# Jackson's King Kong: 3 Hours.



## KenM (Oct 28, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20051027/en_movies_eo/17663


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 28, 2005)

Which means, a GREAT King Kong  adventure....  


			
				KenM said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20051027/en_movies_eo/17663


----------



## Cevalic (Oct 28, 2005)

Anyone other than Peter Jackson and I probably wouldn't be excited for this, especially being three hours long.  But since he's in charge, and putting his money on the line, I will definately be there on opening day.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 28, 2005)

3 Hours? I hope Godzilla has a cameo at least...


----------



## Taelorn76 (Oct 28, 2005)

If theaters offer a Kong sized soda & Popcorn they better but a pee break in there.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 28, 2005)

_Kong! KONG! *KONG!*_

The Auld Grump, who _might_ be looking forward to this...


----------



## KenM (Oct 28, 2005)

Kong is 3 Hours, Narina is  2 Hours and 50 minutes. Good month for long movies.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 28, 2005)

May I add, that there will be a buttocks strengthen excerise classes for the rest of the month. Followed by a self-impowering meditation bladder yoga discussion on how to; when to hold and when to go,  discussion.  



			
				KenM said:
			
		

> Kong is 3 Hours, Narina is  2 Hours and 50 minutes. Good month for long movies.


----------



## KenM (Oct 28, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 3 Hours? I hope Godzilla has a cameo at least...




 I read a rumor awhile back that a bunch of the LOTR stars have cameos.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Oct 28, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Which means, a GREAT King Kong  adventure....



My sentiment exactly. 

The 70s remake clocks in at just about 2 hours - without a single dinosaur in it.
What this boils down to is: 1 hour of pure King Kong vs dinosaurs fun


----------



## ddvmor (Oct 28, 2005)

I notice it's over-budget.  Sounds like Jackson and the Studio execs are falling over each other to cover the extra costs!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4384458.stm


----------



## Henry (Oct 28, 2005)

Interesting proposition - this looks like this could be Jackson's Empire Strikes Back - or his Howard the Duck. 

If it's a hit with Joe Movie-goer, then he's retaining his "Golden Boy" title. On the other hand, it could be a bad move to make it this long in the theater, and not just offer up about thirty minutes on DVD.

Either way, I'm on it like Kong on the Empire State, this, and Narnia too.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Oct 28, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Interesting proposition - this looks like this could be Jackson's Empire Strikes Back - or his Howard the Duck.




Sometimes its hard to tell what's studio hype and what's genuine excitement.  It really sounds like everyone with a job at stake really thinks they've got magic waiting to happen with this one.


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 29, 2005)

3 hours?!?!!!

That's it. I'm wearing Depends before I see the movie.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 29, 2005)

I like long movies. In fact, I love long movies. And Peter Jackson is the kind of person who really works best with long movies, it seems.

And besides, its King Kong!! This December's going to be great!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 29, 2005)

I'll sit this one out 'til DVD.  Much as I like PJ's work, it's a two-time remake, and I've never been that keen on KK anyway.  Sort of like Titanic -- the ship sinks, what's the point?


----------



## bloodydrake (Oct 29, 2005)

well this is a remake of the original and it looks to be a fantastic.  I personally can't wait. A good old fashion monster movie creepy jungle crazy natives..lots of fun!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 29, 2005)

Wow, only he could make a 3 hour King Kong and it be a good thing.


----------



## ssampier (Oct 30, 2005)

The trailer looks nice, so it may be one of the few movies I see in the theater.



			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> May I add, that there will be a buttocks strengthen excerise classes for the rest of the month. Followed by a self-impowering meditation bladder yoga discussion on how to; when to hold and when to go,  discussion.




I'll need it. During the Return of the King midnight premiere, I had to pee twice. The theater lets us in at 11 so we didn't get too cold. During that one hour, I ingested way too much soda.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 31, 2005)

When I started checking out this thread I was just interested in info about the movie, but now I just want to know how come so many of you have bladder issues


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Oct 31, 2005)

Is this remake going to take place in the 30's?  Kong, to me, is best set in the past (yes I know the original movie was technically set in the present when it was made but Kong should be smashing his way though 1930's New York).


----------



## Captain Tagon (Oct 31, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Is this remake going to take place in the 30's?  Kong, to me, is best set in the past (yes I know the original movie was technically set in the present when it was made but Kong should be smashing his way though 1930's New York).




Yes, it is.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 31, 2005)

The fictional east coast does not get any breaks in the 20's & 30's.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 31, 2005)

They don't exactly have high-tech equipment in the trailer. Should be a hint about the time the movie is set into. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ranger REG (Oct 31, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I like long movies. In fact, I love long movies.



That would explain your personalized bedpan you're carrying.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 1, 2005)

Yet one more reason Theaters frown on outside refreshments,

-large mouthed bottles


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 2, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Yet one more reason Theaters frown on outside refreshments,



Let's see. A $3 12-ounce soda vs. $1.89 2-liter Pepsi from 7-Eleven. Assuming you have superior bladder control, which would you prefer?

Why can't they just bring back intermissions? Their should be a federal policy that any movie that runs for over 2 hours must have at least one 15-minute intermission period.

At my age, I only like long movies on DVDs. Nowadays, I can only desire to have the bladder control of a 12-year-old.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 3, 2005)

I prefer big coats & rick's hard lemonade bottles over two liters .

Chilled bottles of Avalanche can work too.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 5, 2005)

Anyone catch the final trailer?  Apparently posted yesterday:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 5, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Anyone catch the final trailer?  Apparently posted yesterday:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/



 Sweet!

Oh, and by the way, I like your new icon, Eric.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 6, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I've never been that keen on KK anyway.



It's weird.

It LOOKS like English, and it parses like English...

but it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

NOT THAT KEEN ON KING KONG!!!???

Okay, okay, everyone's different, there's room for--

*NOT THAT KEEN ON KING KONG!!!???*

Sorry, sorry, I'm trying to understand, I really am, I just--

*NOT THAT KEEN ON KING KONG!!!???*

It's beyond my comprehension. There isn't some OTHER _King Kong_ floating around out there, is there? My imagination is staggered. Overwhelmed. Reeling. One hundred minutes of stop-motion dino/gorilla goodness, AND Fay Wray in a see-through dress splashing around in the water? For the love of all that's holy, what more does anyone want out of life? Even Conan would change his mind.

"Conan! What is best in life!?"

"To crush your enemies, see them-- actually, you know what? Watching Kong battle the T-Rex is best in life. I've got the DVD right here, we can watch it tonight."

"That is good."

The day I get tired of watching _King Kong_ is the day I get tired of life itself.

And for once, a new movie that I'm excited about (as I am about PJ's _Kong_) won't bother me in the slightest if it sucks. If it's crap, I can just go home and watch the original. And that is best in life.



PS: Sorry, Olgar, not meaning to dump on your tastes. Just blown away.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 6, 2005)

And after all that, I just watched the new trailer.

Holy crap.

Holy frickin' crap.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 6, 2005)

Oh I'm not all that keen on Kong either.  To me this looks no more entertaining than Jurassic Park (which I liked but don't own and don't have a need to see more than a couple of times in my life).  But I like Jack Black. Tenacious D 4-Evar!!!


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 6, 2005)

Any alternate links for the new trailer? I get this odd "file has a bad atom" message from the official site stuff.

Funny jurassic park gets brought up, there are a few dinos/ prehistoric critters in the toy line, all have evolved from back in their own day and if they are in the movie, there will be quite the menagerie on that Isle. 

The toys come with little victim people for scale:spoiler below


Spoiler



3 different bugs the size of SUVS
hairess bats with limo long wing spans
Bus sized, stubby snouted crocodile
T-rex decendants, adults being Kong size
giant eel/fish


I like Mcfarlane's "_Man eating haunter of the pits"_ over the way the kong toys look. His foes are cool, but the figs for KK himself do not thrill me.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 6, 2005)

For those who didn't already, I HIGHLY recommend the High Definition version of the trailer. Takes a while to download, but it's well worth it.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

System Requirements for HD trailer viewing On Quicktime. Veiwing selection Menu, for seeing Kong Trailer.

*swings away*



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> For those who didn't already, I HIGHLY recommend the High Definition version of the trailer. Takes a while to download, but it's well worth it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Oh I'm not all that keen on Kong either.



I give up. Everybody's out of step but ME!


----------



## Greatwyrm (Nov 7, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And after all that, I just watched the new trailer.
> 
> Holy crap.
> 
> Holy frickin' crap.




To quote Master Shake, "Holy crap on a pita!"

I wasn't reall anxious about a King Kong movie either, despite being a big Godzilla fan.  Now I'm blocking out time to go see it.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 20, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> ...
> Why can't they just bring back intermissions? Their should be a federal policy that any movie that runs for over 2 hours must have at least one 15-minute intermission period.
> ....




I do this all the time at home, I'll pause the movie, raid the fridge. Later, I'll pause the movie, get a drink, use the restroom. I'm sure if I didn't watch most DVDs solo, I'd drive everyone else nuts.

The intermission makes sense, especially with 1/5 of Americans as smokers; they must absolutely die of cravings within that three hour time-span.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 20, 2005)

Last movie I heard of with an intermission (I'm sure there have been others since) was Gettysburg. But that clocked in at about 4 hours.


----------



## Zappo (Nov 20, 2005)

I'll watch this on the big screen, but only if there's nothing more appealing around. It's Peter Jackson and that's good, but it's also King Kong. It doesn't interest me much.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Nov 20, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I give up. Everybody's out of step but ME!



I might be out of step with the world, but for once I'm with you. Kong is King, and rightfully so.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Last movie I heard of with an intermission (I'm sure there have been others since) was Gettysburg. But that clocked in at about 4 hours.



Around here it depends not only on the length of the movie, but on the theater too.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Any alternate links for the new trailer? I get this odd "file has a bad atom" message from the official site stuff.



You might need to update Quicktime.



			
				ssampier said:
			
		

> The intermission makes sense, especially with 1/5 of Americans as smokers; they must absolutely die of cravings within that three hour time-span.



The day I can't sit through a 2 or 3 hour movie without a cigarette is the day I stop smoking.
And, for the record: usually I usually drink a bottle of beer while watching a movie at the cinema, or two if it's a long movie (>2h). Even at the age of 31 I can still control my bladder


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 21, 2005)

I'll be hitting a matinee, most likely.  It looks potentially neat, but I don't really care about King Kong that much.

At least he probably won't be dodging guided missiles, like the craptastic Godzilla remake did.

Brad


----------



## Crothian (Nov 21, 2005)

Actually I think we need more 3 hours movies.  Many movies are just too short.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 21, 2005)

WOW! That trailer was just... awsome! Can't wait for King Kong. (I've never seen the original.)

KF72


----------



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

King Kong was only mildly interesting when he was in Japanese flicks fighting Mecha-Kong or Godzilla.  I'll pass on this one.   How many remakes of a giant monkey movie do we need?  This is worse than making another crappy late 1970's TV show into a movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 21, 2005)

avrop asdpovja dsr;lt p4t9[u sdflm a[psdfgi ghksl opetwu hltj dx;lfn wer[otu

(barsoomcore resorts to beating his head on his keyboard to express his frustration with the world)

How do you not LOVE LOVE LOVE _King Kong_? How is it possible? I don't get it. The 1933 _King Kong_ is flat-out the greatest film of all time. It just friggin IS. It has dinosaurs! Native dancing! Biplanes! Beautiful women! Sarcastic sailors! Gunfire! Civic disobedience! It's romantic and violent and thrilling and real and gripping and full of pathos and power and imagination and humour and

ITS THE BEST FILM EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

(pantpantpantpantpantpantpantpant)

Okay, sorry. Under control again. All I'm going to say is that if you're basing your opinion of Kong on Japanese monster movies or other crappy pop-culture crapity crap crap crap, PLEASE. You owe it to yourself to watch the original movie -- it is honestly one of cinema's greatest triumphs. I honestly can't imagine how you could NOT love this picture.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a weirdo. But I just wanted to plead for Kong -- if you watched it and didn't like it, I guess there's nothing more to be said. But he's gotten the Frankenstein treatment over the years -- so much pop culture ripoff action that the original's brilliance has nearly been eclipsed. Don't confuse the crap that rides on the coat-tails with the real Fred Astaire.

_King Kong_ is a GREAT film. Even the AFI agrees. You wouldn't disagree with the AFI, now would you?


----------



## Broccli_Head (Nov 21, 2005)

I am so looking forward to PJ's _King Kong_. Never liked the 70s version. Liked the original alot and the comic books based on it. Saw the trailer last night at HP:GoF on the big screen. Amazing!


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 21, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I'll watch this on the big screen, but only if there's nothing more appealing around. It's Peter Jackson and that's good, but it's also King Kong.



Trust me, there's not.  

I'm actually not that huge of a PJ fan; the only reason the LotR movies were so good was because the source material was so good, and there was a concentrated effort to not deviate too much from them.  Whenever they did deviate, the movies tended to get substantially weaker.

I was all, "why remake King Kong, especially Peter Jackson?" for a long time, but those trailers: Holy Crap on a Pita is right.  Now it's the movie I'm most excited about this year.

And the Special Edition release of the 1933 version on DVD is tomorrow!  w00t!


----------



## Broccli_Head (Nov 21, 2005)

sorry double post.


----------



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

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> avrop asdpovja dsr;lt p4t9[u sdflm a[psdfgi ghksl opetwu hltj dx;lfn wer[otu
> 
> (barsoomcore resorts to beating his head on his keyboard to express his frustration with the world)
> 
> ...




Seen the original several times.  It didn't get better with repeat viewings.  I still can't understand why it's being remade AGAIN.  What wasn't put across in the two prior versions?  I really hope it bombs so talented filmmakers stop wasting thier time remaking old stuff and start making new stuff.*

*Of course I know that no matter how bad this movie may or may not do it will not change Hollywood's "play it safe" mentality.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 21, 2005)

Kong! Kong! Kong! Can't ... wait. Three hours sounds perfect to me; most epic or event movies need to be about that long anyway.

The King is back, bay-be.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 21, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Seen the original several times.  It didn't get better with repeat viewings.  I still can't understand why it's being remade AGAIN.  What wasn't put across in the two prior versions?  I really hope it bombs so talented filmmakers stop wasting thier time remaking old stuff and start making new stuff.



Yep, like Van Helsing, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or The Chronicles of Riddick.


----------



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

That is a hat trick of crappy movies man. 

*throws hat*


----------



## Henry (Nov 21, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> How do you not LOVE LOVE LOVE _King Kong_? How is it possible? I don't get it. The 1933 _King Kong_ is flat-out the greatest film of all time. It just friggin IS. It has dinosaurs! Native dancing! Biplanes! Beautiful women! Sarcastic sailors! Gunfire! Civic disobedience! It's romantic and violent and thrilling and real and gripping and full of pathos and power and imagination and humour and
> 
> ITS THE BEST FILM EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!




God, my *Serenity* flashbacks are _astounding_! 

It's always neat to see someone with passsion about a movie.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 21, 2005)

*barsoomcore* -- for what it's worth, Roger Ebert (partially) agree with you:

_On good days I consider "Citizen Kane" the seminal film of the sound era, but on bad days it is "King Kong."_

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020203/REVIEWS08/202030301/1023

As for me, I'll eventually see Peter Jackson's take on Kong, but only because I'm a geek and, y'know, I'm obligated to do so. I have no inherent excitement for the movie. (And yes, I've seen the original. *shrug*)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 21, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> As for me, I'll eventually see Peter Jackson's take on Kong, but only because I'm a geek and, y'know, I'm obligated to do so. I have no inherent excitement for the movie. (And yes, I've seen the original. *shrug*)



Huh?  How is King Kong a geek movie?  The original is a true classic of cinema; one of the most influential movies ever made (as Roger Ebert alludes in this review there.)  It had huge mass audience appeal.  King Kong is a fixture in pop culture; even folks who have never seen a King Kong movie of any stripe know the basics; he's a giant ape that abducts women and fights planes on the top of the Empire State Building.

I'm pretty excited to see the movie, but not at all because I think it has any geek cred.  But I admit to being a huge fan of the original.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 21, 2005)

I don't think it's Kong specifically that has geek cred - it's Jackson. There's now a geekly obligation to see his movies. But for those who are somehow unfamiliar with the original's classic status, it's easy to see how it could have geek cred. A giant ape fights dinosaurs and rampages through New York City. In a world where all fantasy is viewed as outside of the mainstream, that's plenty geeky.

But yes, I've been thrilled about this movie ever since I heard that it was in preproduction (the original is one of my favorite movies ever, and I trust Jackson with the task of remaking it), and I've been getting steadily more thrilled ever since. And I've been easily converting people from the "oh, who cares?" to the "must see it _now_" camp very easily. I just show them the trailer 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Nov 21, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Of course I know that no matter how bad this movie may or may not do it will not change Hollywood's "play it safe" mentality.




King Kong was PJ's pet project (literally  ), so it wasn't like some studio decided to do a remake.
A studio hiring a director to do a remake (or a TV show or book adaption, or a sequel...) is "play it safe". This case is slightly different - and IIRC the studios weren't too keen on the idea prior to LotR.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Nov 22, 2005)

Yup, I just heard that Peter Jackson did LotR as basically a step on the path to making King Kong.


----------



## Dimwhit (Nov 22, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Yup, I just heard that Peter Jackson did LotR as basically a step on the path to making King Kong.



 It's amazing the leverage a director can get after making a multi-billion dollar trilogy.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 22, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The day I can't sit through a 2 or 3 hour movie without a cigarette is the day I stop smoking.
> And, for the record: usually I usually drink a bottle of beer while watching a movie at the cinema, or two if it's a long movie (>2h). Even at the age of 31 I can still control my bladder




Fair enough. I was merely thinking about the people I used to room with. They would step outside for a cigarette every 20 or 30 minutes (less at night).


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 22, 2005)

Just as an aside and a bump: the 1933 King Kong: Special Edition DVD is released _*today*_.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 22, 2005)

Yes. Yes, it is. Today is KK Day in our house. I have been told not to come home without a copy.

I love my wife.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 22, 2005)

Nice.  Tomorrow will have to be KK day at my house.  We've entered the time of year where we can't buy much because it might be a Christmas present.  I've got it coming from Netflix, to be bought later.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 22, 2005)

The original Kong is a classic.  I like the effects better in it than in the 70's remake.  The new one looks like it has a lot of potential.

King Kong does have the unfortunate distinction of being Adolf Hitler's favorite movie. :\


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Nov 23, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> King Kong does have the unfortunate distinction of being Adolf Hitler's favorite movie. :\




Where did you hear that? Can you give a source?


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 23, 2005)

Well, Adolf and I have something in common. Go figure.

The DVD is nicely high-quality. It was great seeing all the familiar scenes in lovely sharp detail. And the audio is great -- you can hear the shouting crew members individually.

And wow, Fay Wray's quite clearly not wearing a bra for most of the film. I never noticed that before. Hm.

Very ballsy of Jackson to champion this release two weeks before his own version comes out. I would not want to be one of the animators working on the Kong/T-Rex battle -- man, what an act to follow!


----------



## Rykion (Nov 23, 2005)

Flyspeck23 said:
			
		

> Where did you hear that? Can you give a source?




It was mentioned by one of my professor's in an upper level University history class.  You will find it mentioned in the trivia section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Kong_(1933_film)) , and other places on the net.  It might be debatable if it was his very favorite movie, but it definitely was a movie he loved.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 23, 2005)

Another comment (and one that actually relates to the thread title): I'm not sure that 3 hours of Kong is ipso facto a good idea. The original is only 100 minutes, and its brevity is definitely a big part of its brilliance. It's a tight, tight film that never gives you a second to catch your breath (or say to yourself, "Hey, a giant monkey? WTF?"). It's utterly lacking in story fat.

Now Jackson has put together at least one truly brilliant long action film (_The Fellowship of the Ring_), but you COULD accuse the successive LotR films of being too long. And nobody's going to call _The Frighteners_ a marvel of tight plotting.

I'm not saying there's such a thing as too much monster-on-monster action. I'm all for it, and I'll eat it all up greedily. But there's potential for mis-step here, if the thing turns out to be under-plotted.

We shall see...


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 23, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> King Kong does have the unfortunate distinction of being Adolf Hitler's favorite movie. :\



Meh. He was also an advocate of animal rights. Doesn't mean we should condemn PETa.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 24, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Meh. He was also an advocate of animal rights. Doesn't mean we should condemn PETa.



PETA has PLENTY of other reasons to be condemned


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 24, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> PETA has PLENTY of other reasons to be condemned



Well, that's true.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 24, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> We shall see...



Hey, all I'm asking is for the movie theater to re-instate the 15-minute intermission period.

Otherwise, I'm peeing in the cup.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 24, 2005)

Try a zip lock bag.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Try a zip lock bag.



Too dark to close them.   

And I don't trust them One-Zip.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 28, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Try a zip lock bag.




You must make a lot less noise in the restroom than I do. Sometimes I feel like I'm going to burst my O-Ring. :\


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 28, 2005)

I got to see a behind the scenes look at Kong today while waiting for Harry Potter to start. With Peter Jackson directing this it is going to be unreal. The dinos look absolutely awesome. I am really looking forward to seeing this.


----------



## KenM (Nov 28, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> PETA has PLENTY of other reasons to be condemned




  PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> The dinos look absolutely awesome.



Yeah, they seem to.  Although they don't actually look like dinos--they look like crocodilians in dinosaur halloween suits.  Or maybe the other way around.

Although I'm sure most people who aren't insane dinosaur nuts wouldn't notice.  Not that that isn't really cool, it's just not very dinosaurian.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 28, 2005)

I read (in an article in Wired magazine) that Jackson deliberately chose a more "retro" look for the dinosaurs -- in other words, he wanted them to look more like the dinos in the original King Kong, and less like what we currently believe dinos actually looked like.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

Huh.  Really?  That's pretty cool.  As much as I love the modern conception of dinosaurs, I do kinda miss the days when we talked about Brontosaurus and Trachadon sitting in the swamps sometimes.  The retro, nostalgic feeling, of course.  Now we have to talk about Apatasaurus and Edmontosaurus cruising through forests, and some of the mystique gets lost.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 28, 2005)

Supposedly, the production design team was inspired by Dougal Dixon's concepts of dinosaurs continuing to evolve past the Cretaceous. So the dinos in King Kong purposefully aren't actually the dinosaurs of the Mezosoic era, although they are analogous to them. The T-rex that Kong fights, for example, is actually a "V-rex" (Vastatosaurus rex), and very purposefully has more crocodilian skin (for that retro look), three fingers, and a shorter skull.

And at least one of the "dinosaurs" in the movie (Foetodon) actually is an evolved land-crocodile. 

Demiurge out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Supposedly, the production design team was inspired by Dougal Dixon's concepts of dinosaurs continuing to evolve past the Cretaceous. So the dinos in King Kong purposefully aren't actually the dinosaurs of the Mezosoic era, although they are analogous to them. The T-rex that Kong fights, for example, is actually a "V-rex" (Vastatosaurus rex), and very purposefully has more crocodilian skin (for that retro look), three fingers, and a shorter skull.



Yeah, I noticed that from the toys, which are starting to pop up all over the place.  Although the video game demo still calls that the T-rex scene where Kong fights one for Darrow.  I didn't know about that crocodile retro look being purposefully a retro thing, but I did certainly notice that the dinosaurs were extremely crocodilian in appearance.  It's not just he crocodile skin that the dinosaur is wearing, it's also the way the teeth are set in the jaws, the lack of lips (dinosaur skulls showed muscle attachment sites that indicate they did have lips, while crocodiles do not) and a few other things.


			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> And at least one of the "dinosaurs" in the movie (Foetodon) actually is an evolved land-crocodile.



Yeah, I saw the toy for that and knew that it was no dinosaur, although I thought maybe they intended it to be a "thecodont" or something like that.  A terrestrial crocodile, though--there's some basis for that.  There've been a handful of terrestrial true crocodiles in the past.  Cool.  Is there an online article anywhere that discusses these dinosaur design decisions anywhere?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 28, 2005)

I haven't seen any online articles - my source has been "The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island". It's a coffee table-esque book about Skull Island and its fauna, based on all the production art made for the movie. I love that book.

Looking through it, there does seem to be some differences in opinion for the production design. The designer of the V. rex, for example, gave it crocodilian teeth and no lips, so that's what it has in the movie. The Venatosaurs' designer, on the other hand (a Venatosaurus is a giant dromeosaur), gave his dinos lips and socket teeth (although some illustrations by different artists have more crocodilian teeth). So how they are in the movie, we'll have to wait and see.

But really, I'm not watching King Kong to see super-accurate renditions of dinosaurs. I'm looking for very cool renditions of dinosaurs, and how they fight with oversized gorillas. Sure, scientific accuracy would be _nice_, but as long as the movie's entertaining, I can live without it.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

Oh, I'm not either, I'm just too much of a dinosaur nut to not notice.  

I'll go check out that book; presumably its on sale now?


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 28, 2005)

Yeah. I found it at Borders about a week ago.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

Just flipped through it at Borders a few minutes ago myself (I have one a few minutes from my office, luckily.)

Awesome, _awesome_ book.  Beautiful, intriguing.  Right up my alley.  I'll definately be picking up a copy, and soon.

If you like that kind of stuff, you might want to check out Greg Bear's novel _Dinosaur Summer_ too--it's kinda the same premise; what if there was an area where dinosaurs survived and had 65 million more years of evolution than we actually saw.  Here, though, the premise of the novel was the Professor Challenger's expedition to _The Lost World_ of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle fame was real, and the novel takes place several decades later.  It has cameos of a lot of folks who went on in the real world to become famous monster movie guys, like O'Brien, Harryhausen, etc.  Just for fun.  Plus, the books illustrated by Tony DiTerlizzi.


----------



## farscapesg1 (Nov 28, 2005)

Personally, in my opinion the longer the movie, the better.  That way I get more "bang for my buck".  Of course, if the movie isn't any good, then it isn't such a good thing.  What whas the name of the latest civil-war based movie that was 2 1/2 - 3 hours?  I think i was about to fall asleep in that one.

Of course, now that the wife is 5 months pregnant, she doesn't share my desire for long movies     Before that, we both felt that if a movie didn't hit 2 hours, it was a waste of money to see it at the theater instead of just waiting for it to come out on DVD.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 28, 2005)

farscapesg1 said:
			
		

> Of course, now that the wife is 5 months pregnant, she doesn't share my desire for long movies



Women are so weird.


----------



## demiurge1138 (Nov 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If you like that kind of stuff, you might want to check out Greg Bear's novel _Dinosaur Summer_ too--it's kinda the same premise; what if there was an area where dinosaurs survived and had 65 million more years of evolution than we actually saw.  Here, though, the premise of the novel was the Professor Challenger's expedition to _The Lost World_ of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle fame was real, and the novel takes place several decades later.  It has cameos of a lot of folks who went on in the real world to become famous monster movie guys, like O'Brien, Harryhausen, etc.  Just for fun.  Plus, the books illustrated by Tony DiTerlizzi.



Ooh. You had me at Greg Bear, then pushed it to the top of my list with DiTerlizzi. I'm going to have to track this one down.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2005)

demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Ooh. You had me at Greg Bear, then pushed it to the top of my list with DiTerlizzi. I'm going to have to track this one down.



It's pretty good.  I bought it in hardcover for a few bucks at HalfPrice Books several years ago.  It's got four or five full color plates (plus a full color cover) and quite a few ink drawings by DiTerlizzi.  Turns out the man can draw a mean dinosaur.

And the story itself is pretty intriguing, and certainly unique.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 29, 2005)

Two new books for me! Hurrah!


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2005)

DiTerlizzi, might be "The Man" for stuff like Planescape and Faery stuff, but for dinosaurs, I think Ron Spencer could make them look more alive.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2005)

I was surprised; I wouldn't have thought he'd be a good dinosaur illustrator.  Turns out he is, though.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 29, 2005)

I was thinking this last night: in today's culture, why would someone take away King Kong, instead of the various dinosaurs that inhabit the island?

You would make so much more money with the dinosaurs. King Kong is basically just a monkey. A big monkey. But a monkey.  Dinosaurs are far more exciting, both as part of a cultural phenomenon (though it's cooled down a bit since the Jurassic Park/Billy & the Cloneasaurus days) and scientifically.

But when the original was made, apes were in style.  I've never really understood why, but apes were in a lot of things back then.  Tarzan, Conan, the villains in a lot of horror movies. So it made sense then.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2005)

The new movie takes place in the 30s, like the original movie, though.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Women are so weird.



Men can suffer from say an overactive bladder.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 30, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Men can suffer from say an overactive bladder.



I can sit through movies like crazy--I have a gigantic bladder.  In fact, I'm always getting porn producers calling me to star in their golden shower movies.


----------



## KenM (Nov 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I can sit through movies like crazy--I have a gigantic bladder.  In fact, I'm always getting porn producers calling me to star in their golden shower movies.




  Thanks for sharing, that was a little bit more info then we needed to know.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> In fact, I'm always getting porn producers calling me to star in their golden shower movies.



 

Way too much info than I really care for.


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Nov 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I can sit through movies like crazy--I have a gigantic bladder.  In fact, I'm always getting porn producers calling me to star in their golden shower movies.




So you're famous for...

Ah well, let's stop that.


----------



## reapersaurus (Dec 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *NOT THAT KEEN ON KING KONG!!!???*
> 
> It's beyond my comprehension. There isn't some OTHER _King Kong_ floating around out there, is there? My imagination is staggered. Overwhelmed. Reeling. One hundred minutes of stop-motion dino/gorilla goodness, AND Fay Wray in a see-through dress splashing around in the water? For the love of all that's holy, what more does anyone want out of life?



I just wanna quote this, cause it's such a good read.

Agree with ya' unequivocably, barsoom.  :beerchug:


----------



## Flyspeck23 (Dec 5, 2005)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Agree with ya' unequivocably, barsoom.  :beerchug:




You don't have to agree with scientific facts. They're true anyway.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 7, 2005)

I'm so excited about this, I created a song:

Kongadelica

Everyone feeling a Coldcut retro vibe, yes, that's right.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 7, 2005)

Not that I've been actively looking but I spotted a King Kong review:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051207...eFxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 7, 2005)

That's kind of amusing:



> _...the writers retain the Depression-era setting while turning the voyage to Skull Island into a movie-making expedition._



Uh, the voyage to Skull Island was a movie-making expedition in the first place. Jackson hardly "turned" it into one.

Sigh.

Reviewers who don't do their homework drive me nutty.


----------



## Henry (Dec 7, 2005)

Totally side-track: Is it my imagination, or has Peter Jackson lost some SERIOUS weight this past year? I just saw his pictures in the King Kong Premier gallery on Yahoo, and he looks like he may have dropped 50 to 100 lbs! Good for him, but bad if he's doing it through sleep deprivation and tight deadlines.


----------



## EricNoah (Dec 7, 2005)

Yep he lost a lot of weight and it was planned.  I think I read it in Time or Newsweek; something about being "tired of being unhealthy."


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 7, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Yep he lost a lot of weight and it was planned.  I think I read it in Time or Newsweek; something about being "tired of being unhealthy."



He's not shaping up to do another film trilogy, is he?

Nah, he's just doing it for himself and for his children.


----------

