Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson remaking King Kong
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."
I thought Peter Jackson had signed on to do the Hobbit next. I know Ian Mckellan will be involved.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
So I imagine the folks lining up to see this one will be wearing ape suits???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
From the Beeb:
5 249.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/290
It's going to be interesting to see Jackson's interperetation of this. On one hand, I feel like King Kong's been done to death. On the other, I *know* there's no such thing as too much Godzilla. Perhaps Jackson will make it so there's no such thing as too much Kong.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNG!
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...
... however much we wish it was.
What would be cool would be a giant hobbit taking destroying Manhatten. Can somebody line this up?
Collaborative effort between Peter Jackson (story), Fran Walsh (story, words, lyrics), and Phillipa Boyens (story, words, lyrics). I suspect Mr. Jackson was too busy with other aspects of production to put too many words on paper once filming started.
APE-RIL FOOLS DAY, RIGHT?
That's one BIG APE-ril fools day joke!!
~ fuzz
http://www.digifuzz.net
::close up of Hugo Weaving::
"You must cast this ape, this... one ape of doom, from the Empire State Building."
I can't wait!
The Other Nate
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.
I can see the script for the new Kong flick now. King Kong is on a quest to destroy the evil ring, helped by his band of x-rated muppets he must fight hordes of zombie flesh eating gorillas being led by an evil wizard. He is also aided by a mighty priest who "kicks ass for the lord". Kong is startled to find that his evil nemesis is none other than his mother who in the climatic battle transforms into a giant beast far more hideous than even Rosie O'Donnel.
Isn't it time to post the 'Evil Bit" story again?
I metamoderate, therefore I am
The scary thing is I'm not sure if this is part of April Fools or not..... Oh hell with it, WHITESPACE PROGRAMMING RULEZ!!
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
Do we really need yet another remake of King-Kong? The original King-Kong was very good. The remake was very good. Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed? Better FX will not make the story better.
After King-Kong perhaps he'd like to remake Planet Of The Apes. At least in that case the second version sucked so much the third version would have to be an improvement, although it would be hard to imaging a remake that could improve on the original in any area besides special-effects.
Hey, how about Hollywood declares 2004 "King-Kong remake year" and ONLY releases remakes of King Kong. Twenty or thirty versions of King Kong. I'd like to see Wood Allen's angst-ridden ape, and Tim Burton's darkly oddball monkey. Roman Polanski's version would have the big furball fall for a 13 year old Ann Darrow. Jim Carrey could play King Kong through facial contortions alone without makeup. What a great trend Peter Jackson has started! Viva La-Kong!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
anyone who is a fan of pj know that this is a lifelong dream of his. one which he very much deserves to have realized, after all the entertainment he has brought to the world.
BTW, this has been a long time in the works. LOTR origianlly started out as a joint development project between miramax and universal, each would share the costs of developing two films with pj, and relase one under each of their names. the two original projects were king kong & LOTR.
but when LOTR grew to two films and the costs rose they lost interest. and miramax (kindly) gave permission to take LoTR to another studio. ultimatley new line actually encourgaed peter to extend it to three films, thankfully leading to the historic project that it became.
the only downside was that as LOTR grew to a 7+ year project King Kong was put of that much longer.
althought there are a glut of remakes, i have complete confidence that this on ewill e b as special and unique as all of peters projects.
PS LOTR was co-written by pj himself, phillipa boyens, & fran walsh...
i have walked down train tracks, walked down train tracks, drunk at 3 a.m. it not magic, it's no great trick, w
You know, I think I will wait until this is posted the third time this afternoon to read it, when its more convenient for me...
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
From what I've read about Jackson, he really appreciates the depth of the Kong story, not just the idea of a giant ape inflicting havoc.
There are some juicy aspects of great tragedy in Kong that could be cultivated into a very new and powerful story. Consider the foolish pride of the hunters trying to tame nature. Or substitute the wildness of the human spirit for Kong. Or religion. Flesh out the love story and look at how Kong's love, his fatal flaw, is rewarded by the world.
Like all enduring movies and myths, King Kong has many levels and strong currents. With a little insight and a strong writer there is a gold mine of different facets to Kong that Jackson could pursue.
Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE Jackson fan, but whenever Directors decide to remake a movie that inspired them when they were young (especially if this is THE movie that made them decide to direct) the results are ALWAYS (pun intended) a mistake:
Always: Steven Spielberg
Village of the Damned: John Carpenter
Swept Away: Guy Ritchie
etc.
Peter, for God Sakes don't do it.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion