PDA

View Full Version : Not Your Grandad's King Kong


Jet Jaguar
September 2nd, 2004, 08:25 AM
Peter Jackson Says He Won't Ape Original King Kong

By Melanie Carroll

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (Reuters) - Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson will relive a childhood dream when he starts filming a remake of the 1933 classic "King Kong" in his Wellington hometown next week.


Speaking to reporters Thursday at his studio in the New Zealand capital, the "Lord of The Rings" director said his first attempt to film "King Kong" was as a youngster. It involved a Super 8 camera and a cardboard model of the Empire State Building.


"It's great to be able to finally get the film made. It's a film which I've loved ever since I was a child. It really inspired me to want to become a film-maker," he said.


A screaming, vine-swinging special effects extravaganza, Jackson's "King Kong" will also be a character-driven psychological study of a monster -- and, of course, a love story.


Jackson says he will pay homage to the original, which starred Fay Wray, who died on Aug. 8 aged 96, and retain the "mystery and romance of a bygone era." However, the characters -- including Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), Carl Denham (Jack Black (news)) and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody (news)) -- will not be carbon copies of those in the original film.


"To put modern political beliefs onto something that was made in 1933 is obviously putting a spin on it that doesn't really exist. It was a product of its time," he said.


"We're really just attempting to make a wonderful, mysterious adventure film ... it's about gorillas, it's about dinosaurs, and lost islands, and this relationship."


Watts said she accepted the part without seeing the script.


"This story is very simplistic and very human, so that's why I'm here," she said.


Jackson already had in mind Brody and Watts to play their characters, but decided on Black during the social whirl at the Academy Awards (news - web sites) in February, when he won three Oscars (news - web sites) for his final installment of the "Rings" trilogy, "The Return of the King."


"THAT'S STUPID"


Black said he had wanted to work on a Jackson film after seeing the "Rings" films.


"I remember thinking while I was watching The Lord of The Rings: 'man, I've got to get an audition for whatever he does next'," Black said.


"Then I thought that's just stupid. Everybody's going to want to be in his next film, better to just put it out of your mind."


"Then I got the call to come in and talk with them about 'King Kong' -- you wait your whole life to get a call like that."


Andy Serkis, who was the human model and voice of the computer-generated Gollum in two of the "Rings" movies, will do the same for the giant gorilla, as well as have a "live" role of a cook.


Black, who stars in folk-rock comedy act Tenacious D, and Brody both said they planned to play a lot of music in between filming in Wellington.





Jackson, who suffers seasickness, will use a number of land-based studio lots to film scenes, including those featuring the tramp steamer Venturer, which brings the giant ape to "civilization."

Special effects will be done by New Zealand-based Weta Digital and Weta Workshops, which won Oscars for their "Lord of the Rings" creations.

Hollywood turned down Jackson's previous "King Kong" pitch before his overwhelming success with the ambitious Rings trilogy. "The Return of the King," created Oscar history by winning all 11 categories in which it was nominated.

"King Kong" is reported to be likely to cost as much as US$130 million to make. Jackson spent $300 million making the three Rings films, which have grossed about $3 billion worldwide.

Universal Studios is due to release "King Kong" worldwide on December 14, 2005.

Reuters/VNU

anguirus55
September 2nd, 2004, 05:18 PM
However, the characters -- including Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), Carl Denham (Jack Black (news)) and Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody (news)) -- will not be carbon copies of those in the original film.

I'll still see it, but if Denham is evil like in the original script I will NOT be happy.

Cole Deschain
September 3rd, 2004, 01:51 AM
I'm a little worried that all the actors are jumping aboard with blind faith...

Watts said she accepted the part without seeing the script.

Stuff like this^ can cause major headaches later on.

Alien-G
September 3rd, 2004, 03:14 AM
Will the composer from Lord of the Rings be composing this film, I'm sure Howard Shore could give King Kong a sad death theme.

Solar_Behemoth
December 10th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Okay. No, this is not an immature attempt to get a bunch of attention. This is just one of the many stupid and disturbing deep thoughts from Hank Venetta.
I'm completely serious on the following.

I've been wondering if some people these days will care if King Kong does not have realistic "parts." Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to include them in the CGI model - not completely show them, as they would be mostly covered with fur....

I dunno, audiences can be picky about these things....
Back in the old days nobody cared, but I wonder if anyone cares today and will be less impressed with the realism of Kong. I'm probably the only one here that would really care about this...

I feel so stupid bringing this up...... :look:

CBright7831
December 10th, 2004, 05:04 PM
Uh...

Who cares?

godofPH
December 10th, 2004, 05:35 PM
Kong will be made with the same CGI technique that was used to make Gollum in LOTR. PJ favors that way of CGI

Kiryu goji
December 10th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Why don't we just make him look like he did in '33?

Kaiju Fan
December 10th, 2004, 06:22 PM
There has been no need to do something like that in kaiju eiga for the past 50 years (unless you count Lady Kong's breasts in KK Lives), so I don't see the need to start now. Besides, if anything, it would prove distracting to see his "ding dong" in every shot of him, and if the audience already thinks that the idea of a giant ape is dumb, then that won't really change their minds much. If anything, they may laugh at it and think it's cheesy.

Mothraleo
December 10th, 2004, 07:01 PM
*VOMITS ALL OVER THE FORUM* GINO was pushing it as it is. We don't need "sexual" realism with giant monsters.

godofPH
December 10th, 2004, 07:20 PM
I don't really think they are going to give ol' KK a wang. It would be realistic but I don't think they would do it. Remember PJ had the decncy to give Gollum a loing cloth. He can't give Kong a loing cloth so I don't think there will be anything at all.

Project Pimp
December 10th, 2004, 07:47 PM
No. When's the last time you saw a gorilla's wang anyway? Chances are you didn't. Non-human primates are nowhere near as endowed as the average human.

Solar_Behemoth
December 10th, 2004, 07:48 PM
*VOMITS ALL OVER THE FORUM* GINO was pushing it as it is. We don't need "sexual" realism with giant monsters.

Yeah, "we" giant monster fans don't.
But I'm wondering about the general public- I mean, what if Gollum didn't have a loin cloth and there was nothing but skin there? I'm sure he wouldn't have the same impact as he did in the actual movie. ---EDIT--- I'm realizing how stupid that was. :laugh: ---EDIT----

I'm not talking about Kong's dong being completely visible, too....

Angiru-San
December 10th, 2004, 08:35 PM
A very interesting topic, indeed.

I see your point, completely, Hank. But the movie Mighty Joe Young comes to mind with such a topic brought to our attention. He was seen several times standing erect, and not once were any of his 'parts' shown. I still found the effects in that movie highly believeable.

I dont believe anything will be visible, dear lord I hope not... But lets try and keep the language, references, and other such things in this topic at a minnimum. We are occasionally blessed with visits from younger audiences.... :D

Shin lvl2 Goji
December 10th, 2004, 08:49 PM
What the..?? No no no just no! http://img33.exs.cx/img33/5100/iconpukeface5tm.gif If ever there were something to ruin a monster movie experience that'd definetly be it. It wouldn't be remembered as being Peter Jackson's vision of the legendary movie monster King Kong, it'd be remembered as being very disturbing in every shot of Kong. :crazy: For some reason A*P*E* comes to mind when I saw this topic I don't remember the movie well at all but wasn't there something like this in that movie too?

juan
December 11th, 2004, 12:58 AM
You know, I'm just hoping that an Adminstrator gets this out...

Weird though. Months ago, I was at a computer terminal at my college and I saw someone. I told them of Kong's new movie and the guy said, "Kong, Kong with the--" word that rhymes with a Kong but begins with a "D."
I said, in extreme seriousness, and I am not makng this up, that it is true that Kong has always been the image of masculinity and that perhaps no one but Godzilla can rival his manliness. A recieved a frightened stare for me efforts.
However, this is not the first time this subject has been raised. In "Girl in the Hairy Paw," a book about Kong 1933 made of essays collected by Ronald Gottesman and Harry Geduld, one essay stated that the Empire State Building was in fact meant to be giant representative of the male organ; Kong's specifically as he was on it. (It was either a joke or the author had seen King Kong 1933 just one time too many...:sarcasm: )

Kaiju Fan
December 11th, 2004, 01:20 AM
In "Girl in the Hairy Paw," a book about Kong 1933 made of essays collected by Ronald Gottesman and Harry Geduld, one essay stated that the Empire State Building was in fact meant to be giant representative of the male organ; Kong's specifically as he was on it. (It was either a joke or the author had seen King Kong 1933 just one time too many...:sarcasm: )

I think that's just a case of someone looking far too much into a movie. Cooper and O'Brien were looking to make a fun, fantasy movie, not some grand statement about the male reproductive system.

kaijufan1000
December 14th, 2004, 04:47 PM
*VOMITS ALL OVER THE FORUM* GINO was pushing it as it is. We don't need "sexual" realism with giant monsters.
yes. giant monsters and sexual realism dont go together. i dont think they would show Kongs "parts" because if you think about it only a wierdo would add something like that to a movie.

Invictus
December 14th, 2004, 05:31 PM
However, this is not the first time this subject has been raised. In "Girl in the Hairy Paw," a book about Kong 1933 made of essays collected by Ronald Gottesman and Harry Geduld, one essay stated that the Empire State Building was in fact meant to be giant representative of the male organ; Kong's specifically as he was on it. (It was either a joke or the author had seen King Kong 1933 just one time too many...:sarcasm: )
Yeah, the building couldn't have been picked because it was the tallest building in New York at that time, one where a giant ape could fall to his death.

I don't see them putting male genetials on Kong. I've seen quite of few National Geographic films on tv, several about gorrillas, and not once do I ever remember seeing an ape's genetials. So I think it's safe to assume that Kong will not be endowed as such.

Angiru-San
December 14th, 2004, 06:00 PM
Exactly. And with that note, we close this discussion. The thread itself is fine, but another thread has already been deleted due to the offending topic at hand.

On to other things...