a far better film in Episode III, than Jackson did King Kong.

 

Yeah, it looks like ROTS is the king, but..........King Kong will get the special effects award over ROTS.

 

That's ****ed up!

 

Nothing Lucas does will ever win an Academy award...he has told Hollywood to ****-off too many times.