Kong: Skull Island - Think it'll be any good?

[thejboy88]

So, in a short while, we'll be getting another monster movie from Legendary Pictures, Kong: Skull Island. The same guys who gave us the recent Godzilla remake now apparently want to try their hand at giving an update to one of cinema's OTHER famous giant monsters, King Kong.

From what I've heard, this is all planned to be some Marvel-style continuity which will eventually lead up to the two monster duking it out a few years from now. But that's not what I'm here to discuss. no, because what I'd like to talk about is whether or not this new Kong movie is actually going to be any good.

Because while my feelings towards the trailer are about on-par with what they were for Godzilla's (aka "oh my God I have to see this!") I also remember how disappointed I was with that aforementioned film. Now don't get me wrong, I don't consider the Godzilla film to be terrible, as it did have some things I liked, most notably Godzilla itself and the performance of Brian Cranston, but I also left that movie thinking that I got a different film to what I'd been expecting.

And I have the same worries here. Sure, seeing personal favourite actors like Tom Hiddleston, Sam Jackson and John Goodman is all well and good, but will their appearances be just as limited as Cranston's was? Is it going to be another bait and switch where the real protagonist is just one of the random soldiers we see in the trailer? And what of Kong? Are we going to be teased as much with him as we were with Godzilla?

So, I'd like to hear your personal thoughts on this upcoming movie. Do you think it'll be better than the Godzilla film? Worse? As good? What are you hoping for when you see it (IF you see it that is)?

 

[Hawki]

I have little hope for it. It doesn't look like a King Kong film outside the presence of KK himself. I recall that Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war, and that King Kong was meant to be a take on beauty and the beast and/or the theme of "man vs. nature." Now we're building up to them fighting because...reasons? Or, rather, "let's copy Marvel because people will pay anything for popcorn films that exist in a cinematic universe."

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm not too keen for it if it's done by the same guy who did the recent Godzilla film.

Here's the thing, the Japanese Godzilla film, Shin Godzilla was a smash hit in Japan (I think it's top 2016 film in Japan at the moment) that it's getting a limited screening in the US right now!

http://screenrant.com/shin-godzilla-resurgence-us-trailer/

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm not too keen for it if it's done by the same guy who did the recent Godzilla film.

Really, because Gareth Edwards is doing Star Wars: Rogue One. Unless you're talking producers.

OT: No I do not. It has franchise fodder written all over it. Can it turn out good? Sure. But fat chance of that happening.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm not too keen for it if it's done by the same guy who did the recent Godzilla film.

Really, because Gareth Edwards is doing Star Wars: Rogue One. Unless you're talking producers.

OT: No I do not. It has franchise fodder written all over it. Can it turn out good? Sure. But fat chance of that happening.

I meant the producers. Even then as the OP pointed out, it will be the same universe as Godzilla so I guessing it will some similarity one way or another.

 

[Breakdown]

I'm looking forward to Skull Island. The problem with the traditional King Kong story is the final third set in New York, it's a bit jarring to have the narrative jump forward a few months, and it seems ridiculous that Kong didn't manage to escape earlier. The beauty and the beast theme is also a bit dated, so I'm glad that it looks like this new film will go in a different direction.

 

[FalloutJack]

Too soon for a remake. Can we wait for Andy Serkis to get properly old first?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I doubt it. Looks like a generic gritty mass appeal action movie. Also with the exception of the Marvel movies, SLJ hasn't exactly been picking good moives the last few years.

 

[Zontar]

The movie stars John Goodman and Samuel L. Jackson amongst others, that alone makes this movie one that no one in their right mind should be pessimistic towards.

I've always liked giant monster movies, enough to realize that one that doesn't' focus on human characters that everyone complained about in Godzilla is so exceptional to the norm that I can't believe anyone can seriously be surprised at is presence without complete ignorance of the genre. These movies as a genre have always been driven by the human characters being effected by the monsters within them. Which isn't a surprise given that it's quite frankly impossible to make a good movie that focuses on a force of nature that often doesn't even have self awareness.

So far nothing has come up as a red flag for this movie, and I look forward to it just as I do the next two movies in its line (Godzilla 2 and Godzilla vs King Kong).

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

I have little hope for it. It doesn't look like a King Kong film outside the presence of KK himself. I recall that Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war, and that King Kong was meant to be a take on beauty and the beast and/or the theme of "man vs. nature." Now we're building up to them fighting because...reasons? Or, rather, "let's copy Marvel because people will pay anything for popcorn films that exist in a cinematic universe."

The consistent near-failure (DC) and abject failure (everyone else) of non-Marvel films doing the cinematic universe thing suggests otherwise.

But you're right, that is the idea.

OT: Whether or not it will be any good, I have no plans to see it outside of my gorilla-thirsty brother dragging me to it.

 

[Hawki]

I have little hope for it. It doesn't look like a King Kong film outside the presence of KK himself. I recall that Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war, and that King Kong was meant to be a take on beauty and the beast and/or the theme of "man vs. nature." Now we're building up to them fighting because...reasons? Or, rather, "let's copy Marvel because people will pay anything for popcorn films that exist in a cinematic universe."

The consistent near-failure (DC) and abject failure (everyone else) of non-Marvel films doing the cinematic universe thing suggests otherwise.

Does it? The quality of DCEU films aside, they've certainly been financial successes.

 

[Zontar]

I have little hope for it. It doesn't look like a King Kong film outside the presence of KK himself. I recall that Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war, and that King Kong was meant to be a take on beauty and the beast and/or the theme of "man vs. nature." Now we're building up to them fighting because...reasons? Or, rather, "let's copy Marvel because people will pay anything for popcorn films that exist in a cinematic universe."

The consistent near-failure (DC) and abject failure (everyone else) of non-Marvel films doing the cinematic universe thing suggests otherwise.

Does it? The quality of DCEU films aside, they've certainly been financial successes.

Success isn't how Warner would look at it. Man of Steel was expected (re: sold to investors who financed it) as a guaranteed billion dollar box office. It made 600 million. Made a profit, but under-performed. Then BvS was hoped to make 1.5 billion, expected to make 1.2 billion, and on the low end projected to brake a billion. It made 900 million, barely passing the estimated 800 million brake even mark due to its massive budget and bloated marketing cost. Now Suicide Squad has made 700 million, well below the 800 million it was hoped to make.

While the movies have been profitable, by absolutely no means have they been a success in the eyes of Warner. At this point it seems the reason it keeps going is less due to financial reasons and more due to the fact no executive seems to be willing to pull the plug on the potential the DCEU has if handled and marketed right.

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

I have little hope for it. It doesn't look like a King Kong film outside the presence of KK himself. I recall that Godzilla was meant to be a metaphor for the horrors of nuclear war, and that King Kong was meant to be a take on beauty and the beast and/or the theme of "man vs. nature." Now we're building up to them fighting because...reasons? Or, rather, "let's copy Marvel because people will pay anything for popcorn films that exist in a cinematic universe."

The consistent near-failure (DC) and abject failure (everyone else) of non-Marvel films doing the cinematic universe thing suggests otherwise.

Does it? The quality of DCEU films aside, they've certainly been financial successes.

Suicide Squad: Clear success - when you're right, you're right.

Batman v. Superman: Near-failure - Not entirely the movie's fault. It was expensive as hell to make and expensive production means expensive marketing. And it did its job of establishing there is a wider setting out there than just Metropolis and Krypton so Justice League parts 1 and 2 have less to set up.

Man of Steel: Near-success - This movie made $170 million in product placement alone, and it did so because Warner Brothers had no faith in it. It didn't even make three times its production budget back worldwide and investors were leery to try another movie before people started clamoring for the Justice league.

Green Lantern: Abject failure - this was DC's attempt to start the Justice League and it blew up in their faces. It wasn't until Man of Steel that the possibility resurfaced.

-----

For your pondering, here are a variety of non-DC movies that were attempts to start a cinematic universe of their own.

-----

Spoiler

X-Men Apocalypse: Near-failure - This is the third least-successful X-men related movie ever and was upstaged by a movie with 1/3 of its budget months before its release. Fox will likely market the hell out of Wolverine 3 and the next X-men movie to try and get people interested again because Deadpool 2: the Rise of Cable only has so many loose ends to explore. This is also the movie that attempts to clarify the timeline post-DoFP as to what has and hasn't happened in X-men.

X-Men Days of Future Past: mild success - This was the "reboot" of X-men and it barely justified its own existence.

If you're sensing a pattern, the X-men movies only make enough money for the investors to approve another one. X-men spinoff movies like Wolverine and Deadpool have shown people do want to pay for a single character, but I doubt anyone but Wolverine and Deadpool can pull that off. Gambit? Not so much.

Warcraft: Abject failure

Amazing Spider-man 2: Abject failure - despite its financial success, this movie finally convinced Sony to let Marvel use Spider-man in the Marvel cinematic universe as a joint custody. This movie tried to set up everyone in the Sinister Six and (possibly) Spider-Gwen to its own detriment.

Fantastic Four: Abject failure - Fox wanted to stretch all the Fantastic Four properties into as many movies as they could, but was such a bomb that we never even got hints of them.

Ghostbusters: Abject failure - Sony are shelving the sequel and probably won't crack open this IP again for another 30 years on the big screen.

Dracula Untold: Abject failure - failure to launch universal horror cinamatic franchise. The entire reason giant monster movies like Godzilla and King Kong are even a thing is because this movie flopped so hard.

Gods of Egypt: Abject failure - Now, this has not explicitly been declared as the beginning of any sort of expanded franchise, but it did set up a lot and exposit countless setting details so that hypothetical further movies would require little.

Terminator Gen1sys: Failure - This put the terminator universe on hold indefinitely.

Prometheus: Failure - Sure, it made money but the negative reaction has stalled the sequel. Hopefully the next Alien movie is good.

I don't think this next one counts but I'll mention it anyway

Godzilla: Mild success - It did alright for its budget, and is probably what inspired Universal to try for a giant monster universe in the first place as a lead-loss movie.

-----

Really, the only cinematic universe that moviegoers want to go anywhere -much less compete with Marvel- is DC. I can't blame moviegoers for that; Marvel hasn't felt challenged since 2012 and contrary to what the negative nancies on this website believe people genuinely do like Superman.

 

[Hawki]

I'm going to bypass a direct quote, but how many of those examples count as "cinematic universes?" Or at least, cinematic universes in the same sense as the MCU, which is a case of numerous films sharing the same universe? I think we need to look at a difference between a "franchise" and a "cinematic universe." Of those examples, I can only label Dracula Untold, Prometheus, and Godzilla as part of cinematic universes - maybe X-Men/Fantastic 4, as the X-Men film series has included tangents such as Deadpool. Stuff like Ghostbusters and Terminator are franchises.

So, Prometheus. It's a moot point, because it's already part of a cinematic universe, and while I dislike the film, I quite enjoy the EU material that span off from it - Prometheus is well and truly ingrained in the "Xenopedia" setting. Godzilla is an unknown quantity, because it's only the first installment in a supposed cinematic universe. Likewise, Dracula Untold may have got negative reception, but the "Universal Monsters" universe still has a lineup. The plug hasn't been pulled. Not yet at least.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

John Goodman is usually a sign of good things, Hiddleston marginally less so but a positive indicator nonetheless. Jackson is just another Nicolas Cage, in terms of quality indication. Having not seen the trailer, I would hazard a guess at cautiously optimistic from words alone. King Kong has been a fairly bland, uninteresting premise for a long while, so it can only go uphill from there, right? Anything that mildly excites would be better than what I currently feel for the franchise.

 

[Hawki]

King Kong has been a fairly bland, uninteresting premise for a long while, so it can only go uphill from there, right? Anything that mildly excites would be better than what I currently feel for the franchise.

Are you really suggesting that "Kong fights Godzilla because...reasons" is an interesting premise?

Because while the Kong premise is limited, there's at least narrative and thematic meat behind it.

 

[mariosonicfan5]

Well seeing how King Kong vs. Godzilla is second only to Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla in terms of awesomeness in the old films, I for one will love to see a new cross over. Plus a new King Kong movie will be fun to see. Seeing as how the slavish devotion remake has already been made by Peter Jackson, I'm up for a strange new take on it again. If anything just to see Kong and Godzilla go at it again!

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

King Kong has been a fairly bland, uninteresting premise for a long while, so it can only go uphill from there, right? Anything that mildly excites would be better than what I currently feel for the franchise.

Are you really suggesting that "Kong fights Godzilla because...reasons" is an interesting premise?

Because while the Kong premise is limited, there's at least narrative and thematic meat behind it.

Since when has any of these creature feature films needed any reasons? Giant ape...fancies woman and steals her, cos reasons. Giant nuclear lizard impossibly invincible who is sometimes good, sometimes bad, depending on its' time of the month, usually unconvincing but wrecks shit up, cos reasons. It is all rather silly and unnecessary, am not sure what particular level of justification is needed for any of them ever since their inception. I am at least curious to see how it will appear on the big screen, for no reasons whatsoever. Be free from reason! Free from psychological restraint! Free from everything! *Jumps out of nearby window* Freeeeeeeeeeee[small]eeeeeeeeeeee[/small]!!!

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Er, well, I'll have to see it, I suppose.

As much as I love giant monsters I never had the level of hype behind King Kong as I did behind Godzilla and Pacific Rim. Maybe it's because Godzilla and Pacific Rim monsters are rather unique whereas Kong is just a bigger version of something that exists in real life, I don't know.
I'm not writing it off by any means, I'll probably get pretty excited once it's here but right now I'm as un-opinionated as it gets.

As for the cinematic universe, well, I mean, I'm not opposed to it because once they start approaching I have unbelievable hype for giant monster films but right now I'm just thinking they gotta handle it right.

And I'll say this for free: I'm iffy about Godzilla vs. King Kong, I really didn't like the original. It's an awesome premise and if you liked it, hey man, that's cool, but I thought it was kinda dumb.

But still, like I said, not opposed, I'm an open-minded guy, maybe this one will be awesome.