Post by George Willson on Dec 30, 2005 21:16:59 GMT -5
The 2005 Peter Jackson rendition of this film is a very direct remake of the 1933 classic. Not only is the essence of the storyline followed with minimal change, but many of the scenes are similar to the original as well, such as Kong dumping the guys off the log and even Kong "playing" with the broken jaw of the T-Rex he fought.
Jackson's version takes the original and augments it with some minor changes, mostly in the form of characterization. He gives Kong some heart and life, more than the original ever did. He makes Jack Driscoll a playwright gone screenwriter dragged along for the ride. His romance with Ann Driscoll is much slower and more believable. The savage natives, tame in the original, are frightening in the remake and well executed. Carl Denham's final line commenting that "beauty killed the beast," while somewhat empty in the original, has the air of absolute truth in the remake.
Jackson took the original material and in many, many ways vastly improved upon it. While nearly twice as long as the original, everything is given special attention and augmented or improved upon.
Well almost everything. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens (the team that adapted Lord of the Rings) are writers who know how to make a great movie. They understand character, plot, drama, pacing, and know how to do things right. Where do they fall down? The original material.
The original plot points of the King Kong movie are followed to a T, but these plot points are somewhat questionable when executed by a top notch team. For instance, the girl is kidnapped and taken by the savages. Do we go rescue? Sure, I can see that. She is then taken into the forest by a large ape to whom she was sacrificed. Do we follow? Ummmmmm.... In the original, they hear Ann scream and know she lives, so they follow in the vain hope of rescue. In the remake, she's gone, and they head into the jungle blindly, with zero indication that she is alive. That's a little less believable.
The only thing that really drives them into the jungle, beyond a desire to find the girl, is Denham's desire to film a movie. That helps.
Of course, the girl still runs through the jungle barefoot.
In comparison, the remake is far superior to the original in terms of story, characters, and special effects. The plot can't be judged between the two because it's identical.
Jackson's version takes the original and augments it with some minor changes, mostly in the form of characterization. He gives Kong some heart and life, more than the original ever did. He makes Jack Driscoll a playwright gone screenwriter dragged along for the ride. His romance with Ann Driscoll is much slower and more believable. The savage natives, tame in the original, are frightening in the remake and well executed. Carl Denham's final line commenting that "beauty killed the beast," while somewhat empty in the original, has the air of absolute truth in the remake.
Jackson took the original material and in many, many ways vastly improved upon it. While nearly twice as long as the original, everything is given special attention and augmented or improved upon.
Well almost everything. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens (the team that adapted Lord of the Rings) are writers who know how to make a great movie. They understand character, plot, drama, pacing, and know how to do things right. Where do they fall down? The original material.
The original plot points of the King Kong movie are followed to a T, but these plot points are somewhat questionable when executed by a top notch team. For instance, the girl is kidnapped and taken by the savages. Do we go rescue? Sure, I can see that. She is then taken into the forest by a large ape to whom she was sacrificed. Do we follow? Ummmmmm.... In the original, they hear Ann scream and know she lives, so they follow in the vain hope of rescue. In the remake, she's gone, and they head into the jungle blindly, with zero indication that she is alive. That's a little less believable.
The only thing that really drives them into the jungle, beyond a desire to find the girl, is Denham's desire to film a movie. That helps.
Of course, the girl still runs through the jungle barefoot.
In comparison, the remake is far superior to the original in terms of story, characters, and special effects. The plot can't be judged between the two because it's identical.