The King Kong thread

Exactly. The 2005 Peter Jackson Kong is more about the plight of Kong and his tragedy, while this is going full action-horror like Aliens.

Mysterious Hero M wrote:

A giant normal-looking gorilla isn't horrifying at all. A giant man-like ape however is horrifying and evokes memories of stuff like the Colossus of Rhodes.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It worked for the original film and King Kong Vs. Godzilla because of the time period, but this is all I see with this new one.

Spoiler:

I mean you haven't even seen a full view of King Kong in this yet so... Also the stance reminds me more of this-
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03534/The-Colossus-of-Rh_3534739b.jpg

I just love the tone that the movie has. More monster feeling. I love the 1933 film and Peter Jackson version, this one was my main artistic inspiration to drawn dinosaurs. But the thing I dont like from Jackson version is how Kong was humanized. Kong from 1933 was more realisitic in behaviour, he wasnt really in "love" for me. He was acting like a child that want that "toy".

Supposedly this movie won't even have dinosaurs at all which is kind of putting me off.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Supposedly this movie won't even have dinosaurs at all which is kind of putting me off.

Who said that? Was it the director, the producer, or one of the cast members?

We saw that bone yard filled with skeletons of other members of Kong's species (or so we supposed, before it was revealed just how massive Kong is) and most importantly in one shot a scene with Hiddleston firing his gun from the frill of a Triceratops. And the thing is the dinosaurs must be living on the island because those bones would not only not be there if they weren't, but they wouldn't look so fresh, like they'd only had all the flesh rotted away. Plus, who would the Marines be firing at if not dinosaurs, they can't be natives.

As for why we haven't seen live dinos, maybe it's like the Pteranodon situation in the Jurassic World teaser, they weren't added in until later. Maybe they're still working on the VFX to look Oscar worthy. It is disappointing that we didn't get any concrete evidence of dinosaurs, but I would not rule them out completely just yet.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

Supposedly this movie won't even have dinosaurs at all which is kind of putting me off.

Who said that? Was it the director, the producer, or one of the cast members?

We saw that bone yard filled with skeletons of other members of Kong's species (or so we supposed, before it was revealed just how massive Kong is) and most importantly in one shot a scene with Hiddleston firing his gun from the frill of a Triceratops. And the thing is the dinosaurs must be living on the island because those bones would not only not be there if they weren't, but they wouldn't look so fresh, like they'd only had all the flesh rotted away. Plus, who would the Marines be firing at if not dinosaurs, they can't be natives.

As for why we haven't seen live dinos, maybe it's like the Pteranodon situation in the Jurassic World teaser, they weren't added in until later. Maybe they're still working on the VFX to look Oscar worthy. It is disappointing that we didn't get any concrete evidence of dinosaurs, but I would not rule them out completely just yet.

A writer for Empire Magazine said that. (And his magazine has an exclusive set visit that will be published next month)

I hope at least we will have some living dinosaurs like the T-rex fight! Its strange that we have dinosaurs bones when there are no dinosaurs. I remember the last year Hiddelston mentioned before shoots, there will be giant bugs and a t-rex fight. I hope this wont be like the 70s version...I hate that film

RolandEden wrote:

I hope at least we will have some living dinosaurs like the T-rex fight! Its strange that we have dinosaurs bones when there are no dinosaurs. I remember the last year Hiddelston mentioned before shoots, there will be giant bugs and a t-rex fight. I hope this wont be like the 70s version...I hate that film

Not going to lie, that's my favorite King Kong film and one of my top three favorite films of all time. Still tear up over it's ending more than the 2005 film's ending. So I'm fine without dinosaurs in this Kong film. Oh and the original Kong vs. Godzilla didn't have dinosaurs.

No retrosaurs in the Kong movie? Why not just name it Attack of the 50ft Ape? I mean, what's the point of having an entire movie dedicated to Skull Island and not have dinosaurs in it.

CT-1138 wrote:

No retrosaurs in the Kong movie? Why not just name it Attack of the 50ft Ape? I mean, what's the point of having an entire movie dedicated to Skull Island and not have dinosaurs in it.

Precisely!! And this movie has a $190 million budget, $40 million more than Jurassic World, which arguably used more CGI for creating digital landscapes than this movie did! I get that this has a bigger all-star cast than Jurassic World, but I refuse to believe that there are no dinos/retrosaurs in this film until someone comes out and says it. And effectively shoot themselves in the foot.

Well this Kong film isn't an remake of the 1933 classic, it's an "original" story that is about King Kong, it doesn't need dinosaurs. Besides, look how tall Kong is in this film, a fight would require there be an 100 foot T.rex to battle Kong.

It's a movie about Skull Island. Not having dinosaurs would be like Star Wars with only humans.

CT-1138 wrote:

It's a movie about Skull Island. Not having dinosaurs would be like Star Wars with only humans.

Would you want super sized dinosaurs? Yes, the movie will include Skull Island but from the trailer I got the impression the movie is more about Kong. And I know I've mentioned it before but the 1976 and 1986 and the Toho 1962 and 1967 films didn't at all featured dinosaurs. Kong can make this movie fun all by himself.

King Kong, the original and Jackson's film, was very much a Lost World-type move as much as it was about a giant monster. So, if you're going to name your movie 'Kong: Skull Island' then I'm going to expect a cool Skull Island. No dinosaurs, in my opinion, makes Skull Island a whole lot more uninteresting.

What it seems like in the trailer is that the island is mostly desolate, most of the larger animals dying probably due to Kong's huge size and there simply not being enough room on the island for all of them. That'd be an interesting idea to explore, but I kind of doubt that's where they're going.

EDIT: Also, King Kong Vs. Godzilla DID have a dinosaur. It was Godzilla.

If there are dinosaurs in Kong: Skull Island then great, the more films with dinosaurs the better. But serously, will there be an 100 foot Tyrannosaurus Rex vs. King Kong fight?

No, but there could be some great dino-action between soldiers and dinos. The formula of the original was the characters going through a series of dinosaur encounters on their way to rescue Ann Darrow, Peter Jackson's is the same way (I haven't seen the 70s version, but I did see King Kong Vs Godzilla). Its huge part of what makes them great.

I'm not saying they 'need' the dinosaurs, but it does feel like a huge waste of potential.

Also guys, apparently the newest issue of Empire magazine answers the 'no dinos' debate in its latest issue but no one can find scans of the issue so far.

I'd be really upset if there's no Dinosaurs in this.

I like the giant spider but we definitely need Dinosaurs

I read in Toho Kingdom maybe...there is a humanoid ceratopsian like Armadon. Also I saw the size of ceratopsian is much bigger.

Sorry for the double post but I found an interview of Kong Cast and Director revealing some facts.

- Goodman character is Bill Randa, he reveals he is working for a US goverment secret agency: Monarch Agent confirmed
-Director revealed the story wont be the beauty and the beast and Im really happy for this! Kong for me in the original never fall in love.

Interesting that they decided to go with an early sixties aesthetic.

Guys news about artbook and novelization
https://forbiddenplanet.com/205036-kong-skull-island-the-official-movie-novelisation/
https://forbiddenplanet.com/205037-the-art-making-of-kong-skull-island-hardcover/

Guys the Map of the Island!
http://www.scified.com/news/kong-skull-island-promotion-spotted-at-new-york-comic-con-monarch-confirmed
Interesting the message. Many references to the mesopotamian mythology. If the creature are mentioning is Humbaba, the guardian demigod from Cedar Forest? remember months ago in the vietnam filming, they mentioned aliens and river monsters.

Sorry for double post but believe me this will blow off your minds.
http://www.scified.com/news/major-skull-island-details--hidden-messages-discovered-kong-skull-island-poster

Guys news about the map and John Goodman character!
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/775399-kong-skull-island-monster#/slide/1

Henry Jackman to score Kong: Skull Island

Hmmm, I'm really not sure about Henry Jackman scoring Kong: Skull Island. As a composer, the only score of his I've really liked was X-Men: First Class, and his Captain America scores while okay are not a patch on Alan Silvestri's classical score for The First Avenger. Even other films that he's scored that I have seen, they very rarely stand out to me.

It's also a bit of a step down from Alexandre Desplat's amazing score for Godzilla and it's hard to see the new score comparing James Newton Howard's fantastically heartfelt score for Peter Jackson's King Kong. Even more so considering these are meant to be in the same cinematic universe, where Godzilla's orchestral score lent credence to the size and power of the giant monsters at hand. But with that said, I have been proven wrong before and I would gladly eat crow if Jackman delivers a truly excellent score that matches the mood of the film and gives me an enjoyable listening experience.

How about you guys? Do you have reservations or cautious optimism regarding Henry Jackman as the composer for Kong Skull Island?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this originally supposed to be a prequel? I know that a "KK vs. G" reboot is coming, but is this get turned into a sequel to the 2005 movie so that it can also be a lead in to the reboot?

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this originally supposed to be a prequel? I know that a "KK vs. G" reboot is coming, but is this get turned into a sequel to the 2005 movie so that it can also be a lead in to the reboot?

It might have been as far back as 2013 or 2014 that Universal and Legendary were considering an adaptation of the "Kong: King of Skull Island" comic series, and tying it to the 2005 film as a prequel, but those plans fell through when Legendary wanted the new King Kong to be connected to Godzilla so they moved from Universal back to Warner Bros.

Given that this is a Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures production, and there's no sign of Universal or Peter Jackson being involved anywhere, I think its safe to assume that this is a prequel/precursor to WB/Legendary's Godzilla. The teaser even said "From the Producers of Godzilla" meaning they want to tie the films together for a Monsters Cinematic Universe. And of course there's the fact that the new Skull Island looks very different from the island in Peter Jackson's remake, so it cannot be related to the 2005 film.