Peter Jackson's King Kong

[Brian in Mesa]

Jack Black Aboard Peter Jackson's King Kong
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Envy star Jack Black has been in cast alongside Naomi Watts in Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong. Black will play Carl Denham, an adventurer filmmaker who is trying to make a name for himself in 1930s New York. Robert Armstrong played the role in the 1933 original.

Watts is playing Ann Darrow, an American actress who makes a living performing in Broadway song and dance shows. The project, which will shoot in Jackson's native New Zealand, is set up at Universal Pictures.

"I've been wanting to work with Jack Black ever since I saw him in High Fidelity," said Jackson, who is also writing the remake along with his "Lord of the Rings" co-screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. "He's a smart and versatile actor blessed with an abundance of energy and charm and I'm absolutely thrilled that he is joining us on 'Kong."'

===========================================

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see Jack Black in this role. Odd casting.

 

[Chaplin]

That is... odd. I'm not sure what I think of that.

 

[mdamien13]

I put all trust in the Jackson. I was just thinking the other day that Naomi Watts and Jack Black would make a really great on-screen couple!

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I see Jack Black more as the character that Charles Grodin played in the Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange King Kong movie...

Fred Wilson: Selfish, capitalistic, oil company guy who wants to use the ape to sell product.

 

[Stout]

Hmm, I saw absolutely zero need for a remake in the first place...a stupid idea, IMO...but now? Well, Black has his comic uses, but...oh well. Not worth the time.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Hmm, I saw absolutely zero need for a remake in the first place...a stupid idea, IMO...but now? Well, Black has his comic uses, but...oh well. Not worth the time.

C'mon, Stout.

What do you expect from Hollywood?

Something original?

 

[Chaplin]

Hmm, I saw absolutely zero need for a remake in the first place...a stupid idea, IMO...but now? Well, Black has his comic uses, but...oh well. Not worth the time.

Worked for Godzilla.

 

[schutd]

C'mon, Stout.

What do you expect from Hollywood?

Something original?

Its out there, but definitely not on Main St., Hollywood. Charlie Kaufman is churning amazing screenplay after amazing screenplay and Sofia Coppola is making deep moody films that are very worthwhile as well.

I have NO interest (at thhis point anyway) in seeing King Kong. IM SO tired of remakes.

 

[Chaplin]

Cry me a river.

 

[Stout]

Worked for Godzilla.

Sure, it'll make money, but if it's no better than Godzilla, I'll not be sorry to have missed it. Original seems to have mostly disappeared lately...independent and foreign films are more and more becoming the only truly good products out there.

 

[Chaplin]

Sure, it'll make money, but if it's no better than Godzilla, I'll not be sorry to have missed it. Original seems to have mostly disappeared lately...independent and foreign films are more and more becoming the only truly good products out there.

Disagree. Last Samurai, LOTR were all big studio films.

 

[schutd]

What kind of response is that? I know! Typical condescending chaplinesque response, thats what.

Cry me a river.

 

[Chaplin]

What kind of response is that? I know! Typical condescending chaplinesque response, thats what.

Come on.

1) Grow a backbone.

2) Grow a sense of humor.

Don't be such a "schutd".

 

[Stout]

Disagree. Last Samurai, LOTR were all big studio films.

I'm not saying there aren't quality, original films (though LOTR was just a movie version of something else)...I'm saying the overall originality of ALL Hollywood seems to be going downhill...every year there are less and less original flicks, and more and more new versions of the same stuff, and a lot of them are remakes.

 

[Chaplin]

I'm not saying there aren't quality, original films (though LOTR was just a movie version of something else)...I'm saying the overall originality of ALL Hollywood seems to be going downhill...every year there are less and less original flicks, and more and more new versions of the same stuff, and a lot of them are remakes.

I think you have a point, but I think, remake or no, there is still some quality there. Originality is nice, but it doesn't seem to sell very much. Then again, how original can you really be? Alfred Hitchcock stole pretty much everything he ever did from someone else. Even as far back as Shakespeare, who had very, very few original stories in his plays. And yet both are considered the peak of their respective creative arts.

Even indies aren't that original anymore. This year, for example, House of Sand and Fog was based on a book, Monster on a real-life person. Both were incredible films though. The studio film Mystic River, another terrific movie, was an adaptation.

The point is, while you're correct in saying there is very little originality left, that may be just a sign that it's getting very difficult to write originality to begin with.

 

[schutd]

Come on.

1) Grow a backbone.

2) Grow a sense of humor.

Don't be such a "schutd".

1) Dont patronize me.

2) Work on your sense of humor.

3) Instead of dismissing me with inane little retorts to my opinions, and then trying to pass them off as self-righteous attempts at humor, how bout addressing my opinions, that while Peter Jackson, currently viewed as some filmmaking messiah, is certainly talented, a re-make of King Kong is exactly that. A re-make. BORING. And while that is essentially all Hollywood seems capable of these days (******** re-tread storylines) there are some refreshing things happening too, ie Sofia Coppola and Charlie Kaufman?

Id love to hear what you have to say, but working for one of the biggest studios ever, I imagine theres some sort of loyalty oath you signed when hired that precludes you from dismissing anything the big studios do, at the same time pissing on anyone with any amount of disdain for the myriad of epic corporate schlock being peddled to the masses.




















Hows that for humor?

 

[Brian in Mesa]

I'd love to hear what you have to say, but working for one of the biggest studios ever, I imagine theres some sort of loyalty oath you signed when hired that precludes you from dismissing anything the big studios do, at the same time pissing on anyone with any amount of disdain for the myriad of epic corporate schlock being peddled to the masses.

I know you hate smilies, but I can't resist...

 

[JerkFace]

I see Jack Black more as the character that Charles Grodin played in the Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange King Kong movie...

the charles grodin role is the role that jack black was cast as. they are triing to get adrian brody for the jeff bridges character.

 

[Chaplin]

1) Dont patronize me.

2) Work on your sense of humor.

3) Instead of dismissing me with inane little retorts to my opinions, and then trying to pass them off as self-righteous attempts at humor, how bout addressing my opinions, that while Peter Jackson, currently viewed as some filmmaking messiah, is certainly talented, a re-make of King Kong is exactly that. A re-make. BORING. And while that is essentially all Hollywood seems capable of these days (******** re-tread storylines) there are some refreshing things happening too, ie Sofia Coppola and Charlie Kaufman?

Id love to hear what you have to say, but working for one of the biggest studios ever, I imagine theres some sort of loyalty oath you signed when hired that precludes you from dismissing anything the big studios do, at the same time pissing on anyone with any amount of disdain for the myriad of epic corporate schlock being peddled to the masses.




















Hows that for humor?

Blah, blah blah blah blah. Do you actually take yourself this seriously??

 

[schutd]

Blah, blah blah blah blah. Do you actually take yourself this seriously??

I absolutely take seriously my ability to get under your skin. Youre a pretentious snobby film ***. And I love to pull your strings. Now, who's taking what seriously?

 

[Chaplin]

I absolutely take seriously my ability to get under your skin. Youre a pretentious snobby film ***. And I love to pull your strings. Now, who's taking what seriously?

Nice. Who's the childish one now?

You have no room to talk--if I'm a snob, you're the same since you find this subject serious enough to call me a "***".

 

[schutd]

Nice. Who's the childish one now?

You have no room to talk--if I'm a snob, you're the same since you find this subject serious enough to call me a "***".

Heh. I notice you didnt bother to refute the other assertations though. *** is an endearing term in many circles these days, Chaplin. Get with it. Oh and how does me using the term ***, in a generic manner, with no homosexual inferences by the way, make me a snob? It may make me childish, but then Ive never worried too much about that.

I find it amusing that you regularly accuse me of taking things so seriously, but then get all indignant when I get childish. Kind of ironic...





dontcha think?

 

[Chaplin]

Heh. I notice you didnt bother to refute the other assertations though. *** is an endearing term in many circles these days, Chaplin. Get with it. Oh and how does me using the term ***, in a generic manner, with no homosexual inferences by the way, make me a snob? It may make me childish, but then Ive never worried too much about that.

I find it amusing that you regularly accuse me of taking things so seriously, but then get all indignant when I get childish. Kind of ironic...





dontcha think?

What the hell are you talking about? You really need to grow up a little. Maybe it's that NY ego talking. You have lowered yourself into childish name-calling, regardless what the meaning of "***" is in schutd language.

The problem is, really, that you can't have a civil discussion without resorting to the whining that has made you famous. You disagree with me, so what? You think I'm going to lose sleep over it? Of course not. THEN you counter with "you're such a film snob ***" or whatever. Gimme a break. What is this, a pissing contest? I don't care one iota about you or your opinions. I respect the fact that everyone has them, even yourself. If you infer that I don't, then that's your own fault.

In fact, I will freely admit that a year or two ago, I had some issues with my "opinion" and the manner in which I express it. Since then, however, there have been few, if any, problems--EXCEPT in regards to you. Why is that, do you think?

If you don't want to spend your hard-earned money on Hollywood movies, that's your own choice. My whole issue is the whining and complaining you do about it--when in reality it doesn't really matter. Remakes, unoriginality--it's something you're just going to have to get used to.

Do I defend Hollywood? Of course, I work in Hollywood! Do I wish there was more originality? Sure I do. But I make the conscious CHOICE to NOT see Scooby-Doo 2, but yet I also make the choice of seeing Scorsese's Cape Fear. Does that make me a hypocrite? Why should it? A movie can be bad or good REGARDLESS of whether it's a remake or not. Not many remakes are a lot better than their original movies, but there are enough that are up to par, and some that are better. Not many, but some. If you choose not to watch a remake because it's a remake, well, that's your choice. Nothing wrong with that. But millions more people WILL see it, and since that's the way audiences are, that's what is going to get made.

You've complained that people won't go see Eternal Sunshine. It is too bad, I love Charlie Kaufman, but his scripts are also an acquired taste, mainly because they are so strange. The average family of 4 won't go see that movie, for reasons I hope are obvious to you.

If you wish to continue your tirade against me personally from the other side of a computer monitor, you are more than welcome to. But nothing you say is going to bother me. I have since lost much of the respect I had for you. I hope to regain it, as I hope the same for you in regards to me.

Cheers.

 

[schutd]

Good points with regard to your opinions of films. I wish I could get more out of that from you on a regular basis. See, any time I express an opinion around here, you instantaneously snub your nose at it with some "blah, blah, blah" or "cry me a river" response. You dismiss it as crying and whining. You assume you can tell the emotion I have when I post. I dont cry and whine. I express an opinion. Hell, if you had posted the above from the beginning, we would have never gotten to this point in the first place.

You and I have been around for a long time, since the old rivals days. I know that. Thats like 6 years or something. Honestly, and without any emotion, I dont really care for you. I dont appreciate the condescending way in which you post. I dont like the way you get carte blanche to crap on peoples opinions while generally ignoring the point of them in the first place, and then playing indignant when youre called to task on it. And I dont like how after a little tete au tete, you try to play the bigger man by telling me I need to grow up. Whatever. I guess its OK for you to not care about me or my opinions, but apparently its not OK for me to not care about yours. SO what if I express it in childish manner. I dont seem to have a problem with many other folks on this board, much like you point out your purported lack of issues with others as well. So look in the mirror before you start accusing me of being the troublemaker.

But thats neither here nor there. Becasue you do have opinbions that you express well, as above, and I do appreciate your views be them here or in the Suns forum or wherever. I do have a HUGE ego, but it has nothing to do with living in NYC, so Ill let that little pot shot go. It was much bigger when I was 20 and living in that ******** town Phoenix. The point is, that I will continue to post and you will most likely continue to call it whining and I imagine we'll gop down this road again. Cool with me. I enjoy a good flame war. Sorry if you dont. You could always put me on ignore. Much like you, I wouldnt lose any sleep over it either. I wont however put you on ignore. Frankly, I like pulling your chain.

Back to the topic at hand, eh?

 

[WaywardFan]

I'll bet this thread is going to turn out to be more entertaining than the movie itself!