# Rate King Kong



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 12, 2005)

It is inevitable - so I might as well be the one to post it...

Goodness knows that I am looking forward to this!

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 14, 2005)

Tomorrow...

The Auld Grump, filled with giant monkey joy.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 14, 2005)

I saw it last night at a screening in NY. 

The first act is a slow build but once they get onto Skull Island it's EXCELLENT. 

Two words of warning: SPIDER PIT. D00d, what happens ot one of the d00ds in there had me sheilding my eyes. I wont tell you but you'll know it when you see it. 

Kinda long but to tell the truth the whole middle act of the movie (Skull Island) moves along so fast that you really dont nnotice the time that went by until they get back to New York. Then it's all setup for the big ending, which , despite the fact that you know how it's going to end, is still a gut punch. By this time Kong has endeared himself to you so well...

Any way not the Best of jacksons films but it was still one of the best things that I've seen all year and loads of fun. See it on a good screen with excellent sound. and remember BEWARE THE SPIDER PIT.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 14, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Tomorrow...
> 
> The Auld Grump, filled with giant monkey joy.



 That just *sounds* wrong, man.

Say it out loud.  Seriously.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 14, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That just *sounds* wrong, man.
> 
> Say it out loud.  Seriously.




Heh, it was supposed to... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## FCWesel (Dec 14, 2005)

Saw a midnight showing of KING KONG. 

Really enjoyed the experience. 

I have wonder if there's anyone seeing this movie who doesn't know how it ends? I mean sure, you have to have a clue and all, but still...

A few of the special effects didn't quite work. These effects had nothing to do with KONG, he was flawless. The animators did astounding work in giving Kong's screen preformance. And the female and male lead did quite well also, seeing that they had no Kong to actually play against while they were filming.

I will be seeing it again.


*****


After being filled with giant monkey joy, we will have to call him the Auld Gimp.


----------



## Cassander (Dec 14, 2005)

10.

What I was expecting was a fun adventure film with heart. What I got was perhaps the most powerful movie-going experience of my life. Completely devastating. This is the saddest and darkest movie I have ever seen. 

This is no monster movie. It is about man and animal. Haunting.


----------



## KenM (Dec 14, 2005)

I just saw it. Very good. I would still like to know how they get Kong onto the boat and into the theater.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 14, 2005)

I'd vote 10 but then that would make Peter Jackson my father


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 14, 2005)

I want to give it a 10...but even though I liked pretty much everything, it just felt like it started a little TOO slow. Not that I won't be back to see it again...and probably again...


----------



## Harmon (Dec 15, 2005)

Liked it.

The bug pit reminded me of my nightmares.

Could have done without my fellow viewers though- small kids should be banned from the theater but that is another thread, and anyone that talks during a show should learn what the 689th thing duct tape is good for.

Aside from that- liked it.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Dec 15, 2005)

Very good.

Best performance? Kong.

Those were some sad eyes, man.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 15, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> Very good.
> 
> Best performance? Kong.
> 
> Those were some sad eyes, man.




Some observations on Kong - I do not believe that he was sane, even by the standards of giant apes. Either that or he was suffering from the effects of chronic testosterone poisoning.

Then again Skull Island seemed to have peeled some sanity points off of both the crew of the Venture and the natives.

The Auld Grump - that island would fit right into R.E.Howards tales of the Cthulhu mythos, while those worm things were pure Lovecraft...


----------



## Klaus (Dec 15, 2005)

Haven't watched the movie, but I'll have to say this:

New wishful thinking:

"The Call of Cthulhu"
-by Peter Jackson-


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 15, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Some observations on Kong - I do not believe that he was sane, even by the standards of giant apes. Either that or he was suffering from the effects of chronic testosterone poisoning.



The effect of long, long years of loneliness, IMO.  That's easy enough to explain.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Dec 15, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> New wishful thinking:
> 
> "The Call of Cthulhu"
> -by Peter Jackson-



Someone make Klaus a producer, posthaste!  This is genius.  I haven't seen _Kong_ yet, either, but this idea is genius.  It's been scientifically proven.

Warrior Poet

_Edit:  Art Direction by Mike Mignola_


----------



## Harmon (Dec 15, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> -those worm things were pure Lovecraft...




My wife said those worms looked like Tube Worms to her- she just finished a MircoBiology class and saw pictures of them.  Personally I thought they were leechs, but as she pointed out they were the wrong color and their texture appearance was all wrong.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Dec 15, 2005)

I gave it a five. It was just okay.
The first hour the script was awful and acted badly.  I was begging them to get to skull island so they could all be wiped out.
No sense of drama or thrill throughout really. The endless action on skull island was as though george lucas had taken over and said...hmm...needs more dinosaurs, special effects and chase scenes.
Thought nealry all the action sequences on the island where 'not great'. The part in the insect ravine was pretty good (and in rpg terms was one h*ll of a random encounter) but a tad gruesome.
Too cheesey plot turns and too many cringeworthy lines
Bit on empire state was good only in that it gave me a real sense of clinging to my chair in case it fell off....
Enough for now in case i make a 'spoiler'

JohnD
Who has fears of Peter Jacksons 'The Hobbit' being his own 'Phantom Menace'!


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 15, 2005)

I thought it was a great movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 15, 2005)

I dithered between an 8 and a 9 and settled on 8.

It's a fine picture, and TheNovaLord's distaste notwithstanding, I suspect nearly everyone will enjoy it. The chemistry between Kong and Naomi Watt's Ann Darrow is magic to behold and provides the energy that keeps the latter two-thirds of the film moving.

It wasn't _The Fellowship of the Ring_, which I still think stands as Jackson's most inspired picture, but it was darn fine.

My reasoning on that is pretty simple: as soon as the lights came up on _Fellowship_, Mrs. Barsoom and I turned to each other and said, "We're seeing THAT again." At the end of the credits for _Kong_, we went out for a beer and after an hour or so of chatting, ASKED each other if we wanted to see it again.

The answer was Yes, but we had to ask. With _Fellowship_, there was no question.

I encourage everyone to stay to the end of the credits and acknowledge the lovely tribute to the original. Very classy.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 15, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I encourage everyone to stay to the end of the credits and acknowledge the lovely tribute to the original. Very classy.




Damn. I didn't stay.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 15, 2005)

10. That movie took my expectations and completely blew them out of the water. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Sushi (Dec 15, 2005)

I gave it a 9. It was a great movie but not a perfect 10. Kong himself was wonderfully done. 

In the Bug scene did anyone else think. "Hey he has an 50% chance of hitting the guy instead of the giant crickets while shooting into a grapple with that tommy gun." 

I wish it was not so gruesome in some parts (the worms and the natives) so my young son could see the movie with out me covering his eyes during those parts.


----------



## Krug (Dec 16, 2005)

Gave it an 8.
*SPOILERS*


Spoiler



Thought the crew saved the day two times too many, particularly in the tube worm pit scene, when everyone KINDA knew they would come. I also don't think Jackson managed to 'humanized' King Kong enough; still it's great that he managed to retain the metaphors and subtexts of the original and expanded on them. The set-pieces were quite amazing, particularly the triple dino fight scene. 

Felt that there could have a scene where Kong was transported back on the ship, which might have beefed up the character(s) a bit more.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2005)

I, too, am filled with giant monkey joy. Great film.

One thing: I kinda lost track of Jimmy, there. Did he die in the other lifeboat, or did he live?


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The effect of long, long years of loneliness, IMO.  That's easy enough to explain.




Yeah, that was a great little subtle addition in the aerie there. We know he's not some abberation, but very probably the last of his kind.


----------



## Krug (Dec 16, 2005)

By the way, what was shown after the end of the credits?


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 16, 2005)

Going to see it tomorrow (Friday)!!!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 16, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> By the way, what was shown after the end of the credits?




A dedication to the original director, producer, and the incomparable Fay Wray

There is also a reference to Ms. Wray near the beginning of the film, when they are trying to get an actress to play a role based on dress size.
Denham: Faye's a size 4.
Assistant: She's signed up to do a film for RKO
Denham: Damn Cooper!

(RKO was the studio and Cooper the screenwriter and director of the original King Kong...)

And I would say that going by this movie Kong is an entity that would rank with Father Dagon on the Cthulhu Mythos scale... though a sad, scarred, and likely half mad creature.

The Auld Grump, who gives it a '9'. And yeah, someone lock Jackson in a cage until he agrees to film Call of Cthulhu... ('A mountain walked, or stumbled...')


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 16, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> My wife said those worms looked like Tube Worms to her- she just finished a MircoBiology class and saw pictures of them.  Personally I thought they were leechs, but as she pointed out they were the wrong color and their texture appearance was all wrong.




Perhaps a combination of Tube worms and hag fish...








Sadly the best image that I can find for a Hagfish's mouth cannot be linked, however you can see it near the bottom of this page

The Auld Grump


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 16, 2005)

According to the book "The World of Kong", the Carnictis (the worms) descended from tapeworms. This is obviously wrong - tapeworms don't even have heads, much less mouths. From a biological standpoint, hagfish might be close, but the eversible pharyx (the jaw-extruding thing) suggests that they're some type of polychaete worm, like the tube worms.

Demiurge out, who just took Bis 1B, obviously.


----------



## Cassander (Dec 17, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I, too, am filled with giant monkey joy. Great film.





Minor correction: Ape joy.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2005)

Cassander said:
			
		

> Minor correction: Ape joy.




I started to put in the correct thing, but TheAuldGrump used 'monkey', so...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 17, 2005)

Great movie!  If it weren't for the slow pacing of the first act, I would have given it a 10.  Instead, it gets a 9.

This is going to be a definate DVD purchase for me.

(And yes, the bug pit was creepy as Hell.  I shiver every time I think about it)


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 17, 2005)

I gave it a 9 too.  Darn good movie, but not perfect.

Actually, the whole Jimmy sub-plot bugged me a bit, because the whole time I was thinking, "this could have been cut and not hurt the movie a bit."  I also think Jackson fell victim to his weakness of trying to hard to make little scenes over-emotional.  Little things like making a really big deal of Ann Darrow taking the first step up the ramp onto the steamer, for instance.

I also agree with Corey; when Denham delivers his line over Kong's corpse, it felt more like it just had to be delivered rather than something that actually made sense given the context.

But my gripes are somewhat minor.  It's definitely my favorite film of 2005, and shooting up pretty high on my "all time" list.  We'll have to see how well it ages; I've only seen it once so far.


----------



## Harmon (Dec 17, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Perhaps a combination of Tube worms and hag fish...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





When we left the theater I mentioned the worms, and that I thought they were round worms (nasty parasite types).  She informed me that her teacher (Doctor Fail) had shown her pictures of all kinds of parasites and one of them was a Tube Worm.

I scratched my head and we went home to have dinner.

To let you know I hate it when people throw my wrongs in my face and rub it in, I find that action childish and very… well lacking in respect.  What you did was respectful and mature in my mind.  

So I asked her if she was sure about the tube worms, to which she gave a quizzical look and asked “why?”  :\ 

“Tube worms live on the ocean bottom,” was my reply "in a tube."

She shrugged- “I am pretty sure she said tube worm.”   :\ 

I have looked at Hag Fish pictures, and looked for pictures of worms of differing types.  Tape Worms don’t look right for what was on the screen.  So…. dammed if I know cause it ante my two guesses nor my wife’s for certain.   :\


----------



## Justin (Dec 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...Kong's corpse...




Hmm.  I was going to see the movie this afternoon.  Not having ever seen either the original or the remake and not knowing the storyline, I could go in fresh with no expectations, other than from the great reviews the movie is getting.  But the above quote spoiled it for me.   :\


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 17, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I was going to see the movie this afternoon.  Not having ever seen either the original or the remake and not knowing the storyline, I could go in fresh with no expectations, other than from the great reviews the movie is getting.  But the above quote spoiled it for me.   :\



 With a story this old, and something that's been spoofed all over the place since the first movie back in the 30s...I think we've long past the point of spoilers.

Heh, there was a Penny Arcade about this very topic a week or so ago, too.


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 17, 2005)

Excellent movie. Definitely worth it. And thr insect pit was the creepiest thing I've seen in a movie in a long time. The Kong vs. T-Rexs fight was fantastic! I didn't mind the slow start, as I've never seen the original all the way through and it helped me get a sense for the characters.

I would have given it a 10, except for the fact that Jackson made Kong too much a protagonist instead of an antagonist. Yes, any King Kong movie must have a sense of sadness, but it shouldnt be "overly" sappy. It wasn't so sappy that I didn't really enjoy it though.

 

Definitely a 9 out of 10.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 17, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> I would have given it a 10, except for the fact that Jackson made Kong too much a protagonist instead of an antagonist. Yes, any King Kong movie must have a sense of sadness, but it shouldnt be "overly" sappy. It wasn't so sappy that I didn't really enjoy it though.




Huh.

I've never seen Kong as either protagonist OR antagonist. And if I did lean towards one, it would definitely be the former. Simply put, Kong is just there. He isn't good or bad. Its the people who are good(Anne) or bad(Denham). Kong simply reacts accordingly.


----------



## Insight (Dec 18, 2005)

Solid 9.5.

I really believed in the characters, and especially Kong.  That's very important in a fantasy movie.  You knew what was coming at the end, and even still, it was very sad.  Says something about our society as well.  We destroy what we don't understand.

One important note.  I wouldn't take youngsters to see this movie.  It is long, and the combat scenes are rather graphic.


----------



## The Serge (Dec 18, 2005)

8.

I actually started tearing up before I realized it at the end.  

Really, really fun film although it was too long.  Some of the scenes towards the end were a tad too long.  Aside from the largely pointless Jimmy/Second Mate scenes (I get the _Heart of Darkness_ elements and the desire to humanize the crew and make us care about them, but really, it was too much), I liked the first part a lot.  The middle was SUPERB!  I haven't squirmed that much in a movie in a long time.

*Klaus*, you are a genius.  Let's get a campaign for Jackson on _The Call of Cthulu_ now!  That would be sooooo awesome!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Dec 18, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> I really believed in the characters, and especially Kong.  That's very important in a fantasy movie.  You knew what was coming at the end, and even still, it was very sad.  Says something about our society as well.  We destroy what we don't understand.




Yes, and we also destroy giant apes that rampage through major cities killing innocent bystanders and doing thousands (millions?) of dollars worth of property damage.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 18, 2005)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I saw it last night at a screening in NY.
> 
> The first act is a slow build but once they get onto Skull Island it's EXCELLENT.
> 
> ...





Spoilers...






















The spider pit....ayee....I hear you....that poor fellow.  His head!  What a way to go.  That's all I'll say.  I was there with a bunch of buddies and my fiance and we were all squirming through that part of the movie.

You can tell Peter Jackson hates bugs.  I just remember sitting there watching those insects thinking of what remorseless, relentless, unthinking, eating machines they were.

I was actually surprised by how creepy a lot of the movie was.  I'd never seen the original King Kong, and I think I was going in expecting something different.  I loved it, gave it a 9 on 10, but it was more intense than I'd expected sitting down at the start of the movie.

I found it interesting right before everything started that the 1st mate or whatever he was commented to the kid reading "heart of darkness" that it wasn't an adventure story.  I guess pretty good forshadowing.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 18, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> *Klaus*, you are a genius.  Let's get a campaign for Jackson on _The Call of Cthulu_ now!  That would be sooooo awesome!




I think he has to finish HALO and The Hobbit, first....

Imagine what he could do with the spiders of the Mirkwood, and Smaug?  Smaug....

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 18, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Yes, and we also destroy giant apes that rampage through major cities killing innocent bystanders and doing thousands (millions?) of dollars worth of property damage.




I figured the reference was less towards destroying the ape that was tearing up the city, than to capturing this wild, primal, majestic creature, ripping it out of its natural habitat, and then putting it on display and publicly humiliating it to make a buck..

I found that a really sad scene, when Kong is first revealed after being captured.  He didn't understand, and the the fact that this lack of understanding helped contribute to his demise was just tragic.

Banshee


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Perhaps a combination of Tube worms and hag fish...
> 
> The Auld Grump




I thought everything in 'the pit' were just gaint versions of what is normally found in the 'muck' of bat caves and such, can't remember the name of the worms/larva but this was what made it creepy for me, as everything there was from real life just blown up!  Too much discovery channel.  

Overall I gave it a 7, glad I saw it but thougth it started slow.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 18, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> My wife said those worms looked like Tube Worms to her- she just finished a MircoBiology class and saw pictures of them.  Personally I thought they were leechs, but as she pointed out they were the wrong color and their texture appearance was all wrong.




I wouldn't be surprised if worms just like that actually exist....but just on a much, much smaller scale.  Most of the other bugs in that scene just seemed like larger than normal versions of real insects.

Reminded me of a parasite my dog caught once.  It embedded itself in her leg, and you could see it poke its head out to breath.  Very, very disturbing.  And it was put there by a simple fly.

Ugh...  I hate bugs.

Banshee


----------



## Andre La Roche (Dec 18, 2005)

Just saw this movie.  Gave it an 8.  What it did well, it did really, really, really well--which was most of the film.  The other times, it lagged or was really transparent (you could see what was going to happen with the 1st mate and Jimmy a mile away).  There were also a few things that didn't make sense to me such as the issue of transporting Kong back to NY, or where all the natives suddenly went to after they had offered up Ann to Kong.

On a rather frustrating note though, two guys who were there kept loudly adding their own commentary inappropriate to the movie.   I could hear them all the way across the theatre.  And worse, the ushers never did anything despite frequently coming in and standing behind these guys to make their presence known.  I walked up to them afterwards and said, "Do you ***holes enjoy ruining movies for other people or something?"  One guy seemed completely out of it like he was on something, and the other sort of shrugged and sheepishly grinned as he lit up a cigarette.

Sorry to vent. :-/


----------



## Maxwell's Demon (Dec 18, 2005)

I gave it 5 out of 10.  OKay but not great though some of the individual scenes were wonderful.    For me the movie ended up looking like a prequel to "Deep Rising."  The swamp leech things were just the immature versions of the creature in that movie and it was obviously Skull Island that they landed on at the end.  Plus three Rexs in such close priximity and all hating KOng but not minding each other?  Maybe his next movie will lift him back to movie god for me.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2005)

Maxwell's Demon said:
			
		

> Plus three Rexs in such close priximity and all hating KOng but not minding each other?  Maybe his next movie will lift him back to movie god for me.



On-going dino debate: Rex may have been pride/pack animals, to bring down larger prey animals, working as a team.  My problem there was the single mindless for the girl...but with a brain the size of a walnut, what can you expect from hand feeling...they always leap for the chicken.


----------



## Insight (Dec 18, 2005)

One negative I took away from the movie, and this is really just nitpicking I guess.  Kong is huge.  Massive.  I would say his mass is equal to an eighteen-wheeler with a trailer attached and a full load.

When something that big moves around, it causes a disturbance.  Kong jumping around should have caused a LOT more collateral damage to his environment.  The ground should shake noticeably.  Trees and shrubs should go flying.  Pieces of cliff facinng should be loosened and fall.  Etc.  This does happen sometimes, but in other scenes, there is no physical reaction to Kong jumping around.

And this brings me to a related point.  SPOILER:: 



Spoiler



Any idea what would happen to the street at the end of the movie when Kong falls from the TOP OF THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING???  My guess is that he would not be laying there on the surface.  The impact not only would have completely destroyed everything around - and the debris killing most if not all bystanders - but Kong's body would have gone right through the street, through the sewers below, and probably into the subway tunnels.



I still give it a solid 9.  Aside from those minor technical nitpicks, it was still a great movie.


----------



## Insight (Dec 18, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> On-going dino debate: Rex may have been pride/pack animals, to bring down larger prey animals, working as a team.  My problem there was the single mindless for the girl...but with a brain the size of a walnut, what can you expect from hand feeling...they always leap for the chicken.






Predators typically don't attack each other unless they are competing for prey.  In this case, the T-Rexes probably realize they can't take Kong by themselves, so the other T-Rexes are hardly competition.  Even if T-Rexes don't normally work together, they might if it's their only chance to get prey. 

SPOILER:: 



Spoiler



If they had taken Kong down, perhaps then the T-Rexes would turn on each other.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 18, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> Predators typically don't attack each other unless they are competing for prey.  In this case, the T-Rexes probably realize they can't take Kong by themselves, so the other T-Rexes are hardly competition.  Even if T-Rexes don't normally work together, they might if it's their only chance to get prey.
> 
> SPOILER::
> 
> ...




In any case, some scientists believe that T-Rexes may have hunted larger prey in packs....if so, then the behaviour in the movie wouldn't be out of reason.

Banshee


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Dec 18, 2005)

I gave it a 9. The things that brought it down from a 10 for me:

1: The repetitions. [sblock]The crew saves the people who went on the island twice, both times after saying that they were going to leave without them. I think there were...5? 7? times at the end when Kong and Ann were gazing soulfully into each other's eyes and interrupted by Kong getting shot at.[/sblock]
2: The little overdone things. [sblock]Jack Driscoll typing "S...K...U...L...L...Island, Ann's hesitation to board the ship, and I think one or two more things[/sblock]
3: Denham's line at the end. Felt like it would've fit in a black-and-white movie, but just seemed...a little forced to me.


I was wanting that little bastich to die, too.

And I gotta admit, [sblock]I was rooting for the planes in the end. I know they shouldn't have brought Kong to Ney York in the first place, but once he was smashing everything, he really had to die. There just weren't any other viable options, and it made me sad that the pilots and gunners had to die.[/sblock] Oh well...


----------



## Insight (Dec 18, 2005)

Perhaps in the 1930s, the ending is an evitable conclusion.  There was far less understanding of the greater world around us than in the modern era.  Still, I think the problem isn't that he was destroying things, it was that people didn't understand his behavior and thus, he was a monster in their eyes.

If Kong had been brought to our culture today (and that would make an interesting movie), I think they would have found a more suitable environment for him.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Dec 18, 2005)

Which is why making the movie retro was definately 100% the right idea, methinks.

Kong in a wild-life park would make a silly ending.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 18, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> If Kong had been brought to our culture today (and that would make an interesting movie), I think they would have found a more suitable environment for him.




Yeah, a lab for testing.


----------



## trancejeremy (Dec 18, 2005)

More likely, Nintendo would have bought him to use as a real life mascot.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 18, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> Predators typically don't attack each other unless they are competing for prey.  In this case, the T-Rexes probably realize they can't take Kong by themselves, so the other T-Rexes are hardly competition.  Even if T-Rexes don't normally work together, they might if it's their only chance to get prey.
> 
> SPOILER::
> 
> ...



Also, according to the book "The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island", which was written to show off the movie's concept art and to fill in faux-biological details, juvenile T-rexes hunted in sibling packs, parting each other's company when they matured.

Which means, yes, those were just juveniles. Too bad we didn't get to see one full grown 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Firebeetle (Dec 18, 2005)

*The reason to see the picture*

Two words.

Naomi Watts

One thousand words






Two letters

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Klaus (Dec 18, 2005)

Yeah, she had me endure even Tank Girl (and how lovely she looks in brown hair and glasses...  )


----------



## Justin (Dec 19, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I was going to see the movie this afternoon.  Not having ever seen either the original or the remake and not knowing the storyline, I could go in fresh with no expectations, other than from the great reviews the movie is getting.  But the above quote spoiled it for me.   :\




So I went ahead and saw it today.  Mostly.  Walked out after the T-Rex fight.  Bored.  Gave what I saw a 3.

EDIT: I'm very bored/disappointed/annoyed with movies in general these days.  The only movie I'll see in the next year will be X-Men 3.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I was going to see the movie this afternoon.  Not having ever seen either the original or the remake and not knowing the storyline, I could go in fresh with no expectations, other than from the great reviews the movie is getting.  But the above quote spoiled it for me.   :\



Also, Rosebud is his sled.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Sushi said:
			
		

> I wish it was not so gruesome in some parts (the worms and the natives) so my young son could see the movie with out me covering his eyes during those parts.



Well, it IS PG-13.


----------



## Droogie (Dec 19, 2005)

I give it a 7. It was too long,  too slow at times.  It had its fair share of unsightly plot cracks (where DID those natives run off to? How DID they get that giant monkey on the boat? Why was Denham not immediately slapped in handcuffs when he returned to NY? We can say he bribed someone or just "worked it out" but why do we have to assume that?). 
It was even a bit pretentious (ex. :the typing of S-K-U-L-L mentioned previously, the scene where Kong is looking for Ann in NY, and she appears, slowly walking down the center of the street, bathed in angelic light).
I can't blame PJ -  this is his favorite film of all time, and this version really shows how much it means to him. Only it never meant that much to me, so naturally I found the hyper-drama more than a bit cloying.

But I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong- this movie, like Titanic, opitimizes everything we love about movies. Action, adventure, thrills, spills, scares, drama, love, heartbreak- its all there. The film to end all films. And Titanic didn't even have uber-scary monsters.  I loved how the audience squealed with horror during the scene with those creepy giant centipedes. And I wanted to jump out of my seat and beat my chest with a cheer after the t-rex fight.Other scenes were beautifully touching ( the first time Anne entertains Kong in his lair, the scene where they slide around on the ice). But the end is so gut-wrenching, so awfully sad that I just can't call this a movie that I could see multiple times. 

PJ accomplished his mission, I suppose. He wanted to pluck our heartstrings, and he played them well- maybe too well. I felt like crap walking out of the theatre. I won't be buying the DVD.

Most likely it will get lots of oscar noms anyway. Kinda strange : while alarmists claim the film industry is dropping off  significantly, here wa have a remake of the film that ushered in its golden age. Full circle perhaps?


----------



## Justin (Dec 19, 2005)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Also, Rosebud is his sled.




Woah, Kong had a sled?!  That must have been after I left.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 19, 2005)

just don't tell him that Darth Vader is Luke's father!


oops.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 19, 2005)

Saw it Saturday.  One of the greatest movies I've ever seen.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 19, 2005)

FCWesel said:
			
		

> The animators did astounding work in giving Kong's screen preformance.




And so did Andy Sirkis!


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 19, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> With a story this old, and something that's been spoofed all over the place since the first movie back in the 30s...I think we've long past the point of spoilers.




Wait until Justin finds out about the whole Luke/Vader thing...


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Hmm.  I was going to see the movie this afternoon.  Not having ever seen either the original or the remake and not knowing the storyline, I could go in fresh with no expectations, other than from the great reviews the movie is getting.  But the above quote spoiled it for me.   :\



C'mon; you've gotta be kidding me.  Even if you've never seen either movie, how can you not know what happens at the end of King Kong?  I did long before I had seen either of the older ones.  It's a cultural icon.


----------



## Elemental (Dec 19, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Wait until Justin finds out about the whole Luke/Vader thing...




Or the bit in _Titanic_ where the ship sinks. I did not see that one coming!


----------



## Rykion (Dec 19, 2005)

I love the original Kong and generally have no problems with 3 hour movies, but in the end I felt PJ's kong was a good movie on the verge of being very good.  The opening was too slow.  Skull Island looked perfect, but the creatures must of all been trained to attack people on sight.  The whole Jimmy subplot served little, and I still don't know if Jimmy survived or not.  The potrayal of Kong was excellent.  The effects throughout the movie were all very good.  Jackson did a good job expanding on the original characters and story to give it more depth, but the pacing just felt off most of the time.  The deeper story also made the Skull Island action sequences seem over the top and more in line with a simple popcorn flick.  I still had a good time, and will definitely pick up the DVD.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Elemental said:
			
		

> Or the bit in _Titanic_ where the ship sinks. I did not see that one coming!



I, for one, didn't expect the protagonist to bite it in _Last Temptation_.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 19, 2005)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I, for one, didn't expect the protagonist to bite it in _Last Temptation_.



hyjacking the thread but Braveheart ending was a big surprise...just did not expect it, knew it but did not expect it.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 19, 2005)

Here's a cut and paste review I wrote for my blog.  If, for some reason, you don't actually belong to any modern culture, and therefore are unfamiliar with the basic story of _King Kong_, like Justin apparently was, then there will be some minor spoiler herein:


> Saw King Kong with the missus on Friday. Great flick. _Great_ flick. But not a perfect one. In some ways, it still doesn't measure up to the original. Luckily for me, what I liked best about the original was the more straightforward aspects; a gigantic gorilla fighting dinosaurs and then running rampant through New York. Given the improvements in movie-making technology, there's almost no way that this movie could fail to be the best ever in those respects.
> 
> It also kind of monkeys (if you'll forgive the pun) with the high concept of the first movie. The Arabian proverb about the beast and beauty is still present, but it's not really whole point of the film. Maybe this is a conceit of Peter Jackson's too, but Kong is painted as the most sympathetic character in the movie by far, and it really changes the tenor of the movie from a monster movie to a tragedy about a really quite extraordinary individual creature. It's not really possible to imagine Faye Wray's Ann Darrow grieving for the death of Kong, or trying to prevent it in any way.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 19, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> One of the greatest movies I've ever seen.



I just about agree.  I'm not sure about the 'greatest ever seen' bit but it may be that way for me over time.  It was definitely one of the best movie experiences I've ever had.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2005)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> I, for one, didn't expect the protagonist to bite it in _Last Temptation_.




The dame gettin' pregnant with Satan's kid was a big surprise in Rosemary's Baby too.

The Auld Grump


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Dec 19, 2005)

I enjoyed the movie.

I also made the mistake of purchasing a large popcorn and large coke. I had finished off the mop-bucket sized tubs of corn and drink and about the time Lumpy was fighting the leech-like monsters was when I decided it would be a good idea to go to the restroom and then get some more drink and pop corn….

’Cause the giant leech-like monsters gave me a royal case of what Strong Bad calls the jibblies.

I had fun in the movie. I did almost get weepy-eyed as Kong battled the planes. I ended up feeling pity for Jack Black’s character – he seemed oblivious to the fact every project he touched failed and got people killed. I found myself wondering about the history of Skull Island – and the possibility that the culture that left all those ruins had done something forgotten and terrible that resulted in the present state of affairs (abnormal predators, abnormal number of predators, overall persistent strangeness) on the island.

But it was not perfect. The pacing felt odd. I did wonder how such a small and seemingly fragile ship was supposed to have transported Kong back to New York. I wondered where all the native human islanders went after the brief skirmish. 

But it’s fun.

I give it 8 thumbs up.


----------



## JEL (Dec 19, 2005)

I gave it a 7 as well.  It was way too long and they hammed up Kong too much (he was a sympathetic character in spite of himself in the original).  Cut out an hour of the excess stuff and it would probably have been a 9.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 20, 2005)

Apparently the DVD will be out in April.  Not a very long wait.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 20, 2005)

Really?  Where'd you see that?  I checked out comingsoon.net, and I didn't see a DVD release for Kong at all.  Although I did see a Harry Potter 4 DVD release on April 4th, which is surprisingly early...


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 20, 2005)

http://newboards.kongisking.net/per...511;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;guest=1042414

It isn't official by any means, but I've seen enough people talking about it on kongisking.net and hometheaterforum.com to think that there's a good chance its true.

Serenity is hitting DVD only three months after its theatrical release, and Doom is scheduled to hit DVD on 2/7/06, or about three and a half months after its theatrical debut.

So four months for what will no doubt be an enormously pirated movie like Kong isn't too surprising.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 20, 2005)

Is it possible there will be an collectible/extended version released about xmas next year?


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 20, 2005)

Well... Had I voted immediately after I saw the film, I probably would have given in a 9, but having spent some time thinking about it, I've given it an 8.



Spoiler



There were loose ends that I was sort of annoyed with - in particular - the cabin boy whose name escapes me at the moment... He was supposedly so wild when found - I thought that something, anything would come of that, but I just never saw any evidence of his wild past.



In the end, I thought it was a beautiful movie and I was very impressed by Jack Black's performance.  Never thought I would have been able to take him seriously in a role like that, yet I feel that he did a very good job.  Adrian Brody (sp?) was fantastic, as well... [girly] I've never before realized just how good looking that man can be [/girly].


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 20, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Apparently the DVD will be out in April.  Not a very long wait.



Which goes to the theory of big screen's death and movies being made for the DVD market.


----------



## Dimwhit (Dec 20, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Which goes to the theory of big screen's death and movies being made for the DVD market.



 I've heard the industry is thinking of testing simultaneous releases. You watch a movie in the theatre, and if you like it, you can purchase the DVD in the lobby on the way out. I'm not sure that will work out so well for them, but DVDs are more profitable, so who knows.


----------



## johnsemlak (Dec 20, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I've heard the industry is thinking of testing simultaneous releases. You watch a movie in the theatre, and if you like it, you can purchase the DVD in the lobby on the way out. I'm not sure that will work out so well for them, but DVDs are more profitable, so who knows.



 I think it's also a way to combat piracy, by releasing a for-sale DVD before lots of people have downloaded or purchased an illegal copy.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 21, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Which goes to the theory of big screen's death and movies being made for the DVD market.



A theory that won't ever manifest in reality until home theater screens and speakers are as big as those in movie theaters.

As HDTV continues to bring the theater home, movie theaters are responding to the challenge by bringing the living room to the theater.  All over the country high class theaters are opening with leather reclining seats and automans, gourmet food that is brought to your seat by a waiter, live entertainment before the show, ushers who will request to be notified if anyone disrupts the experience, etc.

As awesome as new home technology is, theaters like "Cinetopia" are making the theatrical experience better than ever.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 21, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> A theory that won't ever manifest in reality until home theater screens and speakers are as big as those in movie theaters.



That will only be necessary when your living room is as big (and has the same acoustics) as a movie theater.  It's _not_ that hard (or expensive) to get a theater quality viewing experience off of home equipment.  5.1 digital audio systems are really cheap; less than $150 at the low end, and hi-def projector TVs are only a couple hundred bucks too.  With that, you can already have proportionally a *better* viewing/sound experience than most theaters.  Plus, it's at home.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> As HDTV continues to bring the theater home, movie theaters are responding to the challenge by bringing the living room to the theater.  All over the country high class theaters are opening with leather reclining seats and automans, gourmet food that is brought to your seat by a waiter, live entertainment before the show, ushers who will request to be notified if anyone disrupts the experience, etc.
> 
> As awesome as new home technology is, theaters like "Cinetopia" are making the theatrical experience better than ever.



That's a great theory, but I've never seen more than a handful of those innovations.  And I live in a very large metropolitan area which would have them if they were really the direction the theater industry were going.  Frankly, I really doubt it; theater ticket sales are way down, and what you're talking about is not cheap.  Where's the revenue supposed to come from that funds these extra costs?  Where's the profit in it?  Not to mention the fact that do those things really outweigh the convenience of watching movies at home?  Who cares about "catered" theaters with ushers and waiters and live entertainment when you can just order a pizza, throw some popcorn in the microwave, lay on the couch and watch movies at home in your underwear with the same visual/sound quality (if not better), spend tons less money (especially if you subscribe to Netflix, or the Blockbuster equivalent, or whatever), pause it whenever you need to take a leak or get a drink, etc.?  I mean, where's your data that these changes are going to really be widely adopted?  Or if they are that it will make any difference?  'Coz I can point out that I've never seen a theater that does what you claim; the closest we've got are the Emagine theaters where you can get cardboard pizzas in addition to popcorn and nachos, and there's a bar--otherwise, the theatrical experience is strictly conventional.  And, ticket sales are down 7% from this same point last year--and last year was a doom and gloom year for the industry too.

I mean, I _like_ the theater experience.  My wife and I literally get flack from our friends because we see so many movies in theaters, but that's what we do.  I'm a fan of the theatrical experience.  But even I'm bearish on the theatrical industry.  I think it's got to radically restructure what it does and shrink if it wants to survive at all; I expect we'll move to a more blockbuster direct-to-video approach at some point, and theaters will cater to niche markets in the future.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 21, 2005)

The revenue from DVDs has been increasing while the revenue from theaters has gone down, even though ticket prices have gone up.  This really seems to indicate that the age of the home theater is on its way, or has arrived.  I don't think releasing DVDs at theaters  on opening day will help much, as major retailers will complain and many people will still wait to pick it up cheaper somewhere else.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 21, 2005)

I think the specialty theaters that Kia Lord talks about will survive when the traditional theater becomes totally obsolete.  But they will just serve a niche customer while the vast majority buy the DVD, or the download once that is feasable.  How much more is a ticket to one of these theaters?  I would guess they can't hold as many people due to having couches vs stadium seating, so are tickets going to cost a lot more so the theater can make a buck?  Gourmet food is probably going to be pricy considering they will hit you for 3.50 for a crappy hotdog.  

In any event watching a movie on a 50"-60" Widescreen HDTV with surround sound totally beats going to the theater in cost and enjoyment IME.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 21, 2005)

I seem to have soap boxes and this is one I have noted for some time, big screen is just going to be an ad/marketing tool for DVD sales BUT there is something new, ON DEMAND movies and I can see on-demand movie release at the same time as the big screen then a DVD release soon after (six weeks or less) just as a hard copy of the movie you just viewed, sort of hey do you want it burned...yes or no.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 21, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> How much more is a ticket to one of these theaters?



Cinetopia is $9.50.  There's one in Vancouver, WA, one planned for Seattle and another in Portland, Oregon.  There was a news special in August about how state of the art theaters like Cinetopia are spreading throughout the country to respond to the need for a more comfortable and enjoyable theatrical experience.



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I would guess they can't hold as many people due to having couches vs stadium seating, so are tickets going to cost a lot more so the theater can make a buck?  Gourmet food is probably going to be pricy considering they will hit you for 3.50 for a crappy hotdog.



Cinetopias do have stadium seating, much more dramatic than "standard" stadium in fact.  The people's heads in front of you don't even come up to your knees.  The auditoriums do hold less seats, but we're talking a row or two less than many current auditoriums (to make way for the extra legroom.)



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> In any event watching a movie on a 50"-60" Widescreen HDTV with surround sound totally beats going to the theater in cost and enjoyment IME.



I'll take 50-60 feet over 50-60 inches any day of the week.  And your sound won't hold a candle to state of the art auditorium systems.  I don't care if you've spent 50 grand.

Time will tell, but the comforts of the living room are heading into mainstream auditoriums.  I'm not talking about obscure theater pubs, I'm talking 50 foot screens with HD and film projectors for first run movies.  People like seeing movies on the big screen, they like the "event" of a theatrical community experience (when it isn't ruined by other theater goers of course) and they don't typically mind paying more.

I like that ticket prices are going up.  Helps keep the riff raff out.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 21, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Cinetopia is $9.50.  There's one in Vancouver, WA, one planned for Seattle and another in Portland, Oregon.  There was a news special in August about how state of the art theaters like Cinetopia are spreading throughout the country to respond to the need for a more comfortable and enjoyable theatrical experience.
> 
> 
> Cinetopias do have stadium seating, much more dramatic than "standard" stadium in fact.  The people's heads in front of you don't even come up to your knees.  The auditoriums do hold less seats, but we're talking a row or two less than many current auditoriums (to make way for the extra legroom.)
> ...




The comforts of my living room include .50 cent sodas and a beer that only cost me .80 cents or so.  Making my own popcorn and stuff.  Along with pause when I have to hit the john and no one talking or stinking next to me. 

For me the day when top flight movies go straight to DVD or download will be a great day.  Sure a huge screen is cool, but I was watching Revenge Of the Sith on a 65" DLP TV and it was freaking awesome in its own right.  Sound...I'm not an audiophile enough to tell the difference between a high quality home system and the movie system.  Actually I've been in several theaters where you could hear the speakers crackling and distorting under the massive volume they have put the movie on, which is usually way to high.  The laying on my couch with a beer from a six pack I paid 5.50 for instead of buying a beer at 7.00 is way more appealing than the largest screens.  Sure there will always be movie buffs who want to "theater experience" but I find that most people I know, especially those with kids, are way more into DVD's and big screen TV's.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 21, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I like that ticket prices are going up.  Helps keep the riff raff out.



That's the reason I stopped going to the discount theaters, as I seldom got a chance to pay attention to the movie rather than the audience.  That said, cost is a big reason why theaters are likely to go from mainstream to a niche market item.  It will probably lead to better, but far fewer movie theaters with more people watching movies at home.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 21, 2005)

Mark this day, folks. I agree with Kai Lord.



We've got plenty of those style of cinemas up here in the Great White North -- with all sorts of food options, big comfy reclining seats where you're NEVER blocked by someone else's head.

And I'm sorry but 60 inches in no way equals 60 feet, thank you very much.

Watching movies in your living room is a fine thing, and believe you me, I do plenty of that. It's great to be able to pause, to sit around in your pyjamas, to eat whatever you want, all that.

But the theatrical experience is fundamentally different. You DON'T have that control, and that makes it feel different. You surrender to the glow of the big screen, and you let the story envelope you thereby. And also, you SHARE the experience. You're there with a couple hundred other souls, all gasping, cheering or weeping together. You can't get that in your living room.

Now if you don't like any of that then sure, theatres offer not much (60 feet aside). But I do.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 21, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Mark this day, folks. I agree with Kai Lord.



Yeah, sure, you agreed with him that that's cool.  So do I.  But you didn't say anything about whether or not moving to that business model can actually save the theater industry.

I tend to think not.  Sure, there's a market for that, but it'll be a small, niche market compared to theaters now.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 21, 2005)

Well, I see new theatres like this opening all the time. I think they're making money.

I agree that we'll see less theatres in the future. And we'll see more and more releases not bothering with a theatrical play and going straight to home distribution (whether that's disks or v.o.d. or what).

So I guess it depends on how you define "save". Or possibly "the theatre industry". Or "actually".

Actually.


----------



## Rykion (Dec 21, 2005)

I don't think anyone was saying that they thought movie theaters would go away completely, just they would be fewer and less important to the movie industry's bottom line.  Kind of like the decline of videogame arcades compared to the rise of gaming on PCs/consoles.  Arcades are still around, they just aren't as common and most have attached themselves to other businesses such as pizza parlors.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 22, 2005)

finally saw this yesterday (along with Narnia)... I give it an 8.... it is a good movie, but it had it's flaws... pacing was wierd; several action scenes had weird slowmo segments.... 
One thing I've noticed is that PJ has a real "More is better" fixation... the first Kong had him fight a T-Rex, so PJ has him fight three of them... the first Kong had him fight a Pteranodon, so PJ has him fight a whole slew of giant bats... the first Kong smushed one of the airplanes sent against him, so PJ has him take down three of them... etc... you can see some of the same thing in the LOTR trilogy... the rather brief cave troll scene in the book is a whole drawn out fight in the movie.. etc...


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2005)

Interesting commentary on your blog about Kong, there barsoomcore.  Of course, I disagree with much of it, so I had to reply in the comments section.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And I'm sorry but 60 inches in no way equals 60 feet, thank you very much.




Is 60 inches seen from 10 feet away really substantially different than 60 feet from 120 feet away?


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 22, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> finally saw this yesterday (along with Narnia)... I give it an 8.... it is a good movie, but it had it's flaws... pacing was wierd; several action scenes had weird slowmo segments....
> One thing I've noticed is that PJ has a real "More is better" fixation... the first Kong had him fight a T-Rex, so PJ has him fight three of them... the first Kong had him fight a Pteranodon, so PJ has him fight a whole slew of giant bats... the first Kong smushed one of the airplanes sent against him, so PJ has him take down three of them... etc... you can see some of the same thing in the LOTR trilogy... the rather brief cave troll scene in the book is a whole drawn out fight in the movie.. etc...



 Well... in the LotR books, I would argue that there is not *enough* action (the last battle in Fellowship is what... 3 pages?) and that doesn't translate to screen.  You can only highlight so much camping, setting up camp, and eating before your movie gets incredibly, incredibly boring.  But - I suppose - that's a topic for a thread entitled "Reasons I Did Not Enjoy the LotR Series in Print." Hehehehe.


----------



## Sushi (Dec 22, 2005)

I just see the ratching up of the "action" as the result of the increased jadeness of the public. It takes more and more to impress a person today than it took in the 1930's. So thats why you need 3 T-Rexs when one was enough in the original movie. Movies today almost demand more excitement, more action, more special effects or people will call it slow or boring. It is sad really.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Mark this day, folks. I agree with Kai Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you, the problem is that we are a demograghic, as we age we fall out of the group Hollywood has 'windowed' as the market, we move into another market 'window' and get targeted by someone else.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Is 60 inches seen from 10 feet away really substantially different than 60 feet from 120 feet away?



Yep.

It's the witnessing of people and events being portrayed as much, much bigger than you that defines a good portion of the theatrical experience.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> It's the witnessing of people and events being portrayed as much, much bigger than you that defines a good portion of the theatrical experience.




But if you are far enough away that they look just like they would look on your screen at home, how is the experience substantially any different?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2005)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> Well... in the LotR books, I would argue that there is not *enough* action (the last battle in Fellowship is what... 3 pages?) and that doesn't translate to screen.  You can only highlight so much camping, setting up camp, and eating before your movie gets incredibly, incredibly boring.  But - I suppose - that's a topic for a thread entitled "Reasons I Did Not Enjoy the LotR Series in Print." Hehehehe.




I, on the other hand, found that it made the actual action much more noteworthy. Books in which every third page has an action sequence get dull - nothing is exciting when everything tries to be. Contrasting everyday experience with excitement keeps the exciting material actually exciting. Virtually everyone remembers the key action sequences of LotR in print, even though they only take up  handful of pages of the narrative.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's the witnessing of people and events being portrayed as much, much bigger than you that defines a good portion of the theatrical experience.



I don't know if that's true for most people.  My wife and I are definately fans of the theatrical experience, but that aspect of it is not a part of why we are.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Virtually everyone remembers the key action sequences of LotR in print, even though they only take up  handful of pages of the narrative.



Actually, a very significant portion of the audience finds LotR in print to be too slowly paced for their tastes.  I know (in real life, as opposed to here online at a D&D website where we skew the other way heavily) more people who have attempted to read Fellowship and quit because it was too boring for them than I do people who are actually big fans of the books.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Actually, a very significant portion of the audience finds LotR in print to be too slowly paced for their tastes.  I know (in real life, as opposed to here online at a D&D website where we skew the other way heavily) more people who have attempted to read Fellowship and quit because it was too boring for them than I do people who are actually big fans of the books.




Even among people who have only made it partway through the books, the scenes that stick in their memory are the handful of action sequences. I have found that most people who make it to the chase sequence where Frodo is pursued by the ringwraiths to Rivendell tend to stick through the rest of the books, and they always remember the key moments thereafter.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 22, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And your sound won't hold a candle to state of the art auditorium systems.  I don't care if you've spent 50 grand.




I beg to differ.

I'll happily put my mid-range HT system up against the best you'll find in a theater...and the 50K home systems are so superior sonically to what the theaters offer it's laughable.

The reality is that a good home theater set up easily rivals the movie going experience...and the best home theaters blow it away.



> I like that ticket prices are going up.  Helps keep the riff raff out.




Unfortunately the "riff-raff" comprises the majority of the ticket buying audience.
_
Mass market_ business models that stress exclucivity over value tend to fail....horribly.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Even among people who have only made it partway through the books, the scenes that stick in their memory are the handful of action sequences. I have found that most people who make it to the chase sequence where Frodo is pursued by the ringwraiths to Rivendell tend to stick through the rest of the books, and they always remember the key moments thereafter.



That's probably quite true.

However, it's completely beside the point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's probably quite true.
> 
> However, it's completely beside the point.




My point was that the rarity of the action in the written LotR makes it memorable. I'm not seeing where that is being contradicted.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> My point was that the rarity of the action in the written LotR makes it memorable. I'm not seeing where that is being contradicted.



I wasn't contradicting it.  In fact, I agree with it.  However, your point is irrelevent to the post you were responding to, though.  Yes, the action is more memorable, but that's because it's so seldom that many people are turned off by the slowness of the book.  The *original* point was that Jackson wasn't necessarily making a bad move when he upped the action for the movies.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 23, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Mark this day, folks. I agree with Kai Lord.



Heh.


----------



## Harmon (Dec 23, 2005)

History of Skull Island page 190 has the worms, I was flipping through the book in the book store the other day, very interesting, and really cool art work, but I don't have the money to blow on stuff like that.


----------



## David Howery (Dec 23, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The *original* point was that Jackson wasn't necessarily making a bad move when he upped the action for the movies.



I wasn't saying it necessarily made the movies worse by upping the action.  In fact, the action sequences were utterly memorable, and the trilogy quickly took the place of "My Favorite Movies".... I just noticed that PJ has a 'more is better' viewpoint, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  I did think that the long drawn out battle of Kong vs. 3 T-Rexes was a bit too long and too much.... that whole sequence of everyone hanging on vines down in the canyon was pretty silly, IMO.


----------



## S. Baldrick (Dec 23, 2005)

I gave it a 9.  It didn't quite have the magic of LOTRs, but it was still an excellent film.  Also, it had something that LOTRs didn't have....Naomi Watts!  That is enough for me.


----------

