King Kong Trailer [Archive]

marker

07-04-2005, 01:42 AM

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

07-05-2005, 04:51 PM

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

07-05-2005, 05:07 PM

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

07-05-2005, 05:23 PM

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

07-05-2005, 05:26 PM

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

07-05-2005, 05:28 PM

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

ND13

07-05-2005, 05:36 PM

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

07-05-2005, 06:06 PM

Here I come, losers. This is BULLSHIT, 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

07-05-2005, 06:25 PM

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

07-05-2005, 06:29 PM

I know what kind of feeling I had when I saw Charlize Theron!!!:D ;) :p :cool: :eek: :o

aaharvel

07-05-2005, 07:42 PM

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

07-05-2005, 10:06 PM

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

07-08-2005, 06:41 PM

Micah. Figures. The original is the absolute shit. It was 1933 and Skull Island looks real as shit (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

07-08-2005, 06:55 PM

SEE!?

George says I'm right.

That's all I the proof you need.

George says I'm right.

Thank you, George.

MC

AsSiMiLaTeD

07-08-2005, 06:59 PM

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 ass 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

07-08-2005, 07:03 PM

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 ass 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

07-08-2005, 07:34 PM

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

07-08-2005, 09:09 PM

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

That kind of stuff can't be improved upon.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Micah Cohen

07-08-2005, 11:46 PM

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

07-09-2005, 12:13 AM

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

07-09-2005, 12:17 AM

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

07-09-2005, 02:21 AM

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.

Micah Cohen

07-09-2005, 10:14 AM

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

07-09-2005, 11:31 PM

Madly eloquent.

George Grand (of the Jersey Grands)

Demiurge

03-28-2006, 08:53 AM

Out today on Dee Vee Dee.

ND13

03-28-2006, 09:45 AM

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

criverajr

03-28-2006, 09:59 AM

Buy for me!

Crj

Ron-P

03-28-2006, 10:09 AM

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

03-28-2006, 10:28 AM

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

03-28-2006, 10:32 AM

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

03-28-2006, 10:42 AM

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

ND13

03-28-2006, 11:15 AM

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

03-28-2006, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=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.

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

03-28-2006, 12:56 PM

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. :D

MrNightly

03-28-2006, 01:43 PM

Rented Kong last weekend.

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

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!

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.

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. :D

venomclan

03-28-2006, 02:11 PM

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.

[QUOTE=MrNightly] 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.

[QUOTE=MrNightly] 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.

[QUOTE=MrNightly] Everyone is entitled to his own opionon, even if it is dead wrong. :D[/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

03-28-2006, 02:31 PM

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

03-28-2006, 06:51 PM

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.

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?

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

03-28-2006, 09:47 PM

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

03-28-2006, 09:48 PM

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

03-28-2006, 09:52 PM

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

bobman1235

03-28-2006, 10:24 PM

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

03-28-2006, 11:05 PM

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

03-28-2006, 11:40 PM

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

03-28-2006, 11:52 PM

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

03-29-2006, 12:24 AM

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

03-31-2006, 10:55 AM

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.