Hmmm, looks like we're getting off-topic again. But whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunmaster45
I never liked the original King Kong. I understand how amazing it was for the time, but it didn't even have an end moral. Kong loved Anne, but Anne was scared out of her mind the whole time. Kong was a crazy, bloodthirsty ape who killed anyone in his way and it wasn't sad at all when Kong was shot from the empire state building. And Denham learned nothing from what he did wrong. He thought up the line "Twas beauty killed the beast" like it would make a good headline for a newspaper.
In the new Kong, Anne cares for Kong. Kong is sympathized. He's the last of his kind, he's alone, and misunderstood. He kills only those who try to hurt him (instead of killing anyone in the original) or Anne, and when Kong falls from the building at the end, it is very sad. Denham realizes what crime he has commited by ripping Kong from his environment and speaks the line with remorse and sadness. I liked the new King Kong far better. And the CGI was ground breaking. Oh, and Jack was kind of a dick in the original movie despite being the protaganist.
|
The problem is, you have to evaluate the original with the era in mind. If you compare it to the present-day incarnation, then of course it seems inferior, but that doesn't make it
intrinsically inferior. Which is not the same thing.
It's like...when you watch a movie where Ray Harryhausen did the special F/X, do you automatically deem it inferior to a modern-day flick simply because his stop-motion animation from the 1960s isn't as realistic as anything that ILM or Stan Winston could cook up?