Here's the first King Kong trailer. Looks awesome! I like how it's set in the same time period as the original one and even has a T-Rex and other dinosaurs in it. Even giant bugs! This is the best looking Kong (both film and character) ever!

If this movie's been listed elsewhere then someone please tell me where.

Mark, buddy, you sound like a seven year-old. :-)

Not bad. But I would've kept Kong hidden until that very last scene.

Well, Snick, I do have the heart of a seven year old--and I keep it in a jar full of formaldehyde on my desk!

Has Peter Jackson lost a lot of weight? They showed the trailer on TV yesterday with a brief interview with Peter Jackson. It sounded just like him but he had no glasses and looked to have lost about 50 kilos. I still not sure if it was someone just doing an impression he looked so different.

Also, just occured to me, why is it called a trailer when it precedes the film?

Also, just occured to me, why is it called a trailer when it precedes the film?--Art Vandelay
Hey, that's brilliant! Never thought of that one myself. Don't really have an answer for you, though. (Is the etymology board kerriem had a long time ago still active?)

My dad for one will like the remake, since he's a huge fan of the classic original. For that matter, so am I. We were both disappointed by the one made in the 1970's. (Having seen the 1970's one again just a couple years ago, I must admit that it holds up a lot better than I ever thought it would have.)

Trailers were originally shown at the end of the feature, rather than before. And yeah, I noticed that Jacksons looked thinner.

I'm one of the few people I know who actually likes the 1970's version. Although it's difficult to watch today because of the WTC angle.

Both Universal and Dino De Laurentiis were mounting competing remakes of King Kong back in 1976. Universal's was to be a period piece, set in the 1930's, while De Laurentiis' was set in modern day. Lawsuits abounded, and they were settled by Universal postponing theirs. (Quite a long postponement, IMHO.) Universal also settled for a percentage of the profits from De Laurentiis, which is probably the reason why his version (which cost $24 million 1976 dollars) was not deemed a success.

Is the '76 version even shown since 9/11?

Is the '76 version even shown since 9/11?

How often was it shown BEFORE 9/11? Not very much, as I recall.

Is the '76 version even shown since 9/11? --Adam Bomb
Yes. When I mentioned having seen it a couple of years ago, it was post-2001. I remember seeing it on tv and noting that in the film, the WTC towers were essentially brand new, and that now, they are only a memory.

I caught a glimpse of it when channel surfing in the last six months or so. It wasn't just a hype bit for the new movie, it was the entire film.

I imagine if George Lucas had done this one (and re-done it), he would have erased the Two Towers and replaced them with something CGI.

I imagine if George Lucas had done this one (and re-done it), he would have erased the Two Towers and replaced them with something CGI.

Well, if Spielberg had done and re-done it, he would have replaced them with a pair of giant walkie-talkies.

I've seen Peter Jackson on TV lately. One thing he's done with his King Kong remake that he wasn't able to do in the year he was filming The Lord Of The Rings trilogy is lose a lot of weight. IMHO, he looks a heck of a lot thinner now.

Yeah, he looks like one of the guys who played either Merry or Pippin, IMO.

Peter Jackson has lost 70 pounds. And, his glasses, too. Will someone please buy that poor soul a comb?
The New York Daily News and Post critics each gave this film four stars.

Jackson now looks like Dominic Monaghan, doesn't he?

Anyway, I saw it today and really liked it. There were some painfully obvious green screen effects but overall the movie was pretty good.

Nit-That-May-Not-Be-A-Nit

Did anyone notice in the New York scenes that the L-train supports were painted in such a way to look like K's? The white paint were backwards K's and the darker ones were forward K's. Whether that was by accident or purpose I dunno. It's just something that I noticed in the early part of the film and later towards the end when Kong goes on his rampage in the city.

It's a bit early to comment on the film, but I did watch the 2 minute trailor for the film that NBC broadcast last night. Peter Jackson has said that he has great affection for the 1933 classic. It appears that his film is a close remake of the original. The trailor shows scenes which are almost shot-for-shot replications of the original. I do question whether we need such a virtual copy of a classic. Of course, the new film is tricked-up with flashy "Lord of the Rings" effects. The new Skull island looks as if it's straight out of one of the Lord of the Rings movies. More bizarrely, the natives are obviously white. Is this an attempt to appeal to today's political correctness?

Silly Rona! I just created another thread for this film earlier today! You were about 17 hours too late.

And yes, the reason why Skull Island looks similar to Middle Earth is very simple: it's because it was also filmed in the exact same place, as this article says:

The postcard-perfect landscapes of Jackson's homeland that once stood in for Middle-earth are now doubling as the forbidding Skull Island...

The white natives are probably to be PC. If they use people of any other race as primitive natives the stufio will risk protest and accusations of racism and stereotyping.

I do question whether we need such a virtual copy of a classic...

Remember Gus Van Sant's shot by shot, angle by angle remake of Psycho? Some people probably don't want to.

This film does play into an argument often heard this summer. Why is there such dearth of originality in this years films? This year is worse than previous years in that regard. Not only the excessive number of remakes but the poor quality of them. We didn't need another Honeymooners, Bewitched, and on and on.

To be fair, the film does look technically brilliant, but the tyrannosaurous looks as if it's straight out of Jurrassic Park. That's stealing from 1933 and 1993!

This year is worse than previous years in that regard.

I'd need to see some sort of actual stats before I'd that as given.

The Dukes of Hazzard film...need any more proof?

Should the two King Kong(2005) boards be combined?

The Dukes of Hazzard film...need any more proof?

Absolutely I need more proof. I need to see some sort of analasys of exactly how many remakes/"reimaginings" have been made each year, starting at least a few decades back, before I'll concede that more are being made this year than past years.

Hollywood has been making remakes almost as long as they've been making movies. The only reason they didn't start sooner was they needed to have something to remake before they could remake it.

As an example, even something as old and classic as the Judy Garland version of the Wizard of Oz was something like the third of fourth version to be made.

"Cooter" from the original Dukes of Hazzard is urging a boycott of the new Dukes film. He says it is too raunchy. According to him, the 80's series was great family entertainment. Yeah.

Obviously, the boycott didn't work, as the film has brought in $79 million so far.

This week's cover story of Entertainment Weekly is King Kong. Inside, a photo of Naomi Watts confronting a dinosaur in the jungle looks bizarre. The dinosaur looks almost like a giant lizard. Not too promising, considering all the old movies that used lizards as dinosaurs. Maybe, the CGI dino is just poorly designed.

I walked out of this film after two hours.

I’m not sure why, but for some reason, I was not dying to see this film. As much as I loved Jackson’s LOTR trilogy, there was something about the basic concept of this film that didn’t impress me. I’m not sure what it was. Was it that I knew the essential story? Possible, but it’s not like I haven’t gone to see films I ended up enjoying when I knew the basic story. Was there something about the concept I didn’t like? Maybe, but then again, I really enjoyed that remake of Mighty Joe Young from several years ago (even if Joe’s hinted jealousy of Bill Paxton’s relationship with Charlize Theron wasn’t followed up, and the ending with the amusement park security guard collecting money to house Joe was a bit syrupy and corny).

But hey, my preconceptions have been wrong before, and everyone has been saying how good the film is, including Roger Ebert, whose reviews are the only ones I read regularly, and since I had already just seen Munich (good film, btw), I stuck around to see Kong.

Ugh. What an utter mess.

First of all, I don’t see why this film had to be three hours long. Most of what was in the first hour could’ve been condensed down to twenty or thirty. It’s not like the plot was so complicated that it needed that much setup, or that the main characters’ personalities were so nuanced to require more time to be established, or that the “love story” between Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts was really that deep. The first hour was largely a waste.

And things didn’t improve when Kong showed up. For one thing, I didn’t understand him at all. Why did he abscond with Ann? Why would he be so enamored with a tiny human female? And that stampede sequence was utterly ridiculous, the second time in a month that I’ve seen a really badly-made CGI stampede sequence (the first being the one in Master of the Crimson Armor [aka The Promise]). From this sequence, we are apparently supposed to understand several things:

-You can run underneath a herd of stampeding brontosauruses without getting trampled.

-If some smaller, carnivorous dinosaurs join in said stampede, they may begin to attack the brontosauruses, but as soon as they see you, they’ll go straight after you and ignore the much larger, easier-to-bite brontosauruses.

-If a bunch of armed humans see said stampede coming, they will run, and not open fire immediately with their automatic rifles—until much later, when said stampede is almost over.

Hell, the movie didn’t become interesting to me until Ann starting running from those dinosaurs that Kong ended up saving her from, and while that was good as an action sequence, coming at the end of two hours, it wasn’t enough. And the next sequence with the giant insect attack? Pretty frightening, but when the cook started getting swallowed limb by limb by those giant worms, I almost felt nauseated. I didn’t find anything in what I saw to be interesting or innovative, either in terms of plot, etc. Even the characters were unlikable or made no sense. Jack Black, despite what I had heard about him displaying some good dramatic acting chops, did nothing more than come off as an unlikable jerk. And why did that young shipman steal Adrian Brody’s pen, and then have it explained that he “likes it down there”? Why did he break into Kyle Chandler’s quarters to deface his movie posters? What element of his character was this supposed to set up? It had nothing to do with his heroic insistence on joining the search party. For that matter, why did the captain go after the filmmakers, when he told Jack Black’s character that he wouldn’t do so?

Maybe there would be something in the final hour to justify or explain these things, but in order to get me there, you have to engage me for those first two.

This film didn’t.

But hey, if you guys liked it, cool. To each their own.

Well you know what I think about you walking out of movies Luigi. I would suggest you use your staff powers to see the last hour at some stage.

Having said that I found I agreed with a lot of your comments, however I felt the first third of the movie worked extremely well, setting up the characters and story. As soon as Kong was revealed it reeeeeeeeeeeeeally dragged. There was hardly any dialogue for the next hour which DOES make it hard to focus. Once they bring Kong back to New York it does pick up considerably after that. The Empire State Buliding scenes are done really well. The finale is woefully cliche though.
It's not a patch on LotR. I suspect it will sell truckloads of dvds for the Luigi's of the world who will skip the middle hour :D

You walked out? I've seen worse stuff than this, and the scenes atop the Empire State Building are absolutely breathtaking. I have no idea how much work went into creating the incredible views of Manhattan as it looked in the 30s.

Personally, I like every scene in this movie that was set in New York.

And Rodney, the finale is woefully cliche because it's a carbon copy of the original film.

I also hated the film... not only was the Worm-devouring scene (for once, Luigi, I totally agree with you... that was just sadistic) way over the top, the action was unrealistic, and if I saw one more blurry, jerky, fast zoom-in I was going to scream. Worst of all, I found it over-the-top and (attemptedly) emotionaly manipulative... I mean, Kong and Anne find a fozen pond (which doesn't crack!) and begin to spin around, laughing, with slow-mo close-ups? Right after a rampage in which dozens of people have probably been killed? Come on, now... I know we're supposed to feel sorry for the poor giant ape, but that's just ridiculous. I found most of this movie to be very much like your average Hollywood star... pretty to look at, but not much going on inside.

The one shot that did really grab me was Kong's tumble off the Empire State Building- I don't know why, but that stood out for me.

Still, an over-all crummy film with mostly unlikeable characters and just not much going for it except for it's special effects, which, as George Lucas has proved, are simply not all you need to make a good movie.

A worm devouring a man is disturbing, but a woman screaming in agony as her arms and legs are cut off (in Kill Bill) is entertaining? I question double standards. And if one feels so above the material of King Kong, isn't a movie inspired by kung-foo movies even more low-brow.

Well, I never saw Kill Bill, and don't want to, so no double standards are necessary... ;-)

Well, the worm devouring the man was, shall we say, graphic, but not explicit. He wasn't pulled or chewed apart. It basically looked like a man getting swallowed by special effects. The actor had to spend a couple hours with green and/or bluescreen sleeves over his head and arms. In the whole movie, there seemed to be quite a small amount of blood in relation to how many people die.

Rodney: Well you know what I think about you walking out of movies Luigi.
Luigi Novi: You respect might right to do so and to voice my opinion on the portions that I did see, and agree that one should not make value judgments about people based on their taste in movies and their reaction when viewing them? If so, thanks!

Rodney: I would suggest you use your staff powers to see the last hour at some stage.
Luigi Novi: If I were inclined to do so, then why would I have walked out in the first place? A movie theater isn't the place I most like to be on my day off, so when I do go to see movies, they usually end up being movies I really want to see. The chances of my going to see that final hour (in a theater, at least) are less than the chances of Rob Schneider appearing in a Merchant Ivory production.

To each his own.

Neutral Observer: A worm devouring a man is disturbing, but a woman screaming in agony as her arms and legs are cut off (in Kill Bill) is entertaining? I question double standards.
Luigi Novi: I don't recall a woman in Kill Bill getting her arms and legs cut off. I do recall one woman getting one arm cut off, but it did not disturb me for several reasons:

1. It was quick, and not graphic. If the camera stared right into the severed stump of her limb, that might've grossed me out just as much.

2. A giant insect or worm slithering its mouth over a man's head and limbs is just plain disgusting to look at for me. Many people find looking at such vermin to be unpleasant.

3. The fact that the blood spurting out of the various severed limbs and bodies in Kill Bill was so over-the-top ridiculous (to the point of appearing to be intentional comedic) is what made it hard to take those scenes seriously.

4. The woman in question, Sofie, was a murderous villain who took part in the brutal beating and shooting of another woman, who was pregnant at the time, which led to that other woman being put in a coma for four years, having her unborn baby taken from her, and being raped while in said coma. Thus, when that other woman, the main character played by Uma Thurman, later came out of her coma and went after those who attacked her, and cut off Sofie’s arm, my opinion is that Sofie got what was coming to her.

My reactions to the two scenes were not based on gender. If it were, and my reaction to the worm's victim in King Kong were based on the fact that he was male, then logically, that would mean that I should've been just as equally disturbed by all the male deaths in Kill Bill, which formed the vast majority of the deaths in that film. But I wasn't.

Thus, there is no "double standard" on my part.

Neutral Observer: And if one feels so above the material of King Kong, isn't a movie inspired by kung-foo movies even more low-brow.
Luigi Novi: I do not feel "above" the material of King Kong, any more than I feel “above” the material in kung-fu movies, nor do I believe either to be “low-brow,” and I don't recall anyone here stating otherwise. My feeling is that films should not be judged solely by the use of their individual parts, like genre, archetypes, endings, or basic ideas, but by how those elements are executed. Thus, the concepts in those films can executed in an entertaining and admirable manner. You'll notice, for example, that I stated above that I liked the most recent version of Might Joe Young, even though that movie also had a giant ape.

I simply didn't care for this movie's execution of the material. I may have been skeptical of it going in, but I've been happily proven wrong before by movies that turned out to be really good. Unfortunately, that did not happen this time.

and the sarcastic comment of the year goes to.....
Luigi Novi: You respect might right to do so and to voice my opinion on the portions that I did see, and agree that one should not make value judgments about people based on their taste in movies and their reaction when viewing them? If so, thanks!
Firstly, a bit of proofreading would help immensely in making this sentence logical (yours, not mine).
Secondly, that is the second time you have mocked me in regards to my views on you walking out of movies frequently and not paying for them. I really don't appreciate it. I realise you are not likely to change your habits just because I don't think highly of them but there really is no need for that rather immature behaviour.

And our next vote for man of the year comes from Mr. S. Hussein
Anyone else think that "Neutral Observer" bears a striking similarity to a certain Rona/Princess Rona/ P.R.?
The chopping off of Sophie's arms in "Kill Bill" and the death of Andy Serkis via worm thingys, as pointed out by Luigi, are two very different things. It's funny how 99.9% of the entire board can see the difference and only one person has commented otherwise.

I sense anger, frustration and great satisfaction...oh wait...skip that last bit...
If I were inclined to do so, then why would I have walked out in the first place?
Because you had sat through two hours and your brain was numb. Just a thought. And no, I have absolutely no idea exactly WHAT you were thinking, your state of mind or any other facet of your being, just trying to put myself in your situation. That's all. Honest. The reason I suggested it was that I thought if you HAD a free a hour at the end of a shift or something you might want to see how the thing ends when your brain hasn't been numbed by the last two hours. But clearly it ain't gonna happen so why bother saying anything?

Rodney: Firstly, a bit of proofreading would help immensely in making this sentence logical (yours, not mine).
Luigi Novi: Should I assume, therefore, that you never make such mistakes yourself?

Rodney: Secondly, that is the second time you have mocked me in regards to my views on you walking out of movies frequently and not paying for them. I really don't appreciate it. I realise you are not likely to change your habits just because I don't think highly of them but there really is no need for that rather immature behaviour.
Luigi Novi: I don't exhibiting "immature" behavior. What I do recall is making a tongue-in-cheek joke about our past discussion in this area, and given that in the past you've been somewhat less-than-respectful towards me when my opinion of a film differs from yours, and questioning my right to walk out of one I don't like, I think I was rather good-natured about it. Hence, the smiley.

Rodney: Because you had sat through two hours and your brain was numb.
Luigi Novi: See, this is what I'm talking about. Why you come up with these ideas, I don't know. I made it clear that I simply did not like the film, because it was poorly made. I do not recall any indication that I was suffering some problem with my brain. How you can say this, and then in the next sentence say that you had "no idea about any facet of my being," I don't know. Even if I had "free hours", I'm not going to waste it seeing a film that I already heavily disliked.

And again, if you liked the movie, good. To each his own.

Rona (I mean "Neutral observer") Luigi never said he felt that he was above the material or that it was too low-brow. He said that the movie didn't entertain him.

Few people want to sit through a three hour movie at a theater. On the other hand, don't most DVD buyers like it when a film is over three hours?

If they liked the film, yeah. And if they feel that the added material enriches the original film.

Waited a while, but I finally saw the film...

The reviews of the film generally regard the film as excellent, though many complained about the length. I was expecting the first hour to be a real drag. I was surprised. The movie was absorbing and fun throughout. It really went by quickly. Not being a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, I wasn't expecting to like the film. I wouldn't say it was in my top five favorite fantasy films, but it was very enjoyable. In fact, I'm glad all the introductary material was left in the New York beginning. It helped give some depth to the characters. Also, this film helped establish the Depression era background much better than the original. The casting was good too; Adrian Brody and Jack Black definately aren't typically Hollywood handsome and the film is definately better for it.

By this time, I've seen so many CGI creatures, it's hard getting excited. The dinos were good. After three Jurassic Park movies, there was a sort of "seen that before" feeling. The bronto herd seemed to be running a bit too fast to be credible, but who knows how fast they could run!
All the dinos loosing their footing and falling off the cliff was dramatic. Kong and the T-Rexs trapped in the vines seemed a bit over the top.

The worms were one of the most interesting things in the film. The soft pink skin combined with the interesting mandibles was very well done. The sailor being devoured by the worm really wasn't very graphic (the worms had some sort of mandibles, they didn't bite his head off or anything bloody).

Kong was well done. It was a mixed blessing that Jackson couldn't make the film in '96. If Kong had been done CGI a decade ago, it certainly wouldn't have looked as good. Just look at the awful monkeys in Jumanji. If I would have to find a nit: Kong thrashed around Ann violently enough to snap her neck in the jungle. The native tribe also looked less Caucasian than it did in the trailor. For fans of the original Kong's coconut-bra wearing natives, they showed up in the New York Kong show. Some things are too good not to include!

Other nits: New York turned into a ghost town a few times. When Ann first approached Kong on the street (surrounded by a strange halo), most of the people on the street disappeared. One effects sequence was really awful. When Kong went into Central Park . The park filled with trees decked out in holiday lights looked very much like a miniature setting. The trees with lights looked as they belonged in a Rankin Bass animated holiday special.

The scenes on the Empire State Building really were amazing. Quite a marvel to behold. The digitally created Manhatten ranks as just about the most impressive effects I've ever seen.

Luigi Novi: Should I assume, therefore, that you never make such mistakes yourself?
Nope. Never. I always proof read my posts before posting. Ok, I joke, because I know you'd boil up the coffee and find every post I've written over 10 years on NitC to find my (admittedly) many errors. Sleep instead.

Luigi Novi: I don't exhibiting "immature" behavior.
Some would disagree. Vehemently.

Luigi Novi:What I do recall is making a tongue-in-cheek joke about our past discussion in this area, and given that in the past you've been somewhat less-than-respectful towards me when my opinion of a film differs from yours, and questioning my right to walk out of one I don't like, I think I was rather good-natured about it. Hence, the smiley.
It's funny that double-standard you put on the smiley thing. When Brian Webber used to do it you said that putting a smiley at the end of a statement doesn't negate any rude, or perceived rude, comments beforehand (it's in the vast realms of the Fahrenheit 9/11 boards if you want to find it). You have every right to walk out of a film, I simply don't agree with it. You have every right to dislike a film I do like. It's a free world (for the most part). So why do I keep harping on this issue I hear you say? I guess because I feel you are not giving the filmmakers a fair go. Oh hang it all, do what you will. You are unlikely to change. One question though. have you or would you walk out of a film you paid to see?

Luigi Novi: Why you come up with these ideas, I don't know. I made it clear that I simply did not like the film, because it was poorly made. I do not recall any indication that I was suffering some problem with my brain. How you can say this, and then in the next sentence say that you had "no idea about any facet of my being," I don't know.
Did you actually READ what I wrote? I don't think you did. YOu merely skimmed it. Because if you actually READ what I said, I said.... "And no, I have absolutely no idea exactly WHAT you were thinking, your state of mind or any other facet of your being, just trying to put myself in your situation. That's all. Honest." In other words, I KNOW it's not what you were thinking. I KNOW you left because you didn't like the film. Fine. So be it.

Luigi, believe it or not, I have no desire to pick a fight with you or anything. In many ways, I respect you and your opinions. You are clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person who has clear ideas about what you do and don't like in the way of movies. You made some comments, I made some comments in response, you decided to respond again, and after much deliberation I have now responded.

I am sorry to the mods for the O/T stray and will from now on only respond to comments about the film.

I've continued the discussion on walking out of films here.

I've continued other issues here, where I'm hoping they will be peacefully resolved.

Arguably, King Kong has become part of the so-called 'culture wars'.

Last night, during his rant against Hollywood's "gay agenda" (evidenced by the films TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain, and Capote), Bill O'Reilly mentioned that at least King Kong depicted a heterosexual relationship. Dismissing his preference for bestiality to gay relationships, what is the relationship between Kong and Fay? Straight? No. We must look deeper. Kong clearly lacks a male part, so it's apparent that Kong is a female. The film, thus, is an attempt to portray a lesbian relationship in a way that will go over Conservative's heads.

Progressive film theorists have identified the original 1933 Kong as an allegory against racism. White America is seen as killing the "black man" for daring to fall in love with a white woman. Much like the lynchings of the old South, the "black male" is killed by the white mob. The new Kong updates the theme by portraying the Right's latest crusade against gay marriage. Conservative America refuses to accept the relatiopnship of Kong and Fay, so it sends the Air Force to kill Kong. This clearly mirrors G.W. Bush's use of the military to impose his NeoCon views on the world.

In a sense, Kong and Fay can be seen as the equivalent of Rosie O'Donnell and her partner. They were married in San Francisco City Hall, but Conservative America attacked and nullified their marriage. It wasn't "beauty" that killed their love, it was Republicans.

The sad thing is that I can't tell if Neutral Observer's post is serious or tongue-in-cheek.

Neutral Observer: We must look deeper. Kong clearly lacks a male part, so it's apparent that Kong is a female.
Luigi Novi: It's not apparent to me. To me, it's apparent that Peter Jackson may not have wanted an giant anatomically correct gorilla for more obvious reasons.

It is no more apparent to me that King Kong is female than Santa's reindeers are female, as some argue by pointing out that male reindeer shed their antlers by Christmas (apparently ignoring the fact that in real-life, reindeer do not fly).

Neutral Observer: In a sense, Kong and Fay can be seen as the equivalent of Rosie O'Donnell and her partner. They were married in San Francisco City Hall, but Conservative America attacked and nullified their marriage. It wasn't "beauty" that killed their love, it was Republicans.
Luigi Novi: How is this specific to O'Donnell?

yeah Luigi kong's lack of anatomicalness is the same reason the hulk has magic expanding pants and the 50' tall attacking woman can find a dressmaker who works in sizes that big. (although look at attack of the 60' centerfold for some major cheese)


And yeah ScottN I'm not sure which way it spins either.

Apparently, some share O'Reilly's views.

And yet, I suspect relatively few share Observer's views... :-)

The Righteous are always the few. The tyranny of the majority isn't to be admired.

The hostility to the idea of Kong being a lesbian is another expression of women-bashing. The NAZIs put lesbians in concentration camps. Today's Right-wingers want to put them in a place where they are also deprived of their rights (such as the right to marry and adopt children). Those who refuse to embrace diversity would therefore also not embrace Kong's lesbianism.

Who has expressed hostility to the idea of Kong being a lesbian? Me, I simply don't see the lack of genitals on him to be indicative that he is intended as a female. Not accepting someone's interpretation is not the same thing as "hostility," let alone "women-bashing" or a refusal to "embrace diversity."

I've recently seen all three versions of the original "King Kong" story (1933, 1976, and 2005). To me, each was preposterous, but each was also entertaining, as pure spectacle.

Of the three versions, the underrated (in my opinion) 1976 version attempts to make the story the most realistic, although I prefer the 1933 "stop-motion" Kong to the 1976 "guy in a suit" Kong. The 1976 version also has an excellent musical score by John Barry. The 2005 version was probably the most faithful to the original concept, and clearly had the best visual look of the three. I actually like the latter two versions more than I like the original.

Regarding the symbolism of "King Kong", I think most of it is imagined. "King Kong" was based on an original film concept by 1933 version director Merriam C. Cooper. From the documentary on the recently released "King Kong" (1933) DVD, it seems that Cooper was fascinated as a child and adult by adventure/fantasy stories involving fierce African gorillas and other fearsome beasts. Cooper was quite the adventurer himself, being an ace World War I pilot. As an adult filmmaker, Cooper was also inspired to create the story of Kong by what happened with some newly-discovered Komodo dragons which were taken in captivity from their natural habitat to New York (I think), and died. Cooper wanted to make a movie about a big gorilla which was taken from its natural habitat to the city and died because of it. And so he did.

It seems to me that Kong is moving around too fast for a large gorrilla, I think gravity would weigh on him much more. He fights like a martial arts expert, I think gorillas charge and retreat more in a fight. At any rate, he should be as slow as an elephant considering his weight, the atmosphere, and body heat of a mammal that size.

Also, this film helped establish the Depression era background much better than the original. - P.R.

Considering the original film took place during the Depression, there's no reason it should have to establish a "Depression era background". The comtemporary audience understood it was taking place during the Depression because they were living in it.

I really didn't like this movie too well. I was annoyed by it quite a bit. There were too many sequences that lasted too long, slowing down the film's pacing. When Ann showed up to meet Kong in New York, I was tapping my foot with impatience. Jackson was, I felt, a little too self-indulgent in making this one. The Lord of the Rings trilogy were epics that needed to be told in three hour increments. Kong is not so epic and deep that it required 3 hours to tell its story.

I didn't get the relationship with Kong and Ann. In the original, I could understand Kong's fascination with Fay Wray. She was the first white-skinned, golden hair woman he'd seen. In this one, Kong seems to see Naomi Watts as something akin to an amusing pet.

I do like how fluent Kong's movement's were compared to the previous two King Kong films. But then, that's what CGI can do for you. (Unfortunately, a lot of the CGI looked like it was CGI, to me.)

Ann Darrow is certainly tough for a city girl. She can run through the jungle barefoot and walk normally. (Hey, when I take my trash out across the parking lot of my apartment and I step on a pebble out there, it changes my walk. And Ann stepped on twigs, rocks, etc. Heck, she ran across that terrain and never noticed anything.)

And then when Kong was in New York, she stepped out into the cold New York winter wearing that evening gown - without a coat. I'd've been freezing my butt off. But Ann never once noticed the frigid wintry weather. Even when carried to the top of the Empire State Building. (C'mon, if there's snow on the ground, at some point Ann should have been shivering.)

She's also incredibly stupid. Kong's being shot at by the bi-planes and she not does not seek any sort of shelter, but she actually follows Kong - where she'll be in danger of being hit by a stray bullet or two. I'm sorry, but no homocidal ape would be worth risking my life. (At this point, I was actually screaming at the TV for the planes to "Shoot her! Shoot her now!")

"It was beauty that killed the beast."

Oh. and did I mention that I really hated the "ice skating" sequence? That took too long and helped slow down the pace of the film. But then, Jackson did stuff like that a lot in this movie.

I finally saw this movie on DVD. Not bad, but too long. No real feelings about it one way or the other. The original still rules.

I also enjoyed the comments on this board, but one just cracked me up...
Last night, during his rant against Hollywood's "gay agenda" (evidenced by the films TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain, and Capote), Bill O'Reilly mentioned that at least King Kong depicted a heterosexual relationship. Dismissing his preference for bestiality to gay relationships, what is the relationship between Kong and Fay? Straight? No. We must look deeper. Kong clearly lacks a male part, so it's apparent that Kong is a female. The film, thus, is an attempt to portray a lesbian relationship in a way that will go over Conservative's heads.- Neutral Observer

OK, I didn't see O'Reilly make this comment. I'm not an O'Reilly fan and I don't watch the show. But the only thing that went "over the head" here is Neutral's reply to O'Reilly's rant.

Dude, despite your interpretations of bestiality between the girl and Kong, I'm faily sure O'Reilly was referring to the relationship between the girl and the writer. I think he was just pointing out that none of the filmmakers or sailors were depicted as homosexual by Jackson in some PC attempt to grab the interest of homosexual moviegoers.

The girl and Kong. Lesbian-bestiality. Hee hee hee!!

I didn't get the relationship with Kong and Ann. In the original, I could understand Kong's fascination with Fay Wray. She was the first white-skinned, golden hair woman he'd seen. In this one, Kong seems to see Naomi Watts as something akin to an amusing pet.

I think the relationship between "Ann Darrow" ("Dwan" in the 1976 version, and no, "Dwan" is not a type-o) and "Kong" was more understandable in the 2005 version than in the other two versions, especially the 1933 version. In the 1933 version (Fay Wray as "Ann Darrow"), Kong was fascinated by Ann Darrow, but she didn't really do anything in Kong's presence but shriek at him in terror, squirm around, or shoot Kong unconfortable looks. In the 2005 version, Ann Darrow was just as nice to look at as she was in the 1933 version, if not more so. But beyond that, she was able to entertain and amuse Kong, and after a time, she sort of cared for and respected Kong. One could also see in the 2005 version, thanks to the more emotionally expressive digital Kong, a more understandable or realistic depiction of Kong's affection for Ann Darrow in the 2005 version than in the 1933 version or the 1976 version. In the earlier versions Kong seems to leer at Ann Darrow/Dwan a lot more than seems reasonable, given the reality of the situation. However, in the 2005 version, it's clear that Kong does see Ann Darrow as more of a cherished pet (he's a giant ape, after all) than an object of sexual desire.

In the 76 version, they considered making Kong a Neandrathal man instead, to make the 'romance' between Kong and Dwan more 'realistic.'

(I highly recomend the 'History of Kong' book about the making of the many incarnations of Kong- besides shedding light on the less famous sequels, Son of Kong and King Kong Lives, in the 30s and 80s respectively, and the Japanese Toho Kong movies, you can learn about the utterly cursed production that was 'Kong '76!')

"Whatever happened to Fay Wray? That delicate, satin-draped fraaaaame..."

Saw this one over the long weekend on DVD. Great FX but...

I split the viewing over two nights because I wanted to be "fresh" for the New York sequence. I wouldn't mind having a look at that part again (and a few of the other set pieces as well). However... coming in late here and reading the previous comments I have to agree with a lot of them. Too long is my main complaint. At certain points I recalled Harlan Ellison's rant about remakes -- "Why are they doing a remake? They made it right the first time!"

I had the first bad feeling when I saw Kong traipsing through the jungle with Ann in his paw, and she's taking it like one of those amusement parks Scrambler rides. With the amount of flailing around Kong was doing, she wouldn't only have snapped her neck, but most of her extremities, bones and probably her back as well.

There were a couple of shots that made me go "Oh, no" because they looked like John Woo devices. The slow-mo, walking, looking, swish-pan. Having seen Mission:Impossible 2 a second time I realized I really hate John Woo movies.

This had almost as many shots of Ann "looking" as Michelle Pfeiffer had of "walking slowly" in What Lies Beneath. I could read no discernible emotion on her (or Kong's) face but I think I was meant to.

So, why so much time devoted to Billy Elliot anyway? So he was upset when his friend got killed -- for that we needed all that exposition? Perhaps that was meant to set up a sequel where he goes back to Skull Island...

The bronto stampede totally ruined my suspension of disbelief. I could accept the people dodging them for a short time, or if it was established that the dinos "knew" where they were stepping (like horses know where to place their hooves), but this sequence went on forever.

I cringed when Ann began doing her vaudeville act for Kong. I didn't expect to see such a scene as "cute" as Dwan's "What's your sign?" in the 1976 version. When she's juggling, it's obvious that she's just flapping her hands and not performing the correct movements and the rocks were added in CGI (at least to someone who knows how to do it).

When Kong went into Central Park . The park filled with trees decked out in holiday lights looked very much like a miniature setting. The trees with lights looked as they belonged in a Rankin Bass animated holiday special.
That was my thought, too. I half expected to see a Burl Ives snowman somewhere. (and Rankin-Bass did do a version of Return of the King, btw, but I doubt any connection was intended for the director.)

The bug scene was another one that I found unbelieveable. Once I unknowingly bumped a beehive and got stung four times before I knew what was happening. If those bugs were nothing more than a nuisance, the humans would never have lasted so long. Jack wrestles with his forever until Billy Elliot shoots it off him.

The scene where Kong climbs the balcony after Jack as it disintegrates was amazing. (One of many, admittedly. But great visuals can't make up for a poor way of telling the story.)

Jack Black, despite what I had heard about him displaying some good dramatic acting chops, did nothing more than come off as an unlikable jerk.
No great acting chops were on display here, although I didn't think as little of him as you did. To me, it was a generic "Jack Black" performance. It's been said that Black turned down Sahara because he didn't want to spend six months filming in the desert. Well, he must have spent at least six months in New Zealand filming this. Anyone catch his line where he says that "Fay Wray is working on a picture with Merian C. Cooper"?
This pic is on either HBO or Cinemax frequently, alternating between them month by month. The 1976 version pops up on those channels as well.
Naomi Watts buck teeth got on my nerves. And, this pic could have been an hour shorter. The 1976 version included a scene during the voyage back to New York, something this pic, at 187 minutes, still lacked.

This film will make it's "broadcast premiere" on April 11, 2008. TBS and TNT wil run the film simultaneously.
Why do they call it the broadcast premiere? TBS and TNT are still cable channels. As is USA, which also uses the "broadcast premiere" line.

It has history behind it and sounds better than "basic cable premier".

DirecTV's latest ad uses footage from this flick, with Naomi Watts hawking DirecTV atop the Empire State Building while in Kong's hand.

ABC will run the 2005 version of King Kong on 3/5/11, from 8-11 p.m. There will be either a good deal of pruning or speeding up (do they still do that?) to fit this way overlong (187 minute) movie into a three-hour (with commercials) timeslot. This movie can only benefit from any editing.
The HBO/Cinemax channels still run the 1976 version fairly regularly.

NBC will run this film this Saturday, May 28, at 8 p.m. It's probably the same edit that ABC ran back in 2011. (Why not; it's free programming for the network that cancelled Star Trek .) The Showtime channels are running the full 187 minute version several times over the next week. (Maybe this guy will run the film at some point. )