King Kong trailer: Does Kong look fake? Will you see it?

[tjdee]

I say yes to both.

I also say I love Adrien Brody and I will be at the theater with bells on the instant it opens (unlike how I'm missing Shah Rukh's new picture, but I digress).

Here it is (thanks to our own Rev Acts who hipped me to this last night!):
http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

Another big hit for Peter "After I did LOTR I could make a film about the phonebook and they would throw money at me to do it" Jackson?

[jobycom]

1. Kong looks great, but the film worries me.

I hated LOTR. His style of directing just rubbed me wrong. But based on the preview, I'll see the film just to see the big screen of that final shot in the trailer.

[tjdee]

6. His style of directing, or his style of directing *that*?

I'm curious what rubbed you the wrong way, but that's probably hard to elaborate on. It's just a matter of opinion, I guess...

[jobycom]

15. No, I can explain it

He uses so many cinemagraphic devices that it distracts me. To me, it makes me feel like he's overdirecting, to the point of melodrama, which pulls me out of the movies.

Just some examples: When they were at the elven council arguing over the ring, and he had the reflection of them fighting in the ring turn into fire. Or just after that, when everyone was fighting, and Frodo can't get their attention, but when he says he'll take the ring, everything gets quiet and everyone hears him. The camera focused on Frodo over Gandalf's shoulder, then pulled the focus back so you could see Gandalf's knowing grimace at Frodo's volunteering. Or when Gandalf grew dark in Frodo's house, and his voice echoed--Cate Blanchett does the same thing later.

There were points were he had me, and then he'd do it again, and lose me. Like the end of the first one, with Sean Bean's brilliant death scene and Frodo's noble departure. But he followed that up with Sam falling in the water and sinking while Frodo was impossibly far away, but having Frodo reach in and save him just in time. Just like a thousand other films.

Just too much of those cheesy devices. They kept pulling me out of the film. Too many closeups of orc feet running through the woods, too many zoom ins just as a character spun to look over his shoulder with a serious, piercing stare (Reminded me of Bush trying to look serious).

He coupled that with dragging some scenes out far too long--how long did I need to see Frodo's face hovering over the lava as the eagle carried him away? It just felt melodramatic to the point of farce, to me.

I really wanted to like it, and tried really hard, and gave him the benefit of the doubt through all three movies, but I couldn't bear it.

At the end of ROTK, I got up three or four times, thinking it was over, and had to sit back down. I was getting very anxious to leave. Finally, as Frodo gets onto the boat, and it finally drags to its excruciatingly boring ending and the credits begin, I sighed, and I turned to my wife, expecting her to roll her eyes and say "Finally!" (which is what she usually does after a movie she hates). She was bawling like a baby. So I'm not even in agreement with my own family (though my six year old had a similar reaction to me--she fell asleep on my lap!)

Anyway, more than you want to know! Ferris Buehler's Day Off did exactly the same thing to me, for the record, and everyone loves that, too.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

20. Although I totally disagree with you

this is the first reasoned argument I've heard from someone who didn't like LOTR. Most just complain about how long they are or something related to the length.

Two Questions:

1. Have you seen any of Jackson's other films?

(If so, what did you think?)

2. Have you read LOTR?

[jobycom]

23. I've seen parts

of Jackson films. I remember being bored with Heavenly Creatures, and thinking Bad Taste was just dumb, but to be fair, I came in after they had begun, and didn't stick around long enough to get interested. I didn't realize either of them were Jackson until after Lord of the Rings. I just remember filing both away in my memory as films I strongly disliked, and then not being surprised after ROTK when I realized he had done both.

As for the books, I've read them several times. I don't expect a movie to be the same as a book, so I watch them for themselves. For instance, Name of the Rose was nothing like the book, and I still thought the movie was great.

As for people complaining about how long the film was, it seemed horribly long to me, too, but only because I didn't like it from the beginning. I've watched longer movies and loved them. Jackson directs with a sledghammer. I believe that if he had lesser actors and a smaller budget, his films would have been just weak fantasy film. Like "THe Sword and the Sorcerer" with a bigger budget. Most people who liked the film tell me about the great effects and the wonderful acting. It had both, but the directing just killed it for me.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

26. Interesting and Understandable

I also very much enjoy Heavenly Creatures but don't really like Jackson's work before that film. I think it has more to do with my distaste for extremely gory movies more than anything else.

Which director's style do you like?

[jobycom]

27. I'm really an easy sell in movies

Some of my favorites are Tim Burton, the Cohen brothers, and Baz Luhrman, (and Miyazaki) but I'm really not hard to please. I try to see what the director wants me to see, and often if I feel like the director has a story to tell, even if it's simple or obvious, I like it. I don't like directors I feel are trying too hard, or showing off their craft, or are just doing what they've seen someone else do (which is what I thought of LOTR). I don't want to think about the director, I just want to see the story. I hate long sight gags that have nothing to do with the story, too. And chase scenes, unless there is some character play in the chase, like Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

28. I'm not an easy sell

I tend to follow directors more than genre. Most people I talk to choose to grow through films by genre I have tended to go by director. Unfortunately most directors stick to the genre that made them successful

As with you if there's a good story to be told I'll watch it, read it or listen to it. The best and most enduring directors manage to make their craft invisible because of their storytelling skills. Hitchcock, for example, was a master technician before he became a master storyteller. Indeed "The Master" found a genre and mostly stuck to it but the stories in Psycho, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window, Notorious and many others are what make these films classics.

Chase scenes are my number one pet peeve and can easily turn me off from a movie that I was previously enjoying, i.e. Matrix Reloaded.

[dissent1977]

17. I have to disagree with you there

He was an amazing director for LOTR. Of course you are free to disagree on whether or not the movies were good, but you have to admit that it would be extremely difficult to direct something on the scale of LOTR.

I have not seen the trailer for King Kong yet, but I am definately looking forward to it.

[jobycom]

18. You have to disagree

that I don't like LOTR? No, I can prove it. :-)

[NewJeffCT]

2. After the 3 LotR movies, Jackson will get my $8-9 for Kong

He's earned that much at least. I thought Kong looked good.

[tjdee]

7. I think Jackson has the goods...

I'm just kind of wondering why King Kong, of all things.
:shrug:

[TimeChaser]

14. Because

Jackson loved King Kong as a child. I believe he's said it made him want to make movies.

[Radio_Lady]

8. As a movie reviewer, I have to see it. Hope Kong looks better

that the Hulk did!

[obxhead]

3. I'll wait for the DVD.

[Ready4Change]

4. They don't seem to have the motion of heavy, large animals right.

Too fluid, not support oriented enough.

There's a reason elephants move as they do. Theres a reason whales live in oceans. As creatures grow larger properly supporting their mass gets more and more critical.

Kong, the T-Rex, other dinasours, moving all wrong.

[tjdee]

5. Maybe that's what I was seeing.

They were moving too 'fast'--or too fluid, which is a better way of saying that. It looks to me like fun with computers as opposed to trying to get it right. I haven't seen Jurassic Park for a long time, but I thought those looked real. These...not so much.

[Ready4Change]

10. Jurassic was much better.

It doesn't mean they have to move slowly, at least on a human size scale. But their rate of motion compared to their own size needs to slow down.

Whales seem to move very slowly. But they are entirely supported by water, and if you see video of them next to divers, those fins and such can move at quite a clip.

But an elephant seems so plodding because it needs to base so much of its movement on staying on it's feet. Falling can be a major deal for large land animals. A giant ape would be no different.

I've also wondered about something about Kong movies in general. They always have Kong climbing a skyscraper near the end. a hundred stories or more, nearly vertical surfaces.

Yet primative natives on a far away island with stone tools build a wall across an entire jungle island that keeps Kong at bay? Huh?

[tjdee]

11. Doesn't Kong have a deal with the natives?

Like, I won't eat you if you sacrifice pretty women, or something?

I was bored silly with the b&w version, LOL. But I think that's why Kong stays put on the island.

[Ready4Change]

13. Ooo. Here's a thought on this tangent.

Maybe Kong built the wall to protect the villagers?

He has the might to do it. And, if the villagers are his source of chicks, he'd have good reason to protect them from mean old T-rexs and such.

So, maybe those walls are cattle fences?

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

21. I think that sacrifice getting motion wrong

in order to maintain the pace of the film. The 200 million dollar budget requires some sacrifice.

The trailer is a relatively early look at Kong, the T-Rex and most of the CGI. With the release a little under six months away PJ and WETA have plenty of time to work these things out. I very much doubt they will perfect it, because it is still a computer animated version of supposedly real creatures, but noone gets closer than this group of incredibly talented filmmakers.

[bridgit]

9. i don't know from kong looking 'real'...

i mean it is cgi after all...but that film looks pretty cool, a beautiful sweep of scene & play = we're already there :thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

12. Kong should never look real. That would ruin any remake.

I don't know if I'm going to see it or not. I'm not big on summer movies. We usually pick one big flick, and go and see it, but, I dunno. Nothing stands out this year.

On the other hand, these rock!

"Me You And Everyone We Know,"

"Kung Fu Hustle,"

"Lords of Dogtown" and

"Machuca."

[Dukkha]

16. He seems too small

Original 1933 Kong 30ft


1976 Kong 50ft


King Kong vs Godzilla 400ft


King Kong Bundy 6'8"

[BreweryYardRat]

19. Looks pretty good.

I think I'll go see it.

[Mutley]

22. King Kong, Dinosaurs, big scary bugs, cannibalistic tribes, hot chick

what more could you ask for :shrug:

I think Kong looks okay... not completely fake, but they couldn've done better. I'll probably see it if theres nothing better out.

[mopaul]

24. kong will kick ass

[Divameow77]

25. Sometimes movies are just about entertainment

not intended to be completely realistic. I will definately go see it, and I LOVED LOTR!