It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 19  

Sorry, let me make myself crystal clear:

The QuickTime HD versions of the trailer have been squashed vertically. Compare any shot in the trailer with the same shot in the teaser - the actors' faces look out-of-proportion.

I re-scaled the trailer to match the proportions of the teaser, and found that the trailer's aspect ratio should be approximately 2.25:1, not 2.35:1. I suspect that the source material supplied to Apple was either under-matted or cropped at the sides (I suspect the latter, as the new trailer is missing information from the sides compared to the teaser) and Apple simply scaled it to 2.35:1 during the compression process.

I do realise that the aspect ratio of a trailer can vary from that of the finished film. The teaser for "King Kong" was clearly open-matte, whereas the full trailer reflects how the finished film will be matted. All I'm saying is that someone at Apple made a mistake, and the trailer is approximately 4% shorter than it should be.

As much as I love Peter Jackson and LOTR, I have some doubts about the *look*. From the trailer, the movie doesn’t look as realistic as I would have expected from Peter Jackson. And I’m not talking about the creature effects! Talking just about the sets and costumes, especially the NY scenes. It has the dreaded Scorsese-Leo we-just-made-these-and-actors-are-trying-them-for-the-first-time feel! But of course I reserve judgment until I see the thing!

This jumped at me immediately when I saw it. Everything looks fatter.

--
H

skinnier?

yes, something I wanted to query - what is the ratio of the MOVIE?

the 480p looks like 2.40.

Regarding the whole ILM/Weta debate, ILM has won 14 Oscars since 1977, their last coming in 1994 for "Forrest Gump". Weta is the only other FX house to win more than one FX Oscar during ILM's reign. Weta won for all three LOTR flicks.

Weta is considered one of the top four FX houses in the biz, the other two top shops (Digital Domain and Sony Imageworks) have two FX Oscars combined. DD won for "Titanic" and Sony took the prize last year for "Spider-Man 2". It is funny considering that Weta is smallest of the "Big Four" and yet has more Oscars than either DD or Sony.

Though I do think ILM's work in "The Perfect Storm" should've been rewarded ("Gladiator" won that year), I still think the Academy chose deserving winners in '99 and '02. ILM hasn't won since 'Gump', but they have been nominated every year since (at times receiving multiple nods in the category) and I think 2005 will be no exception.

ILM will get a nod for ROTS, while Weta will more than likely snag a nod for 'Kong'. Who will take the third nomination is unclear as 'The Chronicles of Narnia', "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", and "War of the Worlds" will all no doubt contend for it.

The VES is a great barometer to predict where the voters are leaning in terms of Oscar consideration. Still, it may all come down between who was more successful at the box office. Since 1977, the Best FX Oscar has gone to the most financially successful film in the category 15 of 23 times. The #2 box office flick in the category won the other eight prizes.

This doesn't count the years of 1978, 1980, 1983, 1986, and 1990 when "Special Achievement" Oscars went the "Superman: The Movie", "The Empire Strikes Back", "Return of the Jedi", "Aliens", and "Total Recall" for Visual Effects. Of those five winners, three of them finished as the top grossing movie of its respective year of release.

Most believe it'll come down between ROTS and 'Kong' for the Oscar, but ya never know. The FX work in "War of the Worlds" was top notch, and the work done in both 'Chronicles' and 'Goblet of Fire' are said to be amazing. We'll see what happens.

Hmmm, the feel I get from these scenes is that PJ is going for a more nostalgic, fantasy vision of the 30s than something more authentic.

And I'm with Chuck on the visual effects debate- The Matrix still holds up wonderfully while I find that Episode 1 has aged a bit.

Well, I've seen the new King Kong trailer multiple times online and once in the theater (before Jarhead). I just have to say that it (the FX) looks more "real" on the big screen!

Shows what a joke the Oscars have become. Over "I, Robot" or "The Day After Tomorrow"? Ridiculous. Spidey looked like he belonged in a Pixar flick most of the time. Digital Domain was robbed on that one.



Serve the story perhaps. Broke new ground? It was in GAP ads and the like beforehand. "Episode I" broke new ground in set extension, miniatures & bluescreen composites. More films have benefited from that than "bullet time".

I also think "A.I." has held up better than LOTR:FOTR" (2001's Oscar winner).

High praise, consider Pixar's character animation is leagues ahead of anybody else, including WETA and ILM. As for TDAT, I didn't see the film, but even my parent's complained about some CG wolves in that film.

FYI, digital set extensions were first done on Under Siege 2: Dark Territory, years before TPM.

As for breaking new ground, one of the real innovations of The Matrix was all-digital sets, allowing the camera to roam free. Bullet-time was merely an instantiation of that VFX philosophy.

But the Oscars aren't about innovation...they are about SERVING THE FILM. This is why The Matrix won, deserved to win in 1999, and deserves to win now.

This is the real threat of KONG to ROTS and WotW. If it's a better film, it might get the leg up. And I think that's quite likely.

Take care,
Chuck

EDIT: I'm actually a big fan of the effects in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS (ROTS quite a bit more than AOTC and TPM). But I'm glad the films that won those years (1999, 2001-2004) won...I don't have to trash quality work to try and make other films look better.

Spielberg is one of the few directors that knows how to incorporate special effects realistically into his films with "A.I.", "Minority Report" and now "War of the Worlds" being great examples.

So true and so often forgotten in discussions here. Which is also why the win by LOTR in 2001 over other films like the aforementioned A.I.

That's all your gonna say? You and 5 others? You and 10,000 others? No details, you lucky dog?

how big is the room?
next to, or opposite ends?

You lucky dog. BTW, what time of day do they tape the show? Its same day taping for broadcast that night, isn't it?

Jerry's dad...
"They tape the Tonight Show in the afternoon!? How long have they been doing this?"

Jerry...
"30 years."



KONG is gonna rock so hard!!! That shot of him jumping up and swatting that plane gives me goose bumps!

It's funny, I just read from page 10 to now in this thread, and I was so terrified that I was going to read someone say...

NO Howard Shore...no sale!

There are roughly 3,000 special effects shots in this film, according to the latest post-production diary on kongisking.net.

That's got to be the record for a single movie. Even the Star Wars prequels only had about 2,100-2,300 shots apiece, IIRC.

--Jefferson Morris

P.S. I trust a healthy number of people here have picked up the new DVD of the original Kong. Great stuff, particularly the extensive documentary on disc two. PJ and his crew are all over that documentary, by the way, and their stop-motion recreation of the spider pit sequence (starring various members of the WETA crew as the hapless sailors) is a highlight.

Newsweek has given a glowing review to PJ's KING KONG:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10216525/site/newsweek/

That seemed more of a PR piece then a movie review. Don't get me wrong, it has raised my desire to see the movie to an even higher level.

It was interesting to note that:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I caught the tail end of a commercial or some marketing piece on TV a moment ago.

I have spoilerized it for those trying to stay totally clean.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Is it like TIME's glowing review of "Chicken Little"?

Sounds like a ploy to get their name in the upcoming TV commercials.

KING KONG: Newsweek magazine says "fabulous!"..."the best film ever"...etc

It's probably good. 3 hours though....

I loved the bit about Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It didn't really review the movie. It was a hype piece designed to get the NEWSWEEK readers "in the know". Newsweek is owned by the same folks who own NBC (hence the MSNBC website). Shock of shocks, they also own Universal Not that I care...I am sure the author of the article believes what they wrote. I am also pretty certain the film will live up to and beyond expectations. But I can still sense the "hard sell" smell wafting off of the article.

I can't believe we are only 15 days away. I'll be hitting the midnight show for this one, but I'll be alone (I had friends at Harry Potter - they dragged me). I already can't wait for the DVD, knowing PJ and crew as well as we do. I've had the film off the radar most of the year, so that's why I am surprised at the nearness of it. As the media premiere is this weekend, I am sure the blitz is about to begin.

Take care,
Chuck

Well, most of the big pictures of the last few years(LOTR, SW) have had the same "puff" pieces in either Time or Newsweek, but the critics were usually honest(Richard Corliss wasn't particularly kind to TPM). So, hype and all, I'm sure that this guy wouldn't have said he liked the picture if he really didn't.

Thanks for the link to the Newsweek article. A light read, to be sure, but I love Boyens' final quote
in the article. I don't think the film can live up to what I have in my head, but I don't think it will disappoint either.

Anyone catch last night's 4-minute excerpt during last night's showing of Shrek on NBC?

It was... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

--Jefferson Morris

Holy crap!

On the Tonight Show they played a clip from the V-rex fight and

Combined with the clip that aired with Shrek, 3 hour runtime be damned, I'm sold on this thing.

i haven't looked forward to a movie in years as much as i'm looking forward to thisone.

i really really really really really hope jackson doesn't drop the ball on this one.