Kong (05)

In article <VdWdnV089MVpqhTeRVn-qw DeleteThis @centurytel.net>,
"John Doe II" <firsTraveler DeleteThis @centurytel.net> wrote:

> Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the original.

Given the alternate choice, and the fact that the one version set in
contemporary times was fairly awful, Jackson had few choices.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

"Warchild" <none RemoveThis @none.com> wrote in message
news:none-59B718.21534426112005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <VdWdnV089MVpqhTeRVn-qw RemoveThis @centurytel.net>,
> "John Doe II" <firsTraveler RemoveThis @centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>> Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the
>> original.
>
> Given the alternate choice, and the fact that the one version set in
> contemporary times was fairly awful, Jackson had few choices.

Unfortunately, the human characters will likely seem modern. Specially the
heroin.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:05 -0800, "John Doe II"
<firsTraveler.RemoveThis@centurytel.net> wrote:

>Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the original.
>

Is it just me...or do the SFX of the original seem better?
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

caliban43.RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> He has to.
>
> Kong against modern jet fighters would create a big mismatch.

Heh--that didn't seem to bother the makers of the '76 KING KONG...

C.
**
(Well, at least in the movie poster it didn't...:)
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

Magnus, Robot Fighter. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:05 -0800, "John Doe II"
> <firsTraveler.DeleteThis@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the original.
> >
>
> Is it just me...or do the SFX of the original seem better?

You would have to be blind to deem that so.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

"Magnus, Robot Fighter." <me DeleteThis @key.com> wrote in message
news:jgqjo1lpaarea68et7ij8gl2q0qbmgi8aj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:05 -0800, "John Doe II"
> <firsTraveler DeleteThis @centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>>Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the
>>original.
>>
>
> Is it just me...or do the SFX of the original seem better?

It's just you...
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

In article <DiFif.7579$Zz3.6973@trndny06>, videorev.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <me.TakeThisOut@key.com> wrote in message
> news:jgqjo1lpaarea68et7ij8gl2q0qbmgi8aj@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:37:05 -0800, "John Doe II"
> > <firsTraveler.TakeThisOut@centurytel.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the
> >>original.
> >>
> >
> > Is it just me...or do the SFX of the original seem better?
>
> It's just you...

Apples and oranges. The 1933 Kong raised the bar on special effects of
its time, so well that it has a raw power that few modern movies have
matched. the 2005 Kong will no doubt raise the bar again on special
effects, but of a starkly different kind.

If you prefer the surrealism of the first Kong where the stop motion
animation gave him an alien, larger than life quality, excellent. If
you prefer the realism (and hopefully not OVER-realism) of CGI, then
this version will be your cup of tea.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

Monoxide Child wrote:

> If you prefer the surrealism of the first Kong where the stop motion
> animation gave him an alien, larger than life quality, excellent. If
> you prefer the realism (and hopefully not OVER-realism) of CGI, then
> this version will be your cup of tea.

Ie., if you prefer the "Helm's Deep meets Disney's 'Mighty Joe Young'" look.

Derek Janssen
djanss DeleteThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

I'm a bit worried about the new Kong but will likely still go see it.
Still, I don't really want to go see a 3hr KONG movie...

OTOH, I really did like the latest GODZILLA movie (FINAL WARS), despite
some irritating/stupid bits. Of course, FINAL WARS managed to be a
high budget film that retained the camp of the original but elevated
much of the other elements.

The CG of KONG really is distracting me. It looks really good, but it
doesn't MOVE very well... (in this way similar to FINAL FANTASY: ADVENT
CHILDREN)

-goro-
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

Warchild wrote:

> In article <VdWdnV089MVpqhTeRVn-qw DeleteThis @centurytel.net>,
> "John Doe II" <firsTraveler DeleteThis @centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> > Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the original.
>
> Given the alternate choice, and the fact that the one version set in
> contemporary times was fairly awful, Jackson had few choices.

The '70s version was superior to this one.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

"RogerM" <rodger.mckay.DeleteThis@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:43A5068B.F767352E@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Warchild wrote:
>
>> In article <VdWdnV089MVpqhTeRVn-qw.DeleteThis@centurytel.net>,
>> "John Doe II" <firsTraveler.DeleteThis@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Interesting that Jackson set the new Kong in the same time as the
>> > original.
>>
>> Given the alternate choice, and the fact that the one version set in
>> contemporary times was fairly awful, Jackson had few choices.
>
> The '70s version was superior to this one.

Only if your taste in film lends towards ham acting, poor plot and dialog,
and special effects that looked worst than thoose used in the 1933 original.

Chances are that you are nothing more than a hypocrite who has not even seen
the new movie.

Nuki Mouse
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05) 

Nuki Mouse wrote:

>
> Only if your taste in film lends towards ham acting, poor plot and dialog,
> and special effects that looked worst than thoose used in the 1933 original.
>

The acting, plot, and dialog were better in the '70s version than this new one.
I agree that the special effects were lousy, though.

>
> Chances are that you are nothing more than a hypocrite who has not even seen
> the new movie.

I saw it Saturday afternoon.
 >> Stay informed about: Kong (05)