Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Peter Jackson remaking King Kong

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the lord-of-the-monkey dept.

sigh71 writes "Stuff.co.nz is running a story on Peter Jacksons next big project, remaking the original King Kong. To be written by the same guys who wrote the scripts for Lord of the Rings. Google for more info."

5 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Can't be any worse than the 1970's one by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the original, we have a claymation crew blazing new territory with work that convinced a number of people in the audience that King Kong was real.

    In the 70's version, we have a guy in a monkey suit, and a number of "sequels" made with the "Godzilla vs." philosophy.

    At any rate, I think I hope he still sets the movie in the 1930's.

    All we need now is for King Kong to fall into the public domain some time this century...

    1. Re:Can't be any worse than the 1970's one by frostman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...but as we know from Godzilla, a guy in a monster suit can be a whole lot more convincing then million-dollar graphics on a two-bit script.

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

  2. Jackson's BEST next pic? by billmaly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess I had hoped for more from Jackson after his near total success with LOTR. Maybe I was hoping for him to embark on something new and original, instead of a rehash of what's been done. Still, it appears that the story would be told in the 1930's, rather than modern times like was done w. the 1970's version of KK. That will make for a more interesting picture, and allow the characters to display more wide eyed amazement than modern characters could. I hope Jackson succeeds and blows away the critics yet again, but I was hoping for something fresher.

  3. Re:Why are film remakes placed under such scrutiny by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, it's not standard practice on the stage. If someone had written a new version of Othello 70 years after Shakespeare wrote his version, it would have been criticized too. It is usually not acceptable to remake a play within about 100 years of the original. Occasionally it's considered alright if you're both writing plays based on the same ancient source material (Hercules, for example), and you base it on the original source, not on the other person's play.

    Here's an example of how people react adversely to someone doing the same thing on stage: when Rossini released his version of The Barber of Seville, the opening perfomance was booed so loudly by fans of the original Pizzello opera that no one could hear the singing. This was despite the fact that he wrote a letter to Pizzello, and wrote an insert for the program in which he explained his reasons for remaking the opera, and his great respect for the earlier composer.

    I think there are a few reasons that remakes rub people the wrong way. One of the biggest is probably that you're implicitly saying "I'm better and more talented than the guy who made the original." Another reason is that if it's no good, it will sour others on the original. Someone who had only seen the new Planet of the Apes would probably be uninterested in seeing the original. Finally, it's often unoriginal. While there can be some truly imaginative remakes, often someone can be tempted to simply update the special effects and copy the rest verbatim. It is right, I think, that people are against remakes. It means that unless you've actually a worthwhile take on the original, you shouldn't bother with a remake.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  4. Re:I *wish* this was an April fools joke! by jdbo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Some points...
    1. the remake was very good...

      I respectfully very much disagree; I can't recall a good thing about it with the exception of a young Jessica Lange.

    2. Peter Jackson is well known as a huge fan of the original Kong, as well as of Harryhausen's work in particular. The LOTR:FOTR cave troll was in many ways a homage to both Harryhausen and Kong.
    3. For (many) filmmakers, remakes are accepted as a way to pay tribute. The "new production of an existing play" analogy applies if you accept the fact that movie screenplays are (with incredibly rare exceptions) never re-used.
    4. This is Peter Jackson (and Fran Walsh, his unsung partner + wife); it's completely unlikely that they're going to produce a story/personality-free yawner like Godzilla (US 1998).

    Could it suck? Sure. But I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see do it.