Remake vs Original

[Jim H]

My point was exactly that - look at any user based ratings of the King Kong remake and they're also good.  Not fantastic perhaps, but solid.  Exit numbers were also high, IIRC.

For example, on NetFlix the average rating is 3.5/5.  On Box Office Mojo it got a B, with fully half the voters giving it an A.  On the IMDB it has a 7.6 (which is very high with its weighted averages).

So, basically, overall, the critics like it and general audiences like it.  The only people who on the whole DON'T seem to like it are movie enthusiasts on message boards.  And that's fine.  I'm obviously one of those people, just don't agree with 'em this time.  Another example somewhat similar to this is Titanic.  Generally liked by both the public and critics, but lambasted by us movie board peoples.

A big fan of Jackson's earlier films, he points out, that this version of the film is too long. Too bloated. Spends too much time on minor characters. Has too much speechifying. Spends too much time one pointless foreshadowing. Has too many scenes that just slow down the pace of the film.

Are you sure he's not talking about the second two LOTR films?  Those criticisms apply to them as well, particularly Jackon's extended versions.  I'd agree King Kong would be improved by trimming about 20 minutes out of it though (basically eliminate the subplot with Jimmy, that'd be a good start).

[BoyScoutKevin]

My point was exactly that - look at any user based ratings of the King Kong remake and they're also good.  Not fantastic perhaps, but solid.  Exit numbers were also high, IIRC.

For example, on NetFlix the average rating is 3.5/5.  On Box Office Mojo it got a B, with fully half the voters giving it an A.  On the IMDB it has a 7.6 (which is very high with its weighted averages).

So, basically, overall, the critics like it and general audiences like it.  The only people who on the whole DON'T seem to like it are movie enthusiasts on message boards.  And that's fine.  I'm obviously one of those people, just don't agree with 'em this time.  Another example somewhat similar to this is Titanic.  Generally liked by both the public and critics, but lambasted by us movie board peoples.

A big fan of Jackson's earlier films, he points out, that this version of the film is too long. Too bloated. Spends too much time on minor characters. Has too much speechifying. Spends too much time one pointless foreshadowing. Has too many scenes that just slow down the pace of the film.

Are you sure he's not talking about the second two LOTR films?  Those criticisms apply to them as well, particularly Jackon's extended versions.  I'd agree King Kong would be improved by trimming about 20 minutes out of it though (basically eliminate the subplot with Jimmy, that'd be a good start).

No, he was talking about "King Kong." He actually seems to have liked Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings."

[Jim H]

I was being facetious.