Talk:King Kong (2005 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Kong (2005 film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article King Kong (2005 film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
To-do list for King Kong (2005 film): edit · history · watch · refresh

The Extended DVD is out and provides a larger amount of information on the film's production with the Recreating the Eighth Wonder documentary and Jackson's commentary. There is almost nothing here on the shoot or special effects and Serkis' performance is a stubby paragraph.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Merge

  • Support: Let's face it, the minor article was a hasty article, character descriptions should belong here. Wiki-newbie 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy, that was quick. Wiki-newbie 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Suppport:Support, I mean, its a small article, so why not? Voyagerofdoom 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for the obvious reasons. ~Sushi 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull Island Species

It is my opinion that we need to do something about this section. There isn't a notable value in having a list of fictional creatures. Remember, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info. The Production section already covers the creatures in the film, and where they originated in reality. There is also a link, The World of Kong that already lists the creatures. Bignole 13:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Wiki-newbie 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acting pairs

Not sure if it's interesting enough to note, but in addition to Jack Black and Colin Hanks appearing together in Orange County, Adrian Brody and Thomas Kretschmann co-starred in The Pianist. RoyBatty42 08:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivial. WikiNew 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

It is a (considerably bad) remake of a more important film. It is not of "high" importance. (Ibaranoff24 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

There you are. POV. WikiNew 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No, fact. The film is not as important as you claim it to be. And don't alter my comments. (Ibaranoff24 19:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Wow, so heated. WikiNew 19:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it garnered an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Ebert gave it 4 stars (Ebert being one of the most respected film critics), I think that says that it wasn't "considerably bad" like you claim it to be. You are letting your personal opinion of a film get in the way of the article. Now, I don't understand the "importance" scale, but I think I don't recall whether a film is "considerably bad" as part of the criteria for being "low". I think we should remove it entirely anyway, but in the least, it's rating should not be lowered from your reasoning.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The point wasn't my opinion of it. (I've actually never seen it, but given the fact that Peter Jackson directed it, that tells me it's bad.) The point was that it was a (entirely unnecessary) remake of a more important film. (Ibaranoff24 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Again, YOUR opinion of Peter Jackson and YOUR opinion that it was "entirely unnecessary" is what the problem is here. Please read WP:NPOV.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First that statement makes him/her look quite immature, and again shows a lack of understanding of POV. Peter Jacksons, who I might add was voted the seventh greatest director of all time, remake was a critical and commercial success, and it's already ranked one below the original, which is top. WikiNew 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Where? When? This seems more akin to the kind of POV you speak of. (Ibaranoff24 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Where, when, what? If you are asking about when and where you made your personally biased edit then check the history. You have already admitted that you don't like Peter Jackson, and that you think the remake sucked. So far you are the one plugging your POV into this article.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion vs. fact

We're not talking about my personal opinions of Peter Jackson and his films. We're talking about this specific film's place in cinematic history, and as sad as it is for you Jackson fanboys to admit it, the King Kong remakes are not that important. They were remakes. They were made to make money. They were made because of the fame of and the association with the original 1933 classic. They are of absolutely no artistic or historical importance or value. This is not POV. This is the absolute truth. These films are not important. The original is. The remakes aren't. (Ibaranoff24 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Again, your opinion that it's fact. I notice you work on the LOTR article as well. I don't see you making the same argument over there. Isn't PJ's LOTR just a remake of the animated films? They have TOP importance.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"King Kong" was a movie first, not a book, as was the case with The Lord of the Rings. (Ibaranoff24 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
Now I think you're playing favorites. There are several Titanic films, several War of the World films. The former is TOP status. You placed the Dawn of the Dead remake in "LOW" status. You are comparing the importance and reception of King Kong to Dawn of the Dead. King Kong was nominated for 4 Oscars, winning 3...it won 3 Saturn Awards...and you are saying the importance of this film rivals that of Dawn of the Dead. Again, your personal bias is flaring.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  01:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Is "mid" better? (Ibaranoff24 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

I can personally agree to at least "MID" status. I don't think any film deserves "TOP" unless it's a film that's been recognized as being culturally significant, but Academy award winning films are hardly "specialty interest", unlike Dawn of the Dead that definitely speciality.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) At least we have a compromise. This only furthens my hatred of the POV importance scale however. WikiNew 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)

Honestly, most of the stuff on this page is unecessary. The most useful information is already in the main article and most of the rest can be lost. Rhindle The Red 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It definitely cannot be merged, that would be too much information. I don't like "references to other versions" anyway because it's entirely original research, unless source can be found that say the makers intended it that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
By "merge", of course, I mean move any information of use that is not already on the King Kong (2005 film) page onto that page and delete the rest. Most of it is useless and borders on OR. Rhindle The Red 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty fancrufty anyway, because it isn't something that is very encyclopedic. I think it should probably be turned to a nice prose paragraph, and limit the number of examples. People can watch the films for themselves to see what's a reference or not. I think that things that aren't so obvious, like PJ being a pilot just like Cooper is good, because you wouldn't pick that up from watching the film. Not unless you slowed the credits or frames of the scenes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revs

Sorry, there were two vandalisms in a row, I goofed and rev'ed to the wrong one. That's why you see two of mine in a row. Mindraker 11:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Beau-ti-ful.jpg

Image:Beau-ti-ful.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kingkong bigfinal1.jpg

Image:Kingkong bigfinal1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hidden KKDDs in King Kong DVD.jpg

Image:Hidden KKDDs in King Kong DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)