It really does give alot of the movie. I can basically get a full plot, beginning, middle, and end, from it. I have never seen the original, but casting Jack Black in a "serious" role could be a majorly bad idea.
Because it's late, I'll simply list my 2 cents on this new installment of 'King Kong'
1) I don't think it matters too much that the trailer gives away the plot, pretty much everyone knows how the first one (and the one in the 70s) ended.
2) Flick basically looks like 'Mighty Joe Young' meets 'Jurasic Park' - which isn't all bad, that is unless Jackson and partners change the ending to something 'happy' like they did in 'Return of the King'
3) Clocking in at narly 3 hours - Ouch, that's a long time to watch a movie in the theater, and I'm not some quasi-ADD stricken teenager that'll mostly likely get bored in the first 30 minutes.
4) I think Peter Jackson and the New Zealand Board of Tourism have some sort of gentlemen's agreement. (I double checked this) ALL of his films are shot in New Zealand. ALL of them! And after seeing the 'King Kong' trailer, that's the third time Jackson has used that narrow canyon for a scene (remember it in 'Return of the King'? It was also featured in 'Dead Alive' - and probably 'The Frighteners', but I didn't check on that one)
5) I dunno, unless some serious buzz is around this flick, I ain't gonna see of it.
The only trailer I've looked at was the big-screen version they allowed before the showing of "War of the Worlds". That's really all I need to see. I 1st saw the orig. in the late 70's(I was about 10yrsold). The movie was awesome! It was a B&W film on a 25"console TV and it entertained my brain to the point where I could give you a detailed description of the entire story-line still today. I've never seen the 80's version,never wanted to. But I do remember the poster, Kong standing one foot on each of the
TwinTowers(rip). That would be something to have today...
There is no actor any better or worse than any other. Either you can act or you can't! Get off of Jack's ass! And it really makes no differance why P.Jackson shoots all his movies in NewZealand, It's make-believe Marc! Only you would suffer de javue from such-a scene. P.Jackson-"I'm from NewZealand, I live in NewZealand, I make movies where? NewZealand!" I empathize Ohio, I'd wanna make movies somewhere else too!
Now, I know this has got to be my 5th time raveing-on about KingKong. If my 5raves are not enough to give you a buzz that's okay! You keep yourself at home, out of the
theater,you sit there with a pouty-lip watching one of your current favorites, one that you haven't quite picked completely apart and you pick at it! Pick at it as if it were your nose! Because everyone (cept MebossyouNOT) knows that it is simple entertainment, made to see on the big screen for FUN!
Ok, to the initial question as to whether the trailer gives away too much...its a remake. I don't think they are gonna deviate too much, especially considering who made it, i.e. Jackson who virtually worships the original. Second, the trailer does little for me. Jack Black irritates me. He is not funny. Sorry. He alone drives me away from movies. The only thing I ever applauded him for was respecting the Green Lantern name and turning down the lead role. Besides, when I saw a slew of oversized animals all chasing the human characters I immediately gave up on even glimpsing this before DVD. Too much CGI!!! Now the new Superman Returns teaser has me picqued! Something new.
www.thedivinesatire.com See what the controversy is all about!
KingKong vs. Superman&GreenLantern
in the movie trailer you saw?what?
what you saw was several minutes(playoutin2nds)of a scene in a 3hr picture.
and you'd give up on it based on that? why so quick to judge?
you must have your own big-screen(coarse sieve)
3points-
-Jack isn't as bad as (insert not so funny funnyman name)
-Kong would kick Green Lanter's ass
-how much CGI are you NOT expecting to see IN the 2006superman(retorical?)
the original 1933 movie plays out in roughy 80minutes.
thats, kinda the dinamic behind this Dec14-2005 remake.
the majority of the peeps that i've talked with about this mov-ay, don't even remember the story. and how and why it was made is a story in itself.
this is NOT some comicbook creation!
Here's the thing - and it's mostly a matter of taste.
A few years ago I finally caught the orginal 'Nosferatu' from 1922. It's black and white, it's silent, the film's grainy, BUT it's genuinely scary because it evokes such a nightmarish tone.
I still like the 1933 version of 'King Kong' for the same reasons I like 'Forbidden Planet', 'Silent Running'; 'Blade Runner' and '2001' - because I can really appreciate the special effects. I mean, none of these were done with CGI.
I dunno, I know the 4 minute clip I saw was only a teeny part of the 3 hour opus, but I wasn't that impressed. I just hope to God that it isn't like this year's 'War of the Worlds' with the characters staring doe-eyed into the camera with gaped open mouths.
I think it boils down to one thing... money.... CGI is cheaper and easier to do then scale models of the thing... and supposedly it looks better. Give me Ray Harryhausen any day
See, now I like cartoons, which is what it feels like to watch movies now a days. Live action mixed with animation....I'd blame Roger Rabbit but they've been doing this since The Banana Splits with the Tom Sawyer cartoon [yes I've just dated myself...anyone else remember that one?].
Jack Black and Adrain Brody in the same film--who would have thought it? I think Jack is pretty obnoxious and his part seems to require that, so it might not be all that bad.
I think it will be better than the Incredible Hulk anyway...
