I'm still in awe about the way Jackson somehow managed to make the original 1933 King Kong COMPLETELY irrelevant. I don't know how anyone can possibly prefer the original over the remake.
How did he do it? The vast majority of remakes suck ass.
>inb4 "it's too long!"
Not an argument.
Anyone?
OPPOSITE DAY xD
Jackson knows how to shoot a great scene and put together a good movie, but 2 hours in, and we're not even on the fucking island yet?
Fuck off with that bullshit.
>2 hours in, and we're not even on the fucking island yet?
That's a lie, we get to Skull Island at around the 1 hour mark.
Haven't watched the original yet but the Jackson one was tons of fun even if too long.
I prefer the original solely because of how revolutionary it was at the time. The 2005 version is just your average CGI dinosaur flick.
Someone post the worm scene
I love that they made Kong into an actual character, rather than just a big monster gorilla, and the bug scene legitimately disturbs me, but this movie desperately needed an editor with the balls to tell Jackson when to fuck off.
>revolutionary
The Lost World was the actual revolutionary film in regards to visual effects, it being eight years older.
>5 hours in the movie
>Main characters still aren't introduced
>Once they're introduced it take them 8 years to reach Kong Island
BRAVO JACKSON
1933 Kong has way more fucking character than 2005 Kong
How does this kong cgi stack up with the new one
They're both revolutionary films.
Nah
The thing that I really HATE about the '33 film is that Ann never grew any affection towards Kong. It made the ending of the film more "happy" because Kong was made out to be the villain. In the 2005 film however, it was turned into a tragic ending.
One other change that I really liked was how Denham only decided to trap and capture Kong until what he filmed was destroyed. In the original, he still had functional film, but he decided to scrap it in lieu of deciding capturing Kong would be more profitable.
The original is overall more mean-spirited, while the remake is more sad.
I'd hope it'd be better since one came 12 years after the other, also it MUST be pointed out that while Jackson's is modeled after an actual gorilla SI Kong is a freaky cryptid more in line with the original
Watch these two versions of the same scene and tell me with a straight face that the 2005 Kong has more character.
youtube.com
youtube.com
>spends 1 hour getting to the island
>spend 45 minutes fighting random ass bugs
>kong fights 1 dinosaur for 3 minutes
>other irrelevant shit for the remainder of the flick
Yeah bravo jackson, a real masterpiece there.
They clearly didn't want to completely reveal Kong at that point in the remake. It's not really comparable.
>Kong was made out to be the villain
Did you even watch the fucking movie?
The tone throughout the movie doesn't imply anything different. I have no doubt audiences were cheering when they saw Kong fall off the Empire State Building. And to me, that's completely missing the meaning behind the movie. It should be a tragedy. No one should "win" at the end.
Let me add that the 2005 remake is one of the few films that have made me cry. The original doesn't do that for me.
Nobody did win you retard. The humans were really fucking clearly portrayed as the villains. To make it even more clear, the sequel was about how Carl was in the wrong.
Alright, how about this
youtube.com
youtube.com
The 1933 version actually made me cry, the 2005 version just left me bored.
It's unironically one of the best remakes ever made and Jackson really pulled off well the ending.
Hmm, I'm not sure how the original scene was more moving but to each their own I suppose. With the CGI, we got to actually see Kong's expressions in a highly detailed manner. Without him talking, we basically knew what he was thinking throughout the movie. Obviously, with stop-motion, that's not really possible. Kong in the original was more of just a brute that happened to take a liking to a blonde lady. In the remake, you can really see how he cares deeply for Ann.
are you autistic by any chance?
Everyone who goes here is autistic.
>With the CGI, we got to actually see Kong's expressions in a highly detailed manner.
Then why does the original have more expression?
It DOESN'T, though.
It DOES, though.
Looks good but stylistically very different, obviously doesn't look as immediately realistic and believable as jackson kong but more monstrous
Lol
Better then this years disaster
>>inb4 "it's too long!"
>
>Not an argument.
How is calling the film a bloated piece of shit not an argument?
>those fucking insect scenes
i was 15 when it came out and i was still scared shitless
fucking insects, man
For whatever reason, that scene really reminded me of the Eclipse scene from Berserk.
That looks pretty bad overall. The way the tentacle jumps off his shoulder at the end looks very fake.
the 1933 is shit compared to 2005, you just prefer it because its le old. even jack black delivered the line with more expression
>If you like what I don't like, that means you like it for a meme reason
The effects in King Kong are miles ahead of The Lost World.
>refuses to give said reason
i think the 1933 version is impressive for its time, but the technology just doesn't hold up to the 2005. the camera shots and the music is simply so much superior that its incomparable
not the digital dinosaurs
Jackson Kong is definitely bloated, there's no particular reason the cast needed to face every single creature living on the island.
This is just an opinion but it makes me violently angry.
Do you have to be beaten over the head with expressions and emotion to evoke a reaction from yourself?
If I had to banish one film from history it would be Jackson's film and not the original.
I feel more sorry for the Ape that no one loved than the one who is a gigantic dindu noffin in the eyes of the protags.