Original VS Remake

[Skulll13]

Everyone knows PJ's King Kong is a remake of the the 1930's version (Forget the 70's one, it was ****). So which one do you think was the best. I think probably the 1930's one, it was more original and the special effects were quite good for its time. The new one streched on for to long and half the time Kong and Cretures on Skull Island looked very out of place. What do you think? Why?

[Skulll13]

Everyone knows PJ's King Kong is a remake of the the 1930's version (Forget the 70's one, it was ****). So which one do you think was the best. I think probably the 1930's one, it was more original and the special effects were quite good for its time. The new one streched on for to long and half the time Kong and Cretures on Skull Island looked very out of place. What do you think? Why?

[Turok1955]

I also think the original to be better than Jackson's remake. There are two reasons why I think this:
1) The original was shorter. I wonder why Jackson took so much time to introduce us to the characters.
2) Jackson likes to overdo some action scenes e.g. the brontosaurus stampede, Kong fighting the T-Rexes and Kong having fun while repeatedly knocking Darrow on the ground.

Many people consider Jackson to be a great director, but I am not one of them. Last year I borrowed one of his Lord of the Rings movies, but quit watching after about 15 minutes.

[SkullxSurvivor]

The original is always the one that gets picked as the best. It has action scenes that are quick and upbeat. In Peter's version the scenes are toppoling back and forth from taking a break and moving ann and attacking the REX. Also when people make a newer version you want to expect it will be 50 times as good as the original. Peter's was not a bad film but the original is the one that stays on the story line and keeps you wondering for a reasonable amount of time.