http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

I'm surprised there aren't more "he raped my classic" reviews so far.

I finally got to see the finished film Monday night in NYC. The first act drags, some of the CGI shots look like the filmmakers didn't have time to finish them (probably because they didn't), and there is ZERO chemistry between Naomi Watts and Adrian Brody.

On the other hand, the Skull Island stuff is terrific (especially Kong’s fight with T-Rex trio) and the climax packs a solid emotional punch (Kong's death really got to me, and it's not like I didn't see it coming).

The worst thing I can say about “King Kong” is that it feels sorta like a Director’s Cut, i.e. a bit precious, bloated, and over-indulgent in spots (mostly during the first hour). Even so, I liked the film a lot and look forward to seeing it again before it leaves the big screen.

Posted on the Classic Horror Film BB:


HI all... Let say first that the whole experience was amazing! We had a pretty nice day the trip into the city was a breeze no traffic and found parking right away.

We decided to go into the city early about 12:30 and make a day of it.

First thing we did was to go to Times Square and see the life size KONG statue up close. We did and it was awesome, fur blowing in the wind, it was amazing life like statue made by Weta. As anyone who cut a glimpse of it on TV knows it was so cool!

After that we walking to Rockefeller center to see the Christmas tree, had lunch, and then made our way back to the KONG will call tent on 43rd Street to pick up our movie tickets.

I was amazed how smooth and easy every step on this premiere process was. WE were in and out of the tent in 10 minutes. Universal did an amazing job in organizing an event of this magnitude!

Next we heading back to Time Square to see the NYC Mayor Bloomburg had Peter Jackson and Kong cast the key to NYC and declare the day official KING KONG Day in NYC. It was a little crowded and we had to watch the whole thing with traffic passing in front of us but we got a few glimpse of the stars and KONG.

Times Square was lit up with all the signs and Billboards, jumbo tron everything was KONG! The marquee in front the Toys are US had KONG! The 8th Wonder of the WORLD! on it. It was a magic moment.

WE then went over to the Hard Rock cafe in Times Square in kill a little time until the 6PM showing. After a cocktail or 2, I noticed a couple sitting next to us hold Kong movie tickets also and stuck up a conversation.

It seams that they had a friend who was a big shot at Universal and called and asked them if they were interested in going to the premiere and the party after wards. They did not seam impressed and had nothing better to do that night so they went.

Here I am caught up in the whole contest winning euphoria of going to see the world premiere of KONG and these people were given the whole package and they really did not even care about it.

WE only received 2 tickets to the movie and no after party invitation and I jokey suggested that if they did not really want to go to the party that we would gladly take the invitation off there hands and go instead. No go. So I walked away jealous and a little disappointed about missing out on the party.

But I was going to see KING KONG!!!! A week before anyone else!!!

WE walked over to the theater in the hope of maybe catching a glimpse of any celebrity on the red carpet. Because our show was an hour before the official celebrity premiere we did not see anyone at all. :(

The security was very tight, no one even got close to the theater without a ticket, and we had to go through airport metal detectors, check our cameras and cell phones before entering the screening theater.

The whole process took maybe 10 minutes if was amazingly fast. I was very impressed.

But I was going to see KING KONG!!!! A week before anyone else!!!

The movie was being show on 23 screens in 2 movie theaters on 42nd Street the Classic Empire and the new Loews Multiplex across the street. The red carpet, the spotlights and the mass of press, TV cameras and TV vans were set up at the Lowes.

We went to Lowes the red carpet theater. Maybe we will see some celebrities in the lobby?? Nope :(

But I was going to see KING KONG!!!! A week before anyone else!!!

The perks... One we got pass the security checkpoints we were greeted by ushers handing out free KONG bags of popcorn and free sodas.

We were seated in small theater with a good size screen and in every cup holder at the seats was a cool KONG collector cup with pics of the main characters and KONG on them.
There a few empty seats so I grabbed 2 sets of those on the way out :)

I though maybe Peter Jackson would welcome us and maybe say something before the film but... Nope nothing :(

I guess that was saved for the celebrity and press viewing.

But I was going to see KING KONG!!!! A week before anyone else!!!

The movie starts...

IT WAS AWESOME!! A real labor of love by a true KONG fan Peter Jackson.

The acting was great! Even Jack Black was good. I had my doubts about if he could pull it off.

The CGI was seamless even better the amazing CGI on Gollum in LoftR!

The action sequences were amazing, Kong fighting the T-Rex’s was awesome, the giant spider scene, the log scene, the Empire State dog fight scene, everything was breathtaking and so well done!

I loved the fact that KONG is really ape-like in his movements and jumps of one place to another like a real ape. The scene at the end on the Empire State is amazing with Kong jumping around the building hanging on and fighting the bi planes. Wait until you see it.

But my favorite scene in the movie was the 8th Wonder of the World NYC stage show when Kong is first shown to the NYC audience in the movie. IT is a classic and a real tip of the hat to lovers of classic KONG! I can't wait to see if you all agree when you see it.

The only problem I had with the film was that Jackson really plays up the Love story of Ann and KONG in this version. There are a lot of scenes of them gazing loving at each other in this version. Maybe a little too much.

The film was 3 hours long and was well worth the time. I loved it!

My wife was not so impressed and said it would have been better if it was cut about a 1/2 shorter, taking out some the multiple slow motion shots and cutting out some of those loving gaze shots.

You guys will love it!

After the screening we started to exit the theater when we were greeted on again by ushers inviting us all to the after party! :) They had a bus outside waiting to take us over to it and all!

Finally were going to see some clebs!

I looked over at my wife and she looked exhausted and she wanted to go home and go to bed. I tried to talk her into it but she would not budge on the matter. DAMM! Well, I did the good husband thing and drove her back home to Jersey.

I did get to see KING KONG though!! A week before anyone else! AND IT WAS GREAT!

Thanks, KONG IS KING! Website and Universal for the experience of a lifetime!

Jim Clatterbaugh
Editor/Publisher MFTV
www.monstersfromthevault.com (http://www.monstersfromthevault.com)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/bazbamigboye.html?in_article_id=370370&in_page_id=1794&in_a_source= (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/bazbamigboye.html?in_article_id=370370&in_page_id=1794&in_a_source=)

- GJS

[QUOTE=Carson Dyle]<Snip>... it feels sorta like a Director’s Cut, i.e. a bit precious, </Snip>[QUOTE]no pun intended?:)

Here's that 20' King Kong that was referred to:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=895864

Guess Who (James at Work) :)

I was in Times Square early Monday morning when the WETA guys were setting the Kong figure up. No doubt the intention was for him to appear big and powerful but the final result conveyed just the opposite effect; surrounded by all those towering skyscrapers the 8th Wonder of the World came across as small, tired, and completely overwhelmed by the 21st century.

When I was a kid, the height I always heard quoted (by the ignorant savages considered my peers) for Kong was 40 feet. I wonder where that came from.

That Kong figure does look like he's had quite enough Christmas shopping for one day ... looks like he could use a drink. ;)

Qapla'

SSB

In the original, Kong was 20' tall in the skull island scenes. However, when they started shooting the New York animation, they discovered he didn't look big enough, so he mysteriously grew 4 or 5 feet taller.

i still say he looks to much like a gorilla!

why stay with a "modern" looking Gorilla if he is in a land of dinosaurs?

he also looks to fat. you'd think all his fights would keep his "spare tire" off!

Kong's supposed to be an old gorilla...and actually most Silverbacks are built like that, I believe.

If you missed the party, you missed some great food but most of the celebrities were well-hidden at the far end of the hall behind a lot of Kong-sized security men. I liked the movie--many powerful moments among the dumb ones. They definitely screwed Adrien Brody (the scene that sums him up best is the one of him sitting in the elevator in the middle of the Empire State Building while all the action's going on at the end)--why Jackson tried to build up all the characters of the Venture crewmen instead of focusing on the three stars is one of the film's mysteries. But I loved all the scenes with Kong--he's the new Anthony Hopkins as far as I'm concerned.

For me, the best celebrity sighting was at the Times Square Toys R Us next to where they had the giant ape mock-up...when we went in there George Lucas was in there shopping...in the Star Wars section!

In the original, Kong was 20' tall in the skull island scenes. However, when they started shooting the New York animation, they discovered he didn't look big enough, so he mysteriously grew 4 or 5 feet taller.He started practicing good posture!

Qapla'

SSB

They definitely screwed Adrien Brody (the scene that sums him up best is the one of him sitting in the elevator in the middle of the Empire State Building while all the action's going on at the end)--why Jackson tried to build up all the characters of the Venture crewmen instead of focusing on the three stars is one of the film's mysteries.

Unlike the original, the remake establishes a powerful emotional connection between Ann and Kong while they're still on Skull Island. As a result we don't particularly want Driscoll to rescue her. This is a structural problem the filmmakers were unable to overcome, and it puts poor Adrian Brody in a very unenviable position, i.e. he's a Damsel-Rescuing Hero in a movie that doesn't need a Damsel-Rescuing Hero. Nowhere is Brody's presence more unwelcome than in the moment after Kong's death when Naomi Watts has to pretend she's happy to see him. Watts is a good actress, but she's not that good.

King Kong Dies????

Curse You For Spoiling It For Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

King Kong Dies????

Curse You For Spoiling It For Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


Don't worry, I think they are just pulling your leg.

good! becuase i have heard that the ending has changed.

King Kong survives but suffers brain damage and believes he is dog.

thus no fire hydrant in NYC is safe..............

according to the incredible book "the making of king kong", kong was 18 feet tall on skull island. when they put the stop motion puppet in the minuature new york sets, he appeared to small, so they boosted his height up to 24 feet by rebuilding the miniuture nyc sets. however the life size mechanical hand and head seem to be sized to an ape much larger than either of those scales. (consider a real large gorillas height is about 5' 6", so the stop motion kong is about 3.5 to 4.5 times the size of a real gorilla [depending on which scene] and the puppet hand and head are way out of scale to those parts.)

now rko's official publicity figures in press releases for kong's height put him at 60 feet in height, so that really muddies the water further.

speaking of kong's size (and venturing into some really sick territory), the essay collection book "the girl in the hairy paw" ventures into the potential sexual relationship between kong and anne and the implications thereof. well as it happens the typical male gorilla's equipment is much smaller than that of the typical human male. surprisingly, using either the skull isalnd or nyc scales for kong, its actually feasable that the two could have performed the sex act and anne survive it!

surprisingly, using either the skull isalnd or nyc scales for kong, its actually feasable that the two could have performed the sex act and anne survive it!It is not, however, very feasible that I will survive that mental image.

Aiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!

Qapla'

SSB

Unlike the original, the remake establishes a powerful emotional connection between Ann and Kong while they're still on Skull Island. As a result we don't particularly want Driscoll to rescue her. This is a structural problem the filmmakers were unable to overcomeThey should have had Kong start drinking heavily once he reached the big city. Or worse -- he could have started smoking! Once he started doing such a henious and evil thing, all his sympathy would have evaporated instantly.

;)

Qapla'

SSB

according to the incredible book "the making of king kong", kong was 18 feet tall on skull island. when they put the stop motion puppet in the minuature new york sets, he appeared to small, so they boosted his height up to 24 feet by rebuilding the miniuture nyc sets. however the life size mechanical hand and head seem to be sized to an ape much larger than either of those scales. (consider a real large gorillas height is about 5' 6", so the stop motion kong is about 3.5 to 4.5 times the size of a real gorilla [depending on which scene] and the puppet hand and head are way out of scale to those parts.)

now rko's official publicity figures in press releases for kong's height put him at 60 feet in height, so that really muddies the water further.

speaking of kong's size (and venturing into some really sick territory), the essay collection book "the girl in the hairy paw" ventures into the potential sexual relationship between kong and anne and the implications thereof. well as it happens the typical male gorilla's equipment is much smaller than that of the typical human male. surprisingly, using either the skull isalnd or nyc scales for kong, its actually feasable that the two could have performed the sex act and anne survive it!


They always say "Once they go Kong, there's no other *ong"
Never understood it til now, thanks!

. . . consider a real large gorillas height is about 5' 6", so the stop motion kong is about 3.5 to 4.5 times the size of a real gorilla [depending on which scene] and the puppet hand and head are way out of scale to those parts.The original stop motion model was about 18 inches high, so I assume you mean that the hypothetical "real" Kong is 3.5 to 4.5 times the size of an actual gorilla. Let's not do the Moonbus thread again!
. . . surprisingly, using either the skull isalnd or nyc scales for kong, its actually feasable that the two could have performed the sex act and anne survive it!If it worked for Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra, why not?

Here's that 20' King Kong that was referred to:

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=895864

Guess Who (James at Work) :)

Don't see no pictures! Something about subaru car owners

My wife and I were invited to a Press showing of KONG last night at the Senator theatre in Baltimore. Our seats were 15th row center - perfect!
We both had some very definite opinions of the film, but I'd rather hold off until most folks have had a chance to see it. People on other forums (like aintitcool.com) have commentd on certain aspects, lines scenes, etc. I agree with some, while others missed the context in which the scene was presented or the line delivered.
For now, suffice to say that the scenes on Skull Island are worth the admission - like a wild amusement park ride that delivers as promised. And make no mistake about it, the island is a nightmare.

Saw it last night. Agree with those who feel it's too long (whoever said it feels like The Director's Cut nailed it), but the action scenes are astonishing, and more importantly, the emotion is there.

In short, the new "Kong" is a blast.

i hate to say this but..............the effects look like computer generated effects.

i am dissappointed.

i hate to say this but..............the effects look like computer generated effects.

I got news for you... they are!!! :tongue:

The original looked like a jerky puppet too, so what.

Travis

HEY MAN!! THE ORIGINAL WAS AWESOME MAN!!!!
i'm just saying for all the technology today, for all the millions to make movies today, you'd think the effects could look more real!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and i still think the ape looks too much like an ape!
if the other creatures on the island look prehistoric, how come Kong looks like a modern ape???

he outta look somewhat the same way!!

HEY MAN!! THE ORIGINAL WAS AWESOME MAN!!!!
i'm just saying for all the technology today, for all the millions to make movies today, you'd think the effects could look more real!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and i still think the ape looks too much like an ape!
if the other creatures on the island look prehistoric, how come Kong looks like a modern ape???

he outta look somewhat the same way!!

First of all, I am only 30 and one of the BIGGEST fans of the 33 version and also believe it was cutting edge and never to be topped... Still it's jerky animation, cheesy acting, hokey oneliners, that horrible close up of that horrible full size bust and I LOVE ALL OF IT!

As for the technology, well I'm not sure what movie you watched b/c I feel the animation and creatures and anything CGed were top of the line and up to the technology available today. To say you didn't see those millions well spent on that screen is just nit picky. I see ALOT of movies and I have to say it was miles above anything else out there visually. The only CG that looked flawed was the Natives Pole Vaulting... But remember Weta kinda has a style to how they do things as well. The CGed people looked just like alot of the Orc stuff from LotR.

as for Kong's look... How many modern silverbacks are 25 feet tall... Sounds pretty prehistoric to me... Not many Giant Sloths and Wooley Mammoths walking the earth today but their much smaller modern cousins look alot like them just smaller. His body is like modern Gorilla but what is his saving grace is the human expressions and personality put into the face. His eyes are not gorilla like and the scars, long salt and pepper hair, crooked jaw, and receeding hairline are all things that help you not think of a silverback.

Travis

that horrible close up of that horrible full size bust ....
Travis

My six-year old daughter was watching it with me last night and laughed out loud at that close-up. "That's a puppet, Daddy!"

I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!

he is still modern ape looking! that is an immense distraction! i can't buy that sort of ape fighting with prehistoric monsters! it looks like a ape from anywhere just thrown in!!
and dont tell me he's the end product of a long line of apes so he looks evolved into a modern ape because the dino's still look prehistoric!!!!!!!!!!

CGI LOOKS CGI! if that distracts from the story them the effects did not do their job!

when Star Wars came out with (then) top of the line special effects the story overwhelmed the movie so no one cared how they looked.

in Kong, you cant get past the visuals and the effects dont look natural!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

and one more thing...................if he is "King" Kong........WHERE IS HIS CROWN???

i dont see him wearing no robe or crown!!!!!!!!!!

MISREPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DISAGREE!!!!!!!!

he is still modern ape looking! that is an immense distraction! i can't buy that sort of ape fighting with prehistoric monsters! it looks like a ape from anywhere just thrown in!!
and dont tell me he's the end product of a long line of apes so he looks evolved into a modern ape because the dino's still look prehistoric!!!!!!!!!!
First of all, there were no giant prehistoric gorillas. In the time of the dinosaurs, the most highly evolved mammal looked like a shrew.

And there are human beings on the island, so obviously, there have been influxes of animals throughout the island's history.

And most importantly, Kong is a giant gorilla! Everyone knows that. He should look like a gorilla. Actually, Dino DeLaurentis and Rick Baker had this same arguement when they made the '70s version. DeLaurentis thought Kong should look like like an apeman. He actually initially was looking for black bodybuildiers to play the part since he thought they wouldn't need as much makeup. :rolleyes: Baker (who obviously knew more about this stuff than Dino) insisted that he should look like a gorilla.
CGI LOOKS CGI! if that distracts from the story them the effects did not do their job!

when Star Wars came out with (then) top of the line special effects the story overwhelmed the movie so no one cared how they looked.

in Kong, you cant get past the visuals and the effects dont look natural!!!!!!!!
You've made this argument before. Let me see if I can summarize it:

In the old days, the effects weren't that good, so they didn't have to look realistic. Today, the effects are better, so they have to look perfect.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I sincerely hope that you're pulling our leg and this "John Guard" character is just some parody of a fanatical fan boy you created.

Gotta say, movie makers rely too much on FX these days. It does take away from the story often, it's destracting. Back in the day, the FX were used to help movie the story along. Nowadays you walk into theaters and you get a weak story, mostly bad acting, but a hell of a ride when it comes to special FX. It is rare to see a genuinely good film these days, that uses the top of the line FX to asist the movie's plot rather than to distract the audience. Lucas's Star Wars prequals are good example of this. When I went to see Episode 1 I expected it to be the beginning of a great story like his original trilogy, but what I got instead was a weak story but awesome special FX...and Jar Jar. And when I went to see the other 2 films , I knew they would stink so I was just in it for the FX ride. I remember when I went to see HULK, this guy who had just finished seeing it came out of the auditorium, walked past me and, he must have seen the enthusiasm in my face or something but he just said, "The comics were better, but you'll have a great ride though". Unfortunately he was right. In my opinion, one of the very few recent movies that I found to be well acted, good story, and a great FX was Spiderman. Spidey2 was a bit weaker than the first but still is within my list of the few good recent films.

OH.. Batman Begins was a also GREAT example of good movie making these days.

In the old days, the effects weren't that good, so they didn't have to look realistic. Today, the effects are better, so they have to look perfect.

that is a cop out! in the old days they thought their effects were cutting edge, and to the movie goers, they were. but in this high tech age CGI is still CGI and you can tell!
i just look at Kong holding Ann and it does not look natural. sure in the 70's film you had some bad effects but at least they tried to do their best. i find too much reliance on CGI to tell the story rather than letting the effect help the story! thats my beef,

In the old days, the effects weren't that good, so they didn't have to look realistic. Today, the effects are better, so they have to look perfect.

that is a cop out! in the old days they thought their effects were cutting edge, and to the movie goers, they were. but in this high tech age CGI is still CGI and you can tell!
i just look at Kong holding Ann and it does not look natural. sure in the 70's film you had some bad effects but at least they tried to do their best. i find too much reliance on CGI to tell the story rather than letting the effect help the story! thats my beef,
I'm still not following your logic. In 1933, stop motion animation was cutting edge. Today, CGI is cutting edge. Neither are 100% naturalistic. Both films are stories that couldn't be made without extensive special effects. So why is it OK for one movie to use an obvious technique (Stop Motion Animation) but not the other (CGI).

And the idea of special effects should only support the story completely misses the point of why we see movies. We do not watch movies for the story. We watch for the emotional experience. In Kong (whichever version), the Kong/dinosaur battle could be staged by having Driscoll and Denham watching it and have them simply describe what is going on. The exact same story point would be made. The experience would be considerably different.

To me, the worst use of special effects (any kind) is when the filmmakers use a shot because it looks neat with no consideration of the emotional impact. The Matrix films are filled with this sort of thing. For instance, in the highway chase, one of the agents leaps onto the hood of car and smashes it. But when he does so, the film suddenly goes into super-slow motion. Suddenly, the action isn't about "look how powerful these guys are" to "look at the neat effect."

I can't think of anything close to this in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy which you dislike so much.

In the old days, the effects weren't that good, so they didn't have to look realistic. Today, the effects are better, so they have to look perfect.

that is a cop out! in the old days they thought their effects were cutting edge, and to the movie goers, they were. but in this high tech age CGI is still CGI and you can tell!
i just look at Kong holding Ann and it does not look natural. sure in the 70's film you had some bad effects but at least they tried to do their best. i find too much reliance on CGI to tell the story rather than letting the effect help the story! thats my beef,

You seem to have enough 'beef' to make a herd.

Regardless, the old stop motion special effects were the best at the time.. and incredible. Today we see them for what they are, puppets and miniature sets, hokey, but serviceable for their intended purposes.

Watching the original Star Wars movies, before Lucas hacked them, the blue screen matte areas are plainly visible when the TIE Fighters are seen in flight. Does that make me enjoy the movie any less? No. Is it obvious it is a special effect?, sure is!!

Today CGI is the cutting edge for special effects.. perfect? No, not by a long shot but the are sure more believeable than claymation brontosaurs (which is what they were until corrected to apatosaurus) or matte overlays combined with blue screens. CGI is still in it's toddler years, compared to it's infancy.. go watch "The Last Starfighter" again.. and it is exponentially better today. Perfection is unrealistic.. it will never be acheived because all of the subliminal signals that we interpret in things that are real when taken to CGI generated beings cannot be duplicated.....yet.

IMHO, compared to stop motion, CGI is far more believeable. It doesn't detract from the story at all, it makes it come alive in ways that I have only dreamed of. LOTR, Kong and next, The Chronicles of Narnia are now as believeable to me on the silver Screen as they have always been in my mind.

I agree with your point about FX Southpaw, but good FX should only be 1/3 of what makes a good movie. The other 2 is good plot and good acting. CGI is a hell of alot better than stopmotion. The thing about stopmotion is that there is no motion blurr, CGI's problem is that it looks almost cartoonish sometimes. The VERY best CGI work I have seen is the T-REX from the original Jurassic Park. Most convincing T-REX I have every laid eyes on. The worst CGI work I have ever seen was in Blade 1.

i find too much reliance on CGI to tell the story rather than letting the effect help the story! thats my beef,

Which has been my primary criticism of the newer "Star Wars" movies, - which criticism you have repeatedly taken issue with on other threads. Do you really mean what you say? Or do you just like to post for the sake of posting without any regard to real discussion?

I agree with your point about FX Southpaw, but good FX should only be 1/3 of what makes a good movie. The other 2 is good plot and good acting. CGI is a hell of alot better than stopmotion. The thing about stopmotion is that there is no motion blurr, CGI's problem is that it looks almost cartoonish sometimes. The VERY best CGI work I have seen is the T-REX from the original Jurassic Park. Most convincing T-REX I have every laid eyes on. The worst CGI work I have ever seen was in Blade 1.


You are right. The best FX are still tripe if the plot and acting are garbage. It is the combination that makes it seem real. I was blown away by LOTR, I had been waiting since the mid 70's for a feature film, and I was not dissappointed at all. I am impressed with the T-Rex from JP also, but the life size animatronic model they used for the close up shots was just as impressive. If I had no knowledge of what it was and walked around the corner and saw it glaring at me, I'd have dropped dead on the spot from fright.. it looks REAL.

he is still modern ape looking! that is an immense distraction! i can't buy that sort of ape fighting with prehistoric monsters! it looks like a ape from anywhere just thrown in!!
and dont tell me he's the end product of a long line of apes so he looks evolved into a modern ape because the dino's still look prehistoric!!!!!!!!!!Exqueeze me, but does anyone remember that "KK" is a FANTASY, not a paleontology lesson? Skull Island is a creation of pure imagination. Like Conan Doyle's Lost World, it's a place where creatures from many different time periods co-exist -- including some that never existed at all! Like the giant spiders and scorpions in the original's deleted-and-reconstructed spider-pit sequence. As for Kong himself, in the original film he was supposed to be more of a human-ape hybrid than a real gorilla. It was Peter Jackson's take on the character to make Kong a realistic-looking (though impossibly gigantic) gorilla -- an old gorilla, but capable of expressing more complex, human-like emotions.

Is it my imagination or has this thread recently taken a turn for the dumb?

Come to think of it, several other HobbyTalk threads also appear to have been stricken by a bad case of The Stupids. I mean, the Algonquin Round Table we're not (and never have been) but lately the level of conversation has really taken a turn for the juvenile. :(

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just your imagination!

Algonquin Round Table ????

do they serve pizza?
if some of you guys dont have a sense of humor about the movies then you need one!

I'M SAYING.........about King Kong,for all the hype, all the money, all the so-called high tech of CGI, i expect the action and effects to look more real AND THEY DONT!
now, compared to other films they are unmatched.

p.s. LOTR is very over rated! and the Matrix Trilogy is next in line.

double p.s. the skeleton fight scene in Jason and the Argonauts is a masterpiece YET TO BE OUTDONE BY ANY CGI !!!!!!!!!
and that, my fellow hobbiests is Stop Motion!!!!!!

With a tip of the hat to Bernard Herrmann.

I'M SAYING.........about King Kong,for all the hype, all the money, all the so-called high tech of CGI, i expect the action and effects to look more real AND THEY DONT!
now, compared to other films they are unmatched.

p.s. LOTR is very over rated! and the Matrix Trilogy is next in line.

double p.s. the skeleton fight scene in Jason and the Argonauts is a masterpiece YET TO BE OUTDONE BY ANY CGI !!!!!!!!!
and that, my fellow hobbiests is Stop Motion!!!!!!

I wouldn't say that LOTR was VERY over rated, I'd say slightly over rated, and I IM NOT refering to the FX of the movies, Im refering to the acting. The story was J.R.R Tolkien's so no problem there, No problem with Pete Jackson's direction, the only real problem I have with the films is that the main actors, Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, Viggo Mortensen whom the movies were were focused on (for lack of a better word) SEEMED like they were acting, I just didnt fully believe that they were genuine. Its like they were trying too hard to be the characters, they just werent natural about it, while ironically the co stars, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, Orlando Bloom, and Ian McKellan, just to name a few, were really good and convincing. And this is my only beef with it. Now the Matrix, in my opinion should NEVER have been a trilogy. The first one was acceptable, the other 2 were just garbage. Jason and the Argonauts's skeleton sequence was good for its time, but the skeletons had zero motion blurr, compared to what folks could do with CGI today it looks pretty unconvincing. CGI allows more loose fluid movement realistic, and motion blurr can be added. But as I said the only thing that makes the CGI look unrealistic at times is that it can look pretty cartoonish.

I'M SAYING.........about King Kong,for all the hype, all the money, all the so-called high tech of CGI, i expect the action and effects to look more real AND THEY DONT!
now, compared to other films they are unmatched.

So. They are as good as or better than anything else. But they aren't good enough? Just what do you want?!

Let me ask you this. Let's take one scene. The Kong-dinosaur fight. If they hadn't used CGI, how would you have done the scene? Stop Motion Animation? Men in suits? What could they have done to make it more realistic?

Or shouldn't they have done it? From your arguments, I can only assume that they shouldn't be making any fantasy or science fiction movies.

And what exactly is your complaint with LOTR? You keep saying it sucks, but I have yet to read your reasons. (And "The effects look like CGI" is not a valid reason.)

Also, in the discussion of these effects - don't confuse the effects themselves with the direction of the effects. I'm a big "Jason and The Argonauts" fan and agree that The Children of The Hydra sequence along with the Talos sequence are two of the most effective fantasy sequences ever captured on film - but there is the also the matter of shot selection, editing, and especially in the case of "Jason and The Argonauts" - music - which serve to affect the viewer in a particular way.

i'd take any Ray harryhausen film over anything Peter jackson made, anyday!!