-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
King Kong trailer in HD at Apple
- Thread starter cvkpaladin
- Start date
- Status
Snaku said:
Part of the original story. But really - are they needed? What if the civilization was wiped out when they got there, and they ventured beyond the wall on their own? The entire purpose of the natives was to get the crew to go over the wall and see the dinosaurs and Kong. I don't see how having them explore it on their own is a big deal, and I think it would actually be interesting to see the remains of a civilization and not have them all pop out of the woodwork for once.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Don't the natives offer the blond woman as a sacrifice? Seems like an important memorable event to keep in.
Yeah, and when the remake was announced, I figured it'd be interesting if Denham was secretly more aware of what was on Skull Island than he let on, and knew of the dangers that lurked there. How far would he go to make his movie? Far enough to lock up Ms. Darrow to lure Kong... then shit hits the fan. He wouldn't need to be a bad guy, just a less-than-honest and overzealous filmmaker. After all, the original film is as much a comment on filmmaking as it is racist, why not trade the latter for more of the former?GhaleonEB said:
yep. I had tears welling in my eyes when I saw the original King Kong (i think it was the original) at the end where he was shot down from the building, hit the ground and the woman could hear his heart beat slowly fade until he finally died. it was a very powerful cinematic moment for me and I've never forgotten it.Wendo said:
I think Jackson is going to capture that feeling again.
Wendo said:
Have you seen the original King Kong? Kong's stop motion animation is surprisingly good.
Also, King Kong '76 won a special achievement Oscar for its visual effects (Carlo Rambaldi worked on the animatronic Kong), and that movie was still no good.
P.S. I'm with Mike Works regarding the film's length. I suspect that either--
--the film will be padded with repetitive visual effects sequences, in which case critics will say the same thing they said about Kong '76: an impressive technical achievement, but it lacks the charm of the original. Or:
--the film will have lots of character side stories that don't contribute to the central narrative in any way (and are unlikely to be compelling in their own right--dynamic characterization isn't one of Jackson's strengths), in which case audience members will fidget in their seats and say "Get to the part where he climbs the Empire State Building already," and critics will say "It's too long, and in spite of its technical achievement it lacks the charm of the original."
EDIT: that said, I'll probably still see it, but the most important thing about this film for me is that it means I'll get a decent release of the original King Kong on DVD as a tie-in.
Prospero said:
I certainly have seen the original King Kong. In fact, I watched it for the fourth or fifth time a couple of weeks ago. Yes, the technology was amazing for that era (it looked better than some stop-animation from the 80's), but it was pretty limited in terms of facial expressions. I was getting excited after seeing the trailer because all of the subtle little things are now visible, making for a much more dynamic interpretation of the Kong character.
are you just getting a white screen but the audio is playing? if so you need to upgrade the player as I did.jett said:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/standalone.html
Wendo said:
True enough.
I suppose the difference between the animation in the '33 Kong and the '05 Kong is a matter of stylistic choice to me. The best analogy that comes to mind is comparing the animation in Wallace and Gromit to the animation in Corpse Bride. Corpse Bride's animation is technically superior and much more detailed, but even though W&G's animation is unsophisticated by comparison, it's still strongly emotive: you can always read Gromit's emotional state with certainty, even though the only means he has of indicating it is blinking, or moving his eyebrows--he doesn't even have a mouth. It's because the animators did a really good job with the tools at hand.
I feel the same way about the '33 Kong--technically limited by today's standards, but still emotive, in a different but entirely valid way. Which is why I don't think it will necessarily be the case that the '05 Kong will turn in a stronger or more dynamic performance (though, now that I think of it, the best actor in the Lord of the Rings movies except for Sean Bean was Gollum, so maybe I'll be proven wrong).
Duck of Death
Member
I'm really not sure what to expect from this film. The three-hour running time is troubling, and the natives are dubious. I'm fine with the CGI as long as it enhances the story (and the story better be exceptional for a 3 hour movie).
Certain moments of the film look great. The fight between Kong and the T-Rex looks fun, and the biplane battle on top of the Empire State Building will surely be spectacular.
Certain moments of the film look great. The fight between Kong and the T-Rex looks fun, and the biplane battle on top of the Empire State Building will surely be spectacular.
Prospero said:
See, you're comparing two stop motion movies. But in a movie like King Kong, stop motion doesn't cut it these days. Phil Tippet did a TON of stop motion raptor work for the first Jurassic Park and the results were part of the reason they decided to go with CG for the dinosaurs.
ManaByte said:
The point being that even Spielberg in his infinite wisdom still sided on there being animatronic puppeteering for the dinosaurs, and integrate the physical effects with computer generated effects. As a result, Jurassic Park is one of the few modern films where the computer generated effects still hold up. I fail to see why Jackson can't take a cue from that film.
Warm Machine
Member
Willco said:
Didn't Jackson do that a whole lot in LOTR?
Are you daft? This statement doesn't even address what Prospero was getting at. Stop motion had nothing to do with his point. What he's saying is that there is not a direct relationship between the level of detail and the ability to emote.ManaByte said:
Besides, all of your defenses in this thread are based on the assumption that King Kong needs to be remade in the first place. It doesn't need to be remade. The original film doesn't fail to accomplish its goals.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
i watched this at the apple store on a 30" display, and it looked incredible. well, half incredible, half disappointing since the clip wasn't as immaculate as i thought it would be. but it still gathered a crowd.
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Comparison of the changes made to kong, from teaser to trailer:
Much bigger, more character in the face, and better fur.
Much bigger, more character in the face, and better fur.
Patrick Klepek
furiously molesting tim burton
King Kong looks like fun. The spider sequence is in this one, right? I don't expect to be blown away ala LOTR, but I'm definitely looking forward to this one. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire's my big winter movie, though. Anything after that's just icing.
- Status