King Kong Trailer

Micah Cohen

I think it's bad when CGI is a crutch. And I think it is, more and more.

And I think that anyone who's seen the original KING KONG on a real movie screen, as I have been saying, will not say that Kong "looks fake." In fact, he looks "alive." Startlingly so. (And herein lies the reason he has become such an icon of power and wounded love; a reason that that original film is so powerful and has lasted so long.)

(Now, the 70s remake of Kong, which -- smartly -- updated the story to have Kong climbing one of the Twin Towers, something that I don't think I'd even want to watch now post 9/11, failed utterly due to a poorly animated Kong. That Kong had no personality, and became a bunch of "pieces" of big animatronics hands and faces and stuff, bits and pieces, totally soul-less.)

CGI is not bad when it's done well and with reason. Gollum is a GREAT example of that. JURASSIC PARK, another.

But when it's a crutch, when filmmakers say, "No problem, we can replicate the whole street in CG!," then it's just boring.

Boring.

A proud killjoy,

MC

George Grand

Madly eloquent.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Demiurge

Out today on Dee Vee Dee.

ND13

CC is advertising a special edition King Kong for $13.99.

criverajr

Buy for me!

Crj

Ron-P

I'll be picking up the single disk Kong today. I'm not buying the 2-disk because soon enough this will be out in Hi-Def.

Haven't seen the film yet so I cannot comment on the CGI effects but the perfect example of how NOT to use CGI, the last 3 Star Wars films, some of the worst in recent years.

venomclan

Rented Kong last weekend. Not that impressed. I feel that Peter Jackson does not know how to pace a movie well. This goes for the Lord of the Rings movies also. Very slow in the beginning. The island part took too long. I felt that he should have cut the bugs section of the film as it was just stupid.

I liked Kong himself, not Godzilla size like in the 70's version, more like Mighty Joe Young. The end sequance in NY was too short. Too many holes in the plot. Though it is fiction, there still has to be a sense of reality in it, at least on the human limitation part.

I think Jackson should stick to what he does best, making the fantasy world. He should leave the story line, editing and directing to someone else. This movie could have easily been better with 1 hour less running time, as could all of the LOTR movies.
Venom

Demiurge

This movie could have easily been better with 1 hour less running time, as could all of the LOTR movies.

I can't argue with you on this film, having not seen it yet, but I severely disagree with you about LOTR. Those are some of the best movies ever made, and the timing was perfect. I like it when directors choose to tell as much of the story as they can, and when the movie companies allow them to do it.

I don't mind a long movie as long as it's not boring. LOTR held my attention from the start to the finish.

Ron-P

What Demiurge said. The longer Lord of the Rings films were much more complete.

ND13

I've never understood why people want movies to be shorter. I have no problem sitting through a 3-4 hour movie as long as it holds my attention and is done well. The LOTRs are some of the best films done in recent memory. Kong wasn't done as well as the LOTRs, but it wasn't bad either. The CGI wasn't all that bad, except for the stampede sequence on the island, which could have been edited out completely or mostly and it wouldn't have changed the movie except for making it better, imo.

venomclan

ND13 wrote:

I've never understood why people want movies to be shorter. I have no problem sitting through a 3-4 hour movie as long as it holds my attention and is done well.

Well that is where we disagree. I have no problem with long movies if they are done well. LOTR bored the hell out of me. I could not wait until they were over. Most of the characters were annoying at best. I wanted to kill them myself as I rooted for the bad guys, as long as they made the boredom stop. Too many plot holes. I prefer Willow to LOTR anyday.

The worlds of LOTR itself were very well done. The characters just made no sense to me.

Demiurge

Should probably take that up with J.R.R. Tolkien when you get to the other side, because the movies were very representative of the book series.

MrNightly

venomclan wrote:

Rented Kong last weekend.

How did you do this? I thought it wasn't released until today? Correct me if I'm wrong.

venomclan wrote:

Not that impressed. I feel that Peter Jackson does not know how to pace a movie well. This goes for the Lord of the Rings movies also. Very slow in the beginning. The island part took too long. I felt that he should have cut the bugs section of the film as it was just stupid.

It's called a storyline, as opposed to instant gratification. Helps build suspence, and develop characters. Part of the problem with this generation is the lack of patience, and demand for it NOW!

venomclan wrote:

I liked Kong himself, not Godzilla size like in the 70's version, more like Mighty Joe Young. The end sequance in NY was too short. Too many holes in the plot. Though it is fiction, there still has to be a sense of reality in it, at least on the human limitation part.

Glad you actually liked something. I personally gave Kong a 9 outta 10. He was unbeatable, and might just move into my all-time favorite animals. Hehe. SuperAnimals that is.

venomclan wrote:

I think Jackson should stick to what he does best, making the fantasy world. He should leave the story line, editing and directing to someone else. This movie could have easily been better with 1 hour less running time, as could all of the LOTR movies.
Venom

Everyone is entitled to his own opionon, even if it is dead wrong.

venomclan

MrNightly wrote:

How did you do this? I thought it wasn't released until today? Correct me if I'm wrong.[/I]

There is a small video store near me that gets every movie a week before they come out to Blockbuster and for sale in stores.

MrNightly wrote:

It's called a storyline, as opposed to instant gratification. Helps build suspence, and develop characters. Part of the problem with this generation is the lack of patience, and demand for it NOW! [/I]

Please do not assume I am from any particular generation or fall into the instant gratification category. You do not know my age or anything about me. As for storyline, I have a degree in English and have authored works in the past. I know what a storyline is.

MrNightly wrote:

Glad you actually liked something. I personally gave Kong a 9 outta 10. He was unbeatable, and might just move into my all-time favorite animals. Hehe. SuperAnimals that is.[/I]

I like a lot of movies for different reasons. KK could have been better if it was shorter or longer imho. It just did not pace well. Another more capable director could have made this movie better.

MrNightly wrote:

Everyone is entitled to his own opionon, even if it is dead wrong.

[/I]

Peter Jackson will always be in the shadow of LOTR's, it is his style to make movies like these and most likely will continue to see movies the same way again. Though he is a celebrated director, I do not hold him as one of the greats. Maybe in the future.

As for the LOTR book, I had never read it so I cannot make comments about its similarities to the movies. The movie would need to stand on its own independent of its original source. Different directors would make many different versions of the same book. Some would be good, others maybe not.

Demiurge

Your opinion is yours, don't worry about that. Some people like different things.

I just know that the LOTR series wasn't P-Jacks first time directing movies. Most of the movie companies don't let directors make long movies unless it's warranted. Usually movies shoot a hell of a lot more than ever makes the films...their hands are tied and things get cut that they didn't want to get cut.

I think he is one of the greats because he directed 3 of some of the best movies ever filmed. His staying power will be the only thing up for grabs, but I don't think he has much to worry about there.

MrNightly

venomclan wrote:

There is a small video store near me that gets every movie a week before they come out to Blockbuster and for sale in stores.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

venomclan wrote:

Please do not assume I am from any particular generation or fall into the instant gratification category. You do not know my age or anything about me. As for storyline, I have a degree in English and have authored works in the past. I know what a storyline is.

Wasn't trying to classify you into any category. I have no idea about your life. But your comments came across as that of a younger generation would say. Glad to get that outta the way... now where were we?

venomclan wrote:

I like a lot of movies for different reasons. KK could have been better if it was shorter or longer imho. It just did not pace well. Another more capable director could have made this movie better.

I have to disagree with that part about a, "More capable director could have made this movie better." KK is a classic from the ages, and to remake it as well as he did, sticking as well as he did to the story line... very close to a work of art. Again, I may be biased, but I really enjoyed it.

As for Peter Jackson continually being in the shadow of the LOTR's, I believe KK actually helped him step into the light and put The Trilogy behind him.

I wouldn't be called a fan of any one director but Jackson's past work, and I assume future work may very well prove otherwise.

Toxis

So did they put this out in DTS ES like the Extended Versions of LOTR??? According to IMDB, its in DTS ES but a buddy said he looked at the 2disk set and he didn't see the DTS logo anywhere. WTH PJ???

venomclan

Hi MrNightly,
I am not really sure what generation I fit into, probably Gen X.

I am not saying that Jackson is not talented. I just do not like his style of directing. KK and LOTR are very similar in style and it is obvious. I think Jackson just draws it out too much. A lot of my friends like LOTR and it seems to be in every movie collection except mine.

Recently a guy I know told me how much he liked the recent Willy Wonka movie with Johnny Depp. I could not beleive that garbage ever made it to film, but hey, that is what mental health counseling is for...

I heard that KK did not do that well in the theaters compared to its cost.

ND13

Kong made over $750million at the box office and will probably do close to that in dvd sales.

bobman1235

ND13 wrote:

Kong made over $750K at the box office and will probably do close to that in dvd sales.

I hope that's supposed to be an M not a K.... 750K isn't much at the box office

ND13

bobman1235 wrote:

I hope that's supposed to be an M not a K.... 750K isn't much at the box office

Of course, my bad.:o

Demiurge

I thought it was very well done. Jackson did a great job of swaying the emotions of the audience, I think. That's the mark of a good director.

wingnut4772

Just saw this tonight.and I thought it had some superb special effects, sets and some spectacular moments. Overall, though, I felt it was loooong and I just couldn't get past Jack Black's parody method of acting.

surfsmelt

I looked at the single disc edition and the 2-disc Special Edition. Neither one had DTS or ES, just Dolby Digital 5.1 So I bought the single disc edition.:)

Ron-P

DTS will be on the coming EE as with the Lord of the Rings, I'm guessing, most likely later this year.

Finished watching this last night. A good film, but not great. Overall it gets an 8/10. Not quite the quality of Lord of the Rings. Not a lot of rewatch factor with this one either.

The CGI was very inconsistent throughout the film and I don't understand why. Some scenes looked so amazingly real it was, well, amazing. Other scenes, very CGI looking, very fake. It's too bad Jackson didn't consult Spielberg for his dino scenes; he really could have improved on them. I have yet to see more realistic dinos then what we saw in Jurassic Park. Kong did look outstanding in most scenes, an amazingly well done CGI character.

The story was simple (this is my first Kong movie). The acting was decent, I really was beginning to hate Carl Denham and could almost feel the pain that Ann Darrow was feeling, she did a good job from an emotional standpoint.

The disk is one of the best looking I've ever seen, very clean, crisp, sharp with great colors and deep blacks. The dd track lacked (as it usually does) so dts will be an improvement which I am sure will show up with the EE later this year (I'm guessing).

All-n-all, an impressive ride. Better then what I thought it would be even after reading so much about the film.

ND13

Kong looked so real, one could believe that they used a real silverback and just superimposed him in much larger. Kinda the way they did the big dude in Harry Potter, you know the giant that's the gate keeper at Hogwarts.

I agree that they could have done much, much better with the dinosaurs, especially during the stampede sequence.

MrNightly

Agreed with the stampede sequence, took you outta the movie, and made you think, "Common, this ain't real." But that was about it for me. The rest I thought was excellent.

Billm57

the whole stampede sequence looked like something out of one of those 1950's big bug movies..the only thing missing was the giant preying mantis or gila monster

Demiurge

The Gila Monsters were there.

Billm57

Demiurge wrote:

The Gila Monsters were there.

i musta missed them cuz i was laughing so hard at that scene...