- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,692
Errr... yes, I was going to mention that as well.geiger25 said:
I think you may be right regarding the CGI in the latest one, Max.
King Kong
- Thread starter Mighty_Emperor
- Start date
I think you may be right regarding the CGI in the latest one, Max.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 554
Jimmy shooting the grasshoppers off with a machine gun is the only part which I found myself rolling my eyes.
In my opinion if the entire character of Jimmy had been cut from the movie it would have been damn-near perfect. And, you would have lost at least 20 minutes.
And for whoever asked where all the people were in Central Park: Central Park in the middle of the winter at 11 o'clock at night is not rife with people, believe it or not.
In my opinion if the entire character of Jimmy had been cut from the movie it would have been damn-near perfect. And, you would have lost at least 20 minutes.
And for whoever asked where all the people were in Central Park: Central Park in the middle of the winter at 11 o'clock at night is not rife with people, believe it or not.
Yeah. On the strength of it being the best movie this year, and being a perfect cinema experience.
They only other 10/10 movie this year is Wallace and Gromit.
Strange that the two movies this year that engaged me emotionally both starred animated lead characters. I'm not sure if this says more abuot me, or the standard of acting in movies.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 245
King Kong was brilliant. I loved the build up, loved the special effects and loved the acting. Some of the creatures actually made me cringe with fear and grab my sister's arm. Terrific job done by Naomi Watts and Anthony Serkis - best female and male actors of the year as far as i'm concerned. I haven't had such a perfect movie experience in ages.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
I'm beginning to suspect that the promotional budget for this film extends to paying young interns and students on secondment, to Google™ round looking for Forums with King Kong Threads and post positive statements about the movie.
Just a hunch... :lol:
Just a hunch... :lol:
LMAO! Good one!
Although I watched it on pirate DVD format and before most people could possibly get hold of it, I thought it was spaced out too far and was let down by the apparent globalised conformity of its direction and in no way can the actors being the best this year even be talken seriously.
The effects were dramatically dated without taking into account the lavish and I suspect... arsed about budget.
As I commented earlier, the stampede scene was attrocious, merely likened to a live studio green screen rendition and that's without mentioning the ridiculous account of not being stomped on by random large heaving bodies!
The thing is, the close ups of Kong very much resembled that Yoda type thing out of Lord of the Rings. How on Earth they payed that actor to stand in for the actors' eye levels to work on is beyond belief! Aimply CGI animating to the responses would have dopne better AND would have been less costly. It's either bullshit or they were scamming the investors big time. I am a fan of his earlier works, especially Bad Taste etc.... where he reigned supreme against the money wasting big wigs of movie making (rather like Orson Wells with his superior snow globe/exterior to interior shots in Citizen Kaine)...but this was nothing more than crap, effects wise.
That said, I enjoyed it over the other remakes, and said and done, he did resist making it too much twee Americanistic like earlier efforts from Hollywood.
I remain middle of the road here. Way too long like a "America's Wildest Police Chase Videos" where they show the same footage over and over and over and ovare again to fill the space to make it seem like an hour (despite the obssession to put commercials on every 7 *YES 7!* minutes!)
Could easily have been an hour and a half and better for it!
Although I watched it on pirate DVD format and before most people could possibly get hold of it, I thought it was spaced out too far and was let down by the apparent globalised conformity of its direction and in no way can the actors being the best this year even be talken seriously.
The effects were dramatically dated without taking into account the lavish and I suspect... arsed about budget.
As I commented earlier, the stampede scene was attrocious, merely likened to a live studio green screen rendition and that's without mentioning the ridiculous account of not being stomped on by random large heaving bodies!
The thing is, the close ups of Kong very much resembled that Yoda type thing out of Lord of the Rings. How on Earth they payed that actor to stand in for the actors' eye levels to work on is beyond belief! Aimply CGI animating to the responses would have dopne better AND would have been less costly. It's either bullshit or they were scamming the investors big time. I am a fan of his earlier works, especially Bad Taste etc.... where he reigned supreme against the money wasting big wigs of movie making (rather like Orson Wells with his superior snow globe/exterior to interior shots in Citizen Kaine)...but this was nothing more than crap, effects wise.
That said, I enjoyed it over the other remakes, and said and done, he did resist making it too much twee Americanistic like earlier efforts from Hollywood.
I remain middle of the road here. Way too long like a "America's Wildest Police Chase Videos" where they show the same footage over and over and over and ovare again to fill the space to make it seem like an hour (despite the obssession to put commercials on every 7 *YES 7!* minutes!)
Could easily have been an hour and a half and better for it!
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 245
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I really cannot confirm or deny that, but since I don't remotely resemble that remark i'll hope it was not inspired by my post.
As for the actors, in my opinion they did a splendid job very deserving of recognition. And since this thread is titled "King Kong", i'll assume that my opinion of the movie is appropriately stated here, whether or not some find it necessary to question my motives for posting.
Saw it last night. What a film, definately the best one i saw in 2005. Pretty much perfect IMHO. Ok its three hours long but doesn't seem it, your just pulled along. The only thing i will say is that you could have shortend the beginning (before they reach Skull island) and not missed anything too important. There is just a tad too much build up.
9.762/10
9.762/10
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2001
- Messages
- 680
I liked KONG... but, being someone who has never outgrown their childhood affection for giant monsters, dinosaurs, and Kong... I feel like I should have LOVED it. Does that make any sense? I realize that judging a movie against your expectations is tricky business, and is, in some sense, unfair, but...
I think one reason for my reaction is that the choice was made here to lessen Ann's fear of KONG, versus her reactions in the original. And I grant you... in the original, you can argue that Ann screams and screams long after it seems...well... KINDA clear that Kong PROBABLY isn't going to harm her. Probably. Here, after her initial (understandable) terror, Ann comes to feel .... well, if not SAFE with Kong, at least to feel that if he DOES do her harm, it would probably be by accident. She seems... semi-comfortable with him, fairly early on. And that, in my mind, both lessens the threat of Kong AND reminds us, strongly, that he is an "innocent animal".
In the original, I think that while Kong engages audience sympathies, there is much more of a sense of him having a hair trigger, and for most of the time on the island, a sense of threat. I don't know anyone who doesn't sympathize with Kong when he is captured, chained, and brought to NY, or when he fights the biplanes... but before that, I think the movie kept him as much more of a menacing figure.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree... maybe that is not "it"... but for some reason, this one didn't "grab" me as much as it "should". It is not that I didn't like it, but... I expected to be blown away.....
Be interested in seeing what others thought, not in a technical sense -- not so much discussing effects, etc! -- but on an EMOTIONAL level... how did you REACT to the movie?
Shadow
I think one reason for my reaction is that the choice was made here to lessen Ann's fear of KONG, versus her reactions in the original. And I grant you... in the original, you can argue that Ann screams and screams long after it seems...well... KINDA clear that Kong PROBABLY isn't going to harm her. Probably. Here, after her initial (understandable) terror, Ann comes to feel .... well, if not SAFE with Kong, at least to feel that if he DOES do her harm, it would probably be by accident. She seems... semi-comfortable with him, fairly early on. And that, in my mind, both lessens the threat of Kong AND reminds us, strongly, that he is an "innocent animal".
In the original, I think that while Kong engages audience sympathies, there is much more of a sense of him having a hair trigger, and for most of the time on the island, a sense of threat. I don't know anyone who doesn't sympathize with Kong when he is captured, chained, and brought to NY, or when he fights the biplanes... but before that, I think the movie kept him as much more of a menacing figure.
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree... maybe that is not "it"... but for some reason, this one didn't "grab" me as much as it "should". It is not that I didn't like it, but... I expected to be blown away.....
Be interested in seeing what others thought, not in a technical sense -- not so much discussing effects, etc! -- but on an EMOTIONAL level... how did you REACT to the movie?
Shadow
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 245
From http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2006/snubs
About Oscar snubs:
I guess the writer saw what I saw. I really admired both actors' performances in this movie.
About Oscar snubs:
I guess the writer saw what I saw. I really admired both actors' performances in this movie.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
Got this from Fangoria:
http://events.streamlogics.com/fangoria ... /index.asp
Also this on their site:
www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=5765
The link:
www.fangoria.com/kong
www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=5825
Link from there:
www.fangoriapresents.com
http://events.streamlogics.com/fangoria ... /index.asp
Also this on their site:
www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=5765
The link:
www.fangoria.com/kong
www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=5825
Link from there:
www.fangoriapresents.com
1933: King Kong -- the famous iconic film, "conceived and created" by Meriam C Cooper.
but before that was
1929: King of the Kongo -- a Mascot jungle adventure serial featuring a large gorilla, who was "King of the Kongo".
and before that was
1927: Isle of Sunken Gold -- a Mascot jungle adventure serial featuring a large gorilla called "Kong, the Devil Ape".
and before that was
1887: Gorilla Abducting a Woman -- Emmanuel Fremiet's notorious sculpture is exhibited.
link to image
and before that was
1867: Captured by a Gorilla -- a lurid popular book by John Onslow, relating the purportedly-true story of Leah Haas, the 18 year old daughter of a diamond merchant, who while visiting her father in Gabon was abducted by a gorilla and carried off into the jungle. A search party finally managed to locate and rescue the girl.
and before that was
1859: Gorilla Carrying Off a Native Girl -- Emmanuel Fremiet's early plaster prototype sculpture is exhibited.
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,201
Anome
Bibliomancer
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
- Location
- Left, and to the Back
Basically, the image of the ape(man) carrying off a nubile female is an old one, and evokes certain visceral reactions. That's why it's so successful. It's also why it was frequently used in wartime propaganda (in both wars). And sometimes by the less savoury elements of Western society to demonise those they find repulsive.
So it's hardly surprising it should keep coming up in art. Or that King Kong should be so iconic.
So it's hardly surprising it should keep coming up in art. Or that King Kong should be so iconic.
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,201
Anome: " the image of the ape(man) carrying off a nubile female is an old one . . ."
Yes but we want to see how old!
Wikipedia has a list of Fictional Primates but they seem mainly modern.
Tarzan, the Ape Man was more a version of the Noble Savage and an ape by name and descent mainly, though his favourite food was raw meat! He appeared in 1912. Kipling's Mowgli as a child of nature appeared in 1893 in a story then The Jungle Book as a volume the following year.
Jekyll and Hyde dates from 1886 and though the word simian is frequently applied to Hyde, I don't think it comes directly from the text, though many animalistic traits are described there.
I'm sure there must be earlier monkey villains but the ape became a nightmare mainly after Darwin's Origin of Species, pub. 1859.
Still, I'm sure there must be some earlier monsters that fed into the mythos. I just can't think of them right now. :?:
edit: "fequently" corrected
Yes but we want to see how old!
Wikipedia has a list of Fictional Primates but they seem mainly modern.
Tarzan, the Ape Man was more a version of the Noble Savage and an ape by name and descent mainly, though his favourite food was raw meat! He appeared in 1912. Kipling's Mowgli as a child of nature appeared in 1893 in a story then The Jungle Book as a volume the following year.
Jekyll and Hyde dates from 1886 and though the word simian is frequently applied to Hyde, I don't think it comes directly from the text, though many animalistic traits are described there.
I'm sure there must be earlier monkey villains but the ape became a nightmare mainly after Darwin's Origin of Species, pub. 1859.
Still, I'm sure there must be some earlier monsters that fed into the mythos. I just can't think of them right now. :?:
edit: "fequently" corrected
CarlosTheDJ
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 7,001
- Location
- Pebble Mill
There's one right here! http://zoomar.tumblr.com/post/17310763842/a-monster-ape-carrying-off-a-girl
:?
That "monster ape" has a bizarre facial expression!
Here are some excerpts concerning the Fremiet sculpture.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
One powerful icon embodies the mixture of arousal and horror that drove the nineteenth-century fantasy of wife-capture, and the doubts and ambivalences that haunted it: the sculpture by Emmanuel Fremiet entitled 'Gorille enlevant une femme' (1887). A male gorilla bares his fangs, a struggling nude woman wedged under his right arm, while in his left hand he wields a Palaeolithic hand axe. The image, incarnating an exaggerated sexual dimorphism, seethes with animal eroticism. Fremiet's gorilla embodies a primal male sexuality in which unrestrained desire is legitimized by irresistible physical strength, while his stone tool or weapon collapses the boundary between animality and humanity. The ape's captive represents woman as prey to male desire, totally vulnerable in her weakness, nakedness, and helplessness. Fremiet's gorilla is not only the ape from which man has descended, but also that which still inhabits him, agitating for release. As Baudelaire had suggested in 1859, this is an ape that 'a la fois plus et moins qu'un homme, a manifeste quelquefois un appetit humain pour la femme'. The radical dimorphism implied by Fremiet's statue, exaggerated further in order to reduce its dangerous sexual charge, was developed via the King Kong movies (1933, 1976, 2005) into a disingenuous motif that remains as popular today as Courtship with a Club.
excerpted from
Courtship with a Club: Wife-Capture in Prehistoric Fiction, 1865-1914
Nicholas Ruddick
The Yearbook of English Studies
Vol. 37, No. 2, Science Fiction (2007), pp. 45-63
(article consists of 19 pages)
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
In Munich the sculpture was already surrounded by legend in artistic circles: the story spread of a scene that was supposed to have taken place in front of the sculpture at the previous year's Paris Salon, when a married couple stood before it. The man, a banker and Parisian Croesus whose features were strangely reminiscent of the gorilla's, recognized in the naked woman a portrait of his wife, who was also the sculptor's ex-fiancee. Apparently this commentary on the revenge of an unlucky-in-love artist contained a grain of truth.
That is the version Polish readers got from Stanislaw Tomkowicz, who added his own comment that "the gorilla is not only an ape, but also the personification of brute force; the figure of the beautiful woman and her desperate effort to defend herself are convincingly rendered", thanks to which the whole of it, although naturalistic, "becomes interesting".
excerpted from
Fremiet's Gorillas: Why Do They Carry off Women?
Marek Zgórniak, Marta Kapera and Mark Singer
Artibus et Historiae
Vol. 27, No. 54 (2006), pp. 219-237
(article consists of 19 pages)
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
That "monster ape" has a bizarre facial expression!
Here are some excerpts concerning the Fremiet sculpture.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
One powerful icon embodies the mixture of arousal and horror that drove the nineteenth-century fantasy of wife-capture, and the doubts and ambivalences that haunted it: the sculpture by Emmanuel Fremiet entitled 'Gorille enlevant une femme' (1887). A male gorilla bares his fangs, a struggling nude woman wedged under his right arm, while in his left hand he wields a Palaeolithic hand axe. The image, incarnating an exaggerated sexual dimorphism, seethes with animal eroticism. Fremiet's gorilla embodies a primal male sexuality in which unrestrained desire is legitimized by irresistible physical strength, while his stone tool or weapon collapses the boundary between animality and humanity. The ape's captive represents woman as prey to male desire, totally vulnerable in her weakness, nakedness, and helplessness. Fremiet's gorilla is not only the ape from which man has descended, but also that which still inhabits him, agitating for release. As Baudelaire had suggested in 1859, this is an ape that 'a la fois plus et moins qu'un homme, a manifeste quelquefois un appetit humain pour la femme'. The radical dimorphism implied by Fremiet's statue, exaggerated further in order to reduce its dangerous sexual charge, was developed via the King Kong movies (1933, 1976, 2005) into a disingenuous motif that remains as popular today as Courtship with a Club.
excerpted from
Courtship with a Club: Wife-Capture in Prehistoric Fiction, 1865-1914
Nicholas Ruddick
The Yearbook of English Studies
Vol. 37, No. 2, Science Fiction (2007), pp. 45-63
(article consists of 19 pages)
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
In Munich the sculpture was already surrounded by legend in artistic circles: the story spread of a scene that was supposed to have taken place in front of the sculpture at the previous year's Paris Salon, when a married couple stood before it. The man, a banker and Parisian Croesus whose features were strangely reminiscent of the gorilla's, recognized in the naked woman a portrait of his wife, who was also the sculptor's ex-fiancee. Apparently this commentary on the revenge of an unlucky-in-love artist contained a grain of truth.
That is the version Polish readers got from Stanislaw Tomkowicz, who added his own comment that "the gorilla is not only an ape, but also the personification of brute force; the figure of the beautiful woman and her desperate effort to defend herself are convincingly rendered", thanks to which the whole of it, although naturalistic, "becomes interesting".
excerpted from
Fremiet's Gorillas: Why Do They Carry off Women?
Marek Zgórniak, Marta Kapera and Mark Singer
Artibus et Historiae
Vol. 27, No. 54 (2006), pp. 219-237
(article consists of 19 pages)
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Neanderthals, and also perhaps feral humans, not "feral" in the usual sense of specific individuals who through childhood abandonment and/or mental illness have somehow "fallen out of" human society, but truly feral humans from feral populations, humans that never "fell into" any organized social structure to begin with. At some time in prehistory, there must have been a point when there were populations of humans who were starting to develop rudimentary language and other "social" traits, but at the same time there would have been humans who were still less than social, living basically like "wild men". Like Enkidu etc, there are all sorts of examples from antiquity and mythology. Humans either pre-linguistic, or at best having a proto-language of yips and yowls. Basically a bunch of savage stupid a-holes.
--------------------
--------------------
Here is a description of the Leah Haas incident, from this location:
http://peuplegorille.blogspot.com/2007/04/livre_12.html
En 1867 parut, en plusieurs langues, un petit ouvrage qui eut un succès considérable. Il s'intitulait Enlèvement d'une jeune fille par un gorille. Histoire reçue d'un explorateur par feu le révérend Dr Livingstone, le célèbre voyageur. Leah Haas, ravissante adolescente de dix-huit ans qui accompagne son père diamantaire au Gabon, est enlevée par un gorille vicieux et féroce. Son père et le narrateur, John Onslow, se lancent à la poursuite du kidnappeur. Ils finissent par retrouver le singe, dressé, hurlant, le pied posé sur la hanche de sa victime étendue sur le sol, défendant sa prise. Ouf! Leah est récupérée avant que l'inacceptable ne se produise. Au moment où ce récit paraissait, Livingstone avait disparu depuis l'année précédente, et on avait perdu espoir de le retrouver. L'histoire aurait pu continuer d'alimenter le mythe du gorille séducteur si le missionnaire n'avait réapparu et rétabli la vérité sur les amours contre nature de la jolie fille du diamantaire (Onslow, 1867).
--------------------
--------------------
Here is a description of the Leah Haas incident, from this location:
http://peuplegorille.blogspot.com/2007/04/livre_12.html
En 1867 parut, en plusieurs langues, un petit ouvrage qui eut un succès considérable. Il s'intitulait Enlèvement d'une jeune fille par un gorille. Histoire reçue d'un explorateur par feu le révérend Dr Livingstone, le célèbre voyageur. Leah Haas, ravissante adolescente de dix-huit ans qui accompagne son père diamantaire au Gabon, est enlevée par un gorille vicieux et féroce. Son père et le narrateur, John Onslow, se lancent à la poursuite du kidnappeur. Ils finissent par retrouver le singe, dressé, hurlant, le pied posé sur la hanche de sa victime étendue sur le sol, défendant sa prise. Ouf! Leah est récupérée avant que l'inacceptable ne se produise. Au moment où ce récit paraissait, Livingstone avait disparu depuis l'année précédente, et on avait perdu espoir de le retrouver. L'histoire aurait pu continuer d'alimenter le mythe du gorille séducteur si le missionnaire n'avait réapparu et rétabli la vérité sur les amours contre nature de la jolie fille du diamantaire (Onslow, 1867).
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,264
- Location
- Eblana
Kondoru said:
Caliban is worth looking at. Whether as ape-man or robot.
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,201
Worth looking at, certainly. But a quick Google suggests that Caliban is not regarded as a monkey, even by his tormentors. A servant-monster, a man-monster and a moon-calf are typical ways Stephano & Trinculo address him.
Curiously, when Ariel invisibly intervenes in their argument, Caliban calls him "a jesting monkey," provoking further misunderstandings.
Caliban is certainly a caricature savage but the more simian depictions of other races seem to come later.
edit: tormentOrs!
Curiously, when Ariel invisibly intervenes in their argument, Caliban calls him "a jesting monkey," provoking further misunderstandings.
Caliban is certainly a caricature savage but the more simian depictions of other races seem to come later.
edit: tormentOrs!
MrRING
Android Futureman
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 6,053
Origins of Kong revealed - (that is, if the same model was used for Mighty Joe Young):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o6geeIrliw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o6geeIrliw
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,201
A great article Here on lost movies, includes plenty of killer ape stories from before Kong
Those first 24 weird and wonderful lost films are followed by another 24 on this page.
It's a startling statistic given here that only around 4.5% of known-about films are actually available! With audiences for old material diminishing yearly, it's not surprising that the same popular titles get churned around endlessly. The films in these articles, few of which I had heard of, seem to have gone for good.
Those first 24 weird and wonderful lost films are followed by another 24 on this page.
It's a startling statistic given here that only around 4.5% of known-about films are actually available! With audiences for old material diminishing yearly, it's not surprising that the same popular titles get churned around endlessly. The films in these articles, few of which I had heard of, seem to have gone for good.