Trailerology: King Kong
Submitted by jim on Fri, 11/04/2005 - 12:55
Tags:
Ooh, the King Kong trailer beats its mighty chest! Unfortunately Apple made me update my Quicktime player, and suddenly my computer isn't powerful to show trailers without going all choppy. Bastards. Then again, my computer is something like eight years old, so I suppose it's about time for it to show its age.
Jim, have you ever tried out the program Quick Time Alternative?
I have not, I'm certainly keen to try based on how far south the official version went for me on this latest "upgrade". Have you tried it?
Honestly, I thought it was a bad trailer in comparison with the teaser. And it looks like $210 million or whatever wasn't quite enough to make all those special effects really work. It looks too long, too visually ambitious, too big for its britches.
Are you freakin' kiddin' me, Luke? Did we see the same trailer? And what on Earth does "too visually ambitious" even mean?
(FWIW, I said "Oh shit!" -- in an empty room -- when, at the end, Kong... well, I'll leave that for people to see for themselves :)
Heh. I'm glad somebody liked it. I think it may be too visually ambitious because it seems like its immense budget still wasn't sufficient for three hours of comprehensive, complicated special effects that far outweight the same of ROTK. The clips of Anne between the T-Rex and Kong stood out to me as needing another week of tinkering, for example.
The clips of Anne between the T-Rex and Kong stood out to me as needing another week of tinkering, for example.
Okay, that's a start, and interesting. But could you explain that a little further?
The CGI characters didn't blend into their environments well enough. They were both bright and shiny and far too well-lighted. The T-Rex in particular. Heck, Anne didn't even fit into the (miniature, I assume) environment. Or the panning shot over the city. The city looked like a lot of shiny blocks, not messy, lived-in buildings.
Maybe it'll look great on a big screen. Either way, they've come a long way from the original.
I'm tempted to watch it again to see what you're talking about, but at the same time, I don't want to -- this is probably my most anticipated movie of 2005, and I don't want to gorge on the visuals and overhype it for myself -- knowwhatimean?
It's possible they are too-well lit, but I kinda liked that about it (of course, it could just be how it looks on our computer), but yeah, we'll see come Christmas. And this:
The city looked like a lot of shiny blocks, not messy, lived-in buildings.
Again, I'd have to look at it once more, but I kinda hope that is what it looks like -- to me, it would mean Jackson is being true to the original. The 1933 New York of Cooper & Schoedsack is an art deco fantasyland (the whole movie is a fantasyland) and I'm okay with this lack of realism.