I dunno. I want to like it. Hopefully some of those effects just aren't finished.

I guess it is still in post-production.

You need to have actually watched (and listened to) the trailer. The Jack Black character says the second line. I think he made up the third.

I like the fact that they cast Jack Black -- it's a stretch for him.

I have to admit that the CGI looks kind of cheesy -- what'd he get, 1/10th the budget of LOTR for this?

Other than Kong himself, that part looks good.

Oh, and I'm really looking forward to A Scanner Darkly, even though it's all just ToonShaded. (Saw a preview for it on the Jacket DVD.)

Short of having Kong do the job on Naomi Watts, I don't think there is a thing Peter Jackson could do to get me interested in this.

A Scanner Darkly is one of my favorite Philip K. Dick books. I didn't realize before seeing the trailer that it was going to be animated.

Steve

right on

Jackson + JB are my biggest hopes for this.

I was wondering how long it would take before this thread had people mentioning/complaining about how "fake" the effects look.

They're effects, people. It's a movie.

Having said that, I dunno how they're gonna make this very interesting - with the story so well known & all.

She was in The Shape of Things, which was decent.

But it's not a cartoon, and I'm pretty sure that the creators were trying to make the creatures look as realistic as possible, and it's not an unfair critique to say that they didn't do a very good job.

You would think that after LOTR the last thing Jackson would put up with was subpar effects.

Steve

HaqDiesel Italics Dexterity +2

I saw a brief clip and it looked like they had a person caught between King Kong and T-Rex. Granted, it just flashed on the TV for a second but that's what it looked like. Is T-Rex in this movie somewhere? I don't mean Marc Bolan.

looks awesome.

I just watched the trailer without sound and sure enough, there are dinosaurs in this movie.

My roomate told me there were (or were supposed to be) dinosaurs in the original, but I've never seen it. And he could be full of it.

This is a movie which is, like most Hollywood movies, designed to make massive amounts of cash - and it almost certainly will.

Any consideration beyond that, like say, making it any good at all, are secondary.

It's amazing to me that the original King Kong is not only remains a great film but 70 years on is still actually pretty scary.

I understand that...my point is that people are so fucking ridiculously picky these days. I kinda doubt when people went to see the 1933 version they came out of the theatre saying "Boy, that movie was swell...but the effects SUCKED."

And as far as "realistic" goes...that always cracks me up. It's a 25 FOOT TALL GORILLA. So it doesn't look like all the other 25 FOOT TALL GORILLAS people have seen throughout their lifetimes? lol. People did that with Spiderman..."he didn't look real" - what, you've got a Spiderman living in yer building you can compare it to, or somethin'?

I think this movie will suck, mostly because the story isn't that great.

Also, surprised no one has brought up the latent racist undertones...

People have seen a 6 foot gorilla, and it doesn't take more than a modest helping of imagination to imagine what that gorilla would look like at 25 feet - for example, it wouldn't have hair that looked like it was made of nylon.

In 1933, people were still amazed that the picture moved. Are you really surprised that 70 years later we don't expect a little more?

Yeah but to me movies sort of create their own universe and things have to be realistic within that universe. Spiderman didn't look real because if there were a man swinging from building to building it wouldn't look like it did in that movie. As far as King Kong goes, we may not have any 25 ft gorillas around but we know what smaller gorillas look like when they move so we can critique what the bigger ones would look like.

I think it will fit in nicely with my holiday viewing schedule.

I can appreciate everyone's sentiments about realism, and production values, yet for this escapist type of movie. Give me more EFFECTS~!

'Traffic' this ain't.

My problem is that some of it didn't move that well, and a lot of it didn't seem textured very well (some dinosaurs looked plastic-y). Of course some of this could possibly be intentional (the acting had kind of a campy feel, too), but generally the only excuse for that in the current world of CG effects is a lack of time or money.

And of course no one complained about the original because it was state-of-the-art and amazing. People around that time were completely in awe of just about any kind of animation, whereas nearly all of it is taken for granted now.

It was a tiny trailer, though, and and a lot of times stuff like that can work better on the big screen. I'll go see it, but I'm keeping my expectations down.

'zackly.

Fair enough...what annoys me the most is that people ( not HERE, really - but other places I've seen online ) are going on like the effects are "stick figure" quality.

The most important thing is that the movie works overall, IMO.

I didn't really care about the cartoonish effects since Jack Black himself looked rather cartoonish. They fit right in.