Badmovies.org Forum

I can't believe that the same director who directed the 1976 remake went on to do a sequel to it, considering that the former was considered such a turkey. I want to see KKL just to see how bad it is. Apparently it's not on dvd (and maybe it'll show up now that there is a King Kong movie coming out in December). And virtually no video store carries it for rent.

You know, I've always wanted to watch all the King Kong sequels and remakes, but have only seen vague sections of the '76 remake.  I don't know why, but there's something about that big ape that inspires a bit of curiousity in me!

Isn't this the one where they give him the heart transplant or something like that. Never have seen the whole thing.

I saw yesterday that Peter Jackson's King Kong will have a 3 hour running time.

Yup. Thats the one.
An artificial heart made from a Volvo! And where did they get the blood for this op, anyhoo? Yeesh!
Kong gets to eat some rednecks that tick him off, and he has to dig a baseball cap from his teeth!
Oh, it is to laugh. There be riffs galore in this foul fowl.

And it cost $207 million to make. The studio put up the first $175 million, and when it went over budget, Jackson put up the other $32 million. As a comparison, the 1976 remake cost only $25 million or $84 million in today's dollars.

They got the blood from a female Kong. (So Kong can get laid after the operation) The operation was done using a chainsaw as a scalpel.  And it was a Jarvik artificial heart!  Made in Canada!

This is the film Linda Hamilton (of Terminator fame) wishes she had never made.

I found it kind of sucky, but I did like the part where Kong ate the inbred hicks... and the part where he crushes the dumb general  with his fist. In comparision with the 1976 remake: I found KK's music, monster effects (minus the rubber snake that even Godzilla would've laughed at) and nudity better (I don't go for ape boobs in KKL... but that's just me)...

Frankly, I'm not much of a Kong fan... almost every Kong movie is just another pale rehash of the Black & White original. Don't get me wrong, I like Peter Jackson's work, but I expect his version will make me yearn for the original film...

Peter Jackson is destined for a bust, and at 3 hours and $207 million, KK could be this year's turkey. Isn't there a formula that movies have to make 3x what it cost to be a bonafide box office success? Somehow I don't see it making $621 million. Maybe globally, but NOT domestically. Even 2x at @ $414 million seems dicey.

I hope the new "King Kong" won't be a flop. KK deserves a decent modern remake, and Dino de Laurentiis didn't suceed.

About KKL, the only part I can't remember is one of the stupidest let's-get-together lines ever to grace an 80s film followed by a scene where Linda Hamilton bares her breasts. And that's all I want to remember.

Alan Smithee wrote:

> Peter Jackson is destined for a bust, and at 3 hours and $207
> million, KK could be this year's turkey. Isn't there a formula
> that movies have to make 3x what it cost to be a bonafide box
> office success? Somehow I don't see it making $621 million.
> Maybe globally, but NOT domestically. Even 2x at @ $414 million
> seems dicey.

...Never mind the fact most Kong fans have seen the original, and have probably heard of a little film called Jurassic Park, which has plenty of computer generated dinos. I suspect the new film will be better than Dino De Laurentis' film (but again, as I've already said, I think the musical score of the 1976 film was very good... too bad it sucked on every other element), but most Godzilla movies are better than that, and for a fraction of the price :) This could be a defining ingredient in my argument that Americans just can't seem to make a really good giant monster movie (more on that later...).

I agree with you on everything you said, but what Jackson might have in his favor is that he's from New Zealand, he isn't American.

But even at that, I can't see King Kong being a huge, smash hit.

I think people are getting sick of these 3 hour "epics". Narnia is rumored to be close to 3 hours and the new Harry Potter has to be around two hours and a half. There's bound to be a burn out. People aren't clamoring for movies as much, too.
At least, not at nearly $10 a ticket.

I don't know about anyone else but I think King Kong will go pretty well.

Jackson is always going to give this film everything he has because this is pretty much his all-time favourite movie [he is often quoted as to saying how much King Kong the original inspired him and talks about it often]  Which is why he put $30 million of his own money towards it I guess.

Sure, it's an expensive film, but I think quite a few people are excited by this one, and its a film that's largely accessible to alot of people.  Though making $600 mill is a tough slog for any film, let alone domestically [though this is a worldwide event movie and I guess should be judged as such]

Sure, people may be getting sick of 3 hour epics [I'm not for one] but I have to say I disagree with Just Plain Horse and Alan Smithee.

So what if people know the story already, everyone knew Titanic was going to sink, doesn't mean that was going to put them off seeing it [though Leo probably had a small thing to do with the box office numbers on that one!]  Knowing the plot is only half the battle when it comes to movies, most audience members are pretty perceptive when it comes to filmic rules and conventions [Romantic Comedies rarely stray from the same formula yet some go reasonably well, though of course not a blistering success]  What matters is how the film is treated and how it works.

Also, just because people have seen that 'little film called Jurassic Park' doesn't mean that it still isn't damn exciting to have a giant monkey beat on a T-Rex, that and it isn't like this one scene is going to take up the whole movie!

Another thing is you could probably tell from the trailers is that it's going to [hopefully] be different to other big monster blockbusters and as such will be pretty hard to compare the Godzilla remake to this one: they both seem a hell of a lot different [as in Godzilla remake=silly and generally crap, King Kong remake=great action and classy direction]

Sure it may not turn into a huge success; there's no telling what will happen until the damn thing is released, but I for one am in the 'it's going to rock' category.

Two comments:  
A number of people going to see Titanic were shocked when the boat sank.  This says something about the lowest common denominator but what it says I shudder to contemplate.

Godzilla 2000 was a much better film that the Matthew Broderick Godzilla.  It harkened back to the days of a guy in rubber suit stomping model buildings.  I thought it was a brilliantly done mastepiece for recreating the style of the older movies so perfectly.

Shadowphile wrote:

> Two comments:  
> A number of people going to see Titanic were shocked when the
> boat sank.  This says something about the lowest common
> denominator but what it says I shudder to contemplate.
>

That is indeed an incredibly scary thought indeed...

As for Godzilla 2000:  good on them for making a film which captured the essence of the old 'stomp on buildings' costumed creatures.  Loads of fun they be!

But I guess if you are going to compare monster movies, King Kong [at least the original] is all about the high class special effects.  It lives and breaths from the fact that it is jam packed full of crazy effects which are of excellent quality.  That's just it's history I guess.  

Nothing wrong with either [Broderick's version not counted of course!] since there's lots of fun to be had watching a traditional Godzilla film, especially for its own use of effects [model tanks are funny!]

That whole Titanic thing still seems so odd though... ah well...

This movies hard to find? It doesn't deserve a DVD release but rather  it should be put on DVD.

I happly bought it from a Garage sale years ago when I was a lad. I always liked the end battle of Kong vs. Machine Gun vechiles. Now if they had some heavier projectals then Kong would have been blown to bites.

Chunks o Monkey!

That battle is still pretty entertaing but unlike the rest of the movie,  with age. it's become dumb.

Did I word that right?

But I havn't sent the first Dino de firm for a good chunk of years.

Alan Smithee,

To address the the box office success thing, a movie does not have to make back 3x it's budget to be consider a success.  If it even makes back all its' budget, or a little over it, it's considered a success.

Shadowphile wrote:

> Two comments:  
> A number of people going to see Titanic were shocked when the
> boat sank.  This says something about the lowest common
> denominator but what it says I shudder to contemplate.
>
> Godzilla 2000 was a much better film that the Matthew Broderick
> Godzilla.  It harkened back to the days of a guy in rubber suit
> stomping model buildings.  I thought it was a brilliantly done
> mastepiece for recreating the style of the older movies so
> perfectly.

I saw Godzilla 2000 in a theater (during its brief stateside run) and it remains one of my all time favorite movie-going experiences. I knew from the getgo that the American remake was going to be crap; Why? I've compiled a short list of possible reasons

*Because we cannot fathom things of such an awe-inspiring nature as an enormous creature rampaging through the crowded cities of man. Even during the 50's- when rampaging monsters where the rage- Americans just couldn't really get into it. Remember 9/11? (What? You haven't forgotten it?) This is the kind of carnage the Japanese were able to imagine decades beforehand... while we thought we were safe in pretending it was simply "impossible".

*Look at films like The Amazing Colossal Man, The Giant Gila Monster, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, The Giant Claw, The Land Unknown and The Beginning of the End (to name a few). Now compare them to lesser monster films of the Far East like Dogora, The Mysterians, Godzilla vs. Monster Zero, Gamera vs. Barugon, Godzilla vs. Megalon and even Frankenstein Conquers the World. With the exception of Them!, very few stateside movies have managed to capture the power and spectacle the Asian films have effortlessly... nevermind the annoying cliches of the era. (made a comparision? Now add Rodan, GMK and Godzilla:Tokyo SOS into the mix)

*American studios are obsessed with remaking and (supposedly) recapturing the power of an original film. That's why Jaws, Psycho, and Poltergeist films have all had three or more sequels (need I even bother to mention the Friday the 13th and Halloween sequels? I'd better get an adding machine first...). Why make three Austin Powers films? Why did the Dukes of Hazzard film even get off the ground? Why is there now a set of Batman movies that nobody is even going to buy? No imagination, just nostalgia and a desire for a quick buck.

*After the original King Kong came out, a sequel (Son of Kong) was rushed into production that same year... ever see it? It ain't half as good... we spend more time following Carl Denham and listen to him go on about his glory days than we do with any giant apes or dinosaurs. Leave it to the Japanese to be wily and determined enough to steal Willis O' Brian's idea and pit Kong against Godzilla and revitalize a dying monster.

*Since King Kong vs. Godzilla, Kong has made (including the upcoming film) 4 films (two remakes, one direct sequel... and another Japanese film, King Kong Escapes). Godzilla has made another 26 films (one remake, two direct sequels to other films... and one American film...).

An interesting fact about Godzilla vs King Kong.  Depending on where the movie was released (Japan or USA) the winner of the battle was different.

In Japan, Godzilla won

In the USA, it was King Kong.