Go here (http://www.volkswagen.com/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/international_portal/en/home.html) and follow.

It's not what I thought Peter Jackson was talking about, but I kinda like it anyway.

I'll have a large popcorn and a pack of chocolate raisins please.

I'd like an Orange Crush and extra butter with my popcorn. And if I could have my popcorn the way we used to get it oh so long ago, actually hot and with real butter (man, those were good times at the movies), then my happiness would be complete. :)

Why does that go to VW site and demand I download the new Flash player?

VW is presently hosting the advance trailer. Flash player? I got it as Quicktime.

Just go to www.kingkongmovie.com

You don't need a Flash player.

Just go to www.kingkongmovie.com (http://www.kingkongmovie.com)

You don't need a Flash player.

That also links to the VW site.

That looks AWESOME! I can't wait!!!

Looks like they even included the T-Rex scene!

MMM

I loved the "look" of the Skull island and NY scenes, and it looks like Kong is fast. Looks like Jackson is going to do it again.

That also links to the VW site.

Give it a second and click on the "Kong" that appears beside the car. You gotta go thru two or three screens, but don't have to sign up for anything. Or you can watch TV, I imagine it'll be repeated a few times before Christmas.

Well, in any case I saw it on Sci Fi at 9PM.
And, yeah - AWESOME!

When I saw it on TV last night, I think my expectations were so high that when it was over the "critic" in me was coming to the surface - Not sure about Jack Black as Denham, CGI questionable in some shots (like the hand grasping Ann D), Overall look more illustrative than realistic. But I've watched it a few times now on the VW site, and I'm liking it...liking it alot.
I love the Harryhausen homage when Kong leaps into scene from behind the camera to defend Ann from the TRex. If this is the first shot in the film for a full view of Kong, it's a winner.

Overall look more illustrative than realistic.

Different strokes, that what I liked best about it!

maybe the hype is way out of control on this one. felt flat after seeing it. very pedestrian scenes and overall i felt i have seen similar stuff before done better!
1. Kong looks like Mighty Joe Young (disney remake) the close up shot with the eyes looked fake! the shot of him landing on the car looked like MJY or Jurrasic Park 2. for all the inside leaks saying this version of Kong has him fiercer and more vicious, he looked pretty tame. the numerouis shots of Ann being terrorized looked no better than the '76 remake
2. shades of TITANIC on the ship leaving the dock!
3. the CG work looked like CG work. swooping shots over Skull Island nothing special.
4. that shot of Kong growling into the camera looks...well pretty non-threatening to me.
5. i just can't put me finger on it but alot of the island shots looked too lush and beautiful..like Hawaii...like Jurrasic Park. not the dark, forboding otherworldly look i think PJ would go for.
6.the dinosaurs...i'm sorry folks...not very convincing CG and shades of JP's dino attack/chase scenes.

well i am not saying the whole film itself will not be great...i just expected the trailer to show us something very different and memorable ..a big whallop of two minutes to leave us salivating for December. i just sat there after it was over and felt nothing special, even disappointed with the visuals i saw.

...the CG work looked like CG work...

...the island shots looked too lush and beautiful...

"King Kong" doesn't open until December. As is often the case with teaser trailers some the CGI shots are not fully rendered. Likewise, many of the scenes on the island have yet to be properly color timed.

As for Kong's design, P.J. knew going in it would be impossible to please everyone, but I guarantee you the finished version will be a far cry from Mighty Joe Young.

Not sure about Jack Black as Denham...

Wait until you see the film... Black's portrayal of a desperate, morally challenged filmmaker who'll do anything to get his movie made is spot-on perfect, and he steals every non-Kong scene he's in (when Kong's on screen the film belongs to him).

I just saw the trailer and It looks very promising! Though Kong reminds me
of the new Mighty Joe Young (which isn't bad). Can't wait!

maybe the hype is way out of control on this one. felt flat after seeing it. very pedestrian scenes and overall i felt i have seen similar stuff before done better!
1. Kong looks like Mighty Joe Young (disney remake) the close up shot with the eyes looked fake! the shot of him landing on the car looked like MJY or Jurrasic Park 2. for all the inside leaks saying this version of Kong has him fiercer and more vicious, he looked pretty tame. the numerouis shots of Ann being terrorized looked no better than the '76 remake
2. shades of TITANIC on the ship leaving the dock!
3. the CG work looked like CG work. swooping shots over Skull Island nothing special.
4. that shot of Kong growling into the camera looks...well pretty non-threatening to me.
5. i just can't put me finger on it but alot of the island shots looked too lush and beautiful..like Hawaii...like Jurrasic Park. not the dark, forboding otherworldly look i think PJ would go for.
6.the dinosaurs...i'm sorry folks...not very convincing CG and shades of JP's dino attack/chase scenes.

well i am not saying the whole film itself will not be great...i just expected the trailer to show us something very different and memorable ..a big whallop of two minutes to leave us salivating for December. i just sat there after it was over and felt nothing special, even disappointed with the visuals i saw.

I'm sorry, but, get a grip, man! :freak: You're overanalyzing 1/2-second cuts.

I liked Disney's "Might Joe Young"
Keep in mind that the movie doesn't open for another 6 months. You know they'll be tweaking it up to the end.
I'm psyched.

Got to see the trailer on Universal HD (man, am I glad I paid the money for that!)

Looks good to me. Can't wait to see the Kong/T-rex battle.

I actually enjoyed that Joe Young remake too, despite seeing in with a group of friends who decided to MST3K it to death.

I was disapointed by the Mighty Joe remake, but the problem wasn't the special effects. And I think the logical reason Kong resembles Joe is because both were designed to more accurately resemble real gorillas than the originals.

One note about the Mighty Joe remake, it really makes you appreciate the genius of Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen. They did a better & more exciting job with the nightclub and fire rescue scenes imho, despite being in b&w and using a 18" articulated model as their star!

I look at the Joe remake as being exactly what the original was - a fun fantasy movie that was essentially an excercise in the current effect technique. In 1949 it was stop motion, in 199(?) it was CGI and giant animatronics.

Just for the hell of it, here's the review I wrote for Scarlet Street when it hit video:



Disney’s remake of the 1949 stop-motion favorite MIGHTY JOE YOUNG is a pleasant surprise. The surprise is that, having spent so much time muttering abuses at Disney for being presumptuous enough to remake such a classic, I actually liked it! It won me over because it was written with obvious respect for the original, and produced with equal care.



The original film gave us one of the most expressive and sympathetic stop-motion characters ever. The title character was a giant gorilla four times larger than normal with the disposition of a pussycat. Brought to America from his African home with his lifelong playmate Jill Young, Joe fell into misunderstanding and adventure in the big city. The giant gorilla, animated by KING KONG creator Willis O’Brien and talented newbie Ray Harryhausen, was almost a better actor than his human associates, and while the film itself was nothing more than an entertaining fantasy Mister Joseph Young himself became a beloved legend among genre afficionados.



The new film is faithful to the original plot with some modern alterations. For one, the opening is more harrowing than the original. Jill Young (Charlize Theron) grew up in Africa studying mountain gorillas with her Dian Fossey-type mother (and who better to play the mother of angel-faced Theron than equally angel-faced Linda Purl?). One night when Jill was eight, Evil Poachers (Rade Sherbedgia and Peter Firth) came to their mountain. They killed a mother gorilla to get her baby for a black market animal trade, and when Jill’s mother interfered they killed her too. Jill and the baby gorilla, who she named Joe, were bonded by the tragedy.



Twelve years later, adventurous naturalist Gregg O'Hara (Bill “Game Over” Paxton) comes to Africa to study the fauna (The 1949 film, in the spirit of its time, had featured promoters looking for a night club animal act). While O’Hara is studying a caged leopard he has trapped a 2,000 pound gorilla jumps out of the bush, sits anywhere it wants, and frees the leopard. O’Hara and his team try to chase down the huge beast, but it wrecks their vehicles and shakes off their tranquilizers. O'Hara manages to keep following on foot until the gorilla catches him. Happily for the naturalist, a beautiful blonde steps out of the jungle and tells the gorilla to drop him. This is Jill and Joe grown up, only Joe didn’t know when to stop.



While the first film had the promoters bring Jill and Joe to New York to do a nightclub act, the remake gives us the enlightened 90s take: O’Hara talks Jill into bringing Joe to California, where he can live safe from poachers in an animal park and educate people about the plight of endangered gorillas. After Joe is settled in his new digs and doing well, a giant monkey wrench is thrown in: the Evil Poachers that Joe got away from twelve years earlier see him on the news and decide to finish the job. Going to the park, they taunt Joe. A word of advice to bad guys: never taunt a 2,000 pound gorilla. He recognizes them and goes ape, breaking out of his enclosure. Joe’s angery efforts to get the men who killed his mother are mistaken by everyone but Jill as a bersek rampage, leading the film into an exciting chase. The film ends as the original, with Mister Joseph Young redeeming himself by risking his life to save a child from a fire. Yeah, it’s sappy, but trust me, you’ll go with it – at this point Joe is as much a living character to us as any human in the cast.



The film uses every state-of-the-art effects trick in the book EXCEPT stop-motion. Rick Baker (who else?) provided a series of gorilla suits (with veteran ape actor John Alexander inside) that are utterly realistic; shots of Joe running and interacting with vehicles and people are photo-perfect computer generated animations; and closeups of Jill and Joe together use a life-sized animatronic. Any differences between Joes are undetectable and seamless. If the original movie was a showcase for stop-motion and film effects, the remake is an equally brilliant showcase for modern digital, mechanical and makeup effects – watch Joe’s face as he falls to the ground from the burning ferris wheel, trying only to keep the little boy safe; I can’t even tell if it’s Alexander in Baker’s suit or a computer animation at that point, which is a compliment to both.



The remake of MIGHTY JOE YOUNG is exactly what the original MIGHTY JOE YOUNG was: a lightweight but very entertaining fantasy effects film.

Personally,

I loved the trailer. It looks like the kind of movie I was EXPECTING the Dino De Laurentis re-make to be!

- GJS

I don't think PJ will disappoint on this.

I'd be interested to read a review of the film by Harryhausen. He expressed his satisfaction at PJ remaking it and noted that if the original Kong had been as bad as the Dino remake, "I probably would have been a plumber."

It's got me interested just for the fact that it's a period piece vs. being "new" and "hip" with jiving street-wise thugs to compete with Kong for attention.

It's got me interested just for the fact that it's a period piece vs. being "new" and "hip" with jiving street-wise thugs to compete with Kong for attention.
Perfesser - That is one of the conceits I have about fantasy and sci-fi films. I'll buy the premise if the period the film takes place in is before science can prove otherwise. In the 1930s there literally were undiscovered islands. The recent TV adaptation of Dinotopia lost me in the first 15 minutes because they took the story out of its victorian time frame (which I never understood because all of the story took place on a fantasy island anyway!). Ditto in space. Don't show me contemporary "moon maidens" or John Carter on Mars, but if its about life undersea on Europa I'm game.

Nice review John. I felt the ending was even more syrupy than the original's orphanage fire, tho... BTW - best line? "...a 2,000 pound gorilla jumps out of the bush, sits anywhere it wants, and..." :D

Perfesser - That is one of the conceits I have about fantasy and sci-fi films. I'll buy the premise if the period the film takes place in is before science can prove otherwise. In the 1930s there literally were undiscovered islands . . . Ditto in space. Don't show me contemporary "moon maidens" or John Carter on Mars, but if its about life undersea on Europa I'm game.

Yes! That is the equation!

That's exactly what I think though I've never put it in words before. Excellent! :thumbsup:

Nice review John. I felt the ending was even more syrupy than the original's orphanage fire, tho... BTW - best line? "...a 2,000 pound gorilla jumps out of the bush, sits anywhere it wants, and..." :D

:cool:

Just saw the internet trailer--WOW! I'm psyched up for this one! As much as I like the original, I'm going to like this one better, I'm sure!