All right, everyone knows about the hype. Everyone knows about director Peter Jackson’s desire to be a filmmaker stemming from his exposure to the original 1933 classic. Everyone knows Universal spent close to $200 million on this movie. Everyone knows this movie’s presence in the marketplace is already inescapable—has been for some time-- and it’s not yet Thanksgiving. Every little detail about the production of this movie is available to anyone who needs to know every little detail. And there’s already the inevitable above-it-all tone to the major portion of the Internet coverage of the upcoming release that may not exactly be hoping for failure on Jackson’s part, but is certainly (and not necessarily wrong-headedly) saying, “Come on, 800-pound Oscar-winning gorilla, prove it to me.” But if you can look at this new trailer and resist getting just a teensy bit excited to see what Jackson has in store, then, to paraphrase my old college film professor, William Cadbury, who once tried to imagine a viewer not being devastated over the assassination of Barbara Jean in Nashville, you’re a much stronger person than I am.
This trailer spells S-U-C-K-F-E-S-T. Can't you spot a suckfest coming when you see one?!?!
ReplyDeleteI'm hardly one to root against Peter Jackson, but this looks sooooo lame!
Sorry, D!
-The Mysterious aDr.IaN BeTa.MaX
I dunno, I might be a sucker, but I think it looks exciting--and I'm definitely a sucker for Naomi Watts. Saw a slightly different preview in the theater yesterday, and both Mrs. Blaaagh and I were foolishly excited. Still, nothing'll ever replace the wonderful original version, for me.
ReplyDeleteMe too, B. I may have to cop to being a hopeless geek, but I look at this trailer, imagining the things that Jackson must still have up his sleeve that he hasn't yet allowed to be revealed, and my hopes are raised pretty high. There's no way the movie will replace the original in anyone's heart, and I don't think that's the director's intention. Is it unrealistic to expect that the movie might be spectacular in its own right? I don't think so. Jackson's track record gives me a lot more hope than the M.A.B. is allowing for.
ReplyDelete8763W:
ReplyDeleteI had forgotten about the Saturday morning cartoon show until you brought it up. But now I'm recalling a plastic King Kong toy with magnetic hand that I coveted as a kid that was tied in with that show. Here's a link to look at some of the items that were connected with the series:
http://tinyurl.com/9r5ws
Hey 8763! I, too, had totally forgotten about that show, but the memory came charging back (through the jungle of memory...OK, I'll stop now; I'm not THAT bad a writer!) when you mentioned it, and especially when I saw those toys. I think the friendly cartoon version of Kong probably helped me get over my fear of the scary 1933 guy...I saw it at age 3 or 4, and had nightmares of Kong peeking in the 2nd floor windows, then reaching in to get me.
ReplyDeleteIs that the same cartoon show that had that theme song that I still get stuck in my head every once in a while, well the music anyway. I'm shaky on the lyrics, though they're something like "You know the name of King! Kong! Ten times as big as a man..."
ReplyDeleteBrian: I think that's right, although I'm not sure. Rodger?
ReplyDeleteAlso, did you happen to see the Merian C. Cooper documentary on TCM? It's a Kevin Brownlow-directed item featuring some excellent audio of Cooper himself, and last night they ran it along with Kong, of course, but also with the 1925 documentary Grass, which we'd talked about earlier. Don't know if Chang will be showing up too- I'll have to check the TCM schedule-- but Grass looks fascinating.
I did not see the TCM documentary, but hope I will be able to do so soon. I notice it's an extra on the recent Warner DVD.
ReplyDeleteGrass is simply an amazing film. Chang is weirdly wonderful too and has particular interest for me as I lived near where it was filmed for a couple years. Ever since hearing reports from the Cooper/Shoedsack retrospctive at the Pordenone Film Festival two years ago, I've been hoping prints of more obscure films such as Rango might turn up. Perhaps the documentary sheds light on them that will eventually spark someone's interest in releasing them?
I'm really hoping that some of the benefit of Jackson's Kong being in the marketplace and (presumably) tearing up the box office will be some further interest in Cooper/Schoedsack. I'll be on the lookout, and I know you will! By the way, here at work I was just assigned a couple of old Carole Lombard films to work on for DVD subtitling-- Hands Across the Table, a terrific film she did for Mitchell Leisen with Fred MacMurray and Ralph Bellamy, and an unknown quantity for me, Love Before Breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps... Stil no pre-code stuff coming through the door as yet, though!
ReplyDeleteDennis, I'm so ashamed. I dutifully watched this trailer, and about the time they started traipsing around the tropical island, I realized I've never seen the 1933 KING KONG, though I was convinced I had! Too distracted by this embarassing revelation to get all excited about the Peter Jackson spectacle. Won't let myself see said Peter Jackson spectacle until I nab 1933 on DVD from my local Blockbuster. (*Sigh* I did say Blockbuster. Too cheap to subscribe to Netflix. Have to burn through a big Blockbuster credit first.) Cheers! Thanks as always for your contagious enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteGod bless! The return of PSaga! I just left a little nugget on your site as well! Yes, the 1933 version is just out on a spiffy new DVD with lots of great extras and contributions by Jackson, animation great Ray Harryhausen and others. I jokingly suggested to my sister that she buy it for my youngest daughter for Christmas, and she did! Who knew that she couldn't see through one of my obvious laugh-getters! But hey, the unintentional bounty for me has turned out to be bounteous indeed! How's Corn Valley treating you? It's really good to hear back from you. Stay tuned, 'cause I have lots of good stuff coming up before Christmas ("good stuff" here loosely defined as "lots of letters jammed together to form words, which are also all jammed together in a way that hopefully makes more sense than volume.")
ReplyDelete