|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 17:06:04 GMT
So we don't further pollute Kentrosaur's topic...
(no jokes please stoneage)
Discuss king kong I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by giganotoigauana on Feb 15, 2009 17:16:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 17:18:26 GMT
Aren't those all just picture of king kong?  NOOO stoneage. King kong is 25 feet tall. They originally wanted him to be 50 feet tall, but they DECIDED AGAINST IT. ;D And who is talking about the old king kong movies? We are all talking about the 2005 one (hence the venatosaurs). Get with the frickin' program stoneage! It seems as though you look up stuff on the web, don't even read it, and paste it here! ;D CT King Kong doesn't exist he is science fiction. You never specified the 2005 movie which used the 25 foot tall Kong. Still what does it matter, it is impossible anyway. I have proven you wrong over and over again. Why do you persist? Gigantopithecus kongas does not exist in science or fiction. You made that up. You are delusional. ;D Stoneage. Seriously, I am going to explain this to you. I suggest you read through the entire post and try to somewhat understand it.  From the people who made the movie, and judging by people compared to king kong king kong is about 25 feet tall. K?. "Skull Island" would have been about the size of madagascar or new zealand a long time ago. Gigantopithecus arrived there, and the only way it could survive would be getting bigger. That is called "island gigantism". Other things on skull island got bigger too, like the giant crickets, maggots, scorpions, fishes, etc. The island, then because of tectonic plate movements (if you don't know what that is I suggest you look it up), became much smaller very rapidly, and that had a disastrous effect on the wildlife. Many dinosaurs died, and all of king kong's species died besides kong himself. Notice all the broken walls, crumbling remains, etc in the move. That is because of volcanic activity and earthqukes. Do you think everything is just one big joke? Apparently you do. You always make a joke and then say "J/K ;D". ---And--- You never did prove me wrong. Instead you dismissed island gigantism, you said how big new zealand is, and you called me a cryptozoologist. Yep, you REALLY proved me wrong!  That last part was for stoneage. |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Feb 15, 2009 17:46:36 GMT
The new one's awful, the original one's brilliant. End of story.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 15, 2009 18:47:32 GMT
The new one's awful, the original one's brilliant. End of story. ;D I like both the 1933 version and the 2005 one ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dinonikes on Feb 15, 2009 19:02:13 GMT
What about the 70's version with the World Trade Center ending, Jessica Lange getting disrobed by Kong, etc. I remember the hype leading up to the release of that version and how much of a disappointment it was-and a flop if I remember right- alot of hype about the big robot Kong they were going to use for the movie and all- always have loved the '33 original, it is really a classic of stop motion animation-especially the fight with the T-Rex(includes two of the greatest moments in stop motion when the Rex gets back up from athrow down from Kong and swishes his tail so full of energy, and when Kong plays with the jaw of the dead Rex-opening and closing it seeing if there is any life left in it), I always liked the bristling fur-an unintentional effect of the stop motion process- which is always commented on as a bad thing, something that they 'improved' on in the sequel-'Son of Kong' anyone ever sit through that one? I think the same filmmakers made the original 'MIghty Joe Young' issue as well-
|
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 19:22:52 GMT
I saw son of kong. I liked the styracosaurus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 21:02:15 GMT
CT, Kong's family died from V-Rex attacks, not just climate change. I love all the Kong Movie's, especially the new version because its so darn realistic. However, again, like in JP3, when a T-Rex bites something, your not just going to roar. Your going to scream in agony due to the fact that whatever it bit is going to brake in half. Either Kong's arms and Spinosaurus' neck are made of Titanium, or we have some retarded scenes here! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 15, 2009 21:56:35 GMT
^^^ Or perhaps your fanboism is getting in the way again. The original version is the only worthy version in my eyes  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:06:18 GMT
Oh I'm sorry. Your right Tomhet, I'm biased, and oh by all means tell us that Kong's arm would still be just fine if a Rex of that size were to bite it. Go on.
Wait, maybe you shouldn't, because then that'd be untrue. Unless of course you'd like to say otherwise?
Please, don't start this again. It gets old alright?
Why? Whats wrong with the new one? Nothing..
|
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 15, 2009 22:08:38 GMT
I'm just saying that that stupid debate of T-Rex vs. the world should be dropped.
And it's a freaking movie, nobody said it was going to be realistic.
And everything's wrong with the new one, not even the special effects are convincing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:10:58 GMT
Hey, I like it, unlike you. I think its great, regardless of the scene. Who says I can't have one complaint? T-Rex versus the world? What? I just said Kong's Arms wouldn't hold up if they were bitten. Don't get all worked up. What? you think think it was realistic?  I thought it was amazing.  |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 22:22:40 GMT
Oh I'm sorry. Your right Tomhet, I'm biased, and oh by all means tell us that Kong's arm would still be just fine if a Rex of that size were to bite it. Go on. Wait, maybe you shouldn't, because then that'd be untrue. Unless of course you'd like to say otherwise? Please, don't start this again. It gets old alright? Why? Whats wrong with the new one? Nothing.. WOAH. I didn't really understand that! Too garbled! ;D Stop crying about trexes tyrannax! It's a movie! ;D and king kong has rock hard arms that shatter v-rex jaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:32:09 GMT
Crying over Tyrannosaurus..? But all I said was....  Hey now, your just trying to get on my nerves. ;D Ugh, let's get back on topic here! Disproving Kong as being 60 feet. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 22:35:18 GMT
It was only in godzilla that KK was 180 feet tall. In all the others he was twenty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:39:23 GMT
Exactly. However, Godzilla was 400 - 500 feet tall. King Kong, in the movie, was the same height. Weird, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Feb 15, 2009 22:40:15 GMT
Man, I always felt sad with the way Kong killed that big reptile in the original movie  |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:45:54 GMT
^ I did too. As well as the snake, and Rex. |
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Feb 15, 2009 22:47:18 GMT
Man, I always felt sad with the way Kong killed that big reptile in the original movie The trex??? |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Feb 15, 2009 22:48:42 GMT
No...
There was a giant reptile, snake, Tyrannosaurus, etc..
|
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
I thought it was amazing. 
