|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34173 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34174 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34175 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34176 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34177 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34178 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34179 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34180 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34181 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34182 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34183 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34184 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34185 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34186 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34187 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34188 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34189 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34190 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34191 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34192 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34193 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34194 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Huh!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34195 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34196 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: OT: POTA2001 beats Kong's opening |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34197 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34198 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34199 |
From: Neil T Foster |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #47 |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34200 |
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34201 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Huh!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34202 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: New Revolution preview pages uploaded to PotaDG |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34203 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34204 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34205 |
From: Tim "apefan" |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34206 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34207 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34208 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34209 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34210 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34211 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34212 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34213 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34214 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: temperature (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34215 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34216 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34217 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34218 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Fwd: [PotaDG] Within the Planet of the Apes strip #45 |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34219 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34220 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #46 |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34221 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34222 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34223 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34224 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34225 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34226 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34227 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34228 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34229 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Arno's dog, etc. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34230 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: TV to PLANET |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34231 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Zaius, names, etc. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34232 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Caesar's Breeding Annex chimpette |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34233 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34234 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34235 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34236 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34237 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without it t |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34238 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34239 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Arno's dog, etc. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34240 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34241 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: TV to PLANET |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34242 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34243 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34244 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34245 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34246 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34247 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34248 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34249 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34250 |
From: Tim "apefan" |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34251 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: An apology |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34252 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34253 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34254 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34255 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34256 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34257 |
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34258 |
From: Chris Hight |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34259 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34260 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34261 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34262 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34263 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34264 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34265 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34266 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34267 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34268 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and witho... |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34269 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34270 |
From: Neil T Foster |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #48 |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34271 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34272 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34173 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 2:33:18 AM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
Is this Bill Blake?
No, I don't think it is... MEGO had other people dressed up as apes for their promotions... <.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34174 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
.html
.html
Good
likeness!
This MEGO MUSEUM website is absolutely
astounding!
Michael
In a message dated 12/18/2005 2:33:18 AM Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
Is this Bill Blake?
No, I don't think it is...
MEGO had other people dressed up as apes for their promotions...
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34175 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 6:50:23 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
This MEGO MUSEUM website is absolutely astounding!
Did you see the picture then of the kids and the apes on the Mego Holiday float? (Thanksgiving day parade I think it was...)<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34176 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:11:21 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:
They named Booth Colman's character 'Zaius' for a reason.
Yeah, because they couldn't think of any other name and they wanted some cheap name familiarity...
And, if the TV Zaius is supposedly the ancestor of the movie Zaius, then how could their dynasty have went cross continent like that? The orangutans are the higher ups so is it that hard to believe that there COULD be
two different orangutans in power with that name Zaius? I don't think that would be out of the question... It'd be like saying that two people with YOUR name are almost one in the same...
BTW, TV Zaius is Chief Coucilor Zaius, head of the Supreme Council, and as such it's not hard to believe that an ape in that postion WOULD know the secrets of the planet... The movie Zaius is Dr. Zaius, Minister of
Scienece and Chief Defeder of the Faith... <.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34177 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 6:37:50 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
And the spider pit!
So, you seen the new Kong then Whitty? If so, what are your thoughts on it?<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34178 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum |
.html
.html
I'm still
sifting through - but I am mighty impressed!
In a message dated 12/18/2005 6:50:23 PM Central Standard Time,
Michael.Whitty@... writes:
This MEGO
MUSEUM website is absolutely astounding!
Did you see the picture
then of the kids and the apes on the Mego Holiday float? (Thanksgiving day
parade I think it was...) <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34179 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
Going
tomorrow.
I lie it
already! ;)
I don't think
you can BEAT the ORIGINAL. It was a masterpiece.
Now Rory - is
NEW KK as bad as NEW POTA was, in comparison?
MW
In a message dated
12/18/2005 6:37:50 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@...
writes:
And the
spider pit!
So, you seen the new Kong
then Whitty? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34180 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Article from the Mego Museum (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:14:53 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
I'm still sifting through - but I am mighty impressed!
Yeah, its a very well maintained sight i think... I'm glad I joined it...<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34181 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/05 8:16:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
I don't think you can BEAT the ORIGINAL. It was a masterpiece.
'33 KING KONG is a masterpiece of its kind, and it never should have been remade. The movie Jackson should have remade was SON OF KONG. Now that could be a whole lot better.
Now Rory - is NEW KK as bad as NEW POTA was, in comparison?
The new KING KONG isn't bad, it just isn't very good, it's simply OK with really spectacular CGI action. I didn't like it, but I'm not saying it's terrible -- which POTA2001 certainly
is. Horrible, in fact.
MW
<.html<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34182 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/05 7:34:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:
What is wrong with the 1933 script? Obviously by saying that it is "worse then the original", you
think there is something wrong with the '33 script?
There's nothing wrong with the '33 script. It's perfect for what it is, but the new version doesn't improve upon it and I think makes it worse.
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34183 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:26:10 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:
The movie Jackson should have remade was SON OF KONG. Now that could be a whole lot better.
Hell yeah, I'll agree with that! S.O.K. needed more than a "cute" baby ape...<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34184 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
|
.html .html.html
And, one more thing... As I said, I WASN'T too crazy about the "ice skating" sequence in the film, but in MY opinion, it's almost something that you would
expect to see in a film made in the 30's... Since this new KONG was set in the 30's, and in ways I guess pays homage to those films, the scene isn't out of context...<.html<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34185 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html
.html
Must agree -
there is no way in the world you could argue ANYTHING in the TV Show had
ANYTHING to do with continuity.
Note the dog
barking in the opening scene.......
In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:11:21 AM Central Standard Time,
patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:
They named Booth Colman's character 'Zaius' for a reason.
Yeah, because they couldn't think of any other name
and they wanted some cheap name
familiarity... <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34186 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
Oh
good.
So -
shouldn't have bothered....could have been better.....but not
bad?
In a message
dated 12/18/05 8:16:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@...
writes:
I don't think you can BEAT the ORIGINAL. It was a
masterpiece.
'33 KING KONG is a
masterpiece of its kind, and it never should have been remade. The movie
Jackson should have remade was SON OF KONG. Now that could be a whole
lot better.
Now Rory - is NEW KK as bad as NEW POTA was, in
comparison?
The new KING KONG isn't bad,
it just isn't very good, it's simply OK with really spectacular CGI
action. I didn't like it, but I'm not saying it's terrible -- which
POTA2001 certainly is. Horrible, in fact.
MW
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34187 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/05 8:47:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
So - shouldn't have bothered....could have been better.....but not bad?
Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX. You'll see.
I wonder what "Veetus" thought of it?<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34188 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/05 8:40:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.Whitty@... writes:
Must agree - there is no way in the world you could argue ANYTHING in the TV Show had ANYTHING to do with
continuity.
Why do we agrue these things again and again? Why must everything be of one "continuity"?
The original film was "based" on the novel. It's sequels were based on the characters from the novel and the film. The TV show was "based" on the film series, as was the cartoon
series.
Just leave it at that.<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34189 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:50:44 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:
Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX.
For me, the three hours went by FAST... It didn't feel like a long movie...<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34190 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html
.html
Then there
would be nothing to talk about!
What would
Patrick do with himself???? ;)
Michael
In a message dated 12/18/05 8:40:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Michael.Whitty@... writes:
Must agree - there is no way in the world you could argue
ANYTHING in the TV Show had ANYTHING to do with continuity.
Why do we agrue these
things again and again? Why must everything be of one
"continuity"?
The original film was "based" on the novel. It's
sequels were based on the characters from the novel and the film. The TV
show was "based" on the film series, as was the cartoon series.
Just
leave it at that. <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34191 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
That's coz
you had your girlie there!
You know I
had my daughter with me for Star Wars 1 and she loved Jar Jar so much it didn't
occur to me what a TWAT he is until I watched it by myself later. But then
again when I first saw "EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" on release in the cinemas I thought
the "muppets" were too childish....strange how it goes....
Michael
In a message dated
12/18/2005 7:50:44 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:
Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX.
For me, the three hours went by FAST... It didn't feel like
a long movie... <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34192 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 5:29:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
merlynpota@... writes:
Wasn't a
son (Cornelius) born with Caesar's mating with Lisa at the "command post"
the ape managment center??
No. Though Natalie Trundy said she did the scene
it hasn't been definitively established that she was
playing the same character. In fact, from the photos
I'd say it's not the same makeup even if it was her
wearing it. Also the time difference rules that out.
Cornelius the younger was about 12. And it had
been more than 12 years since the revolution.
Mandimus was Virgils teacher when he was a
boy, etc . . . suggests that more than 12 years
has passed since the revolt.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34193 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.html
.html
Yes, this certainly leaves an opening for a
story about ANOTHER child of Caesar......indeed he may have strayed at other
times too...
In a message dated 12/18/2005 5:29:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
merlynpota@... writes:
Wasn't a son (Cornelius)
born with Caesar's mating with Lisa at the "command post" the ape
managment center??
No. Though Natalie Trundy said she did the scene
it hasn't been definitively established that she was
playing the same character. In fact, from the photos
I'd say it's not the same makeup even if it was her
wearing it. Also the time difference rules that out.
Cornelius the younger was about 12. And it had
been more than 12 years since the revolution.
Mandimus was Virgils teacher when he was a
boy, etc . . . suggests that more than 12 years
has passed since the revolt. <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34194 |
From: Whitty, Michael |
Date: 12/18/2005 |
| Subject: Huh!?!??! |
.html
.html
RIGHT!
What's all
this then Neil??!?!?!?
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34195 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:05:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlccougar@... writes:
so is it
that hard to believe that there COULD be two different orangutans in power
with that name Zaius?
Hard to say. There are 2 presidents named George Bush, but they are
related. It may be like there being two presidents named John.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34196 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: OT: POTA2001 beats Kong's opening |
.html
.html
The estimates are in and "King Kong" made
about $66 million over it's 5 - day opening. That's decent but Universal was
hoping for the $75 million that the first "Lord of the Rings" flick made, though
now the studio is chalking that up to the unknown factor of rabid Tolkien fans.
POTA2001 made $ 68 million in it's 3 -day opening weekend. I have no doubt "King
Kong" will surpass POTA when all is said and done because, well, "Kong" is an
excellent movie and POTA2001 isn't. But it doesn't look like "Kong" will
be the next "Spiderman" and spark a wave of ape movies.
I saw "Kong" this weekend with Bill Blake,
who tried to do a suit design for Universal's planned "Kong" remake in the '70's
(it was designed to be worn by Bill's friend who lost his legs in a racing
accident and with arm extensions would look more like a real ape and not the
"man in a suit" that the final '70's version looked like). Universal lost out to
Dino De Laurentiis but got the rights to the next "Kong" movie, which they've
just cashed in with the Peter Jackson version 20 years later. Anyway, Bill and I
both felt the same. We felt this new Kong is an excellent movie and Jackson's
love of the material is obvious. He went above and beyond his duty. Maybe too
much. I had no problem with the first hour that many people feel is slow
(my audience got restless during this; they wanted to see Kong). I enjoyed the
characters and the '30's recreations. Bill and I had more of a problem with the
middle section, with all the action sequences. The computer animated creatures
are wonderful but the action scenes are SO over the top and hyper that it
totally took me out of the movie for stretches. It turns the movie into a Bugs
Bunny cartoon and I wish moviemakers could restrain themselves more. It's a wide
spread problem, sacrificing the storytelling's reality for ever more exciting
action. Yeah, it's about a giant ape not a historical epic but it should still
be believable while you're watching it. The last act in New York is poetic and
superb. I was pleased to see that makeup man Rick (POTA2001) Baker played one of
the pilots in the final scene, bring him full circle 35 years after playing a
National Guardsman (under the command of "Apes" makeup man John Chambers ) in
the "Kong spoof "Schlock!". Jackson's "Kong" also has many visual and dialogue
references to the '33 original and it's definitely worth it to see the original
again before seeing this.
Ultimately I think "King Kong" will do well
and it's odd people seem to be resisting it. Maybe it's the 3 hour length, maybe
it's the downer ending. With all the bad movies that do well it's sad to see a
good movie go below expectations. But it's the good ones that eventually get
discovered and live on profitably, something studios seem to forget. - - -
Jeff
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34197 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
What's wrong with the "ice skating"? He's
not ice skating, he's slipping on the ice. He acted like I think an ape would
act. It reminded me of a scene in "Edward Scissorhands". The movie could be
charged with being sentimental and manipulative but so be it. - - -
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong 2005
(OT)
In a message dated 12/18/2005 9:41:23 AM
Central Standard Time, Haristas@...
writes:
The script is worse than the original, rather than
improving on it
What is wrong with the 1933
script? Obviously by saying that it is "worse then the original", you think
there is something wrong with the '33 script? Things that could have been
improved with the original are what?
Personally, yes, things like the
ice skating thing WERE stupid, I never said this new one was perfect by any
means... BUT, I liked that it had much more action to it than the
original... <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34198 |
From: veetus@earthlink.net |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
The original "King Kong" is a classic but
it's not a great movie. The acting is pretty poor. It's a good "B" movie with
legendary stop motion, music and sound effects. Jackson's movie isn't
perfect but it's the superior movie. "Kong" need never be remade again. -
- - Jeff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34
PM
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong 2005
(OT)
In a message dated 12/18/2005 9:41:23 AM
Central Standard Time, Haristas@...
writes:
The script is worse than the original, rather than
improving on it
What is wrong with the 1933
script? Obviously by saying that it is "worse then the original", you think
there is something wrong with the '33 script? Things that could have been
improved with the original are what?
Personally, yes, things like the
ice skating thing WERE stupid, I never said this new one was perfect by any
means... BUT, I liked that it had much more action to it than the
original... <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34199 |
From: Neil T Foster |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #47 |
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34200 |
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34201 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Huh!?!??! |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:
> RIGHT!
> What's all this then Neil??!?!?!?
-- Just something that I had been mucking around with for ages and
finally found something to do with.
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34202 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: New Revolution preview pages uploaded to PotaDG |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> This is my favourite so far..
-- Yeah, looks great doesn't it? So do the rest of them!
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34203 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:
> Must agree - there is no way in the world you could argue ANYTHING
in the TV Show had ANYTHING to do with continuity.
-- Why the heck not? If you were to apply enough imagination I'm sure
you could.
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34204 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html
I’ll re-phrase then…..you
SHOULD not….because it is obviously about as much to do with the movies
as either of them are to do with RETURN!
Michael
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
8:15 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re:
Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??!
--- In
PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Whitty, Michael" <Michael.Whitty@d...>
wrote:
> Must agree - there is no way in the world you
could argue ANYTHING
in the TV Show had ANYTHING to do with continuity.
-- Why the heck not? If you were to apply enough
imagination I'm sure
you could.
Neil
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34205 |
From: Tim "apefan" |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
Me too Cougar....It flew by for me......And I think the "silly" things such as the ice skating scene fit in just because the whole damn thing is a fantasy,,,,,Can't take anything seriously....or else
Ann Darrow would have a severe case of hypothermia from walking around wintery Manhatten in a slip and robe not to mention sitting on the top of the Empire State Building for forty minutes....her hair had a gentle
breeze caressing it when you KNOW it was windy and cold as hell up there....! I just let myself go back to when I was young and let my mind go and just enjoyed it....much like I did in 76...but that never did it for
me......except for...Jessica Lange.......naked....... Tim
mlccougar@... wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/2005
7:50:44 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:
Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX.
For me, the three hours went by FAST... It didn't feel like a long movie...
Do You Yahoo!?
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34206 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I'll re-phrase then...you SHOULD not..because it is obviously about
as much to do with the movies as either of them are to do with RETURN!
-- I don't think it is fair to say that at all. The TV show could
quite easily fit in sometime between Battle and Planet and in fact
that is the way I see it myself.
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34207 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
Thanks Tim. Jessica says you do it for her too!
J
Dwan
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
"apefan"
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
8:24 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King
Kong 2005 (OT)
Me too Cougar....It flew
by for me......And I think the "silly" things such as the ice skating
scene fit in just because the whole damn thing is a fantasy,,,,,Can't take
anything seriously....or else Ann Darrow would have a severe case of
hypothermia from walking around wintery Manhatten in a slip and robe not to
mention sitting on the top of the Empire State Building for forty minutes....her
hair had a gentle breeze caressing it when you KNOW it was windy and cold as
hell up there....! I just let myself go back to when I was young and let my
mind go and just enjoyed it....much like I did in 76...but that never did it
for me......except for...Jessica Lange.......naked.......
In
a message dated 12/18/2005 7:50:44 PM Central Standard Time, Haristas@...
writes:
Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX.
For me, the three hours went by FAST... It didn't feel like a long movie...
--
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34208 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html
The yapping dog makes me place it prior to
Planet, but to me that’s with the original ape revolt…not the one
after Zira and Cornelius fly back through time and
change things.
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
8:29 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re:
Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??!
--- In
PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I'll re-phrase then...you SHOULD not..because
it is obviously about
as much to do with the movies as either of them
are to do with RETURN!
-- I don't think it is fair to say that at all.
The TV show could
quite easily fit in sometime between Battle and
Planet and in fact
that is the way I see it myself.
Neil
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34209 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> The yapping dog makes me place it prior to Planet,
-- Obviously it would be well before Planet, dog or no dog.
> but to me that's with the original ape revolt.not the one after Zira
and Cornelius fly back through time and change things.
-- Sigh, yes if you believe in altered timelines of course!
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34210 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/05 8:18:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, veetus@... writes:
The original "King Kong" is a classic but it's not a great movie. The acting is pretty poor.
It's a good "B" movie with legendary stop motion, music and sound effects. Jackson's movie isn't perfect but it's the superior movie. "Kong" need never be remade again. - - -
Jeff
It never should have been remade in the first place! The '33 KK is indeed a great movie -- ask Peter Jackson!!!! I don't think he'd be dumb enough to say his version is supior to the
original! That's just crazy! Jeff, the ghost of Arthur P. is going to kick your ass!
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34211 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
Never
mind Rory – Veetus probably thinks POTA is not
a great movie! J
And face it – it was remade because
it is a timeless STORY and no pimple faced punk is gonna
pay to see the restored B&W version but they WILL pay to see a new one with
kisk-ass CGA.
Michael
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
10:22 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong
2005 (OT)
In a message dated 12/19/05 8:18:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
veetus@... writes:
The original "King Kong" is a classic but it's not
a great movie. The acting is pretty poor. It's a good "B" movie with
legendary stop motion, music and sound effects. Jackson's movie isn't perfect
but it's the superior movie. "Kong" need never be remade again.
- - - Jeff
It never should have been remade in the first place! The '33 KK is indeed
a great movie -- ask Peter Jackson!!!! I don't think he'd be dumb
enough to say his version is supior to the original! That's just
crazy! Jeff, the ghost of Arthur P. is going to kick your ass!
-- Rory
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34212 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/05 6:37:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
And face it – it was remade because it is a timeless STORY and no pimple faced punk is gonna pay to see
the restored B&W version but they WILL pay to see a new one with kisk-ass CGA.
Michael
Yeah, but it's still the original that'll get all the respect from future film buffs.
Haven't you seen it yet, Whitty?<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34213 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
.html
According to the shipping list on Diamond Comics Distributor's website the first issue of the much-anticipated Revolution on the Planet of the Apes will not be in comic shops
this week, but it does appear on next week's shipping list. Got some extra Christmas money from your favorite aunt? Buy some extra copies of Revolution next week. Greg <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34214 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: temperature (OT) |
.html
.html
One final point about the difference between
Fahrenheit and Centigrade. My Father likes
the thermostat set at 72 and my Mother
likes it at 73. If we were in metric country
both of those would be 22 degrees. I have
to wonder if the folks in metric land can
even tell the difference? Perhaps they
have digital thermostats with points of
degrees. It's something to ponder
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34215 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
.html.html
Thanks for the information Greg.
I guess you wouldn’t call this a
rumour would you?
Well, I mean you could, but you would look
rather stupid! J
Michael
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Plonowski
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
11:40 AM
To: pota@yahoogroups.com;
potadg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Revolution on
the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week
According to the shipping
list on Diamond Comics Distributor's website the first issue of the
much-anticipated Revolution on the Planet of the Apes will not be in comic
shops this week, but it does appear on next week's shipping list. Got some
extra Christmas money from your favorite aunt? Buy some extra copies of
Revolution next week.
Greg
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34216 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
It
came out here Friday. Silly me I
expected it would be like all other films and show weeks after the USA
so I would have to download Bit Torrents of a Vid-Cam
version! But I am seeing it today or
tomorrow…..
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Haristas@...
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
10:40 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong
2005 (OT)
In a message dated 12/19/05 6:37:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
And face
it – it was remade because it is a timeless STORY and no pimple faced punk is
gonna pay to see the restored B&W version but they WILL pay to see a new
one with kisk-ass CGA.
Michael
Yeah, but it's still the original that'll get all the respect from future film
buffs.
Haven't you seen it yet, Whitty?
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34217 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
In a message dated 12/17/2005 8:35:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:
In regards to the KONG film, I am not going to give any spoilers away about this movie, but let me just it is an EXCELLENT
movie... I hope it lives up to the hype and blows Titanic's ass away as the "highest money making film of all time"... Go see it!!!
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34218 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Fwd: [PotaDG] Within the Planet of the Apes strip #45 |
|
.html
.html
That looks very painful. I wonder if he'll need a plastic surgeon? Elaine<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34219 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:41:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, Haristas@... writes:
In a message dated 12/17/05 9:38:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
OK Rory, what was wrong with it?
Just the highlights! J
It's kind of dumb and even silly at times. (Ann walking down the street towards Kong with the light behind her, the both of them on the ice in Central Park. These things belong in a dream sequence, rather
than in the reality of the story.) Some of the SFX pieces are over-the-top and rather than be amazed and awed by what you see, you laugh at how extreme it is. The script is worse than the original, rather
than improving on it -- as it should have done, and Kong is too much of a big dog in character, rather than the beast of the original. I hated watching him die. It was depressing and just too sad. It
seemed to me as if in being asked by the filmmakers to view this was cruel. You feel empathy for Kong while you're still on Skull Island, something you don't in the original because he's just this
raging beast, therefore you feel very sorry for him when he's captured and you can't understand why they're being so cruel to him when they take him to New York. It makes the last third of the movie
even more unbelievable and excruciating to watch. How could everyone except Ann be so unsympathetic to this obviously sympathetic animal?
Even though I didn't like the sad ending, in a way it brought out the point, how we humans
take primates out of their habitat and subject them to a worse jungle, our world. Kong's
environment on Skull Island was harsh but he was king there. He was brought to New
York for human entertainment and ultimately perished. Shows that humans are the
ultimate destroyers. Happy holidays! Elaine <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34220 |
From: taebokitti@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #46 |
|
.html .html
Great drawing of Ursus, Neil! He looks surprised. Elaine<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34221 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.htmlSo it wasn't the same Cornelius that Aldo killed??
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/18/2005 5:29:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> merlynpota@y... writes:
>
> Wasn't a son (Cornelius) born with Caesar's mating with Lisa at
> the "command post" the ape managment center??
>
>
>
> No. Though Natalie Trundy said she did the scene
> it hasn't been definitively established that she was
> playing the same character. In fact, from the photos
> I'd say it's not the same makeup even if it was her
> wearing it. Also the time difference rules that out.
> Cornelius the younger was about 12. And it had
> been more than 12 years since the revolution.
> Mandimus was Virgils teacher when he was a
> boy, etc . . . suggests that more than 12 years
> has passed since the revolt.
> <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34222 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
.htmlI doubt very highly my local comic shops will get these...how can I
order online??
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, Greg Plonowski <urko3085@s...> wrote:
>
> According to the shipping list on Diamond Comics Distributor's
website the first issue of the much-anticipated Revolution on the
Planet of the Apes will not be in comic shops this week, but it does
appear on next week's shipping list. Got some extra Christmas money
from your favorite aunt? Buy some extra copies of Revolution next week.
>
> http://www.diamondcomics.com/shipping.asp
>
> Greg
> <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34223 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 7:37:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
merlynpota@... writes:
So it
wasn't the same Cornelius that Aldo killed??
Not sure what you mean by that.
Cornelius the elder would be Caesars' father.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34224 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 7:18:49 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:
The original "King Kong" is a classic but it's not a great movie. The acting is pretty poor. It's a good "B" movie with legendary stop motion, music and sound effects. Jackson's movie
isn't perfect but it's the superior movie.
I agree with what Jeff said here...
I will say that the original IS the "classic", especially when you consider what they did back then as far as making the film... But, what was said here is true, the acting ISN'T that great: It's very
"30's styles" acting, which detracts from the story... Some here have said the action sequences in the new film are "over the top", but they're nowhere near as "over the top" as the
acting in the original...<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34225 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:44:04 PM Central Standard Time, nfoster@... writes:
-- I don't think it is fair to say that at all. The TV show could
quite easily fit in sometime between Battle and Planet and in fact
that is the way I see it myself.
I'll agree with you that I see too see that it "can" be part of the timeline... But, the way I see it, it comes before the original PLANET... <.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34226 |
From: merlynpota |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.htmlDidn't Ceaser have a son by Lisa while at the ape center under who he
named Cornelius who was later killed by Aldo...and that was the first
ape killing ape...
Or am I way off???
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/19/2005 7:37:36 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> merlynpota@y... writes:
>
> So it wasn't the same Cornelius that Aldo killed??
>
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.
> Cornelius the elder would be Caesars' father.
> <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34227 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Timelines...and MORE new WITHIN!?!??! |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 4:02:50 PM Central Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
The yapping dog makes me place it prior to Planet, but to me that's with the original ape revolt…not the one after Zira
and Cornelius fly back through time and change things.
Right on Whitty...
<.html<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34228 |
From: mlccougar@aol.com |
Date: 12/19/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 7:37:36 PM Central Standard Time, merlynpota@... writes:
So it wasn't the same Cornelius that Aldo killed??
Aldo DID kill Caesar's son Cornelius...
BUT, in regards to the female at the breeding annex, there's no evidence to say that that "was" Lisa (and I don't think it was...) Either way, there's no way to prove that there was a pregnancy from
that mating, if they even "mated" at all... <.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34229 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Arno's dog, etc. |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
>
> The yapping dog makes me place it prior to Planet, but to me that's
with the original ape revolt.not the one after Zira and Cornelius fly
back through time and change things.
*** I don't see how you can justify this conclusion, Mike. The Plague
that happens in 1983, 8 years prior to "CONQUEST", explains the fact
that Man took Apes in as Pets, to replace their beloved Dogs & Cats,
leading to the Apes being eventually enslaved -- less than a decade
later.
But, due to what Cornelius and Zira told Hasslein in "ESCAPE", the
story of how Man fell and Apes rose began in their Prehistory with
the Plague that killed the Dogs & Cats...
In other words, for those who believe in a Two-Timeline scenario,
where the Ape-onauts supposedly caused a CHANGE to happen, BOTH
timelines have a Dog-&-Cat-killing Plague being the FIRST event of a
series of events leading to Man destroying his own civilization.
How can the "yapping dog" make you place the TV show prior
to "PLANET", then? In BOTH the so-called 'original timeline' leading
to "PLANET" AND the so-called 'changed timeline' that began with the
Ape-onauts landing in "ESCAPE" the Dogs and Cats are wiped out by a
Plague. In BOTH of 'em. So, how can the "yapping dog" fit in?
For myself, I prefer to unflub this damned 'flub' (which I attribute
to Art Wallace, who wrote the teleplay of "ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW") by
pointing out a few things:
1) Armando says that "They ALL died... every dog and cat ON EARTH,
eight years ago..."
Every dog and cat ON EARTH. What if, for the sake of argument, there
were at least some dogs and cats still alive OFF EARTH, in an orbital
space-station or L5-type colony? Or on a Moon Base -- perhaps a base
not even known to exist by the masses, but maintained by the
Government and/or the Military?
2) Cornelius told Hasslein that "hundreds and thousands of them"
died, etc etc. There are MILLIONS of dogs and cats, of course. Isn't
Cornelius understating the matter? Or, is it that he -- having lived
in a society made up of only several thousand apes -- can't really
comprehend a population of Man in the 6 Billion range, with a
proportionate number of pet Dogs and Cats? Of course, he DOES
eventually state that -- after the "dog bonfires" -- Man was without
pets, and replaced them with primitive Apes.
3) Prior to the 3085 events of the TV show, "more than ten years ago"
in the 3070's, another spaceship landed in the area, according to
Zaius and Urko. The human "as-tro-nauts" who were on it told them
that they came from Earth, but from another "time period" long ago.
Perhaps THEY had some Dogs and Cats on board their ship. Perhaps they
came from the same group of Scientists who planted the Vaults full of
Scientific Knowledge before the Cataclysm (see "THE LEGACY").
Is it too difficult to imagine that the genomes of Dogs and Cats
might very well have been sequenced, based on surviving records (a
single HAIR from one dog could be used to provide the DNA for such
a "Canine Genome Project"), and that a society of Scientists might
have attempted to BRING BACK the extinct species, the way that the
theme-park scientists in "JURASSIC PARK" bring back some dinosaur
species?
Thus, all it would take is a little imagination to connect these
dots, to 'unflub' Art Wallace's damned flub. Scientists with
foreknowledge of Earth's impending Nuke War, operate an orbital L5-
type colony on which there are either living Dogs and Cats
(quarantined, lest they acquire the Plague virus) or there are DNA
samples of such breeds that are first Sequenced and then REPLICATED.
Thus, on that orbiting satellite, there might very well be surviving
Humans and Dogs and Cats -- but the Dogs and Cats are kept on it, for
the most part, due to the danger of exposing them to the Plague virus
that's rampant on Earth.
Later, a spaceship with the same SpaceTime-warping abilities as the
ANSA ships leaves Earth or that orbiting satellite, and returns in
the 3070's, landing near the Central City region with not only Human
astronauts on it, but also some of the surviving Dogs (and Cats?) on
it.
You'll notice that Arno calls his dog "Dog". He doesn't name
it "Rover" or "Fido" or anything like that. Perhaps that dog was once
a puppy on a spaceship, some ten years earlier, and that Arno (or,
perhaps, some older sibling?) encountered that strange yet friendly
creature... asked "What IS it?"... and was told "It's a DOG."
So... it's given the NAME: "Dog".
That's just one possible way to unflub Art Wallace's damned mistake,
using common SF/science themes: Genetics, etc.
Patrick <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34230 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: TV to PLANET |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "Neil" <nfoster@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I'll re-phrase then...you SHOULD not..because it is obviously about
> as much to do with the movies as either of them are to do with
RETURN!
>
> -- I don't think it is fair to say that at all. The TV show could
> quite easily fit in sometime between Battle and Planet and in fact
> that is the way I see it myself.
>
> Neil
*** Me too.
The Carnivorous Gorillas over near the NYC area represent a dead-end
for the Gorillas -- they must eventually re-join their fellow simians,
the Chimpanzees and Orangutans, but on different terms.
The gorillas go from knowing how to make Arrows (with arrowheads of
quartz) to making GUNS. The guns they make aren't hand-me-downs from
the age of Man, but are APE-MADE originals -- the types we see in the
TV show and in "PLANET" and "BENEATH".
When those gorillas re-join the other apes, they essentially seize
military power -- their guns having made the difference. Of course,
these gorillas wouldn't stand to have Apes living side-by-side in peace
with Humans...
... which is why, by the time of the TV show, 3085, the Humans have not
only been subjugated into slavery, but the mythic History taught by the
nice Lawgiver in 2670 has been forgotten. The apes have been taught a
DIFFERENT history, one in which "Apes have always ruled the world"
(according to Galen) and Man is merely a useful animal. And the story
of the Cain-like murder committed by Aldo has been whitewashed or
wholly forgotten.
I don't find it so hard to imagine such a scenario. Remember how the
fundamentalist Islamists took over Iran in the 1970's, overthrowing the
Shah and instituting the Ayatollah and a theocracy? And now, less than
30 years later, the 'president' of Iran is stating that the Holocaust
is a Jew-concocted Myth, etc etc. Rewriting history to their advantage,
and to the disadvantage of their enemies.
The whole point of POTA is that the Apes APED us! And the paragraph
above is just as much about us Humans as our better self-portraits, our
better exemplars of Humanity.
Iran is busy getting nuke capabilities -- not just for Energy, but for
Weaponry... and they've said that Israel should be "wiped from the
map". And Israel already has nuke capabilities (which they've never
used... YET, anyway).
I was never really worried about a U.S.A.-versus-U.S.S.R. nuke war
happening, even prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the
thought that crazy anti-Israel anti-U.S.A. muslims will soon have the
Bomb and the will to use it... THAT gives me pause for concern. I
wouldn't be at all surprised if a nuking took place sometime in the
next decade. Twenty years ago, I wouldn't have thought that, but times
have changed... for the worse.
Patrick <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34231 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Zaius, names, etc. |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, mlccougar@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/18/2005 10:11:21 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
> > They named Booth Colman's character 'Zaius' for a reason.
> >
>
> Yeah, because they couldn't think of any other name and they wanted
some cheap name familiarity...
*** If that were so, then "Urko" would've been named "Ursus".
And "Virdon" would've been named "Taylor", probably!
> And, if the TV Zaius is supposedly the ancestor of the movie Zaius,
then how could their dynasty have went cross continent like that?
*** In a word, MIGRATION. The Simian civilization spread from West-to-
East, perhaps following in the footsteps of earlier pioneers (who had
traveled Eastward in the 27th or 28th Centuries). Any number of
factors could have caused some groups to venture Eastward from the
Central City region. Race War. Natural Disasters, such as a tsunami
hitting the western coast, destroying the locales where "TOMORROW'S
TIDE", "THE DECEPTION", "THE LEGACY", "THE TRAP" and "UP ABOVE THE
WORLD SO HIGH" took place.
> The orangutans are the higher ups so is it that hard to believe
that there COULD be two different orangutans in power with that name
Zaius? I don't think that would be out of the question... It'd be
like saying that two people with YOUR name are almost one in the
same...
*** The apes -- without any exception that I can recall -- have
SINGLE names: Zaius, Zira, Honorius, Maximus, Marcus, Ursus,
Cornelius, Galen, etc etc. As my own Yahoo-name attests, I have THREE
NAMES, a First (Patrick), a Middle (Michael), and a Last (Tilton).
The apes don't have "family" names, or "last" names to differentiate
one group of Chimps from another. Veska's son is named Arno. Yalu's
son is named Galen. By this time, even HUMANS have only single names,
such as "Janor" or "Mikal" or "Kraik" etc.
The Cornelius-Caesar-Cornelius line suggests that it isn't out-of-the-
question for Apes to name their own children after their own fathers,
essentially skipping a generation -- perhaps alternating two names,
from First Born son to First Born son, that sort of thing. Had
Cornelius II not been murdered by Aldo, then he probably would have
named his own son Caesar II, etc.
> BTW, TV Zaius is Chief Coucilor Zaius, head of the Supreme Council,
and as such it's not hard to believe that an ape in that position
WOULD know the secrets of the planet... The movie Zaius is Dr. Zaius,
Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith...
*** In 3085, the governing body is called "the High Council". In
3955, it's called "the National Academy" or "the Academy" for short.
The President of the Academy presided over the Tribunal -- the
word "tribunal" referring to THREE persons, the Latin word deriving
from a time when there were 3 ethnic divisions amongst the Romans.
In "PLANET", of course, the three apes on the Tribunal are all
orangutans -- meaning that the orangutans dominate the government at
that time, rather than having 1 orangutan, 1 chimpanzee, and 1
gorilla all serving side-by-side.
And Dr. Zaius is one of those three. The President, Zaius, and
Maximus are the 3 top apes (the President being the top-most of the
bunch). They represent "the State", with Honorius advocating
prosecutorially on their behalf.
We don't know if the apes are VOTED into their offices, or if they
are given those positions, handed-down from a retiring one to an
appointed successor. It could very well be a hereditary thing;
established way back when, when the Lawgiver's first followers (like
the Apostles) succeeded the Lawgiver. Higher-up positions in this
Ape 'church'-run society would be more like a Papal Succession, which
isn't voted by the Laity, but is a result of a (usually fixed) vote
by a College of Cardinals.
The very fact that Zaius is on that Tribunal, on the left hand of the
President of the Academy, is proof that he's one of the top three
apes in Apedom. Perhaps the President is slightly OLDER than him, so
that the Eldest ape gets to preside as the Academy's President. I
seem to recall that the TV show's "High Council" is also called "the
Supreme Council of Elders" at one point -- though, this may only be
in one of Effinger's novelizations. I'll have to check.
Patrick <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34232 |
From: patrickmichaeltilton |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Caesar's Breeding Annex chimpette |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, "merlynpota" <merlynpota@y...> wrote:
>
> <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> > Caesar, the FIRST (and, since he became heirless, last?) King
>
> Wasn't a son (Cornelius) born with Caesar's mating with Lisa at
> the "command post" the ape managment center??
*** The female chimp in the Breeding Annex is not Lisa, though
Natalie Trundy may have played both roles. Remember, the Ape makeups
tended to be bare-minimal for the background apes, from "BENEATH" and
on. Only the principal characters were made-up in the best
appliances. Thus, Roddy and Natalie didn't wear the pull-over masks
that most of the background chimps wore. Rather than spend more cash -
- in an already stripped-to-the-bone budget -- on a second female
chimpanzee's makeups, they just had Natalie portray this OTHER female
chimp.
Compare Lisa's rather shy, reserved, mannerisms regarding Caesar
earlier in the film with this Chimp-vamp character's come-hither
looks. Looks like two different personalities to me.
In John Jakes' novelization, he makes it clear that Caesar felt he
HAD to "do the deed" with this female chimp, despite the fact that he
found it degrading, because they were being WATCHED by the Breeding
Annex personnel, to make sure that the "insemination" occurred.
But any child born to this female chimp -- if she did conceive --
would not have been Cornelius. That chimp had to have been born many
years later. "CONQUEST" takes place in 1991, and Mandemus becomes the
Guardian of Caesar's armory in that year -- at the earliest. By the
time "BATTLE" takes place, he's lived in that armory for 27 years,
dating "BATTLE" to 2018 at the earliest. And Cornelius, in "BATTLE",
is not 27 years old! He's just a kid, probably having been conceived
during the 12-years-before incident Mendez alludes to, the last time
the peace was broken for the people of the City (which I think would
be the Nuke War, in 2006). Thus, for 15 years -- from 1991 to 2006 --
Caesar and Lisa were either childless or they DID have children who
died, leaving them childless... until Lisa gave birth to Cornelius.
For all we know, Caesar may have lost several chimp children, and the
name "Cornelius" may have been given to MORE than one: to his first-
born son (who dies) and then later to the chimp kid we see
in "BATTLE" (who is murdered by Aldo). True, neither Caesar nor Lisa
mentions any such prior (deceased) children, but absence of evidence
is NOT evidence of absence. What parents WOULD mention the tragic
losses they'd suffered... the death(s) of their child(ren) from
before?
I do like the notion that Caesar MAY have an unacknowledged 'bastard'
child out there, though. The child conceived in that Breeding Annex.
Would not such a chimp -- were he (or she) to discover his/her
paternity, the fact that his father is Caesar -- make a claim to the
Throne of Apedom, after the death of Cornelius, provided that Caesar
died heirless? There are all sorts of interesting possibilities
there...
Patrick <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34233 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 11:08:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlccougar@... writes:
the action sequences in the new
film are "over the top", but they're nowhere near as "over the top" as the
acting in the original...
Yeah, but that acting was PB, Pre-Brando.
Nobody knew how to act naturally in front
of a camera back then. It was just toned
down stage acting. Which doesn't work.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34234 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Lawgiver for Ty....TV SERIES |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/19/2005 11:10:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
merlynpota@... writes:
Didn't
Ceaser have a son by Lisa while at the ape center
It still hasn't definitively been established that that was
Lisa.
And I still don't think it was. She didn't look like her,
and
more importantly she didn't act like her. Wrinkling her
nose at Caesar was totally out of character, as was
his reaction towards her. His body language was
one of resignation, and not the sort of expression
given he'd been chasing that particular Chimpette
all over town. It was more like, "Well, she's not
Lisa -- but if I have to anyway, I may as well enjoy
myself." Not the expression of happy coincidence
one would expect from a fortuitous coupling with her.
To me that's a dead giveaway that it WASN"T her.
If it was, he wouldn't be shrugging his shoulders
like. "Oh well . . . "
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34235 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> Yeah, but that acting was PB, Pre-Brando.
> Nobody knew how to act naturally in front
> of a camera back then. It was just toned
> down stage acting. Which doesn't work.
-- Well I saw 'new Kong' today with my 2 youngest boys and we all
absolutley loved it. I thought it was excellent, now I can't wait for
the inevitable deluxe DVD boxed set with an extra 4 hours added to
it. ;-)
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34236 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, Haristas@a... wrote:
> It never should have been remade in the first place!
-- Maybe they could have saved all that money and just colourized the
original version. <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34237 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without it t |
.html.html
The
action was VERY typical of the sort of action we are now accustomed to……I
mean that dino stampede – it really WAS over
the top. As was the amount of T-Rexes that came to fight Kong….and the amount of
times Anne was missed by a FRACTION of an inch.
BUT….I really did enjoy KK.
I thought the first hour dragged, and I
HATED Jack Black (do yourself a favour and imagine Clint Eastwood playing his
part). He just didn’t make
that switch between “smart-ass one-liner” guy and “serious
guy” to me. Eastwood is the
KING of this.
But overall I really enjoyed the movie.
And I had tears in my eyes when he died.
I do believe Jackson
went out of his way to make an “A” movie and there was
even a line in there about “if you have monsters in a movie, it’s a
B movie”.
It did add to the original – there was
a cerebral element the original did not have. I thought it respected the original, but
I hated the lines like “WRAY IS NOT AVAILABLE – SHE IS DOING A
MOVIE FOR RKO”. I can’t
explain why but I really hate this kind of writing and I think it has a lot to
do with my feeling POTA 2001 slipped from the “DAMNED DIRTY HUMAN”
line…..it seems almost cheap….almost like the writer is saying “I’m
a fan!”.
Anyway…..then there are the times
when a subtle nod to an original DOES work. Like if you did a POTA comic and named a
character “TRUNDY”. That’s
the sort of subtlety I like!
Michael
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mlccougar@...
Sent:
Tuesday,
20 December 2005
4:02
PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King
Kong 2005 (OT)
In a message dated
12/19/2005
7:18:49 AM Central Standard Time,
veetus@... writes:
The original "King Kong" is a classic but it's not a great movie. The
acting is pretty poor. It's a good "B" movie with legendary stop
motion, music and sound effects. Jackson
's movie
isn't perfect but it's the superior movie.
I agree with what Jeff said here...
I will say that the original IS the "classic", especially when you
consider what they did back then as far as making the film... But, what was
said here is true, the acting ISN'T that great: It's very "30's
styles" acting, which detracts from the story... Some here have said the
action sequences in the new film are "over the top", but they're
nowhere near as "over the top" as the acting in the original...
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34238 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
Now that is ONE criticism I do have…..the
3 hour version SHOULD have been the extended DVD! J
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
11:50 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong
2005 (OT)
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> Yeah, but that acting was PB, Pre-Brando.
> Nobody knew how to act naturally in front
> of a camera back then. It was just
toned
> down stage acting. Which doesn't work.
-- Well I saw 'new Kong' today with my 2 youngest
boys and we all
absolutley loved it. I thought it was excellent,
now I can't wait for
the inevitable deluxe DVD boxed set with an extra
4 hours added to
it. ;-)
Neil
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34239 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Arno's dog, etc. |
.html.html
Oh yeah – I forgot about the space
dogs! J
Patrick, don’t EVER let Neil touch your stuff….he’d make it
K9 from Dr Who! J
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of patrickmichaeltilton
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
7:58 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: Arno's dog,
etc.
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
>
> The yapping dog makes me place it prior to
Planet, but to me that's
with the original ape revolt.not the one after
Zira and Cornelius fly
back through time and change things.
*** I don't see how you can justify this
conclusion, Mike. The Plague
that happens in 1983, 8 years prior to
"CONQUEST", explains the fact
that Man took Apes in as Pets, to replace their
beloved Dogs & Cats,
leading to the Apes being eventually enslaved --
less than a decade
later.
But, due to what Cornelius and Zira told Hasslein
in "ESCAPE", the
story of how Man fell and Apes rose began in their
Prehistory with
the Plague that killed the Dogs & Cats...
In other words, for those who believe in a
Two-Timeline scenario,
where the Ape-onauts supposedly caused a CHANGE to
happen, BOTH
timelines have a Dog-&-Cat-killing Plague
being the FIRST event of a
series of events leading to Man destroying his own
civilization.
How can the "yapping dog" make you place
the TV show prior
to "PLANET", then? In BOTH the so-called
'original timeline' leading
to "PLANET" AND the so-called 'changed
timeline' that began with the
Ape-onauts landing in "ESCAPE" the Dogs
and Cats are wiped out by a
Plague. In BOTH of 'em. So, how can the
"yapping dog" fit in?
For myself, I prefer to unflub this damned 'flub'
(which I attribute
to Art Wallace, who wrote the teleplay of
"ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW") by
pointing out a few things:
1) Armando says that "They ALL died... every
dog and cat ON EARTH,
eight years ago..."
Every dog and cat ON EARTH. What if, for the sake
of argument, there
were at least some dogs and cats still alive OFF
EARTH, in an orbital
space-station or L5-type colony? Or on a Moon Base
-- perhaps a base
not even known to exist by the masses, but
maintained by the
Government and/or the Military?
2) Cornelius told Hasslein that "hundreds and
thousands of them"
died, etc etc. There are MILLIONS of dogs and
cats, of course. Isn't
Cornelius understating the matter? Or, is it that
he -- having lived
in a society made up of only several thousand apes
-- can't really
comprehend a population of Man in the 6 Billion
range, with a
proportionate number of pet Dogs and Cats? Of
course, he DOES
eventually state that -- after the "dog
bonfires" -- Man was without
pets, and replaced them with primitive Apes.
3) Prior to the 3085 events of the TV show,
"more than ten years ago"
in the 3070's, another spaceship landed in the
area, according to
Zaius and Urko. The human "as-tro-nauts"
who were on it told them
that they came from Earth, but from another
"time period" long ago.
Perhaps THEY had some Dogs and Cats on board their
ship. Perhaps they
came from the same group of Scientists who planted
the Vaults full of
Scientific Knowledge before the Cataclysm (see
"THE LEGACY").
Is it too difficult to imagine that the genomes of
Dogs and Cats
might very well have been sequenced, based on
surviving records (a
single HAIR from one dog could be used to provide
the DNA for such
a "Canine Genome Project"), and that a
society of Scientists might
have attempted to BRING BACK the extinct species,
the way that the
theme-park scientists in "JURASSIC PARK"
bring back some dinosaur
species?
Thus, all it would take is a little imagination to
connect these
dots, to 'unflub' Art Wallace's damned flub.
Scientists with
foreknowledge of Earth's impending Nuke War, operate
an orbital L5-
type colony on which there are either living Dogs
and Cats
(quarantined, lest they acquire the Plague virus)
or there are DNA
samples of such breeds that are first Sequenced
and then REPLICATED.
Thus, on that orbiting satellite, there might very
well be surviving
Humans and Dogs and Cats -- but the Dogs and Cats
are kept on it, for
the most part, due to the danger of exposing them
to the Plague virus
that's rampant on Earth.
Later, a spaceship with the same SpaceTime-warping
abilities as the
ANSA ships leaves Earth or that orbiting
satellite, and returns in
the 3070's, landing near the Central City region
with not only Human
astronauts on it, but also some of the surviving
Dogs (and Cats?) on
it.
You'll notice that Arno calls his dog
"Dog". He doesn't name
it "Rover" or "Fido" or
anything like that. Perhaps that dog was once
a puppy on a spaceship, some ten years earlier,
and that Arno (or,
perhaps, some older sibling?) encountered that
strange yet friendly
creature... asked "What IS it?"... and
was told "It's a DOG."
So... it's given the NAME: "Dog".
That's just one possible way to unflub Art
Wallace's damned mistake,
using common SF/science themes: Genetics, etc.
Patrick
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34240 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
Good point.
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
11:04 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King
Kong 2005 (OT)
In a
message dated 12/19/2005 11:08:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlccougar@...
writes:
the action sequences in
the new film are "over the top", but they're nowhere near as
"over the top" as the acting in the original...
--
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34241 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: TV to PLANET |
.html.html
OK that’s it – get a room you
2!
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of patrickmichaeltilton
Sent:
Tuesday,
20 December 2005
8:14
PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: TV to PLANET
--- In
PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Neil" <nfoster@h...> wrote:
>
> --- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, "Michael
Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I'll re-phrase then...you SHOULD
not..because it is obviously about
> as much to do with the movies as either of
them are to do with
RETURN!
>
> -- I don't think it is fair to say that at
all. The TV show could
> quite easily fit in sometime between Battle
and Planet and in
fact
> that is the way I see it myself.
>
>
Neil
*** Me too.
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34242 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html
Yeah and done CGI touch ups on the FX!
J
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005
11:54 PM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong
2005 (OT)
--- In
PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, Haristas@a... wrote:
> It never should have been remade in the first
place!
-- Maybe they could have saved all that money and
just colourized the
original version.
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34243 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
.html
No, it's not a rumor. That's why I included the link to the shipping lists on Diamond's site, so people could check and confirm it for themselves. Greg
Michael Whitty <whitty@...> wrote:
Thanks for the information Greg.
I guess you wouldnt call this a rumour would you?
Well, I mean you could, but you would look rather stupid!
J
Michael
-----Original Message----- From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Plonowski Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005 11:40 AM To:
pota@yahoogroups.com; potadg@yahoogroups.com Subject: [PotaDG] Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week
According to the shipping list on Diamond Comics Distributor's website the first issue of the much-anticipated Revolution on the Planet of the Apes will not be in comic shops this week,
but it does appear on next week's shipping list. Got some extra Christmas money from your favorite aunt? Buy some extra copies of Revolution next week.
Greg
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34244 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Revolution on the Planet of the Apes - in shops next week |
.html Or check out the sites listed here:
You may also want to check with your shop to see if they ordered it. It was a top Diamond pick when it was in Previews, so chances are good. Greg
merlynpota <merlynpota@...> wrote:
I doubt very highly my local comic shops will get these...how can I order online??
--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com, Greg Plonowski wrote: > > According to the shipping list on Diamond Comics
Distributor's website the first issue of the much-anticipated Revolution on the Planet of the Apes will not be in comic shops this week, but it does
appear on next week's shipping list. Got some extra Christmas money from your favorite aunt? Buy some extra copies of Revolution next week. > > http://www.diamondcomics.com/shipping.asp >
> Greg >
------------------------ --------------------~--> Know an art & music fan? Make a donation in their honor this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.6dcNC/.VHMAA/Zx0JAA/9_IolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PotaDG/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: PotaDG-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups
is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34245 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.html
.html
How about some fucking spoiler alerts for those of us who haven't seen
it?
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34246 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.htmlI thought that line was a nice touch, and apparently so did Fay Wray's daughter, Victoria Riskin:
But Jackson still made a concerted effort to make your mom feel included?
"Oh, yes. He showed such admiration and respect for the original film and for her. He just wanted to be with her and enjoy her. They even have a lovely dedication to her at the end of the film. And I loved the
darling inside tribute where Jack Black is in the cab talking about finding an actress for his movie, and they mention Fay doing a film at RKO for (original King Kong director Merian) Cooper."
Here's a link to the entire article:
Greg
Michael Whitty
<whitty@...> wrote:
It did add to the original there was a cerebral element the original did not have.
I thought it respected the original, but I hated the lines like WRAY IS NOT AVAILABLE SHE IS DOING A MOVIE FOR RKO.
I cant explain why but I really hate this kind of writing and I think it has a lot to do with my feeling POTA 2001 slipped from the DAMNED DIRTY HUMAN line
..it seems almost cheap
.almost like the writer
is saying Im a fan!.
Anyway
..then there are the times when a subtle nod to an original DOES work.
Like if you did a POTA comic and named a character TRUNDY. Thats the sort of subtlety I like!
Michael
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34247 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.html
.html
Sorry!
I just get carried away sometimes….
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005
12:57 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] King Kong
2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without i...
How about some fucking spoiler alerts for those of us who haven't
seen it?
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34248 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 8:36:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
Sorry! I just get carried away
sometimes….
Any movies you're planning on seeing I can spoil for you?
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34249 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.html
.html
Because I will. I'll go see every new movie coming out for
Christmas and post the endings of every single one
in big bold print under whatever subject's current.
You'll never see it coming. "Oh what's this?
The Glyph on Ursus' Helmet?" And BAM!
Rosebud was his Sled!
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34250 |
From: Tim "apefan" |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.htmloh baby!!
--- Michael Whitty < whitty@...> wrote:
> Thanks Tim. Jessica says you do it for her too!
> :-)
>
> Dwan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
> [PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Tim "apefan"
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2005 8:24 AM
> To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Re: King Kong 2005 (OT)
>
> Me too Cougar....It flew by for me......And I think
> the "silly" things
> such as the ice skating scene fit in just because
> the whole damn thing
> is a fantasy,,,,,Can't take anything seriously....or
> else Ann Darrow
> would have a severe case of hypothermia from walking
> around wintery
> Manhatten in a slip and robe not to mention sitting
> on the top of the
> Empire State Building for forty minutes....her hair
> had a gentle breeze
> caressing it when you KNOW it was windy and cold as
> hell up there....! I
> just let myself go back to when I was young and let
> my mind go and just
> enjoyed it....much like I did in 76...but that never
> did it for
> me......except for...Jessica
> Lange.......naked.......
>
> Tim
>
> mlccougar@... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/18/2005 7:50:44 PM Central
> Standard Time,
> Haristas@... writes:
>
>
>
> Should have been a much shorter movie -- for IMAX.
>
>
> For me, the three hours went by FAST... It didn't
> feel like a long
> movie...
>
> --
>
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34251 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: An apology |
.html
.html
Yeah - and here’s
me thinking everyone knows the story of King Kong!
Hey T – Kong DIES at the end!
SORRY!!!
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005
1:44 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] King Kong
2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without i...
Because
I will. I'll go see every new movie coming out for
Christmas
and post the endings of every single one
in big
bold print under whatever subject's current.
You'll
never see it coming. "Oh what's this?
The
Glyph on Ursus' Helmet?" And BAM!
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34252 |
From: Greg Plonowski |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.htmlT:
Just a point of clarification, did someone post about the ending or some other detail of the film in a message that did not have Kong in the message header? I don't recall seeing that, but it's possible
I missed it. (And if I'm the jerk who posted a spoiler in a non-Kong message then I apologize.)
Personally, I avoided reading the messages with Kong in the subject until after I'd seen the film on Saturday. Being a fan of the original as well as the '76 version I knew well how the film ended (and
while it's hard to imagine you didn't know how the original film ended I'll take your word for it if you say you didn't). The reason I avoided the messages was that I didn't want to have any of
the changes or in-jokes spoiled. That's the same reason I avoided looking at all of the production diaries on Jackson's web site (although I did request the DVDs with those diaries for
Christmas).
Basically, I think you have cause for complaint if someone posted something about the film that spoiled it for you in a message that wasn't marked 'Kong' in the header, but if you're reading the Kong
messages then you have to expect there will be spoilers in some of them. Greg
LordTZer0@... wrote:
Because I will. I'll go see every new movie coming out for Christmas and post the endings of every single one in big bold print under whatever subject's current.
You'll never see it coming. "Oh what's this? The Glyph on Ursus' Helmet?" And BAM!
Rosebud was his Sled! <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34253 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 2:37:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
Hey T – Kong DIES at
the end!
Yeah, but Denham didn't.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34254 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
.html
.html
Who sez?
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005
8:13 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] An apology
In a
message dated 12/20/2005 2:37:11 P.M. Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
Hey T –
Kong DIES at the end!
--
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34255 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
I may have read it wrong, but I thought I saw that
Jack Black's character dies in the movie. If that's
the case I could have done without knowing that.
Since Carl Denham did not die in the original.
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34256 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
So you didn’t need
ME to spoil it eh???? J
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005
8:30 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Kong -
spoiler-free for T.
I may
have read it wrong, but I thought I saw that
Jack
Black's character dies in the movie. If that's
the
case I could have done without knowing that.
Since
Carl Denham did not die in the original.
--
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34257 |
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34258 |
From: Chris Hight |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: New file uploaded to PotaDG |
.htmlBy far the best story and artwork of any Apes series yet.
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34259 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:47:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
So you didn't need ME
to spoil it eh????
J
This is the part I'm talking about
I thought the first
hour dragged, and I HATED Jack Black (do yourself a favour and imagine Clint
Eastwood playing his part). He just
didn't make that switch between "smart-ass one-liner" guy and "serious guy" to
me. Eastwood is the KING of
this.
But overall I really
enjoyed the movie.
And I had tears in my
eyes when he died.
If you meant Kong I didn't get the subject
change. <.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34260 |
From: Neil |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html--- In PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
, LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:47:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> whitty@c... writes:
>
> So you didnât need ME to spoil it eh???? J
>
>
> This is the part I'm talking about
>
>
> I thought the first hour dragged, and I HATED Jack Black (do
yourself a
> favour and imagine Clint Eastwood playing his part). He just
didnât make that
> switch between âsmart-ass one-linerâ guy and âserious guyâ
to me. Eastwood
> is the KING of this.
> But overall I really enjoyed the movie.
> And I had tears in my eyes when he died.
> If you meant Kong I didn't get the subject change.
>
-- Well if he HATED him in it and he did die why would he have tears
in his eyes? Unless of course they were tears of joy?
Neil <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34261 |
From: Michael Whitty |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
Gotch T.
Yes, I did mean when KONG dies.
Michael
-----Original
Message-----
From: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
[PotaDG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of LordTZer0@...
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005
10:21 AM
To: PotaDG@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PotaDG] Kong -
spoiler-free for T.
In a
message dated 12/20/2005 3:47:44 P.M. Central Standard Time,
whitty@... writes:
So you
didn’t need ME to spoil it eh???? J
This is the part I'm talking about
I thought the first hour dragged, and I
HATED Jack Black (do yourself a favour and imagine Clint Eastwood playing his
part). He just didn’t make that switch
between “smart-ass one-liner” guy and “serious guy” to me. Eastwood is the KING of this.
But overall I really enjoyed the movie.
And I had tears in my eyes when he died.
If you meant Kong I
didn't get the subject change.
--
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34262 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/20/05 12:08:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:
I will say that the original IS the "classic", especially when you consider what they did back
then as far as making the film... But, what was said here is true, the acting ISN'T that great: It's very "30's styles" acting, which detracts from the story... Some here have said the action
sequences in the new film are "over the top", but they're nowhere near as "over the top" as the acting in the original...
Phooey! This is like saying, "Oh, that original KING KONG is just too 1933. I can't stand it!"
Either you know how to appreciate old movies or you don't.
One thing I know -- and I know it for a FACT! -- the original will be remember long after Jackson's film is forgotten!
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34263 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/20/05 7:04:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, LordTZer0@... writes:
In a message dated 12/19/2005 11:08:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, mlccougar@... writes:
the action sequences in the new film are "over the top", but they're nowhere near as
"over the top" as the acting in the original...
Yeah, but that acting was PB, Pre-Brando.
Nobody knew how to act naturally in front
of a camera back then. It was just toned
down stage acting. Which doesn't work.
Exactly, T! It's extremely unfair to judge those early sound movies in respect to the acting styles in them. People were only beginning to learn how to do things with the sound equipment, and even the
directors were learning. Just look at how much better films were by 1939.
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34264 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and without |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/20/05 8:01:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
It did add to the original – there was a cerebral element the original did not have. I thought it
respected the original, but I hated the lines like "WRAY IS NOT AVAILABLE – SHE IS DOING A MOVIE FOR RKO". I can't explain why but I really hate this kind of writing and I think it has a lot to do with my
feeling POTA 2001 slipped from the "DAMNED DIRTY HUMAN" line…..it seems almost cheap….almost like the writer is saying "I'm a fan!".
Jackson's KONG is almost entirely a homage to the original. In and of itself this new version is really nothing but a modern diversion. It's only the original that counts -- and that goes for the
'68 POTA too!
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34265 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: An apology |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/20/05 3:37:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
Yeah - and here's me thinking everyone knows the story of King Kong!
Hey T – Kong DIES at the end!
SORRY!!!
I'm not exactly sure what it was you gave away, Whitty. I think T is crazy. Anyway, T, you won't be missing a thing if you NEVER go see this movie. It's really not great at all and will
never be a "classic" in any sense of the word.
Let's start giving our star ratings for this movie. I would give the original Kong four stars, but I'd only give the '76 version two, and Jackson's version only gets three. It's good, but
not excellent.
-- Rory<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34266 |
From: Haristas@aol.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html.html .html
In a message dated 12/20/05 7:18:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, whitty@... writes:
Gotch T.
Yes, I did mean when KONG dies.
Michael
I can't believe T got that confused. I really have to laugh.
Hey, T.... you're spoiled already!<.html
<.html <.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34267 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (OT) |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 6:53:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Haristas@... writes:
Exactly, T! It's extremely unfair to judge those early sound
movies in respect to the acting styles in them. People were only
beginning to learn how to do things with the sound equipment, and even the
directors were learning. Just look at how much better films were by
1939.
Not only that, but if you look at old newsreels of politicians
you'll see that people were pretty melodramatic back then.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34268 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: King Kong 2005 (NOT OT - it was Jacobs' fave movie and witho... |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 6:55:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Haristas@... writes:
Jackson's KONG is almost entirely a homage to the original. In
and of itself this new version is really nothing but a modern diversion.
It's only the original that counts -- and that goes for the '68 POTA
too!
Yeah, I hate that.
If there's a nod to Fay Wray doing a picture over at RKO
that's just going to take me out of the movie. Gee I wonder
what she could be doing for RKO? Duuuuuh??? Reminds
me of those one liners in POTA2K1. I can only suspend
disbelief so much. Save the reference humor for MST3K
and Dennis Miller. Not for remakes of classic movies.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34269 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 5:28:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nfoster@... writes:
-- Well
if he HATED him in it and he did die why would he have tears in his eyes?
Unless of course they were tears of joy?
No, but I was trying not to read it,
in case of spoilers. Of course that
doesn't exactly improve my comprehension.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34270 |
From: Neil T Foster |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Within the Planet of the Apes strip #48 |
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34271 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 7:22:49 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Haristas@... writes:
I
can't believe T got that confused. I really have to
laugh.
I can't see why? Being dyslexic I sometimes get things backwards
even when I read them carefully. So if I'm trying not to read
something
because of possible spoilers, and all I see is a flash of, "I hate
Jack
Black." and "But I cried when he died" why would I get
confused?
He was talking about Jack Black. Then he says HE. Not
Kong.
It was poorly written. It doesn't clarify the subject. And I
was
trying NOT to read it. So it wasn't hard to confuse it.
<.html
<.html
|
|
| Group: potadg |
Message: 34272 |
From: LordTZer0@AOL.com |
Date: 12/20/2005 |
| Subject: Re: Kong - spoiler-free for T. |
.html
.html
In a message dated 12/20/2005 7:30:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
LordTZer0@... writes:
why
would I get confused?
Should have read, Why wouldn't I get confused.
See how it starts?
<.html
<.html
|
|
|
|