or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

King Kong - Page 2  

post #31 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by linthat22
I mean, look how many remakes came out this year. Horrible horrible horrible.
I'm tired of re-makes too. Especially BAD re-makes. But a remake of King Kong with someone like Peter Jackson at the helm seems a lot different than, say, a remake of "The Amityville Horror" starring that guy from "Two Guys and a Pizza Place."

I just can't believe that after Peter Jackson made incredibly-realized film versions of the LOTR trilogy, people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until after they've seen it. I mean, it's not like it's being directed by Brett Ratner or Michael Bay.
post #32 of 584
Wow! I had mentioned that the original Kong looked "other-worldly", not like a real gorilla. And that was scarier for me. But, I think my feelings were poorly stated. Of course, my fondness for the original was nurtured throughout my whole life, starting as an impressionable kid (I actually saw it first in a theatre! Nothing beats that.)

As for Peter Jackson, I have great respect for his abilities and as he is a big fan of the original, think that he'll pull this off. Even though Kong's "look" is a bit of a disappointment to me (prematurely), after all it is a sympathetic story of a "beast" taken out of his element.
post #33 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattepntr
I totally agree with you about BSG flying rings around the original. And while
I think the CG rocks on that show, I'd also give credit to their production
designer (for actually building sets instead of hanging greenscreens) their
cinematographer, their costumers, and especially the directors. Everybody
on that show is putting out 150%.
Yes, that's right. And don't forget that the original used "then state of the art" special effects just recently created for Star Wars.
post #34 of 584
Quote:
Just because it looks fake, don't assume it's intentional. Sometimes it is (Sky Captain)
and sometimes it's not (SW prequels)
I'd disagree with that statement. SW prequels have their problems, but effects are not one of them. For what it's worth, the prequels look a hell of a lot more real, if that's possible for a film like the prequels, than Sky Captain did. Then again, fantasy and sci-fi films that require a lot of effects will never looks 100% completely real. LOTR didn't, prequels didn't, Matrix trilogy didn't, etc, etc. Not just because of the out of this world aspects of these films, but also because of the reliance on CG. There's just no way to make those kinds of movies nowadays for a reasonable price, unless a Lucas was willing to foot a bill of 250+ million dollars for each film, and perhaps even more than that. Because that's what it would have cost to do it the way some of you wanted it done.

But enough of that. I'm so damn sick and tired of whining about CG that it's enough to make a dog vomit.

King Kong would be of more interest to me than LOTR. The only problem is I was never that excited about a Kong remake. I was originally more excited about LOTR, but found out that it just wasn't my cup of tea. But I'll definitely check it out.

Quote:
I'd also give credit to their production
designer (for actually building sets instead of hanging greenscreens)
This argument doesn't hold water, and never really has. There were more sets and more miniatures used in the prequels than were used in the entire original trilogy combined according to ILM and Lucas. You can still argue whether they used too much CG, but not everything was a greenscreen. It still amazes me to this day how so many people mistake sets in the prequels for CG, and CG for sets or miniatures. It just goes to show that the vast majority couldn't tell the difference except when it was obvious, like that used in a CG character.
post #35 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrell
This argument doesn't hold water, and never really has. There were more sets and more miniatures used in the prequels than were used in the entire original trilogy combined according to ILM and Lucas. You can still argue whether they used too much CG, but not everything was a greenscreen. It still amazes me to this day how so many people mistake sets in the prequels for CG, and CG for sets or miniatures. It just goes to show that the vast majority couldn't tell the difference except when it was obvious, like that used in a CG character.
I worked at ILM on EP 1 and 2. I know what was built as a miniature and what wasn't.
The miniatures work they did is indeed beautiful. But this hardly accounts for the
majority of the environments, especially in 2 and 3.

Speaking of sets, has anyone been keeping track of Wolfgang Petersen's remake of
"The Poseidon Adventure" at Warner Bros.? WOW. It's an enormous production.
Talk about BIG sets...
post #36 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattepntr
Speaking of sets, has anyone been keeping track of Wolfgang Petersen's remake of
"The Poseidon Adventure" at Warner Bros.? WOW. It's an enormous production.
Talk about BIG sets...
Why ... is ... this ... movie ... being ... remade?

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...idon-Adventure:

"The film is currently being remade by two different efforts. One remake, directed by John Hutch, is being released in 2005 as a made-for-TV two-part miniseries, and will be retooled with the ship capsizing due to a terrorist act, though many of the characters will remain the same. A second is scheduled to be released in theatres in 2006, directed by Wolfgang Petersen, and will more or less be true to the original, with a tsunami capsizing the ship, though with different character names."
post #37 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxfyre
Yeah! I'm with you. It's like looking at a book's few pages on Amazon.com and deciding the whole thing sucks.

We live in such a superficial culture it is SAD.
No question ,we live in a superficial world, hell Hollywood is a big reason but no matter how you cut it those scenes and that look will appear in the film we see in the theaters and the outlook for this being great is grim.
post #38 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattepntr
Good CGI? "War of the Worlds" = really really GOOD freaking AWESOME CG!
Amen! Did you hear what ILM did to cut down costs on this movie? They digitally scanned in the landscapes and let Steve pick out his camera shots before they even showed up to shoot on location. I heard it saved them a pretty penny so it could be put back into the costs of shooting more on location and getting the FX right. Whether it's true or not, War of the Worlds was the last movie I saw where the FX had me say 'How'd they DO that?!'

Before that, it was Jurrasic Park way back in '93. I suppose I was due. ^_^
post #39 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinp8192
I just can't believe that after Peter Jackson made incredibly-realized film versions of the LOTR trilogy, people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until after they've seen it.
It's the rest of Jackson's filmography that gives me pause.

The Frighteners.... eek.
post #40 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
It's the rest of Jackson's filmography that gives me pause.

The Frighteners.... eek.
Actually, I quite liked The Frighteners. To each his own.

But, by all means, let's pre-judge a movie by:

1) It's trailer
and
2) A movie made 10 years ago by the director

Let's also just ignore the monumental undertaking that same director just went through: trying to bring the most beloved and revered fantasy story of all time to the screen in a live action format, without pissing off the loyal fans. What Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy cannot be understated: he took on a project of epic proportions, and delivered a trilogy for the ages. Not everyone will *like* LOTR, but you cannot deny the success in bringing the story to the big screen.

I think, based on his recent work, Jackson has earned the right for us to at least SEE his latest film before declaring it a horrible failure.
post #41 of 584
Speaking of which ... did anyone bother to see A SOUND OF THUNDER? I heard it stunk.
post #42 of 584
First of all, to the naysayers and to fans of PJ alike, if you haven't followed up your dissentions and agreements with PJ by watching the production diaries, please do. It's a great way to learn how filmmaking is in real time (though right now it's in post) and how Kiwi filmmaking is done. Great stuff.

As for guys who are STILL whining about CGIs, let's think back 20 or 30 years ago and think - do you also whine about puppets, physical effects, miniatures, stop-motion animation, animatronics and matte paintings of even 50% of the films produced then?

Knowing what I know now, most fantasy/sci-fi films just lost that believability factor. Very few holds up at all. Star Wars didn't. Willow didn't. Alien trilogies didn't. But just because you know what's real and what's fantasy (and fantastical) doesn't mean that the story doesn't work anymore. When story works, it still works!

I for one have great faith that PJ will wow me again like he did the first time of the magic of fantasy in FOTR, then TT then ROTK. And yeah, Spielberg's War of the Worlds wowed me too.


fuad
post #43 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85
Actually, I quite liked The Frighteners. To each his own.

But, by all means, let's pre-judge a movie by:

1) It's trailer
and
2) A movie made 10 years ago by the director

Let's also just ignore the monumental undertaking that same director just went through: trying to bring the most beloved and revered fantasy story of all time to the screen in a live action format, without pissing off the loyal fans. What Jackson did with the LOTR trilogy cannot be understated: he took on a project of epic proportions, and delivered a trilogy for the ages. Not everyone will *like* LOTR, but you cannot deny the success in bringing the story to the big screen.

I think, based on his recent work, Jackson has earned the right for us to at least SEE his latest film before declaring it a horrible failure.

I have no questions about Peter Jackson's considerable skills as a filmmaker. I do question the necessity or interest in another remake of a seminal film that needed no improvement.

I will see it, of course...
post #44 of 584
After reading the article in the current newsstand issue of Sci Fi magazine:

http://www.scifi.com/scifimag/

I am much more enthused about Jackson's KING KONG than I have expressed on this forum (my negativity was based on the trailer).

Find an issue and read the parts where Andy Serkis describes what he did to learn how gorillas act, move, breathe, etc. Incredible.

Per the article, the relationship between Jack and Ann is developed to where it is more believable than it was in the original, and the effect Ann has on Kong is also an integral part of the story - she brings out emotions in him heretofore unexpressed or felt. As I've said, because the relationship between Ann and Kong is the key to this movie, the trailer's failure to convey this is what caused my initial disappointment. I should have trusted Jackson more on this. By the way, he's lost 75 pounds (Jackson, not Kong).

(I looked at 3 different magazines last night with KONG cover articles, but I believe the Sci Fi one has the article/info I am referring to.)
post #45 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss
Find an issue and read the parts where Andy Serkis describes what he did to learn how gorillas act, move, breathe, etc. Incredible.
My biggest problem with the trailer is that Kong looks and acts too much like a gorilla, and not enough like KING KONG.
post #46 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
My biggest problem with the trailer is that Kong looks and acts too much like a gorilla, and not enough like KING KONG.
Then you may likely hate the movie, because Serkis literally spent 2 years (I think) observing gorillas in every possible situation to mimic one accurately, including their breathing sounds, chatter, etc. E.g., because gorillas mostly walk/move on all fours, he felt Kong had to do much more of that, rather than the upright walking he did in the original. Jackson's Kong is a big gorilla. As Serkis said, gorillas had only been discovered/studied a few decades before KONG was made (late 1800's?), so little was known about them, whereas now, you have to do a gorilla right because everyone knows from Nat'l Geographic, Jane Goodall, etc., how a gorilla is supposed to move, behave, etc.
post #47 of 584
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
My biggest problem with the trailer is that Kong looks and acts too much like a gorilla, and not enough like KING KONG.
While there is much debate about whether King Kong should be an "ape-like creature" or an oversize gorilla, I think when you see Kong in action there will be no doubt that he is an amazing beast.
post #48 of 584
http://www.aintitcool.com/images/kongcomparison.jpg

Left: Kong in the trailer. Right: Kong's recent appearence change.
post #49 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynetravis
http://www.aintitcool.com/images/kongcomparison.jpg

Left: Kong in the trailer. Right: Kong's recent appearence change.
It looks like they got rid of the snaggletooth. Jackson said he wanted Kong to look a bit past his prime, as well as beat up a bit from a lifetime of fights - hence the face injuries, etc.
post #50 of 584
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eweiss
It looks like they got rid of the snaggletooth. Jackson said he wanted Kong to look a bit past his prime, as well as beat up a bit from a lifetime of fights - hence the face injuries, etc.
Phillipa said that they were keeping the snaggle tooth so I guess it just won't be visible all the time, or the injury happens during the movie. I am not sure.
post #51 of 584
It will be interesting to see if this is as good as the old - technically yes, but some of the new versions just don't have the feel of the old. ;)
post #52 of 584
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by petenaz
It will be interesting to see if this is as good as the old - technically yes, but some of the new versions just don't have the feel of the old. ;)
However, I think it will because Peter Jackson is doing it and he got into film making because of the original and is such a fan, even a geek, about the original King Kong. I think he will tell his own story, but with reverance for the original.
post #53 of 584
Quote:
It will be interesting to see if this is as good as the old
Sh*t no! Technically it will be better, but the original is an all-time classic. Personally, this film didn't need a remake and shouldn't have been remade. That's just one man's opinion.
post #54 of 584
This weekend I saw one of the Peter Jackson production diary videos. They had the original KONG model from 1933 (metal skeleton, minus fur) at the studio, and it was very obvious that Jackson and his crew revere the 1933 version of this story. I am confident they want to do right by fans of that movie. They probably can't placate those who think it is blasphemous to remake "King Kong," but I expect they will have a fan base for the 2005 version of the story.
post #55 of 584
Curious that Jackson has jettisoned Howard Shore for James Newton Howard this late in the game after a falling out between the two...
post #56 of 584
I haven't seen the trailer but a few of the people I work with described it as the Hulk in a gorilla suit. lol
post #57 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kensmith48
I haven't seen the trailer but a few of the people I work with described it as the Hulk in a gorilla suit. lol
Kong does look strange in the trailer.
But, that trailer was released in July, its just a teaser trailer. Kong will be very different by the time the movie is released.

That picture I posted above shows the differences in the recent changes to Kong, the left image is direct from the the teaser trailer, and the image on the right was released last week.

PS. the link for the trailer is here: KING KONG TRAILER
post #58 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrell
Sh*t no! Technically it will be better, but the original is an all-time classic. Personally, this film didn't need a remake and shouldn't have been remade. That's just one man's opinion.
The original KING KONG is a classic, but it's also a quite creaky old classic. The article in Sci Fi magazine gave me hope that Jackson is re-doing this movie right and improving the original in ways it needed improving - e.g., Jack Driscoll's character and his relationship with Ann, the emotional link between Kong and Ann, etc.

Unless reviews are terrible, this may be my one theatrical movie this year.
post #59 of 584
I'll be checkin' it out, with a open mind, and no expectations... hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

But... and this may be old news... I'll be even more interested in this Nov. 22nd DVD release..

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...v=glance&s=dvd

and seeing how "pristine" the copy it's re-mastered from really was... not to mention the re-stored footage, left out of the original release.
OOPS! I mentioned it!
post #60 of 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by TekWorm
I'll be checkin' it out, with a open mind, and no expectations... hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

But... and this may be old news... I'll be even more interested in this Nov. 22nd DVD release..

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...v=glance&s=dvd

and seeing how "pristine" the copy it's re-mastered from really was... not to mention the re-stored footage, left out of the original release.
OOPS! I mentioned it!
AFAIK, the "restored footage" has been available in VHS editions for years. My wife and I saw the restored/complete version in the theater in Kansas City in 1975 or so, as I recall (Antioch theater, on N. Antioch Road, before it became a twin theater - if it even still exists today). If it wasn't totally complete then, it was when it came to the VHS copy I bought. My understanding is that there is no new footage here that hasn't already been seen. If you are referring to the spider scene, it does not exist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked