Episode III vs. King Kong

Why can't Peter Jackson make a film under 3 hours anymore?

I agree, three hours for a monster movie seems excessive, but it might work really well. I'll wait and see.

 

But you're not really talking about the story at all, then, you're talking about directing style and choices, which are an unknown factor when it comes to Jackson's Kong (but if it's anything like Jackson's LOTR will make ROTS look like a student film).

M. Scott

 

I seriously doubt Kong will be like LotR Jackson's other movies are nothing like LotR, LotR was his luck and if he had screwed that up then it would ruin his career, LotR is that big, Kong doesn't have that same impact.

 

I've been talking a little bit of both story and style in this thread, but in this instance I was referring to style yeah. I am of course expecting the style of KK to be mostly like the LOTR one (including a lot of the bad unmotivated helicopter-shots). Except I reckon PJ has improved himself since LOTR though.
Which would of course mean that KK will look like a bad student film compared to the masterpiece ROTS)

 

I seriously doubt Kong will be like LotR Jackson's other movies are nothing like LotR, LotR was his luck and if he had screwed that up then it would ruin his career, LotR is that big, Kong doesn't have that same impact.

I'm not so sure. I think he is angling for a LOTR flavor to KK.

WEEBACCA, actually, I think AOTC and ROTS both have different styles (not dramatically, but visible) than the rest of the saga.

 

I noticed quite a bit of a Peter Jackson influence on quite a few of the action shots in ROTS, in fact.

Almost any time the camera dollied or craned, that was completely outside of George's typical style.

The fact that ROTS manages to look like a masterpiece compared to the first two only proves how terrible the first two were, IMO.

M. Scott

 

I noticed quite a bit of a Peter Jackson influence on quite a few of the action shots in ROTS, in fact.

Almost any time the camera dollied or craned, that was completely outside of George's typical style.

I didn't notice that myself, but now that you mention it, I believe you are right.

 

I still think konk is gonna win.

 

Because he's self-indulgent and his movies are overblown.

 

Moneywise, I doubt Kong will bring in as much as ROTS...

But to be perfectly honest, my money says the plot will be better by far.

In ROTS I was not so much disappointed as amused...

George Lucas went as far as to shatter a decade's worth of EU to give Chewbacca a role in the film... The love scenes between Anakin and Padme made me laugh so hard that my sides hurt. The best love scene was the one where they were buildings apart and nothing was said. I cannot tell you my pain and bitter amusement at ROTS. It is beyond words.

As for King Kong, I can't really say that I know whether Jackson will bring this off. But I do know one thing. To compare King Kong to Godzilla is manifestly unfair. Fay Wray's performance in the first King Kong was all but legendary in its time. It's not famous now because it is so outdated... Don't underestimate th power of King Kong... He might come back to haunt you...

Jasper

 

Everyone knows that EU can be nullified at any time by the films. The EU writers themselves know this.

I thought the scenes with Anakin/Padmé were a lot better in ROTS than people give them credit for, but that's neither here nor there.

KK doesn't have much of a story and never has. Giant Gorilla meets girl. Giant Gorilla tears T-Rex' mouth off. Giant Gorilla loses girl. Giant Gorilla eats racist cliché tribesmen. Giant Gorilla gets captured. Giant Gorilla freaks out over flashbulbs. Giant Gorilla gets girl back. Giant Gorilla climbs Empire State Building and gets shot down by biplanes. Godzilla he ain't and King Lear his story ain't.

 

ROTS doesn't exactly have a huge storyline either...

The whole thing can be summarized in one sentance...

Don't believe me?

Boy turns his back on everyone who loves him to carry out his own selfish desires, listens to a conniving snake of a politician/Sith and kills anyone who gets in his way, except his mentor(and not for lack of trying)...

 

Yeah, but there's more to it than that. But you either can see that or you can't.

I mean, Kong's story doesn't need to be any more complicated than it is. The main thing is that it needs to be fun. Three hour movies usually aren't of the fun variety-they're either epic or just self-indulgent.

 

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In either event, I can't imagine what the heck he's putting in the extra hour. I mean, I think it will be a good movie, but King Lear it ain't, as you said.

I don't really see why people are putting KK against ROTS. Narnia vs. ROTS or ROTS vs. HP is a better comparison because they are closer in genre. Comparing a monster movie to SW is just LOTR/SW fan war spill over.


George Lucas went as far as to shatter a decade's worth of EU to give Chewbacca a role in the film...

Best argument for the PT thus far

 

In an article I read on Foxnews.com about Lucas going to the KK premiere, Lucas and Jackson had a long in depth discussion. Of what I do not know. That was not reported. But Lucas backs Jackson and Jackson backed Lucas(Jackson left a video message for Lucas at the AFI award this year. Why the H(*& are we arguing with each other. Kong is a far different movie then SW. Lucas even thinks it will do $150m in its first weekend. THere is no competition between lucas and jackson. Why is there among us?

 

Can we all just get along?
http://cache.gettyimages.com/thumb/56343415.jpg?x=x&a=56343415&b=editorial_na&t=1

 

Personally, I don't care which film makes more money or which film will be better than the other.

I won't be able to judge King Kong simply for the reason, I won't be seeing it. I hated the original and didn't bother with the '76 remake, so any chance of me seeing the 2005 remake is pretty much NIL. Personally, I don't know why PJ is bothering. He did such a great job with LOTR (for the most part) - Why do a rehash of an old movie?? Just my thoughts..

 

He's wanted to do Kong since before LOTR. It's only that he now has the clout to do Kong his way, which he didn't pre-LOTR.

M. Scott

 

Because Lucas and Jackson are friends, but most of us on the different sides of the SW debate don't particularly get along that well, just to be honest about it. It's actually pretty silly, but it is what it is I guess.

 

Yes, you are right. It is pretty silly.

 

Yep, embarassingly so. And I'm as guilty of it as anyone has ever been, as you well know.

 

I thought I'd resurrect this thread from what I've heard KING KONG isn't doing that great at the box office but here's the thread back for when we have numbers.

 

It did wonderfully in the box office...of the sarcasm.

 

I saw KING KONG, this weekend. I was surprised that it didn't do as well as many had expected. Mind you, it's a pretty good action movie that's technically superior to both the 1933 and 1976 versions. And it does a great job of re-creating 1933 Manhattan.

However . . . its running time of 3 hours and 10 minutes seemed too damn long for this story. Merian C. Cooper had managed to create this tale with a running time that was almost half as long. One other complaint I have is that once the main characters reach Skull Island, the story becomes a bit heavy-handed and over-the-top. Peter Jackson is a top-notch director. But one of the problems that he possesses is that his directing style tends to be over-the-top. A prime example of this was how he had handled the Gollum character in "LOTR: The Two Towers". While watching the Skull Island sequence, I found myself wishing that Spielberg had directed the movie. I thought that Jackson was heavy-handed in his direction of all that happened on the island - from the natives they had first encountered, the dinosaurs, the giant bugs, and sometimes, Kong himself. Also, I felt that the sequence featuring Ann Darrow and Kong was slightly too long for my taste.

I would probably grade this movie a "B".

 

It's funny to me when $50 million in the first weekend -- more than many movies make in a run of several months -- is considered "not doing that great."

The real test, of course, will be in the second weekend. If the box office goes up, that means Kong's got legs and will be in theatres for a while.

M. Scott