Films/DVD Asylum

Re: "King Kong"

68.47.33.237

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

mishmashmusic

(A)

In Reply to: "King Kong" posted by rico on December 2, 2004 at 13:36:23:

While it may prove to be a good film, I have to agree with Tosh. Why does Hollywood insist on recreating classics which do not need to be recreated? The 1970s version of Kong being a prime example of how bad it can be.
Also needlessly on the chopping block soon: Willy Wonka.

Follow Ups:

Willy Wonka - Bulkington 09:06:32 12/06/04 (0)
Remaking that movie is purest hubris.
Re: "King Kong" - Analog Scott 11:54:31 12/04/04 (8)
Why do people seem to make the same mistake in assuming Peter Jackson is a "Hollywood" film maker?
- Hollywood/Indie - Bulkington 09:09:02 12/06/04 (0)
  It's not so much where the funding comes from as the sensibility behind it. Jackson's sensibility is uber Hollywood. The Lord of the Rings films were Hollywood through-and-through, just filmed outside of the system for obvious cost-saving reasons.
- Re: "King Kong" - mishmashmusic 17:06:28 12/04/04 (6)
  If Universal is footing the bill, then he's making a Hollywood picture.
  No offense to Jackson, BTW. I'd rather see him tackle another project like Rings than diddle around with a classic.
  - Re: "King Kong" - Analog Scott 17:10:58 12/04/04 (5)
    Intersting. So "A Very Long Engagement" is a Hollywood film as well?
    - Re: "King Kong" - mishmashmusic 13:37:16 12/05/04 (4)
      I'm sure they have very similar budgets, not to mention similar promotion and advertising :)
      - Re: "King Kong" - Analog Scott 21:37:12 12/05/04 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "King Kong" posted by mishmashmusic on December 5, 2004 at 13:37:16:
        
        Is there a minimum budget for a Studio funded movie to be considered a "Hollywood" movie? How much do you think the budgets were and are for the two movies? Right now "A Very Long Affair" is being thoughroughly represented by the studio and their promotional department. I doubt that King Kong will be more marketed so substantially more that one would have to declare one a "Hollywood" movie and the other not.
        
        Re: "King Kong" - mishmashmusic 06:12:46 12/06/04 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "King Kong" posted by Analog Scott on December 5, 2004 at 21:37:12:
        
        I surmise we'll be seeing a "Kong Burger" at Burger King before it's all said and done.
        
        Re: "King Kong" - Analog Scott 16:44:05 12/06/04 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "King Kong" posted by mishmashmusic on December 6, 2004 at 06:12:46:
        
        So? Is this how one determines whether or not a movie is a "Hollywood" movie? I always thought it had to do with the people who made the film.
        
        I'm just messing with you - mishmashmusic 06:38:44 12/07/04 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "King Kong" posted by Analog Scott on December 6, 2004 at 16:44:05:
        
        It's going to be a big budget Hollywood film, no matter how you slice it. I think Universal gave Jackson like $20 million upfront to do it.
        For what it's worth, I enjoyed LOTR---and he will probably do a pretty good job with Kong. I just wish that Hollywood (however you define it) would stop rehashing everything from old movies to TV shows and pour more time, money and effort into something new...

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

The Cable Cooker

You can not post to an archived thread.