Kong Is Regent
The wife and I went to Peter Jackson's King Kong for our Jewish Christmas movie. (Okay, Jewish Boxing Day; Christmas was spent with her family.) Some thoughts I meant to post a while ago...
There might be spoilers here, but really, people, the movie's been out for more than a month now. Read at your own risk if you’re the type of person to get upset by such things.
Swede Ex Machina
Always showing up in the nick of time, well armed and vaguely dangerous, every ill prepared 1940s adventurer should have a ship captain like this. Also conveniently expert at trapping wild game and always travels with a truckload of ether.
As a storyteller, though, shouldn't there be a better way of getting one's heroes out of not one but two intractable situations?
Proposing a Jack Black Rule
We need a rule for Jack Black: Only put Jack Black in a film if you're going to either (a) let him be as funny as he's capable of, or (b) give him a character to play. Sure, (b) hasn't happened yet, so I can't say for certain it'll be a good thing. But it should be interesting if it does. If neither condition is met and Jack Black gets a light role, it seems like it's just Jack Black... not being very funny. It's kind of a distraction, and I'd just as soon see what another actor could do with the same part.
While on the subject, pairing Jack Black and Colin Hanks is kind of cool because they play well off each other. But are shades of (the underrated) Orange County desirable in a would-be summer blockbuster?
It's All About the Source Material
Sure, Peter Jackson is a terrific filmmaker with technical work and special effects second to no one and so forth. However... I realized watching King Kong that slavish adherence to source material stands up a lot better when he's adapting the epic that is The Lord of the Rings than when he's reworking something that narrowly escaped B-movie status by somehow embedding itself in our collective consciousness. (And I'm not saying that was a fluke; I honestly wonder exactly how and why the 1933 King Kong did that.)
I've watched the entire Lord of the Rings film cycle, all extended editions, in one 12 hour buttnumbathon, only stopping to order and then pay for pizza, and I can honestly say that it was really good, entertaining throughout. I'd do it again too. Preferably in a couple years, preferably during another snowstorm, and preferably with another set of willing friends. (Or the same willing friends -- not alone is my point.) The interesting thing was that the extended editions were closer to the books, deeper and more engaging for it. Clearly Tolkien knew how to spin a story. (I'm realizing this more and more while rereading the Narnia books. Not good, there might be more on that later.)
With Jackson's King Kong, it's impressive that it didn't feel as long as it was (3 hours), and I didn't get too bored. Even so, it just wasn't all necessary. A lot of sequences that were unquestionably cool (e.g. giant ape fighting 2 or 3 dinosaurs, that's cool) still didn't have to be as long as they were. Ape fights dinosaurs, we get it. Why does it have to go on for 15 minutes? Why after falling through the first ravine do the dinosaurs not shrug and walk off, figuring there must be easier prey elsewhere?
It's like a J.K. Rowling syndrome -- by book 5, nothing at all was left out. As if the creators are thinking, I am beyond editorial control. Nobody will stop me putting in anything I want, and you will like it.
There might be spoilers here, but really, people, the movie's been out for more than a month now. Read at your own risk if you’re the type of person to get upset by such things.
Swede Ex Machina
Always showing up in the nick of time, well armed and vaguely dangerous, every ill prepared 1940s adventurer should have a ship captain like this. Also conveniently expert at trapping wild game and always travels with a truckload of ether.
As a storyteller, though, shouldn't there be a better way of getting one's heroes out of not one but two intractable situations?
Proposing a Jack Black Rule
We need a rule for Jack Black: Only put Jack Black in a film if you're going to either (a) let him be as funny as he's capable of, or (b) give him a character to play. Sure, (b) hasn't happened yet, so I can't say for certain it'll be a good thing. But it should be interesting if it does. If neither condition is met and Jack Black gets a light role, it seems like it's just Jack Black... not being very funny. It's kind of a distraction, and I'd just as soon see what another actor could do with the same part.
While on the subject, pairing Jack Black and Colin Hanks is kind of cool because they play well off each other. But are shades of (the underrated) Orange County desirable in a would-be summer blockbuster?
It's All About the Source Material
Sure, Peter Jackson is a terrific filmmaker with technical work and special effects second to no one and so forth. However... I realized watching King Kong that slavish adherence to source material stands up a lot better when he's adapting the epic that is The Lord of the Rings than when he's reworking something that narrowly escaped B-movie status by somehow embedding itself in our collective consciousness. (And I'm not saying that was a fluke; I honestly wonder exactly how and why the 1933 King Kong did that.)
I've watched the entire Lord of the Rings film cycle, all extended editions, in one 12 hour buttnumbathon, only stopping to order and then pay for pizza, and I can honestly say that it was really good, entertaining throughout. I'd do it again too. Preferably in a couple years, preferably during another snowstorm, and preferably with another set of willing friends. (Or the same willing friends -- not alone is my point.) The interesting thing was that the extended editions were closer to the books, deeper and more engaging for it. Clearly Tolkien knew how to spin a story. (I'm realizing this more and more while rereading the Narnia books. Not good, there might be more on that later.)
With Jackson's King Kong, it's impressive that it didn't feel as long as it was (3 hours), and I didn't get too bored. Even so, it just wasn't all necessary. A lot of sequences that were unquestionably cool (e.g. giant ape fighting 2 or 3 dinosaurs, that's cool) still didn't have to be as long as they were. Ape fights dinosaurs, we get it. Why does it have to go on for 15 minutes? Why after falling through the first ravine do the dinosaurs not shrug and walk off, figuring there must be easier prey elsewhere?
It's like a J.K. Rowling syndrome -- by book 5, nothing at all was left out. As if the creators are thinking, I am beyond editorial control. Nobody will stop me putting in anything I want, and you will like it.
posted by blerg3000 at 3:56 PM
5 comments
