Page 1 of 1
Son of Kong Question
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:47 pmby Danny B
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:39 pmby Xenorama
much like "Tadzilla" "Kiko" was coined by Forry "Famous Monsters" J Ackerman(probably right after he saw the movie). so it's a fan moniker. i don't think the poor little spud ever got an official name.
David
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:43 pmby Danny B
Thanks for the answer, David. So it's safe to assume Forry's SoK nickname is derived by abbreviating KIng KOng.
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:59 pmby Xenorama
hai. although i think i've seen it as Kikko as well, but Kiko is the most common.
David
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pmby kpa
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:08 pmby Danny B
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:08 pmby Gfan54
how interesting
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:20 pmby Xenorama
seeing someone call KING KONG ESCAPES unwatchable and knowing he rates GODZILLA ON MONSTER ISLAND over most of the other movies in the series is a very interesting thing to see.
but you go, man!
David[/b]
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:36 pmby Kaiju Nexus
JD Lees's opinions are worthless anymore.
The only thing he's good for is taking part in organizing G-Fest and, to a lesser extent in the past few years, the gradual decline of G-Fan magazine.
Posted:
Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:42 pmby Benjamin Haines
JD Lees is in his 40's and referred to Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II as the very best Godzilla movie of them all.
Something funny going on. You better check.
Posted:
Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:46 amby Xenorama
as long as he means the '74 version...
however, this is a SON OF KONG thread, not a JD Lees thread. JD's opinions are just as valid as anyone's 'round here. we all have them and we know what they are like.
David
Posted:
Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:51 pmby kpa
Posted:
Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:16 pmby MouthForWar
Posted:
Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:10 pmby Danny B
Re: how interesting
Posted:
Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:34 pmby Gfan54
Posted:
Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:05 pmby Xenorama
Posted:
Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:44 pmby kidnicky
Posted:
Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:37 amby Xenorama
Posted:
Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:28 amby Destroyer D
Posted:
Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:58 pmby SparkieGojira
Posted:
Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:22 pmby Tom R VanSlambrouck
I just got down watching this earlier in the week and it wasn't that bad, it had been years since I had seen the movie.
The creatures where cool but they look as good as the creatures in the prequel, this is proabably because of production times as this film proabably got rushed right into production after Kong was a hit.
Posted:
Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:43 pmby Danny B
Posted:
Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:45 amby jkrouskop
SON OF KONG is an okay little diversion, marred primarily by a slow build-up and a couple of clunky, intentionally humorous moments. In all, though, I'd say it's far from "unwatchable". To each their own, I guess.
KING KONG LIVES is one of those rare examples of a movie that succeeds in being simultaneously good and horrible. The set up is fine (if a bit far-fetched), and there are satisfying moments, but every time it starts to take a turn for the better, something derails it. In spite of its many, many flaws, the thing that hurt it most for me was Kong's eyes. In the 76 film, Kong was leering and lustful, looking at Jessica Lange in much the same way the men in the audience were! In KKL, his eyes are very generic animal eyes, with no whites. The 76 Kong was bad, but at least the ape suit had personality. The KKL suit was weak and uninteresting.
Posted:
Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:10 amby kpa
Posted:
Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:22 amby Danny B