Kong: Skull Island

I'd just like to point out something I've observed.

The original Kong was set in the 1930s. The first remake was set in the 1970's. The second remake went back to the 30's....and now with this remake it seems we're going back to the 70's again! XD

Also, the thumbnail image for the second trailer is just beautiful and awesome at the same time.

Honestly, I'm getting really excited for this one! It seems to be a lotta fun with an interesting Apocalypse Now feel going for it.

Now if only we can get someone to call Tom Hiddelston an errand boy for grocery store clerks.

edited 18th Nov '16 2:45:38 PM by 1upmushroom

So, my mind was blown when I saw how large they made Kong in this movie. Only makes sense though, if he's to fight Godzilla.

Gotta say, I'm pretty hyped right now.

I juse hope this film won't make the same mistake that the 2014 Godzilla film made. which was to focus 85-90% of the film on an unbelievably bland and uninteresting lead, with only 10% going to the actual monster and the actual interesting human characters.

That's more or less a trait of most Godzilla movies, for better or worse (though the Japanese films usually have more Godzilla than the US one did).

The trailers seem to be focussed mainly on the humans with Kong as something that happens to/around them and seem at least in general more interesting than the Godzilla 2014 guy - but then, so are most fungi so not exactly a high bar to jump.

The director said he has no intention to make the film like Gareth Edwards did Godzilla. He intends to have a tonne of Kong in the film.

I expect the tone will be closer to that of Pacific Rim. I really want this to be good. Aside from some subpar spinoffs, there's not much variety when it comes to Kong stories, though the prequel novel looks interesting.

There is something to be said for seeing glimpses of the creature long before seeing the creature in full. I mean, when the tsunami hits Hawaii that is all evidence of Godzilla's presence without actually seeing him, making his first full body reveal that much more epic. The films main problem is less the limited screen time of Godzilla and more the absurd way the bland main character is present for every major event. The fact he was surrounded by much more interesting characters facilitated that. And that's why I said O'Reilly's character really clashed with the rest of the trailer, everyone else sans Goodman seems rather generic. Even though they are all great actors in their own right. I have no idea what Hiddleson or Jackson's characters are supposed to be.

And we should also be rather clear here too, it's more than likely Kong will not have that much screen time either. These "facts" of screen time is about literally in the frame at that moment, meaning it often ignores the instances like I mentioned, the impact of the creature without seeing the creature. The director just said that Kong will show up earlier and not be glimpsed in fits and starts. The Peter Jackson film didn't have Kong show up until well over an hour into the film, but had plenty of screen time after that.

The problem with the 'hints before reveal' approach regarding Godzilla - and also Kong - is that these are two of the most famous giant monsters in cinematic history. We KNOW what they look like. Maybe not the exact details of these particular versions (assuming trailers haven't given that away anyway) but in general. Revealing Kong to be a gigantic ape isn't exactly a revelatory moment.

2014 Godzilla and 2017 Kong both seem to be relying on being the biggest, most realistic versions to date but I am iffy as to whether that really justifies the smoke and mirrors routine the movies go through.

Here's the interview.

Here's the relevant bit:

Well, I like he's intending to try and shake it up and do things a bit differently. As to whether his approach actually works remains to be seen I guess. As pointed out, there's plenty of reasons as to why a slow burn approach remains popular.

I mean, that is how you make a monster movie.

I'd need to find it again, but recall an amusing chart of monster and kaiju films showing how long it takes to see them. Most take anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour, and then Pacific Rim is a gigantic spike on the chart labeled "30 seconds".

Found it◊. Although it's more of a humongous drop than a spike for Pacific Rim.

edited 23rd Nov '16 5:38:00 AM by chasemaddigan

So I've lurked the WMG page for this movie and some WM Gs have theorized that this movie will be taking some cues from 1976 remake since this time the setting is once again the 70's. Do you guys think they'll go this route? Hell, do you think they should?

I, myself, am all for it. I actually really like the 1976 version and even consider it to be a worthy adaptation of the King Kong story. So I personally wouldn't mind if they did take a few elements.

I'm fully willing to bet that they'll at least drop a few in jokes that reference the movie (i.e A soldier reading a comic book that happens to have an ad for Petrox Oil in it).

In the same interview, he said he mostly took from the 1933 film and isn't trying to be like other reinterpretations.

edited 24th Nov '16 5:30:57 AM by Cruherrx

The 76 version hasn't really stood the test of time that well. I don't like that Kong only ever gets a brief and rather lame fight with a giant snake, rarely showing any dangerous wildlife on Skull Island. The 2005 version, flawed it may be, will probably be better remembered in the long run. It will be somewhat interesting to compare how this film depicts the 70's compared to the movie actually made in the 70's, though the scenarios are both very different. The 76 film was very much post-Vietnam while this one looks very much like a Nam film.

I'm glad Kong is the central focus, coming out long before 50 minutes into the film. This is a prehistoric hidden world story and according to that type of genre I can except great and perilous journeys across Kong Island. There is discovery in which creates the dama of survival because what's discovered is out to eat our hereos. Instead of building it up its chases right after them. There's habitats, creatures, and people "indirectly"messing with both. I don't think there is enough time for a bunch of science blah blah talk detailing the discovery like the new Godliza. For 20 pages Borenstein wrote what could have been done in less than a minute. For those who don't know a page normally equals one minute of screen time. I want to see these monsters in all their glory. Don't lecture me about them or tease them at a snail's paste! Humans arrive there and bam. They pop out.

edited 26th Nov '16 10:27:13 AM by WolyniaBookSeries

In almost every movie Skull Island only ever needed to be described succinctly as a long world forgotten by time, where prehistoric monsters still live. I could potentially accept a reason why Kong and other creatures happen to be this huge, but I don't think we really need it. Either just let it be the same thing that made Godzilla and the Mutos big and gloss over it, or have be from berries that can cause animals to grow huge.

Also, so far, what animals have we seen on Skull Island? We have Kong, Skullcrawler, giant spider, and water buffalo. I bet there will be more. I wonder if the giant spider will officially be Kumunga in this continuity. There are definitely some Toho monsters that fit well in a Kong setting, like Gorosurus.

In all fairness to the snakefight from '76, that's pretty much all they could've done to add the Skull Island wild life. The rest of the budget was getting eaten up by Kong himself so they did what they could. While you could make a convincing argument that they should've ditched the idea of other monsters altogether if they didn't enough money to begin with, I'd argue that we at least got one small fight rather than nothing at all.

I honestly saw that coming from a mile away. I am glad that they're still focusing on a completely new cast of characters this time around.

I guess I can give it that, and that it does do the ending well, from when Kong starts his rampage to when he dies. It's brutal and does drive home how sad Kong's fate was.

New spots

Alright!

Couple comments:

• More new monsters in a giant octopus (KKvsG, anyone?) and what I think are piranha-pterosaurs
• Mention of 1954 nuclear tests. Definitely cementing connections to Godzilla.
• There a couple more TV spotlights, but I'm currently in school.

I think I can say that this film seems much closer to the Toho style of Kong than the classic, which I don't mind at all.

Here's a Japanese poster for the film.◊ Looks sweet.

So we have Kong, Skullcrawlers (smaller and giant sized), bamboo spiders, giant buffalo, pterodactyls, a log insect, and giant octopus. And looks like there will be plenty of monster fights this time.

It also looks like the main driving force of the plot is Jackson's character trying to kill Kong, Hiddleston and Larson trying to save him, and Goodman pulling the strings in trying to bring back evidence of Kong, all the while trying to find a way to get off the island and not get eaten.

Looks animesque.