King Kong Remake [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

HBox

06-27-2005, 10:10 PM

<a href="http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=kingkong" target="_blank">Here's the trailer.</a>I
really REALLY don't like it. For one, it seems like Jack Black isn't in
a comedic role. Two, King Kong looks too small. Third, what the fuck is
with the dinosaurs, is this Jurassic Park or something? Fourth, and
most importantly, CGI. I am getting so sick of it's overuse. We live in
a beautiful world, can directors please find suitable environments
instead of creating them all in a computer? I fear a Hulk-type King
Kong, special effects-wise. I have a suspicion that the relatively
small budget for films the scale of LOTR actually helped Peter Jackson.
Now that studios will give him whatever he wants, I fear he will go the
George Lucas route.Or maybe I'm just taking too much from a trailer. <a href="http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=kingkong" target="_blank"></a>

http://img118.echo.cx/img118/1900/sig6nj.jpg

Alice S. Fuzzybutt

06-27-2005, 11:10 PM

I heard it was good. But then again, I'm getting my movie news from <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/">http://www.aintitcool.com/</a>

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/alicesig.jpg>

"We sound just like Cheap Trick only the guitars are louder,"
- Kurt Cobain

"I prefer to listen to Cheap Trick."
-Homer Simpson

JesterOfSadness

06-28-2005, 04:31 AM

I could be wrong but didnt King Kong fight a T-Rex in the old film?

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/Jesterofsadness/crowsig2.jpg">
No Longer Is the Sadness Apart of Me

Doctor Manhattan

06-28-2005, 04:57 AM

quote: Two, King Kong looks too small.  <img height="272" src="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/kong.jpg" width="480" border="0" />He's throwing that car to his left. So he's about 25 feet tall. How big is Kong supposed to be?Oh, Andy Serkis plays King Kong. I'm guessing they used the same technique of motion capture to animate Andy's movments onto the Ape. It worked in LOTR.quote: Fourth, and most importantly, CGI. I am getting so sick of it's overuse. We live in a beautiful world, can directors please find suitable environments instead of creating them all in a computer? Is Peter using the same people he used for Lord of the Rings (WETA Digital I think they were called) The CGI in LOTR was good, except for a few of the digital replacements of real people, like that "Legolas sliding down the Elephant's trunk" shot. The Digital creatures looked good, best of all, of course, was Golem.There is no excuse for them not to be able to create a good giant ape.<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/"></a><a href="http://www.unleadedjokes.com/soundboards/cruise.swf" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.unleadedjokes.com/soundboards/cruise.swf" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border="0" /></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 6-28-05 @ 9:24 AM

LongIslandRob

06-28-2005, 05:09 AM

Does Jack Black have to be in a comedic role for every film?  Are you waiting for the sequel to Shallow Hal?  I thought the trailer looked awesome!  In the original KK Skull Island was inhabited by all types of creatures and KK wasn't as big as he was in the 70's remake.  oh yeah, and it's a movie about a giant F'ing ape. Just sit back and enjoy it and stop truing to compare it to a factual event.

Trust me, it won't hurt.

Justice4all

06-28-2005, 05:10 AM

quote: <a href="http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=kingkong" target="_blank">Here's the trailer.</a>I really REALLY don't like it. For one, it seems like Jack Black isn't in a comedic role. Two, King Kong looks too small. Third, what the fuck is with the dinosaurs, is this Jurassic Park or something? Fourth, and most importantly, CGI. I am getting so sick of it's overuse. We live in a beautiful world, can directors please find suitable environments instead of creating them all in a computer? I fear a Hulk-type King Kong, special effects-wise. I have a suspicion that the relatively small budget for films the scale of LOTR actually helped Peter Jackson. Now that studios will give him whatever he wants, I fear he will go the George Lucas route. Or maybe I'm just taking too much from a trailer.  <a href="http://www.movie-list.com/trailers.php?id=kingkong" target="_blank"></a> Peter Jackson is remaking the Original. You might be comparing this one to the 1977 version (or whenever it was made). I think it might be pretty good. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/j4a3_sig.gif" border="0" /> "Did you catch all of that in your mouth??" "You betcha!!!!!" "That's disgusting" "Shut up and keep sucking!"

This message was edited by Justice4all on 6-28-05 @ 9:10 AM

newport king

06-28-2005, 05:30 AM

looks ok, the island looks pretty cool. i hope the show naomi watts's 3 inch nipples.

<img src="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/newportking.jpg">

Doctor Manhattan

06-28-2005, 05:47 AM

<img src="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/andy2.jpg" border="0" /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0785227/" target="_blank">Andy Serkis</a> also plays a cook in the film.

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

Tall_James

06-28-2005, 05:48 AM

i hope the show naomi watts's 3 inch nipples. Intrigued by this comment I searched out pictures of these nipples.  Finding them on Google images I can only observe the following:It looks like someone stacked 2 pencil erasers on top of one another and glued them to her aereola.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=tall_james"> 

The Cheese-Eating Bird (http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com)

newport king

06-28-2005, 05:50 AM

TJ watch 21 grams.

<img src="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/newportking.jpg">

torker

06-28-2005, 06:31 AM

Things don't look promising.  Is this a remake of King Kong or Ed?<img height="180" src="http://www.thespiannet.com/actors/L/leblanc_matt/e.jpg" width="245" border="0" />

[center]<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnettorker1313.jpg>[center]
[center]He had performed his mistakes in the dark, so he was still a man.
[center]

booster11373

06-28-2005, 07:26 AM

So on an island teeming with dinosaurs they decide to bring back a monkey

When i first arrived you were all such jerks

But now i've come to love your quirks

curtoid

06-28-2005, 08:23 AM

quote: I could be wrong but didnt King Kong fight a T-Rex in the old film?  You are right.

Doctor Manhattan

06-28-2005, 08:31 AM

So on an island teeming with dinosaurs they decide to bring back a monkeyWell this movie is set in 1933. Dinosaurs didn't become extinct until the mid 1940's <a href="http://www.xmradio.com/"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border="0" /></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 6-28-05 @ 12:31 PM

HBox

06-28-2005, 08:32 AM

I know King Kong fought a T-Rex in the original,
but there were so many dinosaurs in this trailer it looked more like
Jurassic Park.
Is
Peter using the same people he used for Lord of the Rings (WETA Digital
I think they were called) The CGI in LOTR was good, except for a few of
the digital replacements of real people, like that "Legolas sliding
down the Elephant's trunk" shot. The Digital creatures looked good,
best of all, of course, was Golem.
There is no excuse for them not to be able to create a good giant ape.
I think he is using the same people. I'm more
concerned with the way they used CGI to create the enviornment. Go back
and watch the trailer and look at the obvious parts that were filmed on
a blue screen.
He's throwing that car to his left. So he's about 25 feet tall. How big is Kong supposed to be?
I always thought he was taller than he looks in that part of the trailer.

Does Jack Black have to be in a comedic role for every film?
Yes. He was awful in the trailer. 

http://img118.echo.cx/img118/1900/sig6nj.jpg

Fallon

06-28-2005, 09:10 AM

quote: quote:i hope the show naomi watts's 3 inch nipples.  Intrigued
by this comment I searched out pictures of these nipples. Finding them
on Google images I can only observe the following:It looks like someone stacked 2 pencil erasers on top of one another and glued them to her aereola.

<a target="blank" href="http://cheeseeatingbird.blogspot.com"> 
</a> <a href="http://img11.echo.cx/img11/333/watts7qw.jpg" target="_blank">True (NSFW)</a>, but she's still hot. 

<center>
<img border=0 src="http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetCruise.jpg"></center>

Doctor Manhattan

07-07-2005, 06:03 AM

<a href="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/peterjacksonnew.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/peterjacksonnewsmall.jpg" border="0" /></a>Click to enlargeJust wanted to show you guys what Peter Jackson looks like now. this picture is from the AFI tribute to George Lucas. I thought it was a joke, like one of the Hobbits from the LOTR movie was goofing on Lucas or something.<img height="280" src="http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00186/Peter_Jackson_186458m.jpg" width="365" border="0" /><img height="400" src="http://www.pipaclub.com.ar/Fotos_Fumadores/Peter%20Jackson.jpg" width="289" border="0" />Good to see him lose some of that weight...

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

SpicyMcHaggis

07-07-2005, 06:25 AM

I'm honestly looking forward to seeing Jack Black in a role other than
a comedic goofball.  Why must everything have to be so friggin
perfect for you people with special effects?  Can't we just accept
the fact that this movie might actually be good because of the
characters and the story and the interaction between them? 

<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnetSpicy.jpg"></center>

WQAQ The Soundtrack of Quinnipiac (http://www.wqaq.com)

Knowledged_one

07-07-2005, 06:38 AM

You know why people complain is that the movies cost more to go see.  I went to see a matinee of War of the Worlds with someone with one drink and a popcorn the toal was close to $25.  The movie is alright but for $25 you expect more.  Why is Hollywood in decline because they pay actors who can't act $20 million and then spend a ton more on CGI.  So the cost of movies have gone up for the sake of betterment in visuals.Expectations rise when the cost of seeing and making movies go up and rarely do they deliver.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/aggie2323/celticssig.jpg">
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be." -- John Wayne

fezident

07-07-2005, 06:53 AM

I have a HUGE gripe with special effects.Why? Because there are so many of them in every movie that, when the FX are lousy, it's completely distracting. Have you seen the previews for that movie STEALTH??  Is there any f'cking reason why those flight scenes have to look WORSE than the ones (20 years ago)in TOP GUN??  Oh yeah, there is a reason...because TOP GUN used real plane photography, clever editing, and amazing sound fx.  STEALTH is a glorified cartoon.  If I wanna play a video game...I'll play one.  But this is a movie and I'm shellin' out some cash.  PLUS...the studios actually MARKET these as fx movies! They actually think these movies look real!!  Every documentary and commentary I've ever heard on every dvd talks about the "wizadry" and how "photoreal" every thing looks.  My ass.  Even Gollum (the greatest CGI ever done) didn't look REAL.  he was cool as hell but, it definitely didn't look like he actually weighed anything.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/tucker71/fezident.jpg

"Jam out with your clam out"

Doctor Manhattan

07-07-2005, 07:12 AM

quote: Even Gollum (the greatest CGI ever done) didn't look REAL.  he was cool as hell but, it definitely didn't look like he actually weighed anything. <img height="196" src="http://www.stobiepiel.com/LOTR/gollum.jpg" width="252" border="0" />"We swears we actually weighed something. We swears on... on... on the precious."

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

HBox

07-07-2005, 04:01 PM

<img width="350" height="193" border="0" src="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/peterjacksonnewsmall.jpg" /> He looks like Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds. 
NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3254/sig7oo.jpg

Doctor Manhattan

12-13-2005, 01:22 PM

Movie's coming out tomorrow and it looks great. The Special Features of this movie is out today (I'm sure some will think the movie is included)<img height="304" src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000BMSUJK.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" width="500" border="0" />What a pair of balls to release the Extras before most have seen the film. But Peter Jackson does great DVD extras so I'm sure it's good.<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border="0" /></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 12-13-05 @ 5:24 PM

HBox

12-13-2005, 01:44 PM

Peter Jackson has officially enter George Lucas territory. All that's left is for him to not direct for a while, produce a few great movies, make his own "Howard the Duck" and then remake the Hobbit in such an awful way as to lose most of his fans. 

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4544/newsig2ki.jpg

jafter

12-13-2005, 01:55 PM

quote:  <img height="193" src="http://s1.imagesubmit.com/peterjacksonnewsmall.jpg" width="350" border="0" /> He looks like Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds. NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<img src="http://www.jiggscasey.com/images/movies/bloodsport-ogre.jpg" border="0" /> Ogre would have had a field day at the opening of LOTR.<img src="http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3254/sig7oo.jpg" border="0" /> 

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/Jafter.jpg>

Mike Teacher

12-13-2005, 03:37 PM

Even Gollum (the greatest CGI ever done) didn't look REAL.  he was cool as hell but, it definitely didn't look like he actually weighed anything. =The state of the art CGI is still in its infancy while the model makers, puppeteers, fake foam body parts makers, and good old film trickery and editing have been plying their trade forever. The Alien Quadrilogy has just hours upon hours of 'making of' for each movie, and in each, with Ridley Scott on the first and James Cameron on the sequel each saying that no matter how good the CGI is, it just doesn't work in too many situations, or, there has been an 'analog' solution to a what might be seen as 'only doable by CGI' type stuff.The Terminator 2, Cameron specifically dwells on how few actual CGI shots are used in that film; what is often thought of as CGI is miniatures, or makeup appliances, and lots of fast cut aways. Look at the editing to he battle sequences of Aliens. It's a grand total of four guys in suits, with strategic editing and puppeted aliens, especially the Queen Mother; total 'analog' a bunch of people weilding around limbs, and it works.It is still apparent to the eye, especially watching a DVD at home; Alien 3 is unwatchable with the CGI alien, Lord of the Rings pays a little loose with CGI backgrounds, or maybe their the good old matte painting, what used to be the standard for the big sweeping backgrounds.It just psychologically takes you out of disbelief. Speilberg shots all the Close Encounters UFOs scenes in 70mm then stepped then down to 35mm because he knew all the degradation from piling mattes and duping frames on frames leads to a deterioration that in movies in the past, people's minds always knew when the efects shots were happening, because the fim quality degraded by a small but significant amount, enough to tell the audeinces brain 'this is not really there, it's an effect'The original King Kong really does hold up well for a movie made in the early 30s using stop-motion models; mostly about 18 inches high, and some ingenious low-tech effects, like exposing one part of the film for the foreground with characters, the running the same film through another camera with the background, and essentially praying it matched up.And the original Kong is one violoent mofo; chewing screaming flailing live people, he finds one chick in an aprtment, realizes its not Fay Wray, and flings her to her death, and fights off a shitload of nasty monsters in water and land, and god damned the Lost Spider sequence is indeed lost. We know audiences were reacting exorcist style in some cases, just totally freaking out at this thing onscreen sttomping the poor tribespeople to death.<img src="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig" border="0" />

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 12-13-05 @ 7:39 PM

newport king

12-13-2005, 10:00 PM

he even looks fake in the poster.<img src="http://starwars-ep2.hp.infoseek.co.jp/king_kong_poster02.jpg" border="0" />

<img src="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/newportking.jpg">

PapaBear

12-13-2005, 11:10 PM

I predict this movie will launch Jessica Lang into super-stardom.<img height="352" src="http://www.strangecelebrities.com/images/content/107631.jpg" width="562" border="0" />

<center><img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/snowmaninva66/ingacopy.jpg"></center>
<center>Hey! Those multi-cultural slave children, belong to the Disney Corporation!</center><center>Get 'em Achmed!</center>

Dirtybird12

12-14-2005, 08:26 AM

I can't decide if the special effects are really good or bad. From the trailers, it looks cheezy sometimes.. sometimes it looks great. Im a fan of King Kong. I'll see it. Even tho I can't stand Jack Black anymore. me like big monkey

<a href="http://www.thecosmiccircus.com/"><img src="http://www.thecosmiccircus.com/sigpics/billy.jpg" border="0"></a>
Perrynoid (http://www.perrynoid.com)

zentraed

12-14-2005, 09:01 AM

i went to a midnight showing and with the exception of the dinosaur stampede, i thought the effects were awesome 

<img src="http://web.newsguy.com/zentraed/ronfez/RonFezSig.jpg">
 Putting numbers to your life

fezident

12-14-2005, 04:49 PM

The FX in this movie are hilariously bad.  A shocking step in the wrong direction.I hate CGI.  All CGI.  But THIS....this was f'cking Land Of The Lost!Any time that ape would hold somebody in his hand, it looked like a high school play.  Horrible. Overall, the movie was a let-down.  It was three movies in one, and the first chapter added NOTHING.  The whole thing with the producers backing out of the movie, and the first actress quitting, and the "search" for the new actress, and tricking Adrian Brody to stay on the boat, and casting off before the cops get to the dock, and......WHAT THE HELL??!  It added nothing.  Take out all that stuff, and you still have a movie.Then there is the Jurassic Park section. Obviously made with the Xbox and Universal Theme Park in mind.  Whatever.  That's what it means to make a blockbuster these days.  Moving on....The final chapter WAS good.  It was complete.  And it was well told.  Horrible FX but, great story telling.  I thought Jack Black was good at being both manic and serious.  People who think he's wrong for this part MIGHT just be having a hard time seperating this role from all his previous work. Yeah, it's out-of-character but,  I give him some props for trying something new.  I haaate when actors just keep playing the same role over and over and over (Robert Dinero and Jack Nicholson....I'm looking in your direction)I'm almost afraid to see any behind-the-scenes stuff about this movie.  Then I'd have to hear about all the "wiazrds" in the effects departments and how "amazingly real" everything looks.  Bullcrap.When a movie is 95% special effects....they really should be special.  <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/tucker71/fezident.jpg" border="0" /> It's made with real bits of Panther so...you KNOW it's good.

This message was edited by fezident on 12-14-05 @ 8:49 PM

mdr55

12-14-2005, 05:08 PM

So did King Kong live?? 

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~bob80/RFnetmdr55.jpg">

Doctor Manhattan

12-14-2005, 08:01 PM

quote: The FX in this movie are hilariously bad.  A shocking step in the wrong direction. I hate CGI.  All CGI.  But THIS....this was f'cking Land Of The Lost!  I thought the CGI was done by WETA Digital, they did a good job on those Lord of the Rings movies. 

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

PapaBear

12-14-2005, 08:04 PM

Did the current Kong finger the girl like the one in the pic I posted above? The more I look at that pic, the hotter it is.

<center><img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/snowmaninva66/ingacopy.jpg"></center>
<center>Hey! Those multi-cultural slave children, belong to the Disney Corporation!</center><center>Get 'em Achmed!</center>

shodan

12-14-2005, 08:22 PM

curtoid

12-15-2005, 02:46 AM

I loved it - the CGI only distracted me MAYBE a hand-full of times, which (in a 3 hour movie where it's almost wall-to-wall CGI) is pretty good. Very, very impressive, imo. The worst part of the movie is Jack Black who (ugh), and Adrian Brody as an action hero...wtf?! 

I'd rather have hope in my soul than soap in my hole...

Doctor Manhattan

12-16-2005, 09:39 AM

<a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1965&p=.htm" target="_blank">Opening Wednesday is weak for Kong</a>Spiderman made $40 million on it's first Wednesday. Kong made $9.8 Million, less than Pokemon's opening Wednesday. Of course Titanic didn't make a lot it's first day either.

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

cougarjake13

12-16-2005, 01:10 PM

quote: Did the current Kong finger the girl like the one in the pic I posted above? The more I look at that pic, the hotter it is. how did kong fit it in there???if he did then she must be in incredible pain and there was probably a ton of blood

East Side Dave

12-16-2005, 03:29 PM

I heard Peter Jackson of Lord And The Rings fame directed this motion picture.......any truth to the rumor? <img src="http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif" border="0" /> Hear me saturday nights Midnight to 6 and miscellaneous days- 95.9 The RAT; <a href="http://journals.aol.com/didvod/DaveysJournalTime/">blog</a>

This message was edited by East Side Dave on 12-16-05 @ 7:30 PM

Doctor Manhattan

12-17-2005, 04:57 AM

quote: I heard Peter Jackson of Lord And The Rings fame directed this motion picture.......any truth to the rumor? The Rumors are true. Also the same screenplay writers: Jackson, Fran Walsh (Jackson's Wife) and Philippa Boyes (Jackson's Mistress?) Andy Serkis (Gollum) plays Kong and a lot of the same SFX crew (WETA)

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

Dirtybird12

12-17-2005, 06:04 AM

take in to account that movies that open in the winter don't do as well as summer releases

<a href="http://www.thecosmiccircus.com/"><img src="http://www.thecosmiccircus.com/sigpics/billy.jpg" border="0"></a>
Perrynoid (http://www.perrynoid.com)
Crack, junkies, guns, sluts 'n' cocaine.
Men killing men feeling no pain.
You've all gone insane,
The world is a gutter!

Yerdaddy

12-17-2005, 06:09 AM

quote: I heard Peter Jackson of Lord And The Rings fame directed this motion picture.......any truth to the rumor? <img src="http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif" border="0" /> Hear me saturday nights Midnight to 6 and miscellaneous days- 95.9 The RAT; <a href="http://journals.aol.com/didvod/DaveysJournalTime/">blog</a>This message was edited by East Side Dave on 12-16-05 @ 7:30 PM The working title for the film was Turd of the Flings. 

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">

Fuck it from behind.

Doctor Manhattan

12-17-2005, 06:56 AM

quote: take in to account that movies that open in the winter don't do as well as summer releases Titanic came out December 14th 1997, exactly 8 years before Kong.

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

Doogie

12-17-2005, 07:17 AM

Kong fought a t rex in the other film. There was also a Pteranadon, a stegasaurus (it charged the party in the beginning of the film, and Kong fought a snakelike monster towards the end of the skull island sequence. There was also a Brontosaurus (apatosaur) that flipped their boat. Not to mention the huge iguanas climbiong out of the ravine. I am not worried about the dinoasaurs in this one it matches the original.I happened to be watching the original King Kong (1933) version on DVD today and to me, the dinosaur sequences show me how people just did not understand the roles of dinosaurs. Or they simply played on peoples fears as to what dinosaurs were as savage monsters that would have of attacked man at the first heartbeat. The apatosaurus has rigid sharp T-Rex style teeth in the scene where the guy is smacking at it from the tree. What annoys me about that scene is, the guy is being chased by a creature with a long neck. Why would you climb a tree to get away from it?? All in all, I agree with Mike the Teachers arguments that the movie still stands the test of time as the shots are great where the actors walk by the scene into a thicket of bushes and out comes a clay person, but only cause they couldn't do dinosaur shots the way that they do it today. It still is great considering that not too many movies were as advanced as kong was in 1933. All in all. It is a movie about a giant fucking ape. Enjoy it.

<IMG SRC=http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/doogie.jpg>

pennington

12-17-2005, 07:53 AM

quote: So did King Kong live?? Yes.  He and Naomi Watts are now living together in a loft in a "transitional" neighborhood.

cougarjake13

12-18-2005, 07:37 AM

i didnt want to start a new thread for this but since its about remakes i figured here would be a good place to post with the lack of original movies put out by hollywood and the massive amounts of remakes being madewhy havent they ever done a remake of the wizard of oz???i dount count the michael jackson version The Wiz as a remake but with all the technogical advances since the original they could make it look a hundred times better, i.e. backgrounds, emerald city as they are approaching from the fields, etc.but who would you cast as dorothy??? my vote would be scarlett johannson

Doctor Manhattan

12-18-2005, 07:56 AM

quote: why havent they ever done a remake of the wizard of oz??? i dount count the michael jackson version The Wiz as a remake but with all the technogical advances since the original they could make it look a hundred times better, i.e. backgrounds, emerald city as they are approaching from the fields, etc.  Why doesn't it count? Because it was a "black movie"? Richard Pryor was the Fucking Wiz and it's not good enough for you?!You're gettin' this:<img src="http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6135/animain1ae.jpg" border="0" />And they did a sequel "Return to Oz" with this chick as Dorothy:<img src="http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8130/4530kd.jpg" border="0" /><img src="http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4092/balk5qp.jpg" border="0" />Now/Then <a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border="0" /></a>

This message was edited by SKW on 12-18-05 @ 11:59 AM

fezident

12-18-2005, 08:06 AM

How quickly they forget....<a href="http://abc.go.com/primetime/muppetsoz/">http://abc.go.com/primetime/muppetsoz/</a>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/tucker71/fezident.jpg

It's made with real bits of Panther so...you KNOW it's good.

Doctor Manhattan

12-18-2005, 10:12 AM

quote: How quickly they forget.... <a href="http://abc.go.com/primetime/muppetsoz/">http://abc.go.com/primetime/muppetsoz/</a>  There's a black woman in it. Doesn't count. 

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>

cougarjake13

12-18-2005, 11:31 AM

quote:  Why doesn't it count? Because it was a "black movie"? Richard Pryor was the Fucking Wiz and it's not good enough for you?!i wasnt counting it because it wasn't a remake to me it was more of a total reworking, most remakes are somewhat similar to the original but that is just my opinion, it has nothing to do with it being black. btw- i liked the wiz  And they did a sequel "Return to Oz" with this chick as Dorothy:<img src="http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8130/4530kd.jpg" border="0" /><img src="http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4092/balk5qp.jpg" border="0" />  finally some one else remembers this movie, i have argued with friends for years who dont believe me that they made a sequel, but that was a sequel and i was asking about a remake somewhat true to the original, which has yet to be done

East Side Dave

12-18-2005, 01:54 PM

saw the movie. stop. didn't care for it that much. stop. why i'm posting this like a 1920's telegram i don't know. stop.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Hear me saturday nights
Midnight to 6 and miscellaneous days- 95.9 The RAT; <a href="http://journals.aol.com/didvod/DaveysJournalTime/">blog</a>[/color][/i]

Doctor Manhattan

12-18-2005, 04:38 PM

quote: i wasnt counting it because it wasn't a remake to me it was more of a total reworking, most remakes are somewhat similar to the original but that is just my opinion, it has nothing to do with it being black. btw- i liked the wiz   finally some one else remembers this movie, i have argued with friends for years who dont believe me that they made a sequel, but that was a sequel and i was asking about a remake somewhat true to the original, which has yet to be done Well, Why does it need to be done? The original seems to stand up pretty well. If remaking it with a different twist doesn't do it for you, why not just enjoy the original. I don't think that is a movie that newer special effects are going to add much to and no one likes musicals anymore... 

<a href="http://www.xmradio.com/programming/channel_page.jsp?ch=202" target="_blank"><img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=skw" border=0></a>