When I saw that Jack Black has been cast in Peter Jackson's King Kong, I couldn't help thinking that he had signed on as the title character. But, no, he's going to play Carl Denham, the showman who captures the giant ape. Hard to imagine an actor more different that Robert Armstrong who played Denham in the original. Maybe this is a sign that Jackson isn't taking his subject matter too seriously, which could work. Or not.
I admit to a certain bit of trepidation when I read about this casting but ultimately I trust Peter Jackson on this one. Considering that he's also lined up Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody it seems like he has casting well in hand.
Evidently he did a bit of stage acting before going to the big screen so maybe he has acting chops that he's never had the chance to show off.
I just can't really work up any enthusiasm for a new King Kong movie, despite Jackson's involvement. Am I alone in this opinion?
I'm enthusiastic mainly because this is Jackson's dream project. King Kong is his favorite film and he's been trying to make this project for years. It almost went ahead before LOTR was made. The fact that Jackson has been so devoted to doing this tells me that he really feels he can bring something great to the project. If Universal had just pulled it off of the shelf as an attempt to make a Jurassic Park knock off and treated Jackson as just a director for hire then I would be considerably less enthused.
I think Black could work in this role. Denham is a showman, a man who sees himself as larger-than-life and finds, in Kong, the perfect vehicle to embody his ego. I can see Black pulling that off if he tones down his usual histrionics and facial expressions. I've seen him in a few serious roles (he did a number of TV guest star appearences before he became famous), and he was creditable in them.
I'm with you. I've kind of just, you know, seen King Kong before. Can I get something new? Didn't we really say all we needed to say about freakishly large gorillas with the other King Kong movies?Originally Posted by Ergo
Movies? As in, plural? There was more than one?
I remember King Kong fighting Godzilla, or something like that. I guess that counts.
There was also a remake in the 70's I think. I'm also in the camp of don't care about this. I'm not sure Jackson showed me he has the stuff to get me excited about any project he undertakes outside of Middle Earth.
There have been a few. The original where he climbs the Empire State bldg, the remake where he climbs the WTC, and a smattering of 50s B flicks where he does battle with lizards. Sparky would know more about this.Movies? As in, plural? There was more than one?
I feel the same as the guy who asked if we really needed another. What more can there be to say about this giant ape run amock?
Giant ape movies that I can recall:
1930s King Kong
Son of Kong
Mighty Joe Young
King Kong vs. Godzilla
1970s King Kong, plus another really bad DeLaurentis follow-up a few years later
Of course, you can say the same thing about virtually any genre--there's lot of films that feature X. I just can't get excited about a giant-animal-goes-on-rampage flick.
The whole idea just doesn't seem relevant to an audience today. Monster movies were killed by the schlock in the 50s. Any chance Jackson's Kong is a period piece? It'd be more credible set in the 20s or 30s. Unless Jackson's really, um, monkeying around with the script. Finding a giant ape in the jungle to display on Broadway as part of a vaudeville show doesn't make a lot of sense in 2004.
There was also the remake of Mighty Joe Young. And Congo, if those apes are giant enough. The animation in the original MJY is incredible. Probably Harryhausen's best. Although the Eohippus in The Valley of Gwanji was great. Fuck Clash of the Titans.
Godzilla vs King Kong was pretty cool. It had a real live octopus crawling around on dry land. It was supposed to look giant and menacing, but it just looked scared and weak and sore. I felt sorry for it. You look at those eyes and you have to.
I'm happy that Jack Black is in King Kong because that means he'll be hanging around Wellington. Maybe he'll play with Tenacious D and I'll go to the concert.
Brett: It's set when the original was set. I read an old version of the script of the remake, and I can't say I was impressed. Ann Darrow is a scientist? Lame. Giant monster movies are still good, but they lose a lot of the charm when it's not a guy in a suit or a piece of plasticene. Or a live octopus. I doubt any giant monster movie will ever top Godzilla vs Mothra.
Ho hum.
A. My hatred of all things jack black. I can't wait for the pseudo pimp talk about the big ape, oh that will be HI LARRY OUS!!!!
B. New monsters movies aren't scary. They will CGI it up to look realistic, but that isn't scary. Scary was the crazy mechanical lurching movements that seemed so unrealistic they were terrifying.
And you guys seriously don't remember Jessica Lange in the King kong from the 70s? I feel bad for you.
Chet
The script is being completely rewritten with PJ's LOTRs collaborators Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens. I don't really know how much is going to remain from their earlier concept.
[/quote]
I understand that Jackson is using the original KK as his inspiration (and trying to forget the '70s remake). Since the '70s remake was a crappy "modern day" update, I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson went with a '30s period piece.
One of the great things about Jackson's LOTR was that he avoided camp and got the actors to take the parts seriously. This isn't really an option in King Kong; a faithful, respectful remake has to be all about camp. Maybe that makes Jack Black a good choice.
I hear that in the spirit of the LOTR mangl- err - writing, he will be making Kong inherently evil. An Evil, Evil Ape, that's come to destroy the city, tricking Jack Blacks character into capturing him in the jungle in order to spread his monkey poo and destruction all over Manhattan.
That's just what I heard.
(Not an April fools, I just hate PJ)
If Theodore's earlier post wasn't clear- the remake is set in the 1930s.
If that's true, then that's pretty bad. I always thought the sympathy you felt for Kong as he fought a losing battle on the Empire State Building was what made that movie.
In all honestly, I don't really think this movie was calling out to be remade.
I'm not sure if Backov was trying to be funny but that's not what I heard at all. I've read quotes from PJ about how he really wants you to feel for Kong. He's supposedly is going to use Andy Serkis to actually "perform" Kong the same way he performed Gollum in LOTR. Remember, King Kong is PJ's all time favorite movie- its hard to imagine that he would so grossly violate the spirit of that film by turning Kong into an evil villain.
But he completely violated and gutted and belched in the face of JRR Tolkien! He can't be trusted! Or something, didn't those films win every Academy Award ever? Are people still complaining about that?
KK should be worth a look, and not just because PJ will infuse with pathos and the fact that Naomi Watts is silly hot. It's because I don't think, after watching ROTK, that he'll skimp on the ol' Kong Smash.
I'm thrilled about the remake.
Even if it ends up stinking, at least Universal might finally put the original out on DVD.
Universal has been doing a very extensive restoration of the orginal King Kong to put it on DVD for several years, well before the deal with PJ was finalized. There is a slim chance we could have it on DVD by the end of the year but its looking more likely that they will go ahead and hold it until the remake's release.
Interesting parallels between King Kong and LotR: Both are about the friction between two worlds... in King Kong the naive primitive pre-evolved man conflicting with "evolved" man culminating in the not-so-subtle symbolism of Kong's challenge to Modernism's pride and joy, the skyscraper. In LotR the naive pre-evolved pre-modern agricultural culture symbolized by the Hobbits goes up against the modern industrial "change" wrought by Sauron.
Both are extremely conservative pieces... questioning, even denouncing the present and future and celebrating the past. Both are pieces showing obvious fear (at the very least) of Evolution. Neither shows a whit of respect for Modern Man.
That sounds logical. King Kong gets Jackson's sympathy vote.
Even if she drops out I hope she licenses her breasts for the movie. They would fetch a firm and perky fee.
[size=1]Paid for by the Qt3 Forumites Who Love Sparky Foundation[/size]
Great. That makes the remake BAD NEWS to me. Bastards!
The Oringinal King Kong was not a guy in a suit. It was stop motion at it's finest.
I am not interested in a remake, not because I don't respect Jackson, but becuase I don't feel it NEEDS a remake. King Kong is one of the greatest movies ever made, and holds up remarkably well in this modern age.
I am well aware of that. You must have thought you read something you didn't.The Oringinal King Kong was not a guy in a suit. It was stop motion at it's finest.
Yeah, that's a real interesting parallel. Or, it would be, if it couldn't be applied to at least half of all movies ever made.
Yes... Sauron represents Darwin, while Gandalf represents the noble Pasteur. Mordor is an obvious allegory for the Galapagos Islands. And don't even get me started on what the Dunedain represent.Both are extremely conservative pieces... questioning, even denouncing the present and future and celebrating the past. Both are pieces showing obvious fear (at the very least) of Evolution.
I know! Not once did they portray Camus or Derrida in a favorable light. Damn you, PJ!!!!Neither shows a whit of respect for Modern Man.
Jackson owns the original Kong Model, FWIW.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote