King Kong (2005)

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
[b] From Box Office Mojo:

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith opening take=$108,435,841 # of theaters opened in=3,661

King Kong opening take=$50,148,000 #theaters opened in=3,568

Vader takes the monkey down. ✅ [/B]

My initial reaction to this is:
1) How much money went into making each one?
2) How do you compare an original movie that is part of an ongoing "dynasty" against a movie that is a basically a remake of a movie originally made back in 1933?

The fact that King Kong did so well is a testimonial to the powers of advertising. 😆

Originally posted by SpyCspider
SPOILERS

saw it today. Was pretty awesome, BUT

I think I still think the classic 1933 one was more horrifying and more dramatic. King Kong was bigger (50 feet as opposed to 25 in the new movie), the dinosaurs were scarier, the mood was more tense, nothing felt corny or out of place. Even Jackson himself said his remake wont' be as good as the original.

That's where you're wrong,Kong was NEVER 50 feet tall,he's always been 24 feet tall.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
That's where you're wrong,Kong was NEVER 50 feet tall,he's always been 24 feet tall.

He's right. But 25* feet.

King Kong is being described as 25 feet tall on his hind legs by the makers of this version, half as tall as the filmmakers of the 1933 described their "50-foot" Kong. However, in proportion to people and objects in that film, the original Kong was actually around the same height (20-25 feet) as the new Kong.

-IMDB

Originally posted by BackFire
That's fine, King Kong is still an infinitely better film, IMO.

I agree and I haven't seen either films. 😄

Originally posted by Mando
He's right. But 25* feet.

King Kong is being described as 25 feet tall on his hind legs by the makers of this version, half as tall as the filmmakers of the 1933 described their "50-foot" Kong. However, in proportion to people and objects in that film, the original Kong was actually around the same height (20-25 feet) as the new Kong.

-IMDB

Also,SpyCspider said that it was stupid for Kong to stand on all four legs like a gorilla when it really wasn't.If Kong if supposed to be a gorilla,then he needs to act like a gorilla.Also,who cares if the natives were African American?This is just general nitpicking over nothing in my eyes.

I thought it was awesome.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's fine, King Kong is still an infinitely better film, IMO.

Now did I say ROTS was the better film? Nope I didnt. My point in posting that was Ive grown sick of the fanboys saying that Kong was going to blow ROTS out of the water on their opening weekend. ( Not speaking to anyone specific mind you) I never once said Kong was an inferior movie. All I cared about was ROTS retaining its number one spot and it did.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
Also,SpyCspider said that it was stupid for Kong to stand on all four legs like a gorilla when it really wasn't.If Kong if supposed to be a gorilla,then he needs to act like a gorilla.Also,who cares if the natives were African American?This is just general nitpicking over nothing in my eyes.

sigh... 😐

Never said it was stupid. I said i was put off by how anatomically correct he was in this new one, because i preferred the HUMANOID monster of the classic 1933. NO KIDDING he was supposed to act like a gorilla in the new version! Hence, I made the comparisons...that he walked on all fours, exhibited gorilla personality, he wasn't a MONSTER that the original depicted him to be. It's like when they remade Godzilla for the 1998 American version, they made him more realistic...acting like a huge lizard (who gets easily taken out) rather than a merciless unstoppable monster.

As for the natives, YES, they were totally different than the original one and my belief is Jackson did it to prevent any insensitivity complaints that the original faced for its depiction of African American islanders. Rather than show them as just some random island tribe that happened to be black, he wanted them to be more horrifying, act like bloodthirsty orcs...and therefore, letting the audience know there aren't people in this world who actually act like this. Just a perception.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
I agree and I haven't seen either films. 😄

OH WAIT, you haven't even seen the friggin film yet?! And yet you're already defending it? With what?! 😑

Don't be alarmed SpyCspider, UltimateHulk tends to be a dumbass sometimes... 😉

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
Now did I say ROTS was the better film? Nope I didnt. My point in posting that was Ive grown sick of the fanboys saying that Kong was going to blow ROTS out of the water on their opening weekend. ( Not speaking to anyone specific mind you) I never once said Kong was an inferior movie. All I cared about was ROTS retaining its number one spot and it did.

Well, if you're a quality over quantity type person, it did. It's gotten far better reviews both from critics and the general public, it may very well end up making more money in the long run simply because of the incredibly positive word of mouth.

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
Now did I say ROTS was the better film? Nope I didnt.

I agree with BackFire, word of mouth will do big things for Kong.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's fine, King Kong is still an infinitely better film, IMO.

Definitely. Disliked SW: ROTS.

Originally posted by BackFire
it may very well end up making more money in the long run simply because of the incredibly positive word of mouth.

And also the people seeing it for their 2nd, 3rd or 4th time.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It's a great movie - ambitious, fun, spectacular and emotionally genuine.

All the bits on Skull Island were extraordinary, especially King Kong giving the T-Rexes a thorough beating - the whole audience was clapping and cheering after that little tussle. The bit with those worm things was disgusting, especially when one of them was sucking on the chef's head. I loved the motif of a physically immense beast being stunned - like us all - by a beautiful sunset/sunrise and a blonde with a great pair of legs.

Wonderful movie.

Out of curiousity (or to anyone), what are "those worm things"? I've heard many people saying that it was disgusting but I've yet to see the movie.

-AC

They look like a penis coming out of a foreskin. With teeth. So, I guess you could call them 'Teethed Foreskin-Penis Worms'. Whether that is their real name; I know not.

^lol

i guess theyr'e sorta leeches/lampreys....

either way, they were the grossest things in the movies next to all the other bugs.....the dinosaurs weren't scary, cuz well, they're dinosaurs and act like what we'd expect. Doesn't mean i woudn't sh*t my pants if 3 T-rexes were chasing me.

alucard The film was brilliant I,ve just their now come out of the cinema and straight onto the net, it was amazing. I hate worm creatures and giant scorpian /ant hybrids but Kong himself kicks ass literally.

I absolutely loved it! There are a couple problems with it that I found, but overall, it was a great film. King Kong was so real-looking, it was unbelieveable.

Guess what ?

After 24 hours awake i went to watch this movie and fell asleep in the theatre. Stupid me.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
They look like a penis coming out of a foreskin. With teeth. So, I guess you could call them 'Teethed Foreskin-Penis Worms'. Whether that is their real name; I know not.

Jesus, Keep the Grapics level down. Or don't mention those kinds of things at all.

Originally posted by GCG
Guess what ?

After 24 hours awake i went to watch this movie and fell asleep in the theatre. Stupid me.

😐 That's bad.