King Kong

Nacho · Thu 15/12/2005 12:48:53

But I think the point is to bring some animal to Manhattan, the "8th World Wonder", no?

Anyway, all is quite silly if you think of it. Tere must be a family of gorillas, not just one, a family of T-Rex, and some other interesting fauna. Just go there and pick the monkey seems silly, unless Mr. Jackson has changed it all to make it more logical.

Kinoko · Thu 15/12/2005 13:02:25

Haddas: Your avatar caption is freaking hilarious ^_^

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Thu 15/12/2005 13:07:14

Well, no, the point is to go there and shoot one hell of a film. The monkey is an afterthought.

...I think. Now I'm not sure. Damn.

Anyway, haven't seen the new one, only the old one. I was impressed, and didn't want to see this remake, but if so many people say it's surprisingly good I might give it a watch.

Redwall · Thu 15/12/2005 13:09:06

The reason they bring back Kong instead of the dinosaurs is because Challenger, Summerlee, Roxton, and Malone already brought back dinosaurs.

Haddas · Thu 15/12/2005 14:11:42

Quote from: Kinoko on Thu 15/12/2005 13:02:25
Haddas: Your avatar caption is freaking hilarious ^_^

This pleases me. I have succeeded in my life goals. I'll change it one day to something equally idiotic

Nikolas · Thu 15/12/2005 14:19:57

Yes I do agree that your avatar, Haddas, is supperb!

Now about the movie:

Have you ever seen a movie with CGI that wasn't stupid? I mean if you need CGI you want to put something in that can't be done!

The King of the Kongs, was a nice idea at the time, but probably outgrew itself over time...

I plan to see it however and maybe have my son to see it too (do they let 2 year old children watch something like this?). I mean it is perfect. All the family/percet/nice values are there. Save the girl. The girl loves the gorilla. Gorilla loves the girl. Gorilla fights for the girl. Gilr climbs for the gorilla. Love is the ultimate good! Love will win (or not?). And all this around a plan that money are no matter (so money mentioning in the movie). Te director is killed (is he?), and al relavent things don't matter... Amnd to think that I haven't seen the movie yet! hehe

But I will see it alone (as my son is uncapable of remaining still for more than half an hour and thqat would be a nightmare...). And I will enjoy it.!!!!!!

And btw, Kinoko, I think that Kong is the best actor ever!

Mr Jake · Thu 15/12/2005 14:23:52

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 15/12/2005 14:19:57
Have you ever seen a movie with CGI that wasn't stupid? I mean if you need CGI you want to put something in that can't be done!

The King of the Kongs, was a nice idea at the time, but probably outgrew itself over time...

These points are kinda silly...

CGI can work well in films, War of the Worlds anyone? And I intend to see Kong some time.Ã,Â As for the second point... Could you explain it more please? (unless you meant stupid as in unrealistic, in which case bad choice of words)

Does Jack Black over act in this film? He seems like the sort...

Nikolas · Thu 15/12/2005 14:49:39

Of course!

Well CGI can work well on films, depending on what you're after in a film. CGI are used when something cannot be done in real life. So na matter how perfect they are they are unreal! Maybe stupid is a bad word, but a giant gorilla+a T-REX+Demons+Alien+whetever else, CGI is usually used to make something unreal seem as real as possible.

I'm actually not making a point, as I mentioned already that I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will. I like movies with CGI! I like fairy tales! I like fantasy! I like all that.

In the second point I didn't use the word stupid. I said "outgrew", meaning that sometimes things progress and somethings are left behind. Sure King Kong was a nice idea in the '30s but now, there can be better things to have (more stretched maybe).

And I would also like to see DOOM! Shooting, monsters, no thinking for 2 hours! Why not? Honestly.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires · Thu 15/12/2005 14:54:47

Funny how you make CGI seem to actually define a film. CGI really is no different than stop-motion photography or special effects - it's simply a SFX technique. The original King Kong was also unreal. Cat People (the original) is also unreal, and it sports almost zero special effects.

Haddas · Thu 15/12/2005 17:13:24

This brings me to think about something I like very much. 80's... action... movies...

Shallow plot, bodycount 1 000 000, Arnold, Mel, Sylvester. What more could you possibly want?

Redwall · Thu 15/12/2005 21:55:02

Chuck Norris?

Sam. · Thu 15/12/2005 22:20:17

it is kinda dumb to criticise CGI, we're noway near the limit of what CGI can do, so theres no point pretending to be. Stop kmtion was supposed to look realistic, but it didn't. Nobody complained that they shouldn't use stop motion unless it ooks 100% realistic. CGIU will get better, and one day, we won't be able to tell the difference, unfortuneatley, we're not there yet.

as for kong, i can't wait to see it, tomorrow night is the night, narnia then kong.

Becky · Thu 15/12/2005 22:39:32

From the trailers, King Kong looks like a big CGI monkey. Big and CGI, and I cannot suspend my disbelief. My main problem with CGI is that it tries to be something it isn't, and a lot of the time gets it wrong.

I refuse to see Narnia on the basis that computer generated real animals do NOT resemble their live counterparts. I constantly am reminded of this by the over-shiny fur, the unrealistic muzzle movements for talking, the ever-so-fluid animation. I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to watch a whole film worth of it.

Also, all kingly lions should sound like Mufasa from The Lion King. Aslan does not sound kingly enough.

Adamski · Thu 15/12/2005 23:04:00

Giant Frikkin' CGI Lion voiced by James Earl Jones wouldn't really change the weighting of how good the film is really

LGM · Fri 16/12/2005 00:07:25

Without CGI, we wouldn't have Matrix, LOTR or a vast amount of other great films.

Quit whining.

Becky · Fri 16/12/2005 00:43:44

CGI is supposed to enhance the suspension of your disbelief, not damage it. Where it does damage it, criticism is justified, especially when we have seen the superb quality of CGI like Gollum in LOTR.

What gets me is that giant monkey and lion should be "easier" to create in CGI than fictional creatures, yet the quality of fictional creatures in films in general seems to be higher.

LGM · Fri 16/12/2005 01:34:56

Just WATCH King Kong. The trailers are nothing compared to the final product. I do agree with Aslan, though, he could've been better.

But honestly.. Would you rather have wire-hung puppets and paper-mache sets? Sure, they have a charm but I have an easier time believing and being entertained by awesomely crafted CGI than I do sets and costumes that look like they were made for a B-Movie in 1965.

Don't get me wrong.. I'd LOVE to see a fantasy/action movie that relied on traditional effects rather than falling back on CG.. But I refuse to knock a spectacular film just because it used alot of CG.

Actually, Zathura is a movie that uses alot of traditional effects, thanks to Stan Winston. The effects in that movie are rather seamless.

Darth Mandarb · Fri 16/12/2005 02:27:36

I'm not going to get into the discussion about CGI good vs. bad. It's a rather silly argument anyway ... it's here to stay and isn't going away anytime soon!

Anyway ...

I watched it:

I might, for the first time in my life, actually admit that I found a movie with too much action!! It was overwhelming! I'm assuming that was intentionally done. He wanted to overwhelm audiences, just as they were when the orginal was released so many years ago ...

I found the special effects, at parts, slightly lacking and not up to quality of LotR. At other parts the effects blew me away. It felt almost like there were two effects houses working on this film. It was wierd.

Over-all I really liked the movie. I left the theater tired ... not just because it was over 3 hours long, but because the action never let up enough to let me relax!

I think Peter Jackson is good at directing fantasy/epic type films. Now onto the Hobbit!

Nikolas · Fri 16/12/2005 02:55:33

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 16/12/2005 02:27:36
I think Peter Jackson is good at directing fantasy/epic type films.Ã,Â Now onto the Hobbit!

I would prefer if he did the Silmarilion... Personal prefferences...

Redwall · Fri 16/12/2005 04:12:28

Quote from: Becky on Fri 16/12/2005 00:43:44What gets me is that giant monkey and lion should be "easier" to create in CGI than fictional creatures, yet the quality of fictional creatures in films in general seems to be higher.

Why? We know what a lion or gorilla look like and how they should act, but no one has much of a preconcieved notion of what Gollum should look or act like. We accept him much easier than we accept a "real" animal.

Also: Silmarillion would be hard to do, simply because of the massive amount of plot in it, and also the inconsistencies it presents with the work published later that would have to be resolved.