Kong: Skull Island | March 10, 2017 | Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman | Crosses 500M WW

[ddddeeee]

21 hours ago, FilmBuff said:

The usual dolts like Chewy/Coolio hating on a guy who reviews movies.

 

[grim22]

20 minutes ago, dudalb said:

How do they handle the whole issue of a "undiscovered island" with huge monsters existing unknown in the modern world.? I admit have the kind of mind who would be bothered by this unless they are really clever about it......

It was the "I can't buy a town existing totally unknown by the modern world" factor that ruined "The Village" for me. They did try an explanation, but it was, for me, totally unconvincing.

I read the film is set in 1973,but the problem still exists. An undiscovered island with huge monsters existing in  1973 is no more plausible then it doing so in 2017.

 

There are untouched islands existing even now. The Andaman and Nicobar islands have a number of them where modern man has never been because they don't want to be killed by the natives. When we can have islands like that even now, it is easy enough to believe such islands can exist in the 70s.

[NoobSaibot]

1 minute ago, grim22 said:

 

There are untouched islands existing even now. The Andaman and Nicobar islands have a number of them where modern man has never been because they don't want to be killed by the natives. When we can have islands like that even now, it is easy enough to believe such islands can exist in the 70s.

 

This too. I did a book report on the Sentinelese when I was in high school. They try to kill anybody who approaches the islands. Crazy shit.

[dudalb]

18 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

It isn't? Why isn't it plausible in 1973?

Because by 1973 you had international jet service,sattalite mapping,and the seas were very well charted. I love the people who think that  1973 was back in the dark ages.

Let's put it this way:when the 1976 King Kong (set in 1976) came out, a great many critics said a island existing totally unknown in  1976 was too implausible to accept.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Because by 1973 you had international jet service,sattalite mapping,and the seas were very well charted. I love the people who think that  1973 was back in the dark ages.

Let's put it this way:when the 1976 King Kong (set in 1976) came out, a great many critics said a island existing totally unknown in  1976 was too implausible to accept.

 

The seas aren't completely charted today. To this day their are inaccurate sea charts about island positions, we have never mapped the sea completely. And because critics find it implausible doesn't make it implausible, just makes critics snooty. There is so much of this planet we haven't explored, the arrogance to say we have is astounding.

[Jason]

54 minutes ago, grim22 said:

There are untouched islands existing even now. The Andaman and Nicobar islands have a number of them where modern man has never been because they don't want to be killed by the natives. When we can have islands like that even now, it is easy enough to believe such islands can exist in the 70s.

 

But these islands are only deliberately "untouched" by modern humans, they aren't "undiscovered". It's only easy enough to believe that an undiscovered island could exist in the 1970s if you don't have knowledge of how islands were discovered before satellites existed. (Which to be fair, is probably true of most people.)

 

Even small islands affect the ocean currents and weather above them in ways that make them very reliably detectable from a distance, and as a result we haven't actually discovered any pre-existing landmasses (ie. islands not very recently formed volcanic activity or other processes) since roughly the early 1800s. Even the European Age of Discovery essentially was re-discovering islands that were previously known to other humans (Polynesians) even if not permanently inhabited.

 

Still, it's the sort of thing that should only bother you if you allow it to. I presume the film isn't trying to make a broader point about human exploration, and there are less plausible/possible things in other films, and even within Kong itself. (I'm fairly certain a land mammal with Kong's dimensions and activity level is impossible, although I'll admit I haven't actually done the calculations.)

Edited March 9, 2017 by Jason
typo

[antovolk]

Oh I had so, so much fun with this. Absolutely glorious - I wish I got to see it in IMAX, alas they're only doing afternoon shows for now. It's a visually gorgeous (Larry Fong is the real MVP) B-movie, and here's the thing, the story is simple , the characters may be thinly sketched but thanks to the performances it's fairly easy to root for/against certain characters. Oh, and the action delivers - and that's what you're here for, just so much fun to watch. And I need more MONARCH, I love how they're making it the SHIELD of this universe and it's just too awesome (the post credits scene had me grinning like an idiot). Bring on Godzilla 2 and GvK.

Edited March 9, 2017 by antovolk

[NoobSaibot]

22 minutes ago, Jason said:

Still, it's the sort of thing that should only bother you if you allow it to. I presume the film isn't trying to make a broader point about human exploration, and there are less plausible/possible things in other films, and even within Kong itself. (I'm fairly certain a land mammal with Kong's dimensions and activity level is impossible, although I'll admit I haven't actually done the calculations.)

 

Giant monsters like King Kong and Godzilla violate the laws of physics. There would be an enormous strain on their hearts, and they would collapse under their own weight. But I never allowed that to bother me.

[DeeCee]

40 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

There are untouched islands existing even now. The Andaman and Nicobar islands have a number of them where modern man has never been because they don't want to be killed by the natives. When we can have islands like that even now, it is easy enough to believe such islands can exist in the 70s.

And in the world of plants.  The Wollemi Pine was only known through fossils 2-200 million years old.  That was until living trees were found in 1994 only 150km north west of Sydney and this is a tree reaching 25-40 meters high.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

How do they handle the whole issue of a "undiscovered island" with huge monsters existing unknown in the modern world.? I admit have the kind of mind who would be bothered by this unless they are really clever about it......

It was the "I can't buy a town existing totally unknown by the modern world" factor that ruined "The Village" for me. They did try an explanation, but it was, for me, totally unconvincing.

I read the film is set in 1973,but the problem still exists. An undiscovered island with huge monsters existing in  1973 is no more plausible then it doing so in 2017.

 

Hiding the commune in The Village would be relatively easy with money. And the elders were wealthy.

[grim22]

1 minute ago, Mikasa Ackerman said:

 

Hiding the commune in The Village would be relatively easy with money. And the elders were wealthy.

 

Didn't Shyamalan pretty much cameo and explain the entire plot to us?

 

 

[DeeCee]

Exposition 101

[WrathOfHan]

27 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

Didn't Shyamalan pretty much cameo and explain the entire plot to us?

 

 

Not enough Hooters discussion in that clip.

[somebody85]

10 hours ago, The Panda said:

 

Your YouTube reviews tend to be the same demographic with similar interest and tastes.  They all tend to agree with each, most of the time, more or less.

That's true, a lot of the same people follow Stuckmann and Jahns. They aren't who I go by but I do watch them to kill time. I like Double Toasted and Red Letter Media the most as far as actual analysis but to be fair, I have disagreed with them plenty as well.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

13 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

I like Double Toasted and Red Letter Media the most as far as actual analysis but to be fair, I have disagreed with them plenty as well.

 

If you like humour with your reviews, check out the podcast The Weekly Planet. Different sort of funny than Double Toasted or Red Letter Media, but it's good fun.

[somebody85]

8 minutes ago, Mikasa Ackerman said:

 

If you like humour with your reviews, check out the podcast The Weekly Planet. Different sort of funny than Double Toasted or Red Letter Media, but it's good fun.

Oh cool, yeah I haven't heard of them! But yeah I like actual long discussions.

The Nostalgia Critic is better then someone like Jahns when he actually breaks something down....though he goes too far into hipster territory a lot.

It's funny though, one of the most memorable films of 2016 to me was The Neon Demon. Double Toasted hated it and Jay at Red Letter Media loved it.

Both channels are a completely different brand of humor but they are usually always entertaining whether I agree with their assessment or not.

[Lucas]

Not to derail the conversation even more but Red Letter Media is basically why I still get up in the morning  

[somebody85]

6 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Not to derail the conversation even more but Red Letter Media is basically why I still get up in the morning  

They roasted Coliider so badly. I like Collider sometimes but they were spot on when they did it with Rogue One.

I'm glad Collider could take the joke.

[Mikasa Ackerman]

38 minutes ago, somebody85 said:

Oh cool, yeah I haven't heard of them! But yeah I like actual long discussions.

The Nostalgia Critic is better then someone like Jahns when he actually breaks something down....though he goes too far into hipster territory a lot.

It's funny though, one of the most memorable films of 2016 to me was The Neon Demon. Double Toasted hated it and Jay at Red Letter Media loved it.

Both channels are a completely different brand of humor but they are usually always entertaining whether I agree with their assessment or not.

 

The Weekly Planet guys definitely aren't hipster experts, they're basically just guys, with the difference being they don't try to be "real" critics like a lot of YouTube people. Here are a couple of snippets from their podcasts that someone animated for fun, it'll give you a taste of their discussion humour:

 

 

 

For the actual epiodes, just search The Weekly Planet on YouTube.

[somebody85]

14 minutes ago, Mikasa Ackerman said:

 

The Weekly Planet guys definitely aren't hipster experts, they're basically just guys, with the difference being they don't try to be "real" critics like a lot of YouTube people. Here are a couple of snippets from their podcasts that someone animated for fun, it'll give you a taste of their discussion humour:

 

 

 

For the actual epiodes, just search The Weekly Planet on YouTube.

Awesome! Thanks for the recommendation dude.