Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 12  

post #331 of 814
6/28/05 at 6:25pm
Quote:
It does when your target audience is 99.999999999% comprised of non-cinephiles with regular eyes instead of what are apparently the HD ocular implants of many folks here.

To those who don't really wallow in the minutae of film and special effects work, I'm sure it was more than sufficiently rendered.
Perfectly stated.

I have looked at the trailer quite a few times since last night and am still trying to figure what would merrit this comment:
Quote:
On my TV screen, the effects looked ATROCIOUS; I've seen TV shows with better integrated effects... looks as plastic as AOTC did.
Must everything be exagerated on the internet? Ah well...

--
H
post #332 of 814
6/28/05 at 10:17pm
Quote:
It does when your target audience is 99.999999999% comprised of non-cinephiles with regular eyes instead of what are apparently the HD ocular implants of many folks here.

To those who don't really wallow in the minutae of film and special effects work, I'm sure it was more than sufficiently rendered.
Yeah, that's the way you make classics, by aiming for the lowest common denominator.
Quote:
Yeah, in the discussion of the trailer on a few other non-movie focused messageboards I visit I've seen nary a complaint about unfinished CGI.
I've gone to others where I haven't mentioned a thing and seen similar complaints.
Quote:
I have looked at the trailer quite a few times since last night and am still trying to figure what would merrit this comment:
If they effects are so unsatisfactory as to pull me out of the experience, than they are atrocious to me. Especially when all of the other blockbusters this year have been putting their best foot foward. The compare the effects of the earliest War of the Worlds trailer and this Kong trailer, and the difference is night and day. Your mileage is free to vary, and if the effects in this trailer work for you I'm glad. They didn't work for me and the result had little more impact than a Saturday morning cartoon as a result. Must all contrary opinions be dismissed as a matter of fact on the internet? Ah well...
post #333 of 814
6/28/05 at 10:49pm
I enjoyed the trailer.

As far as the quality of the cgi (or the lack thereof), I'm not really bothered. I'm more interested in how the story will be executed. The Two Towers had some suspect cgi shots in it (the wargs for one) but that never once bothered me.

Quick question, what is the aspect ratio of King Kong?
post #334 of 814
6/28/05 at 11:00pm
King Kong reminded me of Mighty Joe Young.

But it looks alright the way it is.
post #335 of 814
6/29/05 at 6:14am
Quote:
Especially when all of the other blockbusters this year have been putting their best foot foward. The compare the effects of the earliest War of the Worlds trailer and this Kong trailer, and the difference is night and day.


I think comparing the trailers for WOTW and KK is comparing apples to oranges. THE WOTW trailers are more of a tease. We are getting only brief, vieled glimpses of the martian machines even after the movie has been released. I was surprised how much of KK was revealed in the trailer. We are getting a much more revealing look at the picture.

In the end, if the picture is good, it will be successful, even if the trailer is not up the the standards of a few.
post #336 of 814
6/29/05 at 7:01am
Quote:
Quick question, what is the aspect ratio of King Kong?


Didn't some behind-the-scenes videos show PJ at the monitors with 2.35:1 labeling?
post #337 of 814
6/29/05 at 10:30am
Yeah, that's the way you make classics, by aiming for the lowest common denominator

No, that's the way you make money which, to Universal, I'm sure is the overriding concern.

The compare the effects of the earliest War of the Worlds trailer

As I recall, the earliest WOTW trailer only had one, ever-so-brief effects shot of the freeway getting blasted as Dakota Fanning screamed out the back window of a car.

It's just disturbing to me that people are in such a negative frame of mind after viewing a trailer for a movie that's still in the middle of post-production and acknowledges (on the kongisking.net website) that the shots used were from "work in progress."

We don't judge a novelist on their first draft, or an artist when they've only painted the background sky, or a trial based only on the opening remarks.
post #338 of 814
6/29/05 at 11:35am
I read in the USA Today the other day that Kong will be 25 ft tall. If that is true, then he is too SHORT!!
post #339 of 814
6/29/05 at 12:49pm
Seeing this trailer projected on the big screen with some real subwoofers works wonders for it. It looked GOOD on the big screen.

KING KONG indeed.

Can't wait,
Chuck
post #340 of 814
6/29/05 at 1:15pm
....(shrugs shoulders) the final bellowing shot of KONG sent shivers up my spine, I can't wait.

The only truly suspect shot I personally spotted in the trailer (the one that stood out for me) was the pan over shot on the rocky beach after the film crew hears the distant roar, the background FX weren't synced well with the live action foreground actors....I didn't really care because I know this is a "work in progress" but that shot in particular did catch my eye.

Like I said, don't care, I trust PJ and I know he will deliver a fine flick.
post #341 of 814
6/29/05 at 2:34pm
The only truly suspect shot I personally spotted in the trailer (the one that stood out for me) was the pan over shot on the rocky beach after the film crew hears the distant roar, the background FX weren't synced well with the live action foreground actors....

That was the only thing I really noticed as well. Looked like the bluescreens hadn't been finessed yet.
post #342 of 814
6/29/05 at 4:45pm
I noticed over at KongIsKing.net, the WETA folks were still discussing the amount of gray we will see in Kong's hair, where, and how long it will be. This was just from a few days ago, so imagine how far the CGI will develop from what we saw in the trailer.

Like others have said, WOTW did not give us a trailer with this much CGI in it 25 weeks before the theatrical release date.
post #343 of 814
6/29/05 at 5:24pm
I thought the Kong trailer was great, I think we got to see the tone that PJ will take which to no one's surprise seems to be dark, his speciality.

I was very impressed with the casting after seeing them in their roles. I think Jack Black is a great actor and its nice to see him given a chance like this to be more serious.

This should be another blockbuster for PJ, certainly worthy of doing a remake.
post #344 of 814
6/29/05 at 5:29pm
Quote:
I read in the USA Today the other day that Kong will be 25 ft tall. If that is true, then he is too SHORT!!
That's a bit taller than he is in the Skull Island scenes in the 1933 original (the scale changes when he's brought to New York).
post #345 of 814
6/29/05 at 5:33pm
Quote:
I noticed over at KongIsKing.net, the WETA folks were still discussing the amount of gray we will see in Kong's hair, where, and how long it will be. This was just from a few days ago, so imagine how far the CGI will develop from what we saw in the trailer.
That does, indeed, give me hope. Hopefully the rest will be in flux, too.
post #346 of 814
6/29/05 at 6:28pm
The words - 'work in progress' - should suffice.
post #347 of 814
6/30/05 at 3:53am
As Chuck noted, seeing this trailer on the big screen was awesome. The effects, finished or not, looked spectacular, better than they looked on TV obviously. Even better than the Hidef version.

And Naomi looks HOT!:b
post #348 of 814
6/30/05 at 11:07am
I'm actually enjoying Kong's size. More prehistoric size. As far as CGI, wargs in LOTR were terrible, didn't bother me. I was totally uninterested in this title from the start. The trailer has peaked my interest.
post #349 of 814
6/30/05 at 11:23am
a little disappointed in what i saw of Jack Blacks performance.
i was expecting him to be held in check by Jackso much more than he appearently was.
he could make an ideal Denham (or a good companion performance for Armstrong), but from what little i saw, i have my doubts now.

otherwise most of the trailer was a knockout
thought the cgi looked pretty fantastic myself.
more than good enough to sell me on what happens
post #350 of 814
6/30/05 at 11:58am
While I am not a King Kong fan (I thought the original Mighty Joe Young had far more humanity to it), I have to say that hearing that this movie is a period piece, taking place in 1933, raises my estimation of the possibility of how good this movie might be. (I had visions of jet fighters deploying tactical nuclear missles against a 1000 foot ape and all that...)
post #351 of 814
6/30/05 at 1:29pm
25 feet is perfect, Kong isn't Godzilla after all.

I though the trailer was pretty cool, and certainly the film will be better than the 1976 version.
post #352 of 814
6/30/05 at 1:34pm
Saw the trailer again before War of the Worlds. This looks like it's going to be a fantastic adventure film.
post #353 of 814
6/30/05 at 5:11pm
It is my hope and belief that Peter Jackson will give us a superb film that will simply be a mirror update to the '33 classic. The Original KING KONG is one of those ageless classic that I am sure will surely benefit from this remake...... I greatly anticipate a wonderful movie......
post #354 of 814
6/30/05 at 11:43pm
Really great trailer, it's just wonderful.

I found that, watching it on TV, I thought some of the effects shots (mostly of the characters running away from the dinosaurs) looked awful - the dinosaurs seemed to be lit entirely differently, washed out. But when I saw it in cinema last night, the same shots looked really good. So I'm less worried about the effect shots now.

A friend of mine works at Weta, and our group went to see WOTW and get a look at the work he's been doing. I was sitting next to him, and he was nudging me going "My shot's coming up next", with obvious pride.

And, Steve
Quote:
Sure enough, months later I'm walking to the theatre to see one of my all time favorite classics when I look up and gaze upon those giant letters spelling KING KONG. He never used those letters for anything else.
Great story. Thanks for sharing it.
post #355 of 814
7/1/05 at 12:08am
The CGI looks bad? Perhaps you might want to look at the effects in the original then

I admit I was unmoved that there was a remake announced, other than a pique of interest in how Peter would put his thumbprint on this...

...the trailer has caught my eye (and now my interest).
post #356 of 814
10/10/05 at 7:27am
Heres a pic for you guys.......
http://www.ecranlarge.com/news-cinema-1110.php
post #357 of 814
10/10/05 at 7:50am
Nice. Can't believe this film is only two months away.
post #358 of 814
10/10/05 at 9:49am
In JonZ link, what building is that? Isn't doesn't look like the Empire State Building. I know times have changed, but I was hoping they'd still use the ESB.
post #359 of 814
10/10/05 at 10:12am
Quote:
In JonZ link, what building is that? Isn't doesn't look like the Empire State Building. I know times have changed, but I was hoping they'd still use the ESB.
The file name for the picture is kingkongempirebuilding500p.jpg.
post #360 of 814
10/10/05 at 11:32am
Quote:
The file name for the picture is kingkongempirebuilding500p.jpg.

doh!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
This thread is locked  
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong