Quake3World

they were supposed to show it on extra...

anyone grabbed it, got a link ?

http://trailerdownload.net/trailer.php?trailerId=127

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef23952443 ... plash.html

btw, the movie looks absolutely horrible

glossy wrote:btw, the movie looks absolutely horrible

I dont think it looks too bad. But Jack Black? Not a role for him.

glossy wrote:btw, the movie looks absolutely horrible

what do you expect it's by that fat retarded fuck peter jackson.

dnoyc wrote:

glossy wrote:btw, the movie looks absolutely horrible

what do you expect it's by that fat retarded fuck peter jackson.

LOL.

Hey lets all knock Jackson because he made a very succesful trilogy. People. So predictable.

how about cuz he fucked up the one chance we're going to get in a long time at that trilogy?

dnoyc wrote:how about cuz he fucked up the one chance we're going to get in a long time at that trilogy?

See? Now I know you're full of shit. But hey if you think you can do better numbnuts, you go ahead and raise $300 million and give it a shot.

The trouble with King kong is that we the audience are just so utterly underwhelmed nowadays with big special effects, especially Monster movies. Jurassic Park broke the mould with CGI but instantly gave us unbeatable monsters.

Also when Kong was released in the 30's people were genuinely shocked at seeing such a thing. A huge ape brought to life on the big screen but now no matter how good the effects are we just take it in our stride. Besides, Kong isn't even that big.

Pauly wrote:

dnoyc wrote:how about cuz he fucked up the one chance we're going to get in a long time at that trilogy?

See? Now I know you're full of shit. But hey if you think you can do better numbnuts, you go ahead and raise $300 million and give it a shot.

a competent director could have done better. could have started by actually reading the fucking books.

Pauly wrote:The trouble with King kong is that we the audience are just so utterly underwhelmed nowadays with big special effects, especially Monster movies. Jurassic Park broke the mould with CGI but instantly gave us unbeatable monsters.

Also when Kong was released in the 30's people were genuinely shocked at seeing such a thing. A huge ape brought to life on the big screen but now no matter how good the effects are we just take it in our stride. Besides, Kong isn't even that big.

that i agree with.

lol @ blatant fanboism

well, it has Naomi Watts in Bondage, that's all I care for.

dnoyc wrote:how about cuz he fucked up the one chance we're going to get in a long time at that trilogy?

You're a huge idiot.

dnoyc wrote:

Pauly wrote:See? Now I know you're full of shit. But hey if you think you can do better numbnuts, you go ahead and raise $300 million and give it a shot.

a competent director could have done better. could have started by actually reading the fucking books.

If you think anyone could have adapted the books into films without making changes, you're a more-than-huge idiot. Jackson is a devoted fan, and surrounded himself with other devoted fans to very capably make a very competent adaptation of the Lord of the Rings.

dnoyc wrote:a competent director could have done better. could have started by actually reading the fucking books.

I think he's read the books a couple of... well... thousands times more than you did :lol:

It has Adrien Brody in it, I thought he was pretty good in The Jacket, but personally I think he was at his best when he was playing a retard.

Oh yeah, about King Kong: i love the original, and this looks like it could [could!] be a worthy update. I think Jack Black can turn in a decent straight role (i saw him on the X-files and somewhere else, i forget, before he was all comedy, and i think he can pull off his role). Peter Jackson is certainly a competent director, and it looks like at the very worst this will be a mindless yet entertaining remake.

The only real problems I can see is that Kong just seems like a large ape as opposed to being a mountain like monster. We've seen a large ape before in Mighty Joe Young and we've seen Dinosaurs before, several times in fact. The King Kong story we have seen twice before already so on paper this has nothing new to offer.

Like Sliver says though, at the very worst this will be entertaining.

diego wrote:well, it has Naomi Watts in Bondage, that's all I care for.

I would fuck Watts til it fell off.

dnoyc wrote:how about cuz he fucked up the one chance we're going to get in a long time at that trilogy?

it's true that Jackson took a few liberties with LOTR - some of them pretty nonsensical, like where Frodo waves the ring in the face of the Nazgul in Osgiliath, and the elves at Helms Deep - these are really just blemishes on what is otherwise a pretty fucking awesome piece of work. Yeah, there are a few things I wish he'd done differently, but when you consider the scope for making a dog's fucking breakfast out of an LOTR, he did pretty good. I mean, can you imagine if David Lynch had been an LOTR fan, and made the trilogy? Ever seen Dune? Great movie, but a travesty of the book. Or even worse, some middle-of-the-road mediocre type like Chris Columbus who did the Harry Potter movies. I think we the fans came out well ahead with Peter Jackson.

Pauly wrote:

diego wrote:well, it has Naomi Watts in Bondage, that's all I care for.

I would fuck Watts til it fell off.

she's not bad. I'd never heard of her until now.

She's hot, she beats Fay Wray (1933) but back in the day, Jessica Lange (1976) was way hotter IMO.

Edit:
pfft, okay, look like her now?

Might be true if the depicted girl actually were Jessica Lange.

this is the real Jessica Lange, for those of you who are interested in seeing the real deal:

lol! beat me to it!