Buttmunker

The things I didn't like about this new remake:

01: Denham gave zero credit to Driscoll, and instead made that cowardly actor the hero. The world now thinks that the dumb actor saved Ann on Skull Island. I don't like how this aspect of the story was changed

02: No real fear. Ann is way up high on the Empire State Building, but she is acting and reacting to Kong. I know she trusts Kong and all that, but to what extent. Kong is a big bulky creature up on a very small ledge, yet Ann is right there beside him, totally secure in the fact that Kong won't accidently push her off the edge...

...also, she nor Jack experience any vertigo whatsoever. Like they're just up a little bit from the ground instead of way up on the freakin' Empire State Building. Nobody puked or anything. Unrealistic!

Frankly, Nobody experienced the kind of fear they should have while on Skull Island, either. Denham using the butt of a gun to swat away monsters?! Nobody shit in their pants the whole time!

resinrats

I saw a Robot Chicken episode recently that had an issue I had never thought of. Why was there a door big enough for Kong to get through in the wall?

Buttmunker

because, as the wall was being constructed, they needed a door big enough to herald the dinosaurs through.

...also, because then there'd be no movie...

DarthMarino

Yes, it would. But this is fiction, not a documentary. Thing's can be done sparingly and still have a great effect (like that shark movie from the 70's). In the original version the pacing was frantic so no matter how many giant reptiles were thrown at you, you still felt that the movie was moving forward. The 1976 version didn't focus too much on scary monsters and stuck to main story of a giant ape and a girl falling in love. In Jackson's version the story comes to a screeching halt several times and goes on these long tangents with dinosaur stampedes and bug attacks. I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be included but they really do overstay their welcome.

Buttmunker

Out of the three main King Kong movies, I place Peter Jackson's version as third on the list, the original as best.

I rate the 1976 version better than 2005 because, I feel, the 1976 version has more rewatchability. You had just a few main characters, not zillions, and those main characters said or did important things. The Jeff Bridges character (he's called what in the movie...c'mon brain...Prescott!), and he may be a animal rights activist, but even with the name and job change, he still was Jack Driscoll...he rescues Dwan...he gets the credit (although he declines to be in the act)...and well, Prescott had better lines than actor Brody did.

The 1976 movie even had great special effects (Kong looked a tad like James Evans Sr from Good Times), and even though he climbed the World Trade Center, what the hay - the results were the same, no?

Jackson's Kong lacked one major ingredient: depth of characters. Yeh, I cared for Ann Darrow, but I could give a shit about Driscoll and the rest. All I really focused on was Kong, and while that was a wild ride watching him, it didn't flesh out the rest of the story for me.