Skull island: An effort to be commended

[Trisdino]

We all know the drill in lost world movies, large selection of crew to be killed off, expedition into the unknown, land filled with ancient beasts, and so on. This was the formula that was followed in a 1933 movie by the name of king kong, a movie most if not all of you are probably familiar with. In King Kong, the crew of a ship by the name of the Venture travel out to a previously undiscovered island, led by the filmmaker Carl Denham, where they encounter tribal natives, living non-avian dinosaurs, and lots of other prehistoric creatures, with the main focal point of the movie being the titular Kong, a giant ape of unknown origin. The movie was great by most accounts, but the actual setting, skull island, was a stock affair, with little to no actual effort put into describing it as a place, in fact, it was almost certainly an afterthought, as the concept of a giant ape on a far away island fighting things was developed long before the setting.

Then came the 2005 remake. Now, I am not here to tell you if it was a good movie or not, I personally liked it, thought it had some pacing problems, but the overall experience was positive. That is not what we are here to talk about though. One of the main things about the movie that set it apart, perhaps the single biggest deviation from the original, and the entire genre as a whole, was what Jackson did to skull island. It was a simple concept, and idea so thuddingly obvious that the fact nobody else had done it before is both a great pity and a bloody big mystery. While most lost world stories press the pause button in the Mesozoic, picking up some animals, and then simply letting them stay there, Jackson did something special, he pushed the button again, he let time, and by extension, evolution, play out as it would have, or at least that was the plan. In Jacksons remake, there were no tyrannosauruses, no triceratopses, no stegosauruses, no, he had Vestasauruses, Feructuses, and all manner of other creatures, not prehistoric, but just as modern as the ones we see every day, just having evolved in a very special place. There were some great big missteps, yes, how tyrannosaurs had gotten onto a fragment of Gondwanaland is anybodies guess, and let us not even get started on how permian therapsids were present, but the core idea, and a lot of the execution, was fantastic.

And nobody cared.

No really, not a single sod cared. None of the reviews mentioned it, the general audience did not even notice, they still called the vestasauruses T.rexes even though they had three fingers, and the entire effort put into designing the place, the whole world building process, was completely glanced over by everyone, what was arguably the biggest, or at least most expensive, speculative evolution project ever undertaken, and nobody gave a toss. Nobody, that is, except for the few diehard paleofans, and overall moviebuffs who caught on, and apparently these people had enough of an influence for Weta workshop, Jacksons effect studio, to release an entire book about the island, titled "The world of kong: A natural history of Skull island", which to date is one of the best speculative evolution books out there. So please, if you are in any way invested in speculative evolution, or just dinosaurs as a whole, show some appreciation towards what the creators of King Kong 2005 did, because we desperately need more of these movies, and I am afraid that if nobody even acknowledges the effort, why should big studios bother?

[stargatedalek]

I have to confess, seeing the movie in theaters when I was 7 I failed to catch on about what spec-evo even was
(but even at 7 years old I realized that those tyrannosaurs had to many fingers)

re-watching the film in recent years I really came to appreciate all the work that went into the setting and the speculative evolution, I love how it was meant to look like the way such animals were perceived in the early 1900's, and yet they did their best to make it plausible

[EDIT] checked my math and I was 7, not 9

[Roselaar]

I loved PJ's KK, I loved 'The world of Kong: A natural history of Skull Island' even more. Great artwork and very intriguing fictional natural designs. If even a fragment of the effort they put into this film is applied to the upcoming Skull Island flick, I'm happy.

It's 'Vastatosaurus' though.

[Takama]

I love the movie myself. and I liked that they chose to do evolved creatures instead of ones in the fossil record.

When I was young, around the time it first came out, I knew that the animals were not real dinosaurs, because of the Video Games instruction manual.

[Gwangi]

That was probably my favorite part of the movie as well, the overall ecosystem and natural history of Skull Island. Naturally I have the book as well. I'm really hopeful that the upcoming "Skull Island" will expand on that world and introduce creatures from the book as well.

I will argue that speculative zoology has been done before in big budget movies, in particular "Avatar" which also created a rich world of unique animals. It was the best part of that movie too and unlike KK the general public ate it up. People were even depressed that this planet was not more like Pandora (which just shows a lack of ignorance regarding life on Earth). A lot of science blogs went into detail discussing the world itself, its natural history and biology. If KK truly did fail to turn people on to the subject of spec. zoology I really think "Avatar" fixed that problem.

[stargatedalek]

personally I couldn't stand Avatar, namely I failed to find its alleged environmentalist message and instead found a bunch of "culture above nature" and then they used their "planet single organism" thing to justify it
Avatar impressed me because of its CGI and pioneering of 3D, but the movie itself I found terrible
if you want an alien themed movie built around rights messages watch District 9

sorry for the mini rant, its just the movie bothers me

King Kong however, I very much enjoy re-watching it to this day

[Gwangi]

personally I couldn't stand Avatar, namely I failed to find its alleged environmentalist message and instead found a bunch of "culture above nature" and then they used their "planet single organism" thing to justify it
Avatar impressed me because of its CGI and pioneering of 3D, but the movie itself I found terrible
if you want an alien themed movie built around rights messages watch District 9

sorry for the mini rant, its just the movie bothers me

King Kong however, I very much enjoy re-watching it to this day

I enjoyed "Avatar" but more for the world they created than the story. It's the same story we've seen before in "Pocahontas", "Dances With Wolves" and those other "going native" type of movies. Just with an alien species. District 9 was a far better movie, I only brought up "Avatar" because of the spec. zoology and world building involved.

[tyrantqueen]

personally I couldn't stand Avatar, namely I failed to find its alleged environmentalist message and instead found a bunch of "culture above nature" and then they used their "planet single organism" thing to justify it
Avatar impressed me because of its CGI and pioneering of 3D, but the movie itself I found terrible
if you want an alien themed movie built around rights messages watch District 9

sorry for the mini rant, its just the movie bothers me

King Kong however, I very much enjoy re-watching it to this day

I hated Avatar too. I liked most of James Cameron's other films (the first two Terminators were epic), but not Avatar. I find the Na'vi characters to be repulsive looking and the plot to be condescending.

[Simon]

1.  Loved the "alien world" of Avatar;

2.  Hated the PC, done-a-bazillion-times-before, storyline (which is why it didn't win 'Best Picture' Oscar)

3.  HATED Peter Jackson's "King Kong".  HATED IT.  (Did I mention I HATED IT?)

Why?  (*Oh Lord* Do I want to do this again after all these years?)

1.  Complete lack of believability as soon as the characters opened their mouths.  (Hint:  People in 1933 TALKED DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY DID IN 2005, MR. JACKSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

2.  Worst miscasting of a major character in at least 40 years:  Jack "I can't act my way out of a paper bag" Black as Carl Denham.

3.  And, the coup de gras:  Suspension of the laws of gravity for the large "beasties" - you know, like Kong jumping from mountain side to mountain side as if he were a flea - the liana Kong-VRex pirouettes while falling down a 2-mile chasm.

To give the devil his due:  Having Al Jolson singing "Sitting on Top of the World" over the opening credits was ALMOST worth the price of admission by itself.  After that the movie went downhill - and fast.  Re-creating the two lost B&W scenes from the original King Kong for the DVD box set was also fabulous.

[tyrantqueen]

3.  HATED Peter Jackson's "King Kong".  HATED IT.  (Did I mention I HATED IT?)

No offense, but I somehow expected that (I don't mean that in a mean way, I'm just not surprised).

[Simon]

Probably because you subliminally recall me making the same points many times before!   

[Gwangi]

3.  And, the coup de gras:  Suspension of the laws of gravity for the large "beasties" - you know, like Kong jumping from mountain side to mountain side as if he were a flea - the liana Kong-VRex pirouettes while falling down a 2-mile chasm.

This is one of my major problems with the film as well. In particular the Brontosaurus stampede really annoys me.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I did not mind the stampede, but I was shattered that so many of them died. What a waste of sauropods, sheesh. Tragic

[Trisdino]

I specifically did not want to discuss the actual quality of the movie here...

[Gwangi]

I specifically did not want to discuss the actual quality of the movie here...

Honestly you should have seen it coming. Even if I hated KK (and I didn't) I would still admire the world created within. Like I said, it's the best part. So I can appreciate what you're trying to do here.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had never known about the evolved world that was being shown in the movie, or any of this you are discussing so I am glad for you all raising the topic. I have to admit I took it all at face value and always wondered what a Vastasaurus was  and why I was not familiar with it etc. Thanks for all of the information

[Trisdino]

I have to admit I took it all at face value and always wondered what a Vastasaurus was  and why I was not familiar with it etc.

A google search on the animal would have fixed that. Oh well, I would be lying if I said that I never did not google search things that I really should, mainly out of apathy on my part(which I presume was also your reason). Anyway, yeah, the movie has flaws, pacing is off, some of the effects were not the best(though still pretty damn good), and Adrian was arguably a bit boring, though I kinda liked him, but again, these are all facts of the movie, the entire point of the thread is the one aspect of the movie that was sadly ignored by so many people. I really do feel that world building like this should affect the score, surely a setting filled with creative and unique creatures, vast and beautiful environments, and a rich backstory, should be heralded as something good, not just a random little neat fact about it which plays no actual role. I feel that the presence of a giant fish(deleted scene sadly), varied creatures, creative designs, and incredibly landscapes, really helped the movie, yet people just glossed over it, and that makes me sad.


Here is hoping that the upcoming annoyingly named Skull island movie focuses on this, which it seems like it will, as there is so much to explore. What I would really want, more than a prequel, which honestly, while I wont say no, seems a bit odd considering they already have a premise for sequels in the lore, in form of the Project legacy voyages from The world of Kong book, I would love to see what happened afterwards, as in a movie version of Project legacy, I want to see how they discovered more of the species, how they traveled and explored, I mean, if anything, a bunch of scientists exploring the island and researching its past and future, seems like it would provide far more backstory than just a young Kong running around the island, and would also make room for more creative scenarios, it would be a King Kong sequel without King Kong, which honestly sounds awesome to me, Kong is cool and all, but he is just an ape, the island is much more interesting than him.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I was too busy....umm...sulking over the mass murder of me beloved sauropodss

[stargatedalek]

I didn't find Kong himself especially interesting either
I was to busy raging over the fact he ripped a bunch of tyrannosaurs to shreds with not even a scratch...

I want to see a spinosaurus derivative kill Kong, just for the hilarity of the reference

[tyrantqueen]

I liked Jackson's King Kong. The human characters were pretty forgettable but I liked Kong himself and his relationship with Ann Darrow was interesting.. I think King Kong's character was deeper and explored more than in the thirties original.

I like the original for its use of stop motion and it is a pop culture behemoth in its own right, but I won't put the film on some sort of unobtainable pedestal and say that it is untouchable. There are some things the remake (in my opinion) did better.

I didn't care for Jack Black either, but then again I don't care for him in anything anyway.