Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Peter Jackson remaking King Kong 222

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lord-of-the-monkey dept.
sigh71 writes "Stuff.co.nz is running a story on Peter Jacksons next big project, remaking the original King Kong. To be written by the same guys who wrote the scripts for Lord of the Rings. Google for more info."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Peter Jackson remaking King Kong More

Peter Jackson remaking King Kong

Comments Filter:
  • I thought it was a couple girls who wrote the script for LOTR... maybe I'm wrong though.

    • Re:Guys? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Collaborative effort between Peter Jackson (story), Fran Walsh (story, words, lyrics), and Phillipa Boyens (story, words, lyrics). I suspect Mr. Jackson was too busy with other aspects of production to put too many words on paper once filming started.
  • I thought Peter Jackson had signed on to do the Hobbit next. I know Ian Mckellan will be involved.

  • I can't wait! (Score:4, Funny)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:40PM (#5638302) Homepage Journal
    So I imagine the folks lining up to see this one will be wearing ape suits???

  • And there I thought it was another bad joke... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:41PM (#5638305)
    From the Beeb:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2905 249.stm [bbc.co.uk]

    It's going to be interesting to see Jackson's interperetation of this. On one hand, I feel like King Kong's been done to death. On the other, I *know* there's no such thing as too much Godzilla. Perhaps Jackson will make it so there's no such thing as too much Kong.
    • Who says it's not. Maybe PJ is pulling everyone's chain.

    • It's going to be interesting to see Jackson's interperetation of this.

      Three words:

      Mighty Joe Young

      Let's hope it's not. However, I like the old RKO version, it's pretty kick-butt for when it was made and, to reveal a bit of my geekiness, I'm really tripped out how they did some of those special effects without little more than creative imagination and engineering. Cool stuff. I'm unsure how even the mighty Peter Jackson can improve on it.

    • How funny that the last US Godzilla was really king kong in disguise?

      The whole death thing, arrgghh. you do not kill Godzilla, you drive him off into the ocean and hope next time he comes back, it is to help you. With any luck, He' would squish Godzuki on his way.
    • There was "Mighty Joe Young" [go.com] from Disney not too many years ago. Similar enough, both in the original and the Disney remake, to "King Kong" to call it a re-interpretation of that classic.

      A year before that, the kids had "Buddy" [imdb.com] with special effects from Jim Henson's Workshop, and ten years before that, "Gorillas in the Mist" [imdb.com]. If you're counting gorillas in general, you may as well throw in Disney's 1999 "Tarzan" [imdb.com] as well.

      King Kong has been done to death; gorillas-as-victim-of-man's-inhumanity is a recurrin
    • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2905247.stm

      "The Kenyan prisoners were found by the First Black Watch Battalion".

      That would NEVER fly in the US.

    • It's going to be interesting to see Jackson's interperetation of this. On one hand, I feel like King Kong's been done to death. On the other, I *know* there's no such thing as too much Godzilla. Perhaps Jackson will make it so there's no such thing as too much Kong.

      It will be interesting but one has to hope that Jackson has the insight to understand what makes King Kong such an icon. What it boils down to is if Jackson is *really* a Kong fan at heart. The Hollywood Godzilla film was a perfect example o

    • Let me guess, you missed the Godzilla w/a Mathew Broderick. After that I KNOW that there is such a thing as too much Godzilla!
    • Sorry, but I beg to differ. There is such as thing as too much Godzilla. The American Godzilla movie was too, too much Godzilla. So much Godzilla in fact, that Godzilla wasn't available to play Godzilla, and they found a stumbling drunken lizard, or perhaps Nick Nolte in a lizard suit, to take on the role.

      And don't get me started about the velociraptors borrowed from Jurassic Park playing Godzilla's children. And where was Gadzooki? Ok, we really didn't need to see Gadzooki, if there's a Godzilla movi

  • The last line in the movie? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:41PM (#5638308)
    KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNG!
  • I don't know in what I can believe anymore. But it would be nice.
  • my god.

    now they're also gonna make king kong whine "oh my god i wish this wasn't happening to me" in slow-motion dreamy closeups thirty times a minute?

  • Can't be any worse than the 1970's one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:42PM (#5638325)
    In the original, we have a claymation crew blazing new territory with work that convinced a number of people in the audience that King Kong was real.

    In the 70's version, we have a guy in a monkey suit, and a number of "sequels" made with the "Godzilla vs." philosophy.

    At any rate, I think I hope he still sets the movie in the 1930's.

    All we need now is for King Kong to fall into the public domain some time this century...
    • Let's hope they don't do the same kind of remake as Godzilla. I agree: keep it in the 1930's, much more respectable and appropriate. They should keep that old-fashioned adventurous feeling to it with graphics to make it look real, not take over the show.
    • All we need now is for King Kong to fall into the public domain some time this century...

      Falling into a public park isn't good enough?
    • ...but as we know from Godzilla, a guy in a monster suit can be a whole lot more convincing then million-dollar graphics on a two-bit script.

  • Not an "April Fools" joke... (Score:3)

    by Clay Mitchell ( 43630 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:42PM (#5638326) Homepage
    ... however much we wish it was.

    What would be cool would be a giant hobbit taking destroying Manhatten. Can somebody line this up?
    • Don't be so sure! Yes, it was front page news here. But any New Zealander should rememeber Forgoten Silver.

      Peter Jackson is the king of pranks. Forgoten Silver was a fake documentry, about some old film that had been found, and contained footage of Pierce's first attempts at flight among other things. Lots of people bought it, and there where many pissed of people ;)

  • I find it interesting the last LOTR movie is called Return of the King and Peter Jackson's next film is King Kong.

    Coincidence?

    I think not.
  • FINALLY I say to myself. "I'm not going to let them get me this time! It's all a facade" and then you go and post a real story!

    Slashdot is a cruel mistress...


  • Lets hope that the King Kong remake won't be as bad as the Godzilla remake. Of course, after seeing LOTR part 2, my hopes are high.

  • "Oh my God, I was wrong, it was earth all along, you have finally made a monkey out of me..."


    With Apologies to Matt Groenig
  • APRIL FOOLS

    Oh, wait.. crap.. Truth is stranger than fiction..

    What wasted talent..

  • HAHA I GET IT!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by digifuzz ( 182844 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:43PM (#5638345) Homepage
    APE-RIL FOOLS DAY, RIGHT?

    That's one BIG APE-ril fools day joke!!

    ~ fuzz
  • Elves will be Flying the planes that attack the ape?
    For no real reason

  • This story is at least a couple of days old, and has already run in various media.

    You see, not every story [slashdot.org] is a joke today. Even if there are those who are so accustomed to that being the case that they make fools of themselves instead [slashdot.org] while racking down on Taco&co for posting stories that are actually (well, partly) true.

  • ROTKK (Score:2, Funny)

    by The Other Nate ( 137833 )
    ::close up of Hugo Weaving::
    "You must cast this ape, this... one ape of doom, from the Empire State Building."

    I can't wait!
  • OK, am I the only one that thinks this just might be an April Fools joke? I mean, go read the article:
    "He added the lead female role - filled by Fay Wray in 1933 - will need strong vocal chords, as the part required a lot of screaming."
    April Fools? Anyone?
  • Jessica Lange [imdb.com] did alright after her stint on the Monkey Bars [imdb.com].

    So, calling all ingenues. Nipple-flashing optional.
  • Just think of the crossover possibilities! A 50' ape, running around with an invisibility ring that gives him the power of dominion over all the other apes! A vast monkey army, rising up to rule the world! Giant crap-flinging battle scenes! It'll be a hit for sure.

    (too much coffee, sorry all)

  • Jackson's BEST next pic? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by billmaly ( 212308 ) <bill,maly&mcleodusa,net> on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:50PM (#5638404)
    I guess I had hoped for more from Jackson after his near total success with LOTR. Maybe I was hoping for him to embark on something new and original, instead of a rehash of what's been done. Still, it appears that the story would be told in the 1930's, rather than modern times like was done w. the 1970's version of KK. That will make for a more interesting picture, and allow the characters to display more wide eyed amazement than modern characters could. I hope Jackson succeeds and blows away the critics yet again, but I was hoping for something fresher.
    • I would presume that after investing so much of his life and soul in a project, for so many years he's looking for something lite to work on.

      At least a project like this won't get compared to LotR every 5 minutes like any other epic he did would be.

  • Lord of the King Dead Alive Kong? (Score:5, Funny)

    by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:52PM (#5638420)
    I can see the script for the new Kong flick now. King Kong is on a quest to destroy the evil ring, helped by his band of x-rated muppets he must fight hordes of zombie flesh eating gorillas being led by an evil wizard. He is also aided by a mighty priest who "kicks ass for the lord". Kong is startled to find that his evil nemesis is none other than his mother who in the climatic battle transforms into a giant beast far more hideous than even Rosie O'Donnel.
  • If you check out this [hollywoodreporter.com] page and look down four entries, you'll see that it is true. It is set to have a 2005 summer release with Universal producing it. He is going to shoot it on location in New Zealand with WETA doing all the f/x.

    On the other hand, this is quite site questionable [whitehouse.org] in authenticity (but true nonetheless) :)

  • Evil Bit? (Score:2, Funny)

    by jayayeem ( 247877 )
    Isn't it time to post the 'Evil Bit" story again?
  • The scary thing is I'm not sure if this is part of April Fools or not..... Oh hell with it, WHITESPACE PROGRAMMING RULEZ!!

  • I *wish* this was an April fools joke! (Score:5, Funny)

    by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @12:59PM (#5638488) Journal
    Do we really need yet another remake of King-Kong? The original King-Kong was very good. The remake was very good. Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed? Better FX will not make the story better.

    After King-Kong perhaps he'd like to remake Planet Of The Apes. At least in that case the second version sucked so much the third version would have to be an improvement, although it would be hard to imaging a remake that could improve on the original in any area besides special-effects.

    Hey, how about Hollywood declares 2004 "King-Kong remake year" and ONLY releases remakes of King Kong. Twenty or thirty versions of King Kong. I'd like to see Wood Allen's angst-ridden ape, and Tim Burton's darkly oddball monkey. Roman Polanski's version would have the big furball fall for a 13 year old Ann Darrow. Jim Carrey could play King Kong through facial contortions alone without makeup. What a great trend Peter Jackson has started! Viva La-Kong!

    • I read that and can't help but think of Universal executives' eyes turning into dollar signs with accompanying "cha-CHING" sound effects.
    • hoggoth wrote:
      perhaps he'd like to remake Planet Of The Apes. At least in that case the second version sucked so much the third version would have to be an improvement, although it would be hard to imaging a remake that could improve on the original in any area besides special-effects
      ...or Heston's acting, or the blatant sexism

      BTW, I also love the original. It does have it's faults, though.

    • Why are film remakes so often considered blasphemous? It's the standard practice on stage: take the greatest stories, and tell them anew, with the voices of new storytellers, and the work of a new generation of actors.

      The greatest stories deserve to be re-told. As human beings and as consumers of tales, we need to revise our conception of film as an eternal document.

      • Re:Why are film remakes placed under such scrutiny (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @02:51PM (#5639425)
        No, it's not standard practice on the stage. If someone had written a new version of Othello 70 years after Shakespeare wrote his version, it would have been criticized too. It is usually not acceptable to remake a play within about 100 years of the original. Occasionally it's considered alright if you're both writing plays based on the same ancient source material (Hercules, for example), and you base it on the original source, not on the other person's play.

        Here's an example of how people react adversely to someone doing the same thing on stage: when Rossini released his version of The Barber of Seville, the opening perfomance was booed so loudly by fans of the original Pizzello opera that no one could hear the singing. This was despite the fact that he wrote a letter to Pizzello, and wrote an insert for the program in which he explained his reasons for remaking the opera, and his great respect for the earlier composer.

        I think there are a few reasons that remakes rub people the wrong way. One of the biggest is probably that you're implicitly saying "I'm better and more talented than the guy who made the original." Another reason is that if it's no good, it will sour others on the original. Someone who had only seen the new Planet of the Apes would probably be uninterested in seeing the original. Finally, it's often unoriginal. While there can be some truly imaginative remakes, often someone can be tempted to simply update the special effects and copy the rest verbatim. It is right, I think, that people are against remakes. It means that unless you've actually a worthwhile take on the original, you shouldn't bother with a remake.

    • "Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed?"

      Yes, they can follow the life of mass transit authority employee Gunther Toody. After his harrowing experience aboard the elevated train that Kong attacked (where he was one of the few survivors), Gunther was scarred for life, unable to stop making monkey noises ("Ooh! Ooh!") every few minutes. He left the MTA and went on to join the NYPD where he considered it safer, on which he stayed unt
    • The original King-Kong was very good. The remake was very good.

      Well there you have it. If it follows the pattern, this one will also be very good. ;-)
    • The remake was very good. Is there some important angle that Peter can bring to the movie the third time around that the first two missed?

      Oh, there is no end to what might be revised and corrected. Perhaps rather than slaughter Kong, we could dart him and lift him out of NY to a nature preserve. We could always play games with the skin colors of the various actors. Doubtless we could work in an environmental point. Why not have Kong attack General Motors headquarters in Detroit rather than Empire Stat

    • Re:I *wish* this was an April fools joke! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @03:27PM (#5639724)
      Some points...
      1. the remake was very good...

        I respectfully very much disagree; I can't recall a good thing about it with the exception of a young Jessica Lange.

      2. Peter Jackson is well known as a huge fan of the original Kong, as well as of Harryhausen's work in particular. The LOTR:FOTR cave troll was in many ways a homage to both Harryhausen and Kong.
      3. For (many) filmmakers, remakes are accepted as a way to pay tribute. The "new production of an existing play" analogy applies if you accept the fact that movie screenplays are (with incredibly rare exceptions) never re-used.
      4. This is Peter Jackson (and Fran Walsh, his unsung partner + wife); it's completely unlikely that they're going to produce a story/personality-free yawner like Godzilla (US 1998).

      Could it suck? Sure. But I can't think of anyone else I'd rather see do it.

  • wow (Score:2)

    by rudiger ( 35571 )
    whoa guys, did you just read that article? it's pretty cool.
    • anyone who is a fan of pj know that this is a lifelong dream of his. one which he very much deserves to have realized, after all the entertainment he has brought to the world.

      BTW, this has been a long time in the works. LOTR origianlly started out as a joint development project between miramax and universal, each would share the costs of developing two films with pj, and relase one under each of their names. the two original projects were king kong & LOTR.
      but when LOTR grew to two films and the

  • Mmm I think I will wait (Score:3, Funny)

    by idfrsr ( 560314 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @01:14PM (#5638573)
    You know, I think I will wait until this is posted the third time this afternoon to read it, when its more convenient for me...
  • I saw this story yesterday on metafilter. [metafilter.com] Their writeup was much more compelling:

    Foreigners are plotting [yahoo.com] to revisit an ancient menace [filmsite.org] upon New York [fiddlersgreen.net], and indeed the whole country! I would have thought this sort of terror [imdb.com] was something that could have been left in the past.

    (As a bonus, today the whole site [metafilter.com] looks like Google for april fools day. Quite cute.)

  • Fade In:

    King Kong, a lovable, hairy-footed primate, obtains obtains a magical ring as a result of a riddle game in a cave with Bill Gates, who strongly resembles a wafer-thin, slimy nerd with wisps of greasy hair. Kong puts the ring on his own cock and is transported to a world where apes run Earth.

    Kong is much larger than said apes. Kong is possessed by the ring, and can only say one word. As a result, the native apes call Kong by the name "Gollumver". Eventually, one of the apes takes the ring off of "G

  • Just scratching the surface (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmoriarty ( 179788 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @01:31PM (#5638730)
    From what I've read about Jackson, he really appreciates the depth of the Kong story, not just the idea of a giant ape inflicting havoc.

    There are some juicy aspects of great tragedy in Kong that could be cultivated into a very new and powerful story. Consider the foolish pride of the hunters trying to tame nature. Or substitute the wildness of the human spirit for Kong. Or religion. Flesh out the love story and look at how Kong's love, his fatal flaw, is rewarded by the world.

    Like all enduring movies and myths, King Kong has many levels and strong currents. With a little insight and a strong writer there is a gold mine of different facets to Kong that Jackson could pursue.
  • What's that coming up out of the sea?

    It looks like a giant lizard!!!

    But it's red!

    It must be MOZILLA!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!

    (Dramatic Music)

    (Whispers)It's only a gecko. . .

  • Eh, it's a good movie, but I liked the prequel [somethingawful.com] better. (Bottom of the page.)

  • This will fail miserably (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShieldWolf ( 20476 ) <jeffrankine@n[ ]cape.net ['ets' in gap]> on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @01:56PM (#5638924)
    Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE Jackson fan, but whenever Directors decide to remake a movie that inspired them when they were young (especially if this is THE movie that made them decide to direct) the results are ALWAYS (pun intended) a mistake:

    Always: Steven Spielberg
    Village of the Damned: John Carpenter
    Swept Away: Guy Ritchie
    etc.

    Peter, for God Sakes don't do it.

  • Some time ago, bbspot [bbspot.com] did a story on including Jar-Jar in the new LOTR Movie [bbspot.com]

    In suprise news today, it seems Peter Jackson himself liked the idea [bbspot.com], and will be including Jar-Jar in a special feature on the DVD! Wow!

  • "Now, if we can only get Kong with some friggin' laser beams on his forehead...Would that be too much to ask folks?"
  • Peter Jackson was already working on a King Kong remake back in 1996-1997 before The Lord of the Rings trilogy became reality. One story about it is here [aboyd.com]. The first script draft from 1996 is also available in the net on several sites, for example at TheOneRing.net [theonering.net].
  • This is what I would call a Dead Horse Genre.

    Just like Dracula.

    And Frankenstein.

    And Planet Of The Apes.

    And Lord Of The Rings.

    It's been done, adequately.

    More than once.

    Stop it already.

    Stop it Stop it Stop it!!!!

  • No, not an April Fool's joke. Peter Jackson's desire to re-make King Kong goes way back [aboyd.com]. In fact, he had the go ahead in 1997 to make it, even completing a script [geocities.com]. When the project was cancelled by Universal, Peter found another project to keep himself busy (hint: it was a trilogy).
  • I can hardly wait to see where Liv Tyler going to be patched in this time around.

    Oh, and how about rewriting the plot too--why not make Kong a giant hamster instead?

    ugh.
  • Somebody slap Jackson around a bit. No more half baked remakes. Be ORIGINAL! Or at least make a film from a great book like he did with LOTR.

    How about "Childhood's End"? That one has been crying out for a good film treatment since, I don't know, 1953? Or maybe "The City and the Stars"?

    Oh, I loved "Heavenly Creatures", too. Soooo original. But Jackson, do something NEW!!
  • (gets down on knees)

    Mr Jackson?

    Please oh please don't use Charles Grodin in this film.

    For the Love of Mankind, please don't use Charles Grodin!!!!

    Dolemite
    _____________________
  • Actually, this isn't so much an homage to King Kong as it is an homage too the Star Wars prequels. After creating three great movies, he sells out and makes overproduced crap that would flop if not for the momentum he built up with his earlier movies. Like Lucas with Star Wars I-III, Jackson will proclaim that "Everyone likes action and hates good writing, just like me." Despite being critically panned, these remakes and their merchandise will "earn" hundreds of millions. Unfortunately for Peter Jackson

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close