Which is the better movie?

which is the better movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/SOMKnhN7ABs
youtu.be/yvD3X3RcK3Y
youtu.be/P33u7en-qVU
youtu.be/cmZXJsklxSA
youtu.be/hlHf8wkpWa4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Definitely Game of Thrones.

Jacksons Kong, easily. Skull Island was not a good movie

Jackson's Kong. Pure kino

Only a pleb would disagree.

>Skull Island was not a good movie
Isn't that a little harsh?

Honestly this. The scene in the ravine was one of the greatest scenes from any movies I've ever seen

Jackson's Kong is genuinely kino, but I'll never be able to get out of my mind the scene where they're running away from the herbivorous dinosaurs and the dinosaurs never seem to get any closer.

Jack Black made that movie

John C. Reilly made that movie

Neat. Would anyone want to see a modern movie done in this style?
youtu.be/SOMKnhN7ABs

Jackson's.

>the bug pit scene
>the T-Rex chase and fight
>period New York city
>the taxi chase
>Adrian Brody and Naomi Watts
>those hideous natives impaling people
>"We'll finish this picture and donate the proceeds to his wife and kids."

Kong was more of an adventure drama, and Skull Island was more of an action horror.

not really.

>every death is a cgi write off

No it was shit

They're both heavily flawed films with only small redeeming features..

John C Reilly was in the Jackson Kong?

Skull Island is dogshit. It's so fucking awful.

jackson kong island was genuinely scary

It's supposed to be a big budget B-flick. Wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

>It's supposed to be bad

There are no big budget B-flicks. Why would a studio try to make something bad to appeal to the minority of people who like best of the worst shit tier movies? Think about that for a second.

>i-its meant to be shit
its still shit, fuck off

Neither are as bad as Shin Godzilla.

1933: youtu.be/yvD3X3RcK3Y

2005: youtu.be/P33u7en-qVU

2017: youtu.be/cmZXJsklxSA

The director is also a complete piece of shit. And he's doing the Metal Gear Solid movie

Really? Dropped. Though I never would have expected the film adaptation to be any good especially after the Konami disaster.

Skull Island was a decent popcorn flick. But 2005 was fucking amazing, it felt so adventurous and grand in scale. Never seen anything quite like it.

Jackson's Kong, definitely

>mfw they get trapped down with all the giant bugs

Any love for Dino De Laurentiis' Kong?

Herbivores don't get as much energy from plants as carnivores get from meat. So the herbivorous dinosaurs continually have to stop and eat to have enough energy to run after the omnivorous humans, therefore never get closer. Carnivorous dinosaurs have lots more energy than omnivorous humans and would have easily caught the humans. If humans would quit polluting their bodies with plants, they could outrun raptors. Think about that the next time someone sets a salad in front of you.

>those nipples

>tv likes 2005 kong

though I was alone

>1933: a classic battle of brute strength
>2005: a modern take with excellent cinematography, thrilling moments and a great homage to the original
>2017: using weapons like a common criminal with a grotesque killing move

...

Expand

>this
death felt unearned and akin to "we havent had anyone die for a while so..." The island didnt feel threatening or unwelcoming.
It also felt like it was a world made for Kong instead of a world in which Kong was in

There's also this disappointment youtu.be/hlHf8wkpWa4

I watched King Kong in a waiting room recently. Maybe it would've been better with sound at home, but muted just made the visual effects stand out as even more visually dated than they would've looked otherwise. So much green-screening in this movie, most of it terrible.

The most common complaint about it is that it's too long

Right by a Kong sized margin.

>largest animals ever to live on the planet
>not having enough energy because of plants

You have it backwards. Plants supply more energy and meat eaters get the scraps. The problem is that their size just burns more energy and in turn requires more eating.

"not a good movie" is honestly a nice way of putting it.

I only liked AK/Beansman. Other than his actor it was a fucking mess. I don't know where to begin on what was wrong with it.

Definitely, that one guy with the suitcase especially.
Everybody's just having a random conversation then CGI lizard bats fly in, kill him, nobody really reacts and the scene changes.
That one guy who was stranded away from everyone else felt off too. The stickbug bit was cool but giving him a cut to blood splatter death sorta made the entire subplot feel pointless.
John Goodman was handled arguably as bad as Walter White in the 2014 Godzilla, too. Why would you kill off a lead actor and primary character in a one off action scene?

Sadly Skull Island will probably end up being the height of the Monsterverse. Adam Wingard (Death Note) is directing Godzilla vs Kong.

who else Slivko here

what could have fixed this? more character development? Im trying to put my finger on it. Maybe more characters should have died by the elements and other island creatures other than that one spider and skull crawlers
Also Toby should have had more to work with than just wandering through the jungle

holy shit Jessica Lange was hot back in the day

Seconding your point tbqh, to consider it a straight up b flick is quite an overstatement but watching it i can see how the visuals kinda incorporated some camp. Also fuck the anons calling it shit, its not jackson's kino but still fun af.

Camerons had the better actors but skull island had the better kaiju

More character development would've worked, yeah, but better characters, too.
The Island's life was also horrible. The entire Island was made up of small deer, large ox, giant octopus, giant spider, bat lizards, a stickbug and Kong/the Skull crawlers.
That ecosystem wouldn't thrive at all, it just doesn't work. Peter Jackson had an actual ecosystem in his version of Skull Island, with scavengers, prey and predators all in roles that made sense. Kong Skull Island's version of the Island just looks like what it was: a mish mash of cool idea monsters and animals.
I have no idea how the idea would function predator and prey wise. I mean, what, smaller Skullcrawlers eat the ox, and the bat lizards.. scavenge?
I'm not sure if you can just "fix" bad writing, which is the main cause of Skull Island's problems.

The Island's ecosystem feels artificial, the characters are for the most part not fleshed out, the pacing and choice of death scenes is just bizarre, there's too much wrong with the movie. You'd basically need to keep the idea of Vietnam era, soldiers bomb Skull Island for underground tunnels, Kong shows up,
and re-write the entire fucking thing from there.

how the Island would function*

They look better than Skull Island as seen here

The cover is the only good thing about that dogshit movie

was meant for

It's a rip off (or ""homage"") of Apocalypse Now. There isn't a single original bone in it's body.

It made more money and got better reviews than Godzilla 2014. What does that tell you about the Monsterverse?

Kong Skull Island was the better kaiju flick

Still looks nice. But sad that the only good thing about the movie is a rip off.

>horror
What?

Peter jacksons kong was the first movie i ever bought. I though it was FANTASTIC
its hands down a modern classic

Skull island had lots of cool monster scenes but the characters were so shallow any scene with them just felt like a waste of film

Right now the Sup Forums contrarians are going to say Jackson's for the sole reason that the average person liked Skull Island and they want to feel intellectually superior. In 10 years they will be jerking off SI. It wasn't always this way, I suspect it happened when Sup Forums started invading.

There's only one large carnivore on the island and that's the adult Skull Crawler. Kong keeps the population in check. Everything else could function as a herbivore or pick off the smaller creatures couldn't they?

The Kong from 2005 actually looked like a giant gorilla, in the newer movie he looks like an oversized dindu.

skull island of course. I'm saying this unironically. This movie is smart and subversive with beautiful cinematography and great special effects. And postmodern in a best way. By saying postmodern i mean it references not to "real life" but to other movies. This is what makes this movie great and, so sad, misunderstood by many.

And there is a lot of humour. Humour too inteligent for audience

i'm reading on the internet

>hurr durr it was stupid, that scene was stupid

and every fucking time it wasn't. It was just a joke that someone didn't get like that scene with this fella and grenades.
jackson's Kong is narcissistic crap. Peter Jackson did a fantastic job with a lotr trilogy and i blame that. This movie is faux-stylish and unnaturaly stretched (stretched in time i mean) there are many scenes that doesn't add anything to a story. It's just jacksons autoerotic masturbation.
sorry for my english, it's not my first language

His design is based on that of the original Kong from 1933.

Not as good as the original.

PJ's King Kong is great.

Kong Skull Island sucked.

I liked Jackson's Kong but i saw it in the cinema on release and haven't watched it since.
I thought Skull Island was pretty bad.

King Kong (2005) is like great meal you enjoy.
Skull Island is like snack for whatever

Jackson's was admirable for its ambitions, not much else.

Skull Island aims much lower and works as an alright flick.

>And there is a lot of humour. Humour too inteligent for audience
Do you have any examples?

More character development could only be achieved by getting rid of all of the characters that are dead weight. Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson, as attractive as they are, have got to go. Maybe keep the focus of the story on Sam Jackson's character and his whole ahab story. Or better yet fuck everything and just make the story entirely about John c Reilly's character and his Japanese counterpart after they crash land on the island