King Kong Trailer

Ron-P · June 2005

King Kong

Looks quite good.

Toxis · June 2005

Yeah, looks pretty good. Just might have to see that one...

MacLeod · June 2005

That does look pretty good.

Peter Jackson directing its gotta be worth a look.

Nelson57 · June 2005

I'm adding this one to my must see list.

Toxis · June 2005

Originally posted by MacLeod
That does look pretty good.

Peter Jackson directing its gotta be worth a look.

yeah and that explains why all the locals look like they came from Middle Earth... haha

ND13 · June 2005

VERY VERY COOL!!!!!!

mantis · June 2005

Hell Yeah

Airplay355 · June 2005

F*ck yea it looks good. I can't wait for that one. Jack Black is the perfect actor for a dopey director just looking for something good to shoot

aaharvel · July 2005

love the original black and white.

holy ****. this looks worthy.

marker · July 2005

Went to Universal Studios back in Oct. 2000. On the King Kong ride, I was dissapointed at how he wasn't as big as I'd imagined when up on the subway car. Most of the movie was filmed with Jessica Lange (who was so HOT back then BTW) laying in a big hand, which they also had on display there.

However, at night, they closed and then reopened the park for "Halloween Nights" with like 10 or 12 haunted houses, one of which was the King Kong building. Fog so thick you literally couldn't see your hand in front of your face plus blinding strobe lights on top of that with people in costumes jumping out at you at every turn.

You could hear him roaring off in the distance as you walked towards him, and then all of the sudden, you turned a corner and there he was! When you walk right up under him, he was a LOT bigger than when you were on the subway car ride.

Sadly, I think they discontinued that attraction there.:( :mad: Maybe now they'll bring it back with a new movie coming out.

Does anyone remember those cheesy 80s sequels with Linda Hamilton where there was also a female Kong sized?

PhantomOG · July 2005

saw a trailer for this at the theater this past weekend...

WTF is up with dinosaurs being in this movie? didn't see the originals but, i must say i was disappointed coming away from the preview. felt like it was another horrible Jurassic Park sequel.

ND13 · July 2005

Originally posted by PhantomOG
saw a trailer for this at the theater this past weekend...

WTF is up with dinosaurs being in this movie? didn't see the originals but, i must say i was disappointed coming away from the preview. felt like it was another horrible Jurassic Park sequel.

Kong comes from an uncharted island that was lost in time, hence his enormity. In the previous movies he does fight a T-Rex type dinosaur and I think a giant snake or something in one.

PhantomOG · July 2005

Originally posted by ND13
Kong comes from an uncharted island that was lost in time, hence his enormity. In the previous movies he does fight a T-Rex type dinosaur and I think a giant snake or something in one.

well, i guess i should watch the original movie then.
thanks.

ND13 · July 2005

Originally posted by PhantomOG
well, i guess i should watch the original movie then.
thanks.

From the looks of the spots I've seen, the new Kong movie should be the best so far. Look who's directing it. I think Jackson's attention to detail should make it a worthwhile venture.

PolkThug · July 2005

Saw the preview in the theater and I thought the the cg Kong looked too fake.

ND13 · July 2005

Originally posted by PolkThug
Saw the preview in the theater and I thought the the cg Kong looked too fake.

How real can a 50-60 foot ape look?:D It's not like there's any running around to fashion one by.:p At least I hope not, anyways;)

Micah Cohen · July 2005

Here I come, losers. This is ****, man, how come no one can see it? A CGI Kong? Crap, man. Soul-less crap. NO SOUL. All you need to do is see the original, preferably on a full sized screen, like the big 4:3 screen at The Senator here in Baltimore, where Kong is life-size, 40 feet high, and you will be slayed by the original. Great story, good acting, amazing, organic special effects (it's freaking 1933, man!) that make you LOVE the ape, and you have a GREAT FILM. You will WEEP when he dies. It's ART, man, art made by the hands of humans. Computers? Who cares? Where's the art? It's non-existant. It's just CGI. I dare you to FEEL anything for this CGI ape. It's the same program that made the CGI "Hulk." Did you love him? Not!

Stop being impressed by CGI! STOP IT! :mad:

MC

landry_p2000 · July 2005

Looks pretty cool. I think Disney did a good job with Mighty Joe Young. Hopefully it will give me the same feeling I got when I saw MJY.:D

marker · July 2005

I know what kind of feeling I had when I saw Charlize Theron!!!:D

:cool: :eek:

aaharvel · July 2005

What Impressed me about the preview was how Jack Black (surprisingly) seems to have mastered the art of the 1930's acting style. By that I mean the over-dramatized, in your face, rapid, overblown vocal acting that was done so well in the original 1933 version.

I'll go see it b/c I'm a fan of the original.

brettw22 · July 2005

Agreed that CGI has permanently blasted the hell out of the movie industry, but one thing this Kong does is give me shivers when he effin roars........

George Grand · July 2005

Micah. Figures. The original is the absolute ****. It was 1933 and Skull Island looks real as **** (for what it's worth, flying into Hickam AFB on Oahu always makes me think of Skull Island. The lush green vegetation and sheer cliffs...)

One of the last cd's I bought was the original soundtrack. Great movie.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Micah Cohen · July 2005

SEE!?

George says I'm right.

That's all I the proof you need.

George says I'm right.

Thank you, George.

MC

AsSiMiLaTeD · July 2005

Everyone likes to hate on CGI, so I'll play devil's advocate...

Guys, believe or not, there is actual art involved in CGI. Sure, the images and rendering are computer GENERATED, but they're still CREATED by human beings...

I've done enough design work in Lightwave, Bryce, Maya, Poser, and other programs to know that those programs rely heavily on artistic talent, and that the product is only as good as the artist sitting behind the computer. It's not like we just click a button and all the sudden there's the ape and the background and whatever else...that stuff still has to be drawn out and all that.

I'd agree that CGI is overused today because it takes some of the work off the directors and other special effects guys. back in the day, they'd have to figure out "How are we gonna make this big **** ape and make it really big and look maybe half real". Today, they don't have to figure all that out. It's easy, just CGI it...

However, lets not fall into the trap of "Ah, well it's CGI, so they really didn't put any effort into it so it doesn't have any soul". That CGI work takes just as much effort and time and creativity as building models and what-not.

ND13 · July 2005

Originally posted by Polkmaniac
Everyone likes to hate on CGI, so I'll play devil's advocate...

Guys, believe or not, there is actual art involved in CGI. Sure, the images and rendering are computer GENERATED, but they're still CREATED by human beings...

I've done enough design work in Lightwave, Bryce, Maya, Poser, and other programs to know that those programs rely heavily on artistic talent, and that the product is only as good as the artist sitting behind the computer. It's not like we just click a button and all the sudden there's the ape and the background and whatever else...that stuff still has to be drawn out and all that.

I'd agree that CGI is overused today because it takes some of the work off the directors and other special effects guys. back in the day, they'd have to figure out "How are we gonna make this big **** ape and make it really big and look maybe half real". Today, they don't have to figure all that out. It's easy, just CGI it...

However, lets not fall into the trap of "Ah, well it's CGI, so they really didn't put any effort into it so it doesn't have any soul". That CGI work takes just as much effort and time and creativity as building models and what-not.

Agreed. I'll qualify that with just knowing how much work my wife had to do with just creating web pages for an ISP she used to work for. She had to put in a lot of time and that isn't nearly as elaborate as CGI. Graphic artists are just that ARTIST using computers for their canvas.

Ron-P · July 2005

I agree with you Polkmaniac. I have no doubt that CGI takes work and creativity. My point is that it still, even the best stuff out there, looks cartoonish and lacks real three dimensional depth.

Lord of the Rings had some of the best CGI out there and the latest Star Wars films has some of the worst, (as far as realistic looking).

CGI has a long way to go before it will look as good or as real as models, although, I am sure one day it might get there, just not anytime too soon.

George Grand · July 2005

Kong was the man. The original stud. "Mess with me or my girl, I'll kick **** on your subway cars."

That kind of stuff can't be improved upon.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Micah Cohen · July 2005

I'm not knocking CGI. It has been done well, as in the LORD OF THE RINGS stuff or JURASSIC PARK, and I know it takes real talent and skill to do it.

But what it also does is remove the organic creativity from filmmaking.

Today, they don't have to figure all that out. It's easy, just CGI it...

Remember STAR WARS? I mean, in 1977? They didn't have CGI. So they had to INVENT the way to make stuff look real with real actual parts. Miniatures and forced perspective and organic, no-short-cut artist invention.

The original KING KONG... If you see this film on a real movie screen, as I said before, you WILL BELIEVE Kong is 40 feet tall. He is. He looks and acts alive and three-dimensional. And yet, that was accomplished thru hard work, blood sweat and artistic tears, and all of it organic and molded by human hands. It's ART.

When "it's easy, just CGI it" is the solution, you get crap like FANTASTIC FOUR (which, from all accounts, is not so fantastic after all).

MC

Mjr7531 · July 2005

Originally posted by Micah Cohen
I'm not knocking CGI. It has been done well, as in the LORD OF THE RINGS stuff or JURASSIC PARK, and I know it takes real talent and skill to do it.

But what it also does is remove the organic creativity from filmmaking.

Remember STAR WARS? I mean, in 1977? They didn't have CGI. So they had to INVENT the way to make stuff look real with real actual parts. Miniatures and forced perspective and organic, no-short-cut artist invention.

The original KING KONG... If you see this film on a real movie screen, as I said before, you WILL BELIEVE Kong is 40 feet tall. He is. He looks and acts alive and three-dimensional. And yet, that was accomplished thru hard work, blood sweat and artistic tears, and all of it organic and molded by human hands. It's ART.

When "it's easy, just CGI it" is the solution, you get crap like FANTASTIC FOUR (which, from all accounts, is not so fantastic after all).

MC

Amen.

brettw22 · July 2005

It's hard to sit down and just relax while watching a movie if you pick everything to death.

I'd say grossly lacking CGI effects (like the Hulk) are the obvious targets for people that argue it's hard to even enjoy, but to act like the general public would sit down and enjoy a movie today that involves an actual guy in an ape suit on the big screen is ridiculous. If the CGI ape looks fake, then it looks fake, but from that trailer, I don't think they did a poor job.

CGI will continue to evolve as the technology grows up, and if peoples preferences are to go and watch non-CGI'd movies, go grab a girl and watch something like the Terms of Endearment.

gregure · July 2005

Well, I just have to chime in on this one.
First of all, I don't think CGI is the worst thing to happen to films. I am actually a fan of CGI done right. I don't think there was anyone who wasn't blown away by how real the dinosaurs looked in Jurassic Park. That was truly groundbreaking.

Also, a lot of Lord of the Rings effects were exceptionally done. I found myself amazed at how often Gollum looked truly real, as opposed to trying to ignore that he didn't, like Jar Jar Binks. Another concept LOTR films got right is using CGI as part of an amalgam of tools such as matte paintings, miniatures, CGI and digital color matching all blended together in one shot to create a cohesive whole.

War of the Worlds showcases some of the best CGI I've seen in awhile as well, partly because it tends not to be the centerpiece of the shot, but just another part of what's going on.

Yes, bad CGI is bad. But are we really yearning for the days of crappy black lines around people from pasting images from cell to cell? Or the stop-motion jerkiness of the old miniatures? Is the original King Kong a classic? Unquestionably. Is there real validity to the argument that 1933 f/x are better? Not in my opinion. Kong looks fake. No doubt about it. He barely looks like an actual gorilla, which at least the new film is attempting to achieve. I did find, however, that the CG creatures looked rather fake in the new Kong preview, considering these are the same folks who did LOTR for Jackson. Then I started thinking that these were probably the first shots finished for the previews, and that the CGI shots would most certainly be refined before the answer print, a line of thinking confirmed by Jackson's resent quotes in an article in today's Entertainment Weekly.

Again, I do think CGI is often poor, but when it is done right, or used in conjunction with updated forms of the more dated tools, it can be spectacular. I don't think it's a crutch for filmmakers at all. I just think that there is a general consensus that it is better than the more antiquated tools, and that when done properly can be more seamless than anything that's come before.

I like the debate, but it really is unfortunate to see some people so wrapped up in criticizing and nitpicking movies that they either have trouble sitting back and enjoying them, or feel inclined to share nothing but negative comments about them. I can't imagine it's much fun to be a killjoy.

King Kong Trailer

Comments