Awesome, but still looking forward to the two year event

[b]Monkey ![/b]

Ba-Bomb

Back when the original came out, there was still a huge superstition that women n on board a ship brought bad luck to the whole crew.

Great review as all ways.

Actually I'm not sure how surprising this really is when you think about how superstitious sailors have always been, but the whole "women on boats = bad luck" belief is still rather common. Mainly in cultures that still look at science in a suspicious manner.



As for this particular "Old vs. New", Doug I love ya to death, and greatly appreciate all the laughs you have provided for the TGWTG community including myself but this is one of the few occasions were I notably disagree with you. Don't get me wrong this is obviously a subjective topic, I certainly do believe you stated your reasoning as fully, and clearly as you could without making a video nearing the length of the Kong from 2005. It would be silly for me to write a massive post dissecting your critiques point by point since I can't say I find my disagreements to be that important in general. Basically I found the 2005 version far superior in almost every main aspect, but I see where you are coming from.

The only major point I can personally give the original is that if it didn't exist Peter Jackson would have never filmed his own take. Actually hearing Jackson talk about how much inspiration the 30s film gave him, if it did not exist he may have steered towards directing completely different types of films, or may have never become a director at all.

Haha, I guess "Skull" is a new running gag of his :P At least I hope, kinda ;) Haven't had a new one in a while.

What about tickle me amy?

Great as usual.

I liked the new version, but I felt it ran for too long.

Great Review as always!! :D

I agreed on most of your decisions, except on the story. I mean, first you're crying and screaming for story and background explanations, and when they give that to you, they get crucified because of "slow and boring"?

WHY? They are giving you the details that you always cry for!!

But anyway, I'm not saying I didn't like the video. In fact, the Skull part got me laughing out like a Giant Crazy Gorilla. :woohoo:

That wasn't the only thing

Well, I think the problem that NC has is that there are certain... well, ways to tell a story. You can give exposition and develop a story and characters, but if you do it too slowly, too clumsily, you'll end up educating your audience but boring them at the same time. While exposition is good, it's always better if things actually happen during these scenes, even if it's not important. Give me something to look at besides their faces; just interact with the environment somehow and I'll be satisfied. How does that make it better? I think a character's actions reveal a lot about a character beyond what they say.

For example, in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I always loved Cutler's nonchalant, almost bored expressions while he's outlining his clearly evil plans. He always sounds frustrated though, like he's explaining to an ignorant child, and he never bothers to give eye contact with the people he talks to. He's absorbed in his charts, reading his books, writing a letter - whatever. The impact is that he clearly has an inflated view of himself and considers his priorities far superior to others. Quite a statement that can't really be made with dialog alone.

Still, I do agree that it seems a bit hypocritical to cry for story then wail against it. ;)

Nice review, NC. Not too surprised that the older version would be the better one.

Yeah....cant say I was really surprised by the final score.

Great episode as always, NC! Can't wait for the Two-Year Anniversary, though!

Great episode as always NC!

[b]I call it a tie. The old has the nostalgia factor but the new one expands on the imaginative world.[/b]

Very well-done, as always. I've always found myself agreeing with your reviewing, though perhaps not your final decisions, when it comes to Old vs. New. I find it much less Nostalgia Critic, and much more... Critic.
It's a welcome change to your usual, though the panic scene was a great touch.

Can't wait to see Drop Dead Fred, a movie I personally saw as a child and... thought was a bit way-too-fucking-goofy.

I remember when I saw the original just a couple of months ago. I gotta say for the time it was made it was very well done. The special effects seemed more timeless to me and I'm really sick of CGI. I too liked it better than the remake

I'll admit, I actually enjoyed the 2005 remake but nothing beats the classics. Another quality Old Vs New from you Doug!

Good luck with Drop Dead Fred, SNOTFACE! :lol:

I've got to say, I'm not surprised that Peter Jackson's version lost, because I totally agree that some of the new elements in it were...bizarre to say the least, but then again I'm not surprised by how good it is, either. After all, this is the one movie he wanted to make for his whole career.

"In the navy, she can sail the seven seas,
In the navy, she can put your heart at ease!"

Please tell me that's not really what you think the lyrics to In The Navy are.

The one thing that bothered me the most about the new version was the fact that every other scene was a close-up shot of Naomi Watts looking all teary-eyed. Got damn did that get old. Oh, and Jack Black delivering that line about beauty killing the beast... it just didn't work, coming from his mouth. I'm so used to him saying lines like that as a joke, so that's how it came across.
Nice review as always. It's good that you try to look at things relative to their time-periods.

Close ups on Naomi Watts will NEVER get old!

I still have yet to see the new King Kong. I think it just might be my low expectations for remakes that keeps from seeing it.

Also, do you neighbors know what you do? Or do they just see you occasionally running up and down the street screaming and think "What is that damned Walker up to now?"

dude i think you should see the new king kong. It was way better then the 1930's version. Although i really hate black and white movies and when you can see the strings holding someone up. but yeah you should watch the newer version

I was about to ask the same thing, chrisbg99. When that part came up, the first thought that came to my head was "Wow, I wonder what his neighbors think."

No wonder that Fay Wray earned the title of scream-queen...

Testament to the idea that there's MUCH more to a film than its special effects.

If I'm bored and there's nothing else to watch, I'll put in the new King Kong. It's fairly entertaining, but those slow motion scenes got SO ANNOYING. And were pretty pointless. And Jack Black..I just see him as a comedy movie guy; didn't buy him as semi-serious.
So, I agree with the NC on this one.

I agree, but he was good in Kung Fu Panda.

Admittedly I was expecting more tickle-me-amy jokes. Though I suppose the amount I was thinking of would have been flogging a dead monkey. I think you nailed it on the head when you said the new one was too long getting to the island. I think that was my biggest complaint. Admittedly not the only one but the biggest one certainly.

I never saw the original but now i think all go see it in my free time :cheer:
Great review as always :lol:

You can see the full version, complete with overture, on TCM, the TV channel.

So you liked the derivative, overlong, over-the-top story of Avatar but hated the King Kong remake for the exact same reasons? Whatever man.

And I'm sorry, but Avatar didn't look any more real than other top films of its type. Most the movie I was completely aware that I was watching something made in a computer. Everything had that pristine shine that is the dead giveaway of CGI.

And Naomi's performance is much more nuanced and complex, and she actually provides us with a reason for Kong liking her so much.

Wray was the typical misogynist damsel in distress of the time. I don't judge that because it was the 1930's, but the character type is dated, and even slightly offensive now.

The Kong/Ann dynamic in the new film was sort of like an a very close master/pet relationship. Not too surprising when you consider the fact that Cocoa had gone through her relationship with her kitten by then. And, yes, I know male apes are different, but they are also fiercely protective of what they claim as their own. The dynamic is, in many ways, more realistic in the newer film. Also be aware that the original was based heavily on Heart of Darkness, and that Kong was supposed to resemble the beast man and function somewhat as a symbol for an African man, which is just not acceptable in 2010.

No, you read what I said wrong. Make sure you read all the way through.

When I mentioned Avatar I wasn't talking about the story. The Avatar story is completely lame. Very cliche, and the over-the-top, and if the story didn't take place on an alien planet in space then it would have been a lame romantic chick-flick starring Matthew McConaughey or something.

The graphics, CGI, cinematography, visual effects of Avatar was incredible. And if you think that you didn't see any difference in Avatar, well, that's your opinion. But there is a HUGE difference.

For example, even though King Kong was modeled after an actor, the CGI in King Kong didn't use the actual features from the actor, they were still generated. In Avatar, the expressions of the Na'vi were more smooth and natural because it was the ACTUAL actors' features and expressions. How amazing is that?

Well, if you still disagree, look into it. It's amazing the technology they used to create Avatar.

Also, check out the technology they used in the 30s version! Holy shit! The stuff they pulled to create that movie with the technology they didn't have!

These two movies should not have been compared visually. The time between them is just too drastic that they are both on different levels of comparison.

Kong/Ann relationship I don't think that was realistic. I mean, it's a fricking giant monstrous wild gorilla from an exotic forest falling in love with a human woman. Not to mention, King Kong was being oppressed by humans, and Ann is a human too. In the 30s, King Kong was trying to be the dominate species over man. I believed the 30s version better because King Kong saw Ann as a pretty little play thing, rather than a love interest.

And the whole ice skating thing throws me off. Any time I think about the newer version that scene is the first that pops into my mind.

You say you agree with him completely - yet you bitch about lots of things you do not agree with him about. Hello, hypocrite.

And seriously, any proper movie reviewer knows Avatar sucks. Just look at Doug - he knows it as well. Not to mention; the CGI in the movie isn't THAT good. It's just... well, CGI.

When I said that I agree with him completely, I wasn't being clear.

I agree with him completely on choosing the 1930s version. Sorry about that.

Also, I don't bitch, I debate. If I wanted to bitch I would cuss between every word I say.

And I'm not a proper movie reviewer. But Avatar as a whole did not suck, if it did it wouldn't have won two Oscars. The story, however, did suck.

And Doug said Avatar was bad, but looked amazing.

And if you still think the CGI in Avatar isn't THAT good. Seriously, look it up. There's tons of behind the scenes of Avatar that shows you everything they did. It's incredible. It blows Time Burton's Alice in Wonderland out of the water.

Hello Metalmark. I just wanted to point out something with your philosophy about Avatar. I don't think the CGI in that movie is well good. I do however think it is better than most that we see today. But think of this, think of the budget that movie had. You want to talk about good CGI talk about District 9. That movie only had a 30 million dollar budget, and they pulled that off! Now in that movie the CGI characters interact with the enviroment seemlessly. Now imagine if those guys had Avatar's budget of close to 500 million? Also with the Kong/Ann relationship thing, all I can say is I don't know Kon'g's backstory maybe he is only a teenager, maybe he was abandoned, or maybe his mom died while giving birth. In this sense by Naomi watts being nice almost nurturing like, maybe thats why Kong likes her? IDK just a suggestion that would make it fit. Otherwise yes I agree the 30's version rocked.

Very true. District 9 did have awesome CGI. But, they still used real places to shoot. With Avatar, 60% of the movie was in CGI, the ships, the planet, the sets, the actors, almost everything.

All I can say is look into the documentary they have in the DVD, or that documentary they presented on TV Guide. And make your own opinion about it, it's all you can do. I believe Avatar had the best CGI.

"Any proper film critic knows Avatar sucks"? Who are proper film critics, because apparently Roger Ebert, Richard Roper, and Peter Travers aren't in this mysterious group. A film critic isn't "proper" just because he's someone who you always agree with, but a person who highlights what he does and does not like about a movie and gives his opinion while still leaving room for you to make your own.

I agree with you, metalmark, and others.

I think the 2005 version is quite good in places, particularly the beginning.

But it has so many errors that overwhelm this.

As for some people liking it better than the original, never come into my real life presence, please, for your sake.

Glad the old version won. For it's time it was groundbreaking and mind-blowing, while the CGA in the new movie is nothing special (CGA was mind-blowing in Jurassic Park, but now I take it for granted).

And OMG, did that brachiosaurus in the old Kong just ate a man? Wow!

I haven't seen the 1933 version ... but now I feel I should!

Great review, NC! Can't wait for your next one!

Wow that's actually very ironic. I just picked up drop dead fred.

That's not ironic. That's coincidental. Learn the difference, people! Also, there's a difference between epic and dramatic. Just saying.

My grandad always says that the original is the better movie, and after watching your comparison I can see why.

Interesting, 77 years of Cinema history, and 1930s predjudices (racism, sexism, primality) can't overcome the tale of a Giant ape in the world of men.

It was Critic killed the beast... ;)

Drop Dead Fred Next week? Just remember, Rik Mayall went on to give us Bottom, the most squalid, violent and downright hilarious sitcom ever.

Glad I'm not the only one who recognizes the rampant racism and sexism in the original. While we have to keep it in context of when it was made, that can still keep it from being the better movie.

Just...AWESOME

I think I still prefer Faye Wrays version. (Pardon the spelling)
You have to remember back then women were more the damsel in distress type. You didnt have many strong female leads who would stand up to a giant ape.

In the extended version you see a water creature attack them. In the original it was a Brontosaurus (a plant eater !!!) and it ate that guy :unsure:

On a seperate note why did they release the short version on BLU RAY seperate just like they are doing with Lord of the Rings

Hears a voice... whats that more money you say ? Surely not :woohoo: