It's official -- Peter Jackson's next film: King Kong - Page 22  

Actually, Draco from Dragonheart predates Jar Jar by 3 years. He spoke, was represented on set (but not by the voice actor), and was onscreen as much as Jar Jar.

But I think Kong is way, way, way, WAY beyond that. Good to hear about the production notes. I'll wait to see the film before I decide to pay for pre-production!

Take care,
Chuck

From a poster at OscarWatch.com, a bit of Ebert's 4 star Kong Review:

Chuck:

Good point. But the technical feat that was Jar Jar Binks doesn't get nearly enough credit. Yes, he's annoying, but that absolutely should not detract from the wonderful job that Rob Coleman, et al, bringing him to life.

You never heard ANYONE complain about Jar Jar's effects. He was photorealistic with the other characters. It's too bad that his annoyances got in the way of an acknowledgement that he was a major leap forward in special effects.

Speaking of Coleman, I'm pretty sure he is the reason that Yoda emoted so well in ROTS, as Coleman (at least in the docs) seems to really focus on performance. He enfused lots of life into Watto too, by the way.

The Ebert review officially has me excited about KING KONG. I trust Ebert to look past the hype, and he's certainly no Jackson fanboy.

Honestly, Jar Jar was a tremendous breakthrough, but a quick rewatch of TPM certainly shows the seams (not in the animation, but the integration). And he wasn't a REAL emotive character to begin with. His movements were good, but he was like the pseudopod in The Abyss...not integral to the film. Jar Jar = pseudopod/breakthrough. Gollum/Yoda (2002) = T1000/integral to film. I grant you Coleman is a master craftsman...his Yoda work in II/III is incredible (as Yoda is 100% animated).

Much respect to Coleman. And this will probably drive Star Wars fans waiting for their VFX Oscar crazy...but I think Kong is going to get rewarded much like Gollum in TTT. With the VFX Oscar. Not too fair for the masterful work in EIII, but there it is. Maybe I'll be wrong.

But I'd put money on that prediction,
Chuck

From what I've been reading, ILM can hang up in terms of Visual Effects Oscar. It's a shame really because clearly, with Episode III, they reach an extremely high level on all aspects of the visual effects.

But, considering, you have one effect in Kong that's the star of the film, the Academy is going to pick that...especially if he's as good as everyone says he is.

Still, I want ILM to get rewarded for the overall work they did in Episode III because it's the best I've seen this year.

Kong may change that.

Well, Kong will most certainly be more fresh in the minds of the voters. What drives this Star Wars nut crazy is that ROTS was a critical success, meaning that it didn't have to overcome a (perceived) weak storyline. Lucas did everything he could do with ROTS to get the technical award, except release his film in December.

ILM's problem is that they haven't had two gigantic WOW effects like Gollum and Kong. If you look at the Prequels across the board from the beginning of the film to the end, the visuals are extremely consistent and spectacular...even more so than the Rings Trilogy.

But, then you had Gollum which everyone focused on instead of the entire film because for my money, Episode II throughout looked much better than Two Towers.

Episode III is a gigantic step up from Episode II. It is an achievement in seamless compositing of the visual effects with the real elements. But again, it doesn't have a WOW like Kong. Yoda and Mustafar aren't enough.

It's funny that Kong was roundly criticized when first revealed in the teaser. The retooling apparently paid off in spades.

if kong wins, i'm sure it will be because the film itself makes more of an emotive connection with the viewers who are voting than the other films in contention.
even though its a technical category, if the material is more substantively engaging than its competetion, than i would suppose it's effects will be rewarded for 'serving a higher cause'.

of course the contary could be true, and the voters could look at another film and find that without its spectacle and effects it would be almost worthless and then vote for that one because the effects raised a mediocre or silly property to the level of something worth seeing or had the appearence of substance.
(and don't get defensive as i'm not singling out any particular film here)


fwiw, i've been impressed with just about every rendition of a cgi character from 1993 on up.
Jar Jar, Hulk, Yoda , Gollum whatever. it is their place and function within the narrative, just like any other character, where i would find more room for criticism.
the talent and industry from ILM and Weta always impresses me.

Yeah, the VFX oscar usually goes to the better film. Of course, unlike AOTC in 2002, ROTS was more universally praised this time around.

Tada! Which is the way it should be. The effects should be subservient and supportive of the story.


I concur with you on both points Paul.

The award isn't "Best Effects Film" It's "Best ... Effects".

No. It is Best Effects ...In a Film.

Otherwise they could just send in demo reels.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

I think the one-two punch of Revenge of the Sith and War of the Worlds should bring ILM something.

Not to knock WETA but their effects aren't as consistent. Some stuff in the LOTR movies are already aging poorly, when you compare the LOTR battle scenes to the new films such as The Chronicles of Narnia.

PS: Other notable recent CGI characters:

Buckbeak in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"

Sonny in "I, Robot"


I also thought General Grevious in "Sith" had a lot of personality. He also looked VERY real in 4k DLP at the Zeigfeld in NYC.

Weta will very likely win the FX Oscar for 'Kong'. As Corey S. alluded to, Weta will be rewarded for just how impressive Kong himself turned out (much like Weta's win for TTT for their work on Gollum). ILM did some amazing work this year, but Kong is being hailed as one of the greatest CG creations (if not the greatest) in history. He seems to be garnering even more praise than Gollum did when TTT hit theaters.

"King Kong" has a lot of hit or miss FX shots in the movie, but Kong himself is brilliantly realized (like Gollum) and has that WOW factor Corey was talking about. I honestly think a lot of this had to do with the film's schedule. If Universal had opted to make 'Kong' a summer 2006 release instead, I think Weta would've had more time to tweak a lot of their non-Kong shots in the movie (again, some shots in the movie are absolutely breathtaking while others fall surprisingly flat).

If the Academy opts to have an FX competition this year (there are rumblings of the Academy giving Weta a Special Achievement Oscar for the FX in 'Kong') than ILM will get their one or two nominations (for 'Sith' and maybe "War of the Worlds"), but I'd consider it a major shock at this point if 'Kong' didn't walk away with the award.

This would give Weta their fourth FX Oscar in five years (ILM won a record-setting 14 Best FX Oscars in 17 years, but have gone home empty handed the last ten years). If memory serves, the last film to get a "Special Achievement Oscar" for FX was 1990's "Total Recall".

Unless 'Kong' completely falls on its face at the box office, expect the team at Weta to walk away with yet another FX Oscar.

and I repeat IN A FILM. The same mind set is in effect for Score, MakeUp, Acting, Directing etc. Its how well each category is used to service the film ie story. Not just how well it is done.

Lou is correct. The effects are NOT on an island. Their contribution to the filmThe voters are going to look at War of the Worlds, ROTS, and Kong. Which film is going to stick with them, especially the largest voting bloc (actors)?

This is usually correct as well. Gladiator won over Hollow Man in 2000. In 2000 or 2004, Star Wars film would have WALKED with this award, but in 1999, The Matrix was released, and 2001-2003 belonged to LOTR. It's just a matter of timing. I don't think release date matters, either. What makes the impression, seamless background effects/General Grievous or KING KONG?

ROTS was probably the most consistent film I've seen, except for possibly The Matrix Revolutions. But it's tough to compete with a photorealistic, emoting, 1930's KING KONG.

I do think ROTS deserves A LOT of recognition. But you have to recognize Kong as well (I am assuming).

And I thought ILM's work in The Hulk was outstanding

Take care,
Chuck

But Chuck, if Kong is as good as advertised, yet the rest of the film's effects range from shoddy to great, whereas Episode III is virtually seamless, consistent, and spectacular throughout it's running time, how can Kong win?

For me, it's not enough that Kong is what wins the award. I want a film to win the award for the best visual effects in an entire film...not just one aspect. That's my problem with what has happened to ILM lately.

Those of you who have seen the film, any comments about the score? I'm aware that this was becoming a bit controversial because of Jackson's changing composer fairly late in the game.

What has "happened" to ILM? There was a deserving winnner every year they lost. And if Kong wins, even if just for Kong, how is that not deserved? Assuming Kong got higher up the mountain than ANYTHING, isn't that more impressive than being consistently good across a bunch of digital backgrounds, foregrounds, and 5 minutes of Yoda?

Again, Kong wins because those effects (KONG) are more critical to the film...it always comes back to the film as a whole, not the effects in a vacuum.

Then there is nothing to counter that with. That is not the measuring stick the Academy voters (nor myself) use. Voters don't care if the shuttles and droids and Clones are perfect CG. The VES has a breakout for VFX in the entire film versus Best VFX.

In the end, what do people remember from each film? Like a great performance WOWS you, great VFX WOWS you.

Apparently, KONG WOWS

Take care,
Chuck

Two separate issues:

1) ROTS had spectacular effects. If it wins, I'll smile and be happy for their extremely hard work over three films. They'll deserve it. ROTS WOWED me across the board, but I can't hang my hat on anything. The whole thing was excellent, with no Legolas-on-Troll, Anakin-on-cowbeast, Treebeard Bluescreen, too-many-digital-Smiths weaknesses. I loved it, and it is a deserving winner. If KONG wins, it's because KONG is that good, to overcome such weaknesses and still dazzle the audience.

2) Is Sideshow WETA doing some Kong maquettes? I know they are doing a reproduction of the armature...but I want the new KONG. I never bought any of the LOTR stuff (though I was sorely tempted over and over), but I want a KONG.

The Eighth Wonder of the World,
Chuck

All good points, Chuck. I see what you're saying in respect.

Why did Jackson change composers? Somehow I missed that story.

BTW, the '76 version of KONG won the Oscar for visual effects that year {tied with Logans Run).

I vehemently disagree. Saw Narnia last night. The SFX are like a poor stepchild of LotR. WETA is still the big kid on the block.

When I said Kong was the first SFX to truly emote I was not forgetting Gollum or Yoda. They are both spectacular. But, I'll put more emphasis on TRULY.

You just have to see it. Kong is the star here. He is next generation Gollum. It cannot be put into words...and, by trying to do so I guarantee I've already set many of your expectations too high. Sorry about that.

And, yes, I was in the same screening as BobL!

Really? Then I guess Star Wars truly did revolutionize visual effects a year later!

I agree. Some of the FX in Narnia were amazing but for every amazing one there were 2 that just didn't look right. Too many of the Narnia FX pulled me right out of the movie, that never happened with LOTR (and still doesn't). The final battle in Narnia was really good but still had some FX that just jarred you out of the film. Nothing in Narnia WOWED me. LOTR, WOTW and Episode III WOWED me. It appears that Kong will too.

I thought this *was* a WETA film. I remember seeing an online documentary a long time ago showing them making physical creatures and weapons.

You thought what was a WETA film, Greg....Narnia?