Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

For the discussion of the Legendary Pictures MonsterVerse. This includes Godzilla (2014), Kong: Skull Island and any upcoming films under the MonsterVerse umbrella.
Forum rules
Please be sure to read the subforum sticky "Regarding: Monsterverse Leaks & Unofficial Photos [Updated 7/13/2018]", linked below. Thank you!

https://www.tohokingdom.com/forum/viewt ... &p=1472505

Are you excited?

Yes!
269
86%
Meh
34
11%
No thank you
10
3%
 
Total votes: 313

User avatar
King of the Monsters
Monarch Researcher
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by King of the Monsters »

There were two straight-to-DVD spinoff movies made for the BKN Kong: The Animated Series released in the mid-2000's to cash in on the Peter Jackson remake. Both were musicals, and both were released on DVD by Warner Bros. Kong: King of Atlantis was the first one, which was animated in the style of the show, and Kong: Return to the Jungle was the second one, which was 3-D animated. I've only seen King of Atlantis, which let me tell you makes The Mighty Kong look like a timeless classic, but from what I've seen and heard about Return to the Jungle, it's apparently hilariously terrible.
Last edited by King of the Monsters on Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bureaucrat on Wikizilla. No, not Gojipedia.

User avatar
The Octopus
G-Grasper
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:06 am
Location: Pacific Ocean

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by The Octopus »

Last edited by The Octopus on Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
The One and Only
Futurian
Posts: 3450
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:58 pm
Location: Jamestown, PA

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by The One and Only »

Fan video using the opening theme of the 2K KONG:The Animated Series with footage from SKULL ISLAND.
"All literature is one of three stories: a man goes on a journey, a stranger comes to town, and Godzilla Vs. Megashark. "-Leo Tolstoy.

User avatar
KaijuCanuck
Futurian
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:12 pm
Location: The Milky Way

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by KaijuCanuck »

^that was fucking rad. Gave me the nostalgia feels. :)
Image

User avatar
Rhedosaurus
JXSDF Technician
Posts: 1010
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:55 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by Rhedosaurus »

Just curious. Would this movie had made more money if dinosaurs were in it. I ask because I heard that this movie made a solid profit, it also slightly underperformed and I think that the choice not to have dinosaurs was the main factor.

Also, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can somebody tell me the rights to Kong? Does WB/Legendary own them now or are they leasing him from Universal?

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17716
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by UltramanGoji »

Rhedosaurus wrote:Just curious. Would this movie had made more money if dinosaurs were in it. I ask because I heard that this movie made a solid profit, it also slightly underperformed and I think that the choice not to have dinosaurs was the main factor.
They were legally not allowed to use dinosaurs during production, according to a friend of mine who knows one of the creature designers. Apparently Jurassic World "owned the rights" to dinosaurs, so to speak so they couldn't use them.
Rhedosaurus wrote: Also, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can somebody tell me the rights to Kong? Does WB/Legendary own them now or are they leasing him from Universal?
"Kong" is public domain. "King Kong" is not, IIRC. As for why, it's a huge debate that I can't be bothered to list out. You'll have to look it up on your own, sorry.
Image

User avatar
Godzillakuj94
G-Force Personnel
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: Some little town you have never heard of

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by Godzillakuj94 »

UltramanGoji wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:Just curious. Would this movie had made more money if dinosaurs were in it. I ask because I heard that this movie made a solid profit, it also slightly underperformed and I think that the choice not to have dinosaurs was the main factor.
They were legally not allowed to use dinosaurs during production, according to a friend of mine who knows one of the creature designers. Apparently Jurassic World "owned the rights" to dinosaurs, so to speak so they couldn't use them.
Rhedosaurus wrote: Also, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can somebody tell me the rights to Kong? Does WB/Legendary own them now or are they leasing him from Universal?
"Kong" is public domain. "King Kong" is not, IIRC. As for why, it's a huge debate that I can't be bothered to list out. You'll have to look it up on your own, sorry.
That's so dumb they "own" the rights to extinct animals. Skull island could've designed much better Dino's than those Jurassic World films could.

User avatar
KaijuCanuck
Futurian
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:12 pm
Location: The Milky Way

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by KaijuCanuck »

Godzillakuj94 wrote:
UltramanGoji wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:Just curious. Would this movie had made more money if dinosaurs were in it. I ask because I heard that this movie made a solid profit, it also slightly underperformed and I think that the choice not to have dinosaurs was the main factor.
They were legally not allowed to use dinosaurs during production, according to a friend of mine who knows one of the creature designers. Apparently Jurassic World "owned the rights" to dinosaurs, so to speak so they couldn't use them.
Rhedosaurus wrote: Also, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can somebody tell me the rights to Kong? Does WB/Legendary own them now or are they leasing him from Universal?
"Kong" is public domain. "King Kong" is not, IIRC. As for why, it's a huge debate that I can't be bothered to list out. You'll have to look it up on your own, sorry.
That's so dumb they "own" the rights to extinct animals. Skull island could've designed much better Dino's than those Jurassic World films could.
I’m not sure this is right. I don’t think it is possible to trademark real world animals, I think Universal would only be able to trademark their own designs.

As for Kong himself, yeah it’s a whole mess. I won’t pretend to understand it all. At the end of the day we’ve got him and Godzilla sharing a continuity once again, and that’s all that matters.
Image

User avatar
RamshackleRanger
Futurian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:37 pm

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by RamshackleRanger »

UltramanGoji wrote:
Rhedosaurus wrote:Just curious. Would this movie had made more money if dinosaurs were in it. I ask because I heard that this movie made a solid profit, it also slightly underperformed and I think that the choice not to have dinosaurs was the main factor.
They were legally not allowed to use dinosaurs during production, according to a friend of mine who knows one of the creature designers. Apparently Jurassic World "owned the rights" to dinosaurs, so to speak so they couldn't use them.
Rhedosaurus wrote: Also, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can somebody tell me the rights to Kong? Does WB/Legendary own them now or are they leasing him from Universal?
"Kong" is public domain. "King Kong" is not, IIRC. As for why, it's a huge debate that I can't be bothered to list out. You'll have to look it up on your own, sorry.
Jordan vogt Roberts said it was because he thought Kong 2005 already nailed the dinosaurs thing, and he wanted to be more original

User avatar
Tyrant_Lizard_King
Sazer
Posts: 12848
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:57 am
Location: The Planet Trade HQ
Contact:

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by Tyrant_Lizard_King »

I think it was more about differentiating itself from Jurassic World.
Rocker, paleo buff, cryptid enthusiast, Dragonball fanatic, and lover of comic book, video game, manga, & anime babes!
Follow me on Twitter, if you dare! https://twitter.com/TLK_1983
Image

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17716
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by UltramanGoji »

Tyrant_Lizard_King wrote:I think it was more about differentiating itself from Jurassic World.
Yeah, this is correct. Sorry if that was confusing, but that's what my buddy said.

Honestly, I'm fine without the dinosaurs. I think the Skullcrawlers were a much more interesting opponent.
Image

daveblackeye15
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2521
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:45 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by daveblackeye15 »

I was fine without the dinosaurs since he added new stuff especially the Skull Crawlers. Love the oxen.

User avatar
GalacticPetey
Gotengo Officer
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by GalacticPetey »

Yeah, dinosaurs have been done to death in Kong films. The Skullcrawlers were a breath of fresh air. Even the minor creatures, like the Sker Buffalo and the Mire Squid gave at least something else to flesh out the environment and make it feel more varied. Much more interesting than a big T. Rex. Unless the T. Rex is rearing back on his tail and doing kangaroo kicks, I'm not interested.
I can't believe that Godzilla was the only surviving member of its species, but if we continue conducting nuclear tests, it's possible that another Godzilla might appear somewhere in the world again.

MorgansTShirt
Samurai
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:17 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by MorgansTShirt »

(sorry for resurrecting an old thread. I wasn't sure where else to post this!)

I just saw Skull Island for the second and probably last time in my life. The first was when it was released in theaters, and although my opinion of its characters and story wasn't very high, I still enjoyed it for the monsters.

But after seeing it the second time, even after so long, I'm not just disappointed with it, but also kinda annoyed. The whole movie was flat, fake, and obnoxious. The characters were all clichéd trailer fodder, especially that supposedly-funny survivor guy whose role is mostly just exposition dispenser. And I didn't feel comfortable with the way he sort of just marginalized the actual island natives, as if the writers thought we couldn't identity with them if they didn't speak English and amuse us with Marvel humor. A whole new, richer, and legitimately progressive story could have been made if the natives got to be characters themselves rather than props illustrating a point.

I'm also not a fan of the movie's heroine. She's a likeable person sure but also a bland mouthpiece for the writers. She didn't even leave much of an impact on my memory until that really ridiculous scene where she pulled off those nonsensical heroics, shooting that Skullcrawler in the eye. If she had missed that insane shot, what would she have done? Just stood there watching it devour her companions?

I also have a difficult time figuring out how the themes of war, peace, understanding, and vengeance tie into the whole conflict with the Skullcrawlers, or with the fact that the movie practically exists to give people a quick action fix. All the violence is pretty darn cool for a movie trying to make violence look bad.

Overall a sad experience the second time. Even the novelty of the monsters couldn't save it.
Last edited by MorgansTShirt on Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
_JNavs_
Keizer
Posts: 9647
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:59 pm
Location: New York

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by _JNavs_ »

The Natives were always characters that illustrated a point. Not everyone needs to raise their hand, jump up and down and say "I'M HERE I'M HERE, YA SEE ME YET? I'M INCLUDED"... They're meant to show the island as a prehistoric land that time forgot.


Brie Larson is just generally uninteresting, her character was drab and bland. Would've preferred the charismatic white dress beauty that killed the beast in the other Kong films.


There was nothing flat about SLJ and John C Reillys performance or even the Monarch assistant tbh.

John C Reilly was on the island since the war against the Vietnamese. Of course he's going to have a social stigma towards the natives, even though I don't recall him saying anything beyond "The Natives here speak of yaddayaddayadda"
Last edited by _JNavs_ on Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
____________________________ImageImage___________________________
Instagram: @Lord.Gojira

User avatar
gottatalktothefake
Futurian
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:49 am
Location: Isla Nublar, 120 miles West of Costa Rica

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by gottatalktothefake »

The movie was an allegory for the Vietnam War, it was a bunch of outsiders getting involved in a conflict they had nothing to do with and making things worse.

The natives were there to show the people being affected by the conflict and the intervention of the outsiders.
GojiSquid wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 7:58 am TBF if a movie has a sex scene without a monster mash, then is it really a graveyard smash?

User avatar
Mr_Goji_and_Watch
EDF Instructor
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:34 pm
Location: キノプレックス
Contact:

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by Mr_Goji_and_Watch »

Deep as f*ck
Moogabunga wrote:Ive said it before and I'll gladly say it again, this is going to be the best Godzilla film ever and more importantly, its going to be the film that truly makes Godzilla mainstream (and cool)
SoggyNoodles2016 wrote:I'm glad to be a fake fan.

MorgansTShirt
Samurai
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:17 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by MorgansTShirt »

I'm sorry for my rash review. I'd delete it completely but then it would undermine your own posts. I'm kind of an idiot at times.

User avatar
UltramanGoji
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17716
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:40 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by UltramanGoji »

MorgansTShirt wrote:I'm sorry for my rash review. I'd delete it completely but then it would undermine your own posts. I'm kind of an idiot at times.
Don't be sorry. You gave a unique perspective that I'll keep in mind when rewatching the film myself soon. You shouldn't feel ashamed to voice an unpopular opinion.
Image

MorgansTShirt
Samurai
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:17 am

Re: Kong: Skull Island (2017) (NO UNOFFICIAL PHOTOS)

Post by MorgansTShirt »

_JNavs_ wrote:The Natives were always characters that illustrated a point. Not everyone needs to raise their hand, jump up and down and say "I'M HERE I'M HERE, YA SEE ME YET? I'M INCLUDED"... They're meant to show the island as a prehistoric land that time forgot.
I wasn't asking for every single native to be a deeply fleshed out character with a dozen lines. I was suggesting that instead of Reilly's role of obvious exposition dispenser, we could have gotten a potentially more unique and fleshed out story (because no matter its metaphors or allegories, it all leads to a simplified "war/vengeance is bad" message) and a brand new point of view by connecting more with the natives rather than the easily identifiable white guy. Of course, I understand that by doing this it would change the movie significantly from what it is now, but since I don't like what it is now, I wouldn't mind that so much.
Brie Larson is just generally uninteresting, her character was drab and bland. Would've preferred the charismatic white dress beauty that killed the beast in the other Kong films.
It kinda feels sad agreeing with this point, but yeah. Aside from being another bland example of a badass heroine who gets raised as the film's monolith of morals, there really isn't much to her.
There was nothing flat about SLJ and John C Reillys performance or even the Monarch assistant tbh.
I'll admit I may have been mean by calling them flat, and I also have to admit they're the two most interesting characters in the movie. Not that I think they're great characters; they're still shallow and in Reilly's case I just find him annoying. But since most people don't seem to mind the exposition and the humor like I do, I guess it's fair to say maybe the writers were onto something and it just wasn't for me.
John C Reilly was on the island since the war against the Vietnamese. Of course he's going to have a social stigma towards the natives, even though I don't recall him saying anything beyond "The Natives here speak of yaddayaddayadda"
I was confused by this statement at first, and because my feelings are too easily hurt and I too easily discredit myself, I backed down immediately without comment. But now that I've read this with an analytic mind, I see that I didn't make myself clear earlier. I meant that Reilly's character marginalizes the natives as characters. A whole unique world is just summed up by him rather than actually explored, and I'm just not a fan of that writing practice.

I guess in the end, I'm just being unfair to this movie. I really don't like most movies; I just have a special soft spot for kaiju. And even then, I've gotten pretty bored of epic action scenes. Maybe this movie has more to it than I gave it credit for, and I was just too uptight to enjoy it for what it was. I still think this movie was pretty lame, but maybe I just have a crappy opinion of it. I'll accept that.
Last edited by MorgansTShirt on Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply