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."

Comments

I can't wait!

[TopShelf]

So I imagine the folks lining up to see this one will be wearing ape suits???

And there I thought it was another bad joke...

[Bonker]

From the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2905 249.stm

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 last line in the movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNG!

Re:The last line in the movie?

[jcdick1]

Or, for the full-on Star Trek nerd experience:

Of my friend, I can only say this, that of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most ... (twitchy lip here) ... ape.

Can't be any worse than the 1970's one

[Guppy06]

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...

Re:Guys?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What about the hobbit?

[gabec]

Yeah, this is actually an April Fools news posting.

Ok, April Fools.

And anyway, Jackson has said explicitly that he's not going to do The Hobbit, but... Money Talks.

HAHA I GET IT!!

[digifuzz]

APE-RIL FOOLS DAY, RIGHT?

That's one BIG APE-ril fools day joke!!

~ fuzz

Lord of the King Dead Alive Kong?

[binaryDigit]

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.

I *wish* this was an April fools joke!

[hoggoth]

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!

Re:I *wish* this was an April fools joke!

[jdbo]

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.

Re:What about the hobbit?

[c.derby]

Actually:

"The original plan was to film "The Hobbit" starring Warwick Davis. But when Miramax balked at the $75 million dollar price tag Peter Jackson took it to New Line which gave him nearly $300 million to make the trilogy"

Just scratching the surface

[jmoriarty]

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.

This will fail miserably

[ShieldWolf]

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.

Re:Why are film remakes placed under such scrutiny

[Galvatron]

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.