I know there were some posts about the possibility of this happening a few months ago, but here's more news on it that i saw over on eonline.com

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12308,00.html

Long story short for the lazy...

"Peter Jackson is set to collect a whopping $20 million to helm a remake of King Kong, according to Daily Variety. "


As one of those people that felt the LOTR movies were overrated (not bad movies, just not what people make them out to be) it sounds like an obsene amount of money for Jackson and company. Oh well.

Realize that the big fee is on the anticipation of the film's box-office, not on its quality.

I love when people start new threads with threadcraps right off the bat.

I love all of Jackson's movies, and can't wait for Kong; from the crude Meet the Feebles, Bad Taste, and Dead Alive, to the brilliant, imaginative Heavenly Creatures, to the LOTR spectacles, I've enjoyed them all. That he'll be doing Kong is too friggin' cool in my book. One thing for sure about Jackson, the money won't be wasted.

Great news - of all the potential directors, I'm glad PJ is at the helm.

Even if Jackson screws up, this movie would HAVE to be better than the 1970's King Kong, wouldn't it?!

No doubt man!!!

King Kong is one film that desperately needs to be remade.
i don't think there is anyone born after 1980 that could honestly stand to watch that creaky B&W P.O.S.
But w/ Jackson remaking it, how cool is that gonna be!?
finally we will have some color ( why don't they just burn all B&W films already...nobody growing up now is gonna watch that stuff ) and even though its still gonna be set in the '30s, at least we will have new editing techniques, and super-sick camera moves.

Yeah! I'm sick of b&w movies with bad effects, if they wanted people to watch them, why didn't they make them in color, and with better effects?

Now bring on the J.Lo/Affleck Casablanca.

Dude I have no idea where you are coming from, but that is one of the strangest ideas I have ever read. I can not imagine watching Night of the Living Dead in color... or Clerks?!?! I'm 24 and have no problem watching older movies in B&W. Even King Kong. But, when Jackson remakes King Kong, I'll be there opening day

Are you serious? Because if you are...please leave forum immediately.

Back on topic..that's pretty cool to be getting paid $20 million to do your dream project.

Well think about it...he and his production team just took 3 classic 'unadaptable' books and made a fortune for the studio, plus rocketed themselves into the highest heights of the filmmaking world.

Is that worth $20 million vs. 20% of the gross? You bet.

Back away from the crackpipe... just put it down man.

Yeah, it seems to me like PJ is the ultimate geek-to-glory story.

I was just thinking...wouldn't it be cool if Peter Jackson decided to make KING KONG in B&W? That would be a bold move!

Well if they do, I know someone in this thread that won't be seeing it.

I have faith in Peter Jackson doing a good job. As long as the SFX doesn't involve Rick Baker in an ape suit, I'll go see it.

I'm torn. While I'm sure Kong will be a spectacle and they may even be able to do some fascinating things if they were to approach Kong as a sympathetic character, I'd almost rather have Jackson make another Frighteners-esque film - amusing, entertaining, and original.

I'm not sure I understand this forum completley sometimes. So when word comes that Michael Bay is set to produce a remake (of a movie that only a certain few would consider a 'classic' in the first place) this place gets up in arms and devotes several threads to how much it's gonna suck. Yet, when Peter Jackson signs on to remake a true 'classic' this place erupts in praise of what a great idea it is. Am I missing something here.

Am I alone in thinking Peter Jackson is wasting not only his talents, but also his post-LOTR cred, by remaking a movie that doesn't really need to be remade in the first place?

King Kong is such a product of its time... the racism, the "white man's burden," and the "damsel in distress," motifs just don't translate well into modern terms.

I mean, it's practically cringe-worthy watching the 70s remake with all of the Africans jumping around in big masks and doing that booga-booga thing, and then flipping out when they see a white woman.

But the problem is, if one takes out all of these silly, outdated themes, it ceases to really be King Kong anymore. Leave them in and its corny at best, offensive at worst.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I wish Peter Jackson had walked into Warners Brothers and said "I want to do Sandman."

Let's see, former indie director hits it big, has a popular film that garners lots of Oscars...and reveals that his big dream project is to remake a beloved b&w horror classic. Sounds familar, doesn't it?

Yes, for more than one director I can think of.

Yes.

There's a small percent of people here that like Michael Bay. Why? You have your art-house-indie fans that disagree with his work. Why? Because he doesn't make thought-provoking films about people with hard-relationships, or cancer. He makes a BOLD move, and makes what 99.5% of people want to see; exciting action films.

Then you have your pretentious uber-indie fans that just join in, and agree with whatever the art-house-indie fans say. They usually don't have anything to add that already hasn't been posted in a thread. I figure they just do it to get 'indie-creds' or some crap like that; really don't know.

And then there's the ******* film buff who hijacks threads CONSTANTLY.

I mean, Bay can't POSSIBLY be talentless. Have you ever paid attention to how 97% of filmgoers react to his movies? In conversation, try bringing up his movies. Excluding the guys on this forum, I don't know anyone that doesn't like Michael Bay's films...well MAYBE Peal Harbor.

King Kong sounds interesting. Is the same SE Team (forget the name) that worked on Lord of the Rings going to be doing this one?

GODZILLA

Sounds Good.

Clearly Peter Jackson is insane.

I mean, who does he think he is? Does he really think he can take a beloved old classic that has been obssessed over by geeks for generations and make it into a film that is both true to the original *and* successful enough to be big-budget blockbuster? It just can't be done.

And the subject matter! I mean really, what grown person wants to see a movie about dinosaurs on some isolated island?

Not to mention that it's set in the 1930s. Does anyone want to see a movie about some explorer running around having pulpy adventures in the 1930s? I think not.

And let's face it, most kids today have never *heard* of King Kong. You can no more make a popular movie based on that antique than you could make one based on, say, one of those creaky old Universal horror movies.

The man has *no idea* what he's doing.

I liked Bad Boys 2, The Rock and Armageddon. But I wouldn't say 99.5% of filmgoers want to see his films.

That may be a mistake. I don't think this film is a slam dunk blockbuster by any means. In fact, this film could bomb regardless of how well it's done.

You have to at least question the viability of a film that is produced by Universal. Anyone remember the Hulk? How about another film where a giant creature tears through a city in the name Godzilla, and that film had an incredible teaser and huge budget? How about Planet of the Apes? All of these films were based on popular and well known characters. Two of the three films were remakes. All of them for the most part, were considered can't miss projects, just like King Kong. Unlike those films, King Kong has already been remade once.

Who knows. The film could do good, but as I said, it's not a slam dunk. It certainly has a chance to bomb regardless of it's quality. We'll see.