Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

1st & 2nd AICN Geek Reviews of KING KONG

DATELINE - Kong Special Tonight! 10pm Eastern by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 08:45:01 PM
Am I first?
ILM stuff always looks cartoonish... by jimmy_009	Dec 2nd, 2005 08:46:52 PM
WETA tops them easily.
I smell OSCAR. by cutest_of_borg	Dec 2nd, 2005 08:52:24 PM
Director nom? Best pic nom? Do not doubt the force that is St. Peter.
Weta doesn't top ILM! ILM invented everything Weta is doing by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 08:59:16 PM
They paved the way. That first T-REX that Jeff Goldblum gets to follow him in JP. Is still the greatest dino effect ever put on screen. I don't care what anyone says. It looks like a big heavy animal. It's abcolutly amazing to this day and while WETA does amazing effects. They're not perfect. How come in Two Towers Gollum never gets dirty? He rolls around in the dirt and he's always spotless? A mistake by WETA. Also the effects in Kong don't really look real, but I don't think they're supposed too. They have this digital background look to them, like they're on a digital stay. It's hard to explain, but it doesn't matter, because I think Jackson isn't exactly going for realism, but more of a dream quality. As Ray Harryhausen describes stop-motion effects.
This movie is going to make Naomi Watts a HUGE star! Can't w by Ted Striker	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:00:48 PM
I will say, it's too bad that it's too long, but the review makes a great point -- it's better to start slow, and build from there, quickening the pace as it goes. Nice job Peter. Nice job.
Devin at CHUD didn't like it by jrbarker	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:10:36 PM
But I can't wait to see this
It's still fucking racist if you think about it. by Shermdawg	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:16:52 PM
Kong eats all of the black women, the villagers sacrifice, and when the first saltine comes along, he goes vegetarian. WTF? I guaran-damn-tee Spike Lee is gonna is gonna complain about this joint, and with good reason. Other than that, I can't fucking wait to see this flick, its gonna be tha APESHIT!!!
HOLY CRAP!!! You mean that was Jack Black in the Pitfall commerc by Shermdawg	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:24:39 PM
And both his parents are rocket scientists???
"Stone Phillips, MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!" by Shermdawg	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:27:19 PM
"Stone Phillips, More than meets the EYES."
Devin at CHUD didn't like it by DinoBass	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:31:23 PM
so much he gave it an 8.4 out of 10.
Yeah I remember that Pitfall commercial. I never knew it was him by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:31:41 PM
Yeah Jack's Mom worked on the Hubble Telescope. That's the last thing you'd expect from his Family.
Digital Effects trade secrets? by Lavaman	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:32:28 PM
Ironic that this reviewer says that he is surprised that other Effects Houses haven't stole WETA's trade secrets, when in fact WETA has stolen ILM's trade secrets. Joe Leteri(who also worked on TTT and ROTK) and Ben Snow, the Digital Effects Supervisers on King Kong, used to work for ILM. If WETA is so superior to ILM, then why do they need to keep taking Effects Veterans from ILM? Face it, ILM is still the Granddaddy of all Effects Houses, raising the bar for Digital Effects.
Kong gets a little pre-cum on Ann and sets up Kong II........dis by Retrace	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:38:05 PM
And yes....precum has sperm in it.
Sounds fun! by Carl XVI Gustaf	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:40:55 PM
There's no way I'm first on this, with all the monkey lovers on this site, technical error? The film sounds fun though! Fun being the keyword, like Jurassic Park in it's day.
There's no way anyone who didn't actually see the film c by Citizen Arcane	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:47:46 PM
So it's good, the fights are cool and it's long. Thanks. Very enlightening. As for the FX houses, as a digital movie production student about to graduate, I'd kill my grandmother to work for ILM. I'd only wound her to get with Weta.
Kong climbs the Empire Fucking State Building??? by Nice Marmot	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:52:10 PM
Spoiler-Free my ass!!!
Ann Darrow should not love Kong! by jeffallee	Dec 2nd, 2005 09:53:20 PM
The real tragedy in the King Kong story is that Kong loves Ann Darrow and she feels absolutely nothing for him. The Jackson version plays it more like the 1976 remake that has Ann being touched and moved by Kong. If PJ did a remake of Bride of Frankenstein would he have the bride fall in love with the monster? I can't believe PJ didn't have the sense to get this right, but this is the guy who cut Christopher Lee out of ROTK in favor of a guy with a Goonies mask.
Are the islanders black in this one? by Bass Ackwards	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:08:37 PM
Didn't really bother to notice, but I thought I recalled the islanders as being, for lack of a better word, "painted" (?) Not really African though.
Earlier I meant, like they're on a digital stage, not stay l by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:08:43 PM

What's the technical error? by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:15:00 PM
At the risk of exposing my naivete, I'm missing something here, someone wanna fill me in?
What color are they painted? by Shermdawg	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:21:02 PM

So when the Enya music comes up and Kong falls off the ESB in sl by Citizen Arcane	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:21:18 PM
Do we actually get to see him land or will that part be saved for the special edition?
Naomi Watts by c4andmore	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:24:19 PM
has nipples like pencil erasers, delicious
Ann Darrow and Kong are kindred souls by zinc_chameleon	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:26:06 PM
I've seen the NBC four-minute clip, and if there is a reason this story needed a re-interpretation, it's right there. Ann Darrow is a beautiful but lost soul in an urban jungle who meets are surprisingly noble soul in the battered old body of a giant gorilla. From the outset, PJ sets you up for their connection. And he's right about playing down sex angle, which even as a kid I knew was wrong with the 1933 version. The proper film to compare PJ's version is not the 1976 or even the 1933 version, but Disney's 1991 "Beauty and the Beast". No doubt PJ did. Three wolves attack Belle, and three VRex's go after Ann? Do the math.
Does this movie have the "Blondes Are Scare Around Here" line. by cookylamoo	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:41:42 PM
Always my favorite piece of Kongalouge.
Nintendo HAS to be a 9 year old by MondoGundark	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:42:54 PM
>>A director? And really, who wants to see this crap? This movie's not even over-rated like that. Who cares? Peter Jackson is LAME. Harry constantly lowers his standards to directors that direct worse than a videogame scene. From Tarantino to Lucas to this fag. They suck dick. Their movies suck. They have shitty, comic-book acting and writing. KING FUCKING KONG. Give me Metal Gear Solid 4 any day over that shit. The dickhead doesn't even know what Halo is. He's a fag. Good game or not he's only reporting it 'cause that foreigner's got his hands involved with it. I bet the movie sucks and he still dickrides it. As if Harry ill give this one (Kong) a bad review. You's a joke for a reviewer.
Weta = miniatures while ILM = no more miniatures by Gargamoth	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:51:22 PM
I for one dig the look of miniature work combined CG and with everything else. Skull Island looks amazing. Just watch folks...this Kong is gonna tilt the planet.
Godzilla'05 by darthbinks1220	Dec 2nd, 2005 10:59:51 PM
This movie is gonna tank. A megaflop it will be.
ILM = no more miniatures? Huh, watch the doc on the ROTS DVD, Wi by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 11:08:23 PM
A lot of Mustafar was done with miniatures. The Arena in AOTC was a giant minature.
From what I've seen so far, Ann Darrow and Kong's relati by Orionsangels	Dec 2nd, 2005 11:12:41 PM
Kong seems curious and Ann seems to be the only one that tries to communicate with Kong. Kong accepts her and protects her. She tries to comfort Kong. Dian Fossey had done all that with the Apes.
I think whatever happens with Kong.... by ThisIsTheGirl	Dec 2nd, 2005 11:24:12 PM
.....it's fairly unlikely to be a "megaflop". King Kong is a pretty integral part of film history, which pretty much guarantees it a built-in audience. Also, there aren't any other decent Xmas movies - Kong is gonna be a Box Office smash, whether it's a good movie or not
This is really bad, but... by Yossarian	Dec 2nd, 2005 11:25:53 PM
every time I see Naomi Watts, I think of her in 21 Grams with those enourmous freaky-looking 2-inch long nipples. I feel so ashamed.
Whatever happens with Kong... by MondoGundark	Dec 2nd, 2005 11:35:13 PM
..stays with Kong.
The background CGI effects stick out like a sore thumb by AlwaysThere	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:13:13 AM
Sorry Weta, but it doesn't look right.
things i got from this review: typist wants to you to know he di by watashiwadare	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:19:04 AM

I trust this review... by crackerfarmboy	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:23:07 AM
A great film remade by an amazing director. I can't wait.
Haters haters haters by Sicuv Uyall	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:27:13 AM
Everytime i read these talkbacks, thats all i see. Get a life.
i wanna see.. by nolan bautista	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:01:16 AM
..the throbbing veins in Kongs big black turgid cock..then i wanna see Naomi Watts massaging them (the veins)..then i wanna see them pulsate as Kong gets ready to drop a massive load..then i wanna see Naomi Watts just swimming in a pool of hot, sticky gorilla mung..then i wanna see...never mind..
The Arena in AOTC was a giant minature. by Alonzo Mosely	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:15:55 AM
Wouldn't a giant minature just be the real sized thing?
Dad? by buster00	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:16:32 AM

Alonzo... by bluebottle	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:24:20 AM
pz.
No, Alonzo by Orionsangels	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:24:35 AM
A giant minature is a minature built half or 1/2 the actually size the object supposed to me. The minature of the AOTC arena was as tall as a man and you could walk inside of it. Samething with the Helm's Deep giant minature, but much larger, which was built half the size of what the actual size would be. So when you film it, it looks more to actual scale.
AlwaysThere by Orionsangels	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:30:25 AM
I hope that's not true in theaters. I notice in the Car commercial tie-in with Kong. They show Kong in Times Square and yeah the backgrounds stick out more and it has this live video look to it, but then the trailers don't, so I dunno. The SW prequels have that problem. On DVD they look too digital and in theaters being tranferred to film, it had more of that grain look. I prefer that film quality look. It has a clasic feel to it and digital has that vivid sharp live quality to it, I hate. That makes it look like TV F/Xs.
Devin from Chud is the guy who didn't like Batman but though by metsrulein2k	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:46:11 AM

devin by metsrulein2k	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:48:18 AM
sorry about the double post. Yeah and he can't keep politics out of almost anything he says anymore. He's like Dennis Miller when he turned to politics. So don't pay any mind to that review, him not thinking it was great is actually probably a good thing.
Some dude at KiKn reviewed it a couple of days ago by MrCere	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:15:42 AM
Dorky screen name though, who the hell would use that?! http://www.kongisking.net/perl /newsview/17/1133443854
They really missed the boat on this one... by BurnHollywood	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:33:21 AM
...My screenplay called for a giant orangutan (also escaped) to climb the Chrysler Building, and the two mighty apes engage in a prolonged shit-flinging battle from blocks apart. Ever seen a giant shitball take out a biplane in midair? Epic. Jackson's no visionary, man.
Butt-monkey-a-thon by Crash Crator	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:36:38 AM
*****This is a good link with major spoilage: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag es/live/articles/showbiz/bazba migboye.html?in_article_id=370 370&in_page_id=1794&in_a_sourc e=
Doesn't sound like a giant minature to me then... by Alonzo Mosely	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:22:02 AM
They should rename it, the pretty large but still smaller than the actual thing minature.
chud.com by Windfola	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:47:53 AM
I find it hard to imagine that Devin Faraci found the acting and emotional core great... while the action was flat.. since everything I've seen so far looks freaking amazing.. specially the vines sequence..
ah...ringbearer is back... by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:57:31 AM
there goes the neighbourhood.
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:13:52 AM
While the review indeed was flat and devoid of anything which could be considered to be actual content, your anal dissection of it was even more aenemic and sad. You've never sounded more desperate. I can almost see the sweat beading on your feverish, sloped brow. Prepare yourself for what most likely will be a post-premiere humiliation on a scale to rival that of moviemack's post-BB implosion.
Harry. Post your review already would you. by Thirteen 13	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:41:07 AM
Your background wallpaper on your website is of King Kong. Your obviously a Kong fanatic as am I. This is actually one review from you I'm looking foward too. Post the fucker already ( assuming you have seen it already of course).
Ringpiece has been bitching on Batman all summer.. by Praetor	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:43:01 AM
Just saw the movie my ass. FF is a bag of wank for the underdeveloped.
Why Jackson isn't the greatest filmaker alive right now by I wonder	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:43:53 AM
LOTR'S and King Kong are NOT original movies. After he pulls off some original masterpieces - something he created without prior reference- then we can talk about how he's better than Spielberg.
For the scant few talkbackers that are crossing their fingers fo by Thirteen 13	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:51:27 AM
Dream on. This movie has about as much chance of tanking as Serenity does of making its money back. This is an easy 350 million at the box office if not more. And then after that come DVD sales which will add to it.
"You aren't supposed to examine Batman too closely." by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:08:25 AM
Unlike, say, Jackson's commentary tracks or screen caps from trailers, right, Ringworm?
Well, Ringbearer9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:30:57 AM
...I think the only thing proven here so far is that you think LOTR and KK are more "real" than Batman and thus warrant your peculiar brand of critique fuelled by cinematic ignorance, a phony allegiance to physics, anal retention, poor taste and tiny genitalia.
Devin from CHUD was a bit disappointed by moviemaniac-7	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:48:30 AM
And so will anybody else be. The hype for this movie has been too big for its own good. Every flaw will be blown up to mythical proportions. Even a very good movie (as King Kong will be in the end, I reckon) won't be enough for most people since this movie has been heralded for more than a year now as The Movie Event Of The Year. I think Kong will be excellent entertainment, but no masterpiece.
hey MondoGundark by darth jobu	Dec 3rd, 2005 07:49:18 AM
Please dont feed the trolls.
Hello Ringbearer by dewijnboer	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:05:58 AM
Good to see you back in form, man! I am laughing my nuts off. >>But it can still suck, in small and in large ways. I'll probably enjoy it.
Anyone see that Jack Black commercial w/ the kids at the theater by Retrace	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:28:32 AM
Not sure what theater chain I was at - but thats was great. Never been a big Jack Black fan but I laughed me ass of at that.
Cockring also thought Jackson took LOTR too seriously. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:39:12 AM
I'll bet he's really looking forward to Narnia.
i got invited to see the goblet of fire... by jig98	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:42:25 AM
and i'm just gonna flat out say it. the king kong trailer will play and from that point on...i'm gonna feel like i'm watching a different movie.
I wish Jackson had done the Star Wars prequels by DARTH VOODOO	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:46:38 AM
The mand respects the script,characters and audience in a way that George Lucas has forgotten about.
The first review is 100% fake by freak2thec0re	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:53:25 AM
because they are having the enormous king kong world premiere in new york on Monday at the AMC Empire 25 (that I work at) and Loews 13, and the studios have been coming in preparing for it for the last month, and it just seems like it would be completely ridiculous that they just up and decided to show it at some small theatre the week before, I'm pretty damn sure I would have heard of it though . . . but who knows
"My favorite movie of all time is Raiders of the Lost Ark. The t by Orionsangels	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:55:10 AM
My lost twin! I think that too, are you me?
Ringbearer fully loaded. by Yojimbo Jones	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:57:49 AM
I've never seen a girl so peevish and insecure that she absolutely hates something so strongly in advance that she should waste so much time and energy venting her little girl tantrums with hissy fits over Kong the way this little girl Ringbearer. This is fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania, hysteria and jealousy on steroids. I guess you could say Ringbearer is the King Kong of Cynicism & Envy. Can't wait 'til this movie opens and she falls off the top o' the Empire State. Dig it, bitch. This movie is going to own your skank know-nothing ass.
Jurassic Park came out in 93 by the way by Orionsangels	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:59:58 AM

Um, fucking PLANT. by HypeEndsHere	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:07:29 AM

is ringbearer a girly girl? by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:09:42 AM
somehow, it all makes sense...on a different topic, the crown prince of norway just had a son! A little baby prince! Congrats.
Spoiler free... by BDT	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:42:29 AM
but nothing I couldn't have guessed from the awesome, awesome trailers and faithful production diaries. I'm a tad scared to visit this sight before I see King Kong, I don't want spoilers. I want Kong!!!! The waiting is killing me. However, I am thrilled that the folks who have seen it think it is a grand adventure. No spoilers, Harry, not until we can ALL see it for ourselves.
by horsemouth	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:42:55 AM
If there is one thing this film should teach all of us is that there is no filmmaker alive better than Peter Jackson at giving us jaw-dropping moments. You wanna quit smoking those pipes
Spoiler free... by BDT	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:48:02 AM
but nothing I couldn't have guessed from the awesome, awesome trailers and faithful production diaries. I'm a tad scared to visit this sight before I see King Kong, I don't want spoilers. I want Kong!!!! The waiting is killing me. However, I am thrilled that the folks who have seen it think it is a grand adventure. No spoilers, Harry, not until we can ALL see it for ourselves.
Any "reviewer" who says Jackson is the best filmmaker at this or by IAmJack'sUserID	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:07:56 AM
Better than Spielberg? Go fuck yourself, Nole, who should change the first letter in your name to 'h' and add 'ass' before it. Yes, Lucas is weak nowadays, but goddamnit, he gave us the original trilogy and Indy Jones! Peter Jackson is the 'safest' filmmaker in the world; he takes material and throws a bunch of damn CGI at it and then unloads it on a built-in audience, a'la LOTR , and suddenly he is praised by mindless fanboys as the greatest whatever. Sad.
sorry, freak, but you're wrong by Kung Fu Hustler	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:10:28 AM
there was a screening this week at the Lincoln Center Loews. it was an advanced screening, not the world premiere, probably for critics and some general public to fill the audience.
I thought Jackson had gotten ILM to do Kong? At the ILM offices by Silver_Joo	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:15:37 AM
I'm pretty sure of this. WETA's work on Narnia looks far more impressive in Narnia than it does in Kong. Kong looks tacky. And please, don't even start saying Lucas and Spielberg are no good at action - nearly 30 years of DEFINITIVE genre films with the most memorable action sequences between them? Please. The final fight in ROTS was a much more affecting mix of drama and action than Jackson could manage in LOTR. Please, stop overrating this average film maker at the expense of the talents that got him into making films in the first place.
ILM isn't doing any work on Kong by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:29:29 AM
And also, WETA isn't doing any of the CGI work on Narnia.
Weta and ILM, among many other SFX houses, are working on Narnia by IAmJack'sUserID	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:57:30 AM

This King Kong film looks good, but another monster film to chec by JarJar25	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:15:22 AM
I never really loved King Kong as much as Godzilla. I really feel that the 1954 Godzilla uncut is the better film, but no one here in the US as ever seen that film. Godzilla is always getting short changed and Kong looks to do well in Japan as well. Final Wars is worth checking out, but I must admit that Pete Jackson's King Kong will change everything.
Jurassic Park came out in 1994? by Forestal	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:25:57 AM
No it didn't. 1993.
fuck lucas by William Cutting	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:26:05 AM
the last 3 star wars films were terrible, despite all the money that was thrown at them
Yes, but WETA isn't doing any of the CGI on Narnia by Gheorghe Zamfir	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:29:58 AM
WETA WORKSHOP is doing miniature and practical effects, but WETA Digital isn't working on the film, the CG is being handled by Rhythm and Hues and Sony Imageworks.
ROTS was awesome... by Forestal	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:33:03 AM
This is a KONG TB not a SW Prequel haters TB.
ILM VS WETA by punkdogmalcolm	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:49:24 AM
you guys are great! I haven't responded to very many talkbacks but man, I love it when you pit one thing versus another (ILM VS WETA). As we know, they are companies. They both do great work, and they both run around grabbing people to work for them. But to us Geeks they are our football teams. It's an interesting inside to social interaction. Cheers!
ILM's biggest fault by Bass Ackwards	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:52:20 AM
If it can be called a fault, isn't so much their work isn't as good as it is their status as top dog hooks them up with directors who have no idea how to really use digital effects in their films, guys who think ILM can do everything and anything so essentially just run film and expect CGI to fill in the blanks. But you look at ILM's work with Speilberg, whether you liked War of the Worlds or Minority Report, I think both those films probably represent the best incorporation of digital effects around, there's just some absolutely flawless stuff, and Jurassic Park still holds up as one of the best. Look at the difference between ILM's work on this last Harry Potter vs what they did with Christopher Columbus, or what a company like Digital Domain, which doesn't have much of a reputation, but their work was great when they hooked up with Cameron for True Lies and Titanic. Poeple underrate how much a director has to do with special effects, but it is a synergy, not just the effects house, and bad-mediocre directors, no matter how good ILM or WETA is, will put out bad-mediocre effects. WETA simply hasn't been around long enough to get hooked up with shoddy directors or projects, I mean so far its pretty much been a little bit of Robert Zemeckis and Alex Proyas, and Peter Jackson Peter Jackson Peter Jackson Peter Jackson.
The Devin/CHUD review is NOT negative by droog	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:57:02 AM
Seriously, what's wrong with some of you people? It's an 8.4 out of 10, with plenty of praise for what the film does right, and any disappointment seems relative to the rest of the film and Jackson's previous work. Why don't you see the actual movie before arguing about how "accurate" someone else's opinion is?
Weta and ILM by Shaner Jedi	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:11:52 PM
Gogamoth, you are such a poseur. Your lame ass(and wrong) statement about ILM = No miniatures might just qualify as the dumbass fx statement of the year. ILM's model shop is at the pinnacle of their commercial artistry right now. I love all this Weta vs. ILM shit constantly coming from these Talkbackers who know absolutely NOTHING about the fx industry and how artists move from shop to shop and usually ENJOY working with one another... You wanks. As for Narnia...Weta WORKSHOP, not Weta DIGITAL worked on the film you know-nothings. Sony Imageworks, Rhythm and Hues, and ILM created the fx work. Weta workshop created the armour, weaponry, and special costuming, while KNB EFX did the creature work. As for this whole Weta is better at CG than ILM nonsense, listen to what Richard Taylor said in Cinefex about three issues ago: He PRAISED the creation of JAR JAR and siad they could not have created Gollum without ILM's path clearing work on Binks. And just who is working at Weta on Kong? Joe Letteri, an ILM veteran Scott E. Anderson, and ILM and Sony Imageworks veteran Ben Snow, an ILM vet George Murphy, an ILM and ESC vet and Sandy Houston is leading the roto department after years of working at ILM. Gogomoth and johnny, get your facts straight before sounding off.
"If there is one thing this film should teach all of us is that by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:26:38 PM
Credibility destroyed in the third sentence! Is that a new record? I'm waiting for somebody to destroy their credibility in the first sentence of their review--Now that would be something.
"Now as for that 3-hour running time, yes, its too long." by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:29:05 PM
Now THAT'S what Jackson is known for--Not being able to pace his movies well. Anybody here see those Lord of the Rings movies? Sheesh!
Geek polarization by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:31:47 PM
It does entertain me mightily, but I can't for the life of me understand it. Was it contained somewhere in the fine print of the Geek For Life contract I signed that I couldn't like more than one franchise or effects house, and that the one I choose I must defend loyally to the death against the sinister allegiances of other geeks? Am I in breach of something here?
Darth Vader vs. Gandalf....who would win? by IAmJack'sUserID	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:34:13 PM
Winner can take on Kong. My credits are on the Sith Lord!
I'm with DocPazuzu by aikimoe	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:41:53 PM
When I watch the ILM and Weta documentary extras I'm equally amazed at the craft and imagination of the people at both places. I know folks who have worked at both and none of them share the knee-jerk loyalty that one sees on these boards. They're only impressed with what comes from the "competition" (though they don't see it as such). And they should know. Does anyone here criticizing ILM or Weta have any professional experience doing what they do?
I'm with DocPazuzu by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:54:56 PM

Weta vs ILM by John-Locke	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:57:39 PM
ILM I believe worked on some of the sound design of Kong (Maybe the Biplanes?) and were given the Kong on Empire model for inspiration, that was what I heard about a year ago anyway. As for WETA Stealing everything from ILM whoever said that earlier, I believe that Jackson had been developing new CGI techniques with the money he was making from Hercules & Xena, I could be totally wrong but I believe WETA eventually created a new technique used on The Grim Reapers cape in The Frighteners which allowed CGI cloth to move realistically. Then you have the smart system Weta created for LOTR with the massive crowds, used brilliantly in Helms Deep. ILM & Weta have both paved the way, ILM more so but then they have been around longer, I wasn't aware that it was a competition anyway.
"I'm with DocPazuzu" by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 3rd, 2005 12:57:49 PM
I was just going to point out credibility being destroyed in the subject line of a talkback. That's all.
Professional experience by punkdogmalcolm	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:01:21 PM
Usually the effects personel are loyal to a movie rather than an effects house. Making movies is a great experience if you have the right team and I believe that besides the money, working on a great project is most important to these effects artists. For the most part, they could care less about the companies themselves.
ILM and sound design? by punkdogmalcolm	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:04:23 PM
Why would ILM be doing sound design?? Isn't that Skywalker sounds job?
we'll see... by obi-bear	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:09:53 PM
It's nice to see that even after his movies have completed their theatrical runs, hit the DVD shelves and been viewed by millions of appreciative fans everywhere, Luca's work still creates enough of a buzz that not a talkback here seems to go by without a bit of bashing from the basement brigade...seesh. To the topic at hand...I wish Jackson et al all the best with this new film. I'll admit nothing in the trailers has gotten me too excited (I love how the theatrical trailer tries to sell it like Titantic)and the 3 hour running time sounds long but...we'll see. I actually prefer the theatrical releases of the LOTR films instead of the Extended Editions...they're better paced. Not long before we can all judge the new Kong for ourselves....
John Locke by Shaner Jedi	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:10:12 PM
"I wasn't aware that it was a competition anyway." Well, it's usually a friendly competition, not this ILM suxx-Weta Rulez" crap we get here occassionally. Seriously, if an artist works at "X" fx house and is great, he's not going to suddenly suck because he now works at company "Y". If Dennis Muren left ILM tomorrow, anything he worked on afterwards would immediately get my interest, regardless of what comapny he worked for. This whole "this company is better than this one" sounds like sports talk rather than what it is, subjective opinion. Weta does great work. DD does great work, etc. Alot of places have people who do great work. The company is just the logo,four walls, and a toilet........ ....unless you're at the Presidio with ILM and someone craps on the floor and tracks it in the hallway.
Never seen so many talkbackers in denial!! by performingmonkey	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:10:28 PM
He he. Face it, this movie is going to blow you away, and nothing, not even your constant 'Hackson' bashing, numb WETA vs ILM bullshit and whining about the 3 hour length and Ann and Kong having an emotional connection can stop this. You can't handle the fact that Peter can make better movies than you, Spielberg or Lucas. You can't handle that he can get Oscars for making what are essentially total geek-out movies.
Nice baiting numbskull by Shaner Jedi	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:27:36 PM
I've seen your posts numerous times and you never seem to stray far from trolling and baiting. Grow up.
Devin, what an Ass... by Nivek666	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:34:28 PM
Apparently, he didn't want to break his habit of giving a higher numerical score to a populer fan awaited film, than what his written reveiw should give. And an 8.4, seriously, why not an 8.5? That .1 went out the window because he didn't see Gorilla Ball's? What a fucking douchebag...
"Jar Jar 4 Prez" by aikimoe	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:40:13 PM
I was just going to point out credibility being destroyed in the User ID of a talkback. That's all.
i have something to say about filmmakers dreams.... by jig98	Dec 3rd, 2005 01:49:15 PM
{warning:this talkback post contains adult humor and language.}if you ask me it's not because they had "impacts" on earlier movies. it's because they actually LISTEN to what fans are trying to tell them. it's a simple little equation. fans write and write and write and write and write and they never bitch and moan about cult hits or bad movies with followings like blade runner or close encounters of the 3rd kind. i think fans or fanbases don't really give 2 shits about the irony or first class things on movies. they care about the huge thing that people really think about movies....the story within the story. you never get a good idea on movies like jurassic park or star wars. they have something filmmakers can always look for in making movies. south park and the simpsons put it so nicely. i come up with random shit when i make up these fun and interesting ideas for movies and i am sort of a consultant and correspondent and i'm not even in fuckin' college yet. tommorow, i'm thinking of going to see the goblet of fire with a robe on. i gotta keep track of what filmmakers like lucas and del toro do when christmas eve arrives and i own all 6 fuckin' star wars films.
devins review is 8.4 out of 10 by slappy jones	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:20:05 PM
wow what a bummer...sounds like he really hated it....... oh and anyone who thinks fantastic four is better then batman begins fun or not is insane.
I can't believe there is actually ILM vs Weta ranting. by Citizen Arcane	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:21:51 PM
You guys have reached the bottom of the barrel and are starting to dig under the barrel. As I said, I'm in film technology school and if given the choice I'd choose to work at ILM but come on, they're both great. ILM were the pioneers and Lucas sinks more into ILM than Jackson does into Weta but I'm sure both houses have equally bright and creative people working for them.
"Weta doesn't top ILM! ILM invented everything Weta is doing by mascan	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:56:10 PM
Hoo hoo . . . tell 'em Fred.
by Maceox	Dec 3rd, 2005 02:57:01 PM

Devin by Maceox	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:01:44 PM
This guy gave Batman Begind a 6.5 and Fantatic Four a 7.1. Come on you gonna trust his sorry ass. Kong will rock..all hail the new age of cinema ushered in by Jackson.
I won't cry at the end...cause i'm dead hard me!!! by Deak the Geek	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:34:37 PM
can't wait for the movie, 3 hours though....arse numbing.
Half the time.. by Terminator	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:44:00 PM
AICN is about plant reviews not the geeks.
Let me get this straight, Ringsucker9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 03:57:28 PM
...In FF, not wasting time trying to make things "believable" is not only okay, but desirable, but vaporizing Gotham's water main with microwaves was "retarded" and "wonky science" in a bad way? You truly are a completely obnoxious moron.
"You truly are a completely obnoxious moron." by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 3rd, 2005 04:05:09 PM
...and THAT'S something that DocPazuzu actually knows about!
My personal opinion is that PJ should have pulled the release da by workshed	Dec 3rd, 2005 04:10:08 PM
...having followed the KIK diaries since the beginning my honest opinion is that the last two months have been 'rushed' to say the least. PJ looks like he's ready for a heart attack and the production looked like it was more or less out of his hands with vital decisions being made solely due to time constraints. Now everyone surely knew Kong was going to go over budget but imho they could have spent another 30-40 mill fine tuning the cut to perfection and test-screening it a little first (which I can't believe they didn't do). As a matter of fact I'd love to see Pete go back and do a 'low-budget' movie with the anarchy of the early days. Make another zombie flick Pete. You know you want to. With triple-barrel magnums.
twenty years ago today on "The Facts of Life".... by Borgnine JR	Dec 3rd, 2005 04:15:22 PM
... Jo grabs Tootie and carries her to the top of the Empire State Building, where she is talked down by a weepie Mrs. Garrett and her fabulous peach cobbler. AS USUAL Natalie steals the show, but nobody notices and she ends up weeping quietly in a corner.
Actually, Ringprober9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 04:34:08 PM
...I have problems with neither -- "silly" or "serious" -- as long as they're well done. You, on the other hand, contradict yourself repeatedly (sometimes in the same post) depending upon which film you've decided to try to seem knowledgeable about. You're nothing but a cinefeeb. Oh, and it's moviemack who wants to be Batman, not me.
Actually, Alonzo Moseley, WETA does have a special name for larg by Frietag	Dec 3rd, 2005 04:51:58 PM
Cool User ID, by the way. "Agent Foster Grant! Hey, Alonzo, aren't ya gonna thank me for doing your job for ya?"
Ringletsetter9 by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:09:43 PM
Upset? Hardly. Calling you on your utter cluelessness isn't synonomous with being upset, as opposed to your sudden loss of composure and inability to defend yourself in an authoritative fashion.
Cockring is pretty consistent in his desire to see nothing taken by FluffyUnbound	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:29:02 PM
I can't decide if it's because he's a queen who lives for camp, or if it's because he actually does work for the Teletubbies production team, or if it's because he's engaged in a long-term attempt to criteria-sell the prequels to us by convincing us that cartoonish nonsense that you can't take seriously or suspend disbelief for is actually what filmmakers should be AIMING for. It's probably a mixture of all three.
"Batmon loving Geek" by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:33:37 PM
Sure, I love Batman, but I don't know about this "Batmon" guy.
Batmon is the comic about a Jamaican vigilante. by FluffyUnbound	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:34:54 PM
Check it out.
Jurassic Park came out in 1993 by KewlKR	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:35:55 PM
not 1994 -- just sayin'.
Seriously, Ringreamer9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:45:40 PM
...If anyone is "dancing" here it's you. You make one outrageous statement after another and when holes the size of minor celestial bodies are punched through them, you don't respond to them other than to make even more outrageous statements backed up by a lot of empty data consisting of irrelevant commentary track minutiae, screenshots, unfounded speculation and limp insults. You're an ignorant tubthumping besserwisser of colossal proportions. The only people who take you seriously are moviemack and Indiana Clones. Even most people who think LOTR sucks and that KK will suck consider you to be a complete cunt.
"Who are you?" by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 05:47:00 PM
"I'm Batmon, mon! Troot!"
bigatures??? by Alonzo Mosely	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:10:58 PM
Well, I got me edumacation for the day... Back to watching Private School, Betsy Russell, that is something cgi will never top...
Dec. 14th can't get here soon enough by IAmLegolas	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:43:23 PM
Another week and a half of this pre-show trolling, ay carumba.
Ringbearer9 and moviemack... by DocPazuzu	Dec 3rd, 2005 06:51:15 PM
...all we need now is Indiana Clones and the Axis of Anus will be complete.
Devin cant figure out what to rate the movie. by Maceox	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:06:37 PM
Whatever he thought about the movie aside, he sucks as a reviewer. He says negative after negative then gives it 8.4 wtf is that. At least Ebert explains differences between his reveiw and his stars. Also he sounds like Jackson should have made this stop motion. I think I will wait too see what the "real" critics have to say. Gotta add Batman Begins was an amazing movie. You trolls make me laugh. Go Peter usher in this new age of cinema!
I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS by THE KNIGHT	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:22:16 PM
i haven't seen PJ's films prior to LOTR Trilogy but from what i've seen of him so far, he is one of the best working today because of the LOTR movies alone. and the tv spots own all sorts of ASS!
Message for freak2theCore about pre-premiere screenings by elanor	Dec 3rd, 2005 08:45:56 PM
The reviews are real and so are the screenings. Just to follow up on what was already mentioned, almost all "event" films have early press screenings (in NY and LA at least) set up by the studio. Partly to let reviewers have access to the film and partly to create buzz and word of mouth. When a studio film does NOT have a press screening it is usually (but not always) a tip off that the studio is embarassed by it. These screenings are usually not open to "the general public" but to professionals connected to the particular film or to the film industry such as press people, cast, crew, members of various related guilds (SAG, Academy voters, DGA, etc.). Of course, they can (and do) invite friends, family and colleagues so "the general public" is usually represented anyway. I was lucky enough to see all three LOTR films at early screenings. Alas, my luck ran out for King Kong but plan to see it opening week. One thing not so great about screenings, though, is that many take place in rooms with small screens.
I can't believe you people just flaty refuse to sit back and by Dark Knight Lite	Dec 3rd, 2005 09:23:49 PM
We've had Sin City, Star Wars, Batman, War of the Worlds, Fantastic Four, Land of the Dead, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Devil's Rejects, Corpse Bride, Harry Potter, Narnia and finish up with KONG! Sure, some of these are light years ahead of others (Batman Begins is vastly superior to the FF, AND YOU KNOW IT MOVIEMACK) but it will be a loooong time before we see this many noteworthy fantasy films debut in the same year. I for one have enjoyed it thoroughly. So please for once in your failed and useless lives, allow yourself to be entertained.
Bravo, Dark Knight Lite by Riff Randall	Dec 3rd, 2005 10:14:38 PM
Far and away the most coherent and truthful statement on this talkback.
Personally, I don't give a rats ass what anybody else thinks by KongMonkey	Dec 3rd, 2005 11:14:17 PM
including the raving fans. Not to state the obvious here, but like every damn person on the planet, my own opinion is most important to me. So regardless of what other people tell me, my opinions gonna stay the same. Like Harry and others, I loved King Kong's story long before there was even speculation of another remake. Let alone that it would be Peter Jackson(relatively unknown guy to me until I saw LOTR) was doing it. The trailers for this kong have already shown me several things. Most importantly, that it will not be the borefest that the seventies maninsuit rubber snake remake was. We get to see Kong brought to life via the best fx today. Much like the original 33 version, which was a landmark for visual fx and many other departments, including music. I haven't seen PJ's remake yet, so I'll "reserve judgement." But I'll make a "pretty good guess" that this new kong will kick major fucking ass. And now for some minor useless who-gives-a-shit facts of life. Kong is an Ape, not a monkey. Differience between apes and monkeys being that one missing appendage hanging above the ass that apes lack. Tails. In closing, if the reviewers of the world love this film, good for them. If they hate it, good for them. Ain't gonna change the fact that I'm seeing the damned movie regardless of what any fuckshit has to say, and I'm enjoying it for everything its worth! GOOD FOR ME!
whoever said chud doesn't like kong is wrong by pattonjr5	Dec 4th, 2005 12:03:22 AM
the 2 reviews at rotten tomatoes: "This gorilla of a film is blockbuster of the year." [movie review] London Daily Mail Baz Bamigboye 8.4/10 "Jackson again reminds us that he's a genius." [movie review] CHUD Devin It
I can't wait for this, but I got my fingers crossed for a Gr by Shermdawg	Dec 4th, 2005 12:13:06 AM

wow by metsrulein2k	Dec 4th, 2005 01:50:31 AM
Last night I was the first to criticize Devin in this talkback and I come back to all this? I would like to pat myself on the back for bringing this problem to life. Viva la Revolution!
"mutual self-love" by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 03:51:24 AM
Isn't that a contradiction in terms? You know, like "a funny GoatZinger post"? I keed, I keed. No, not really.
HogCholera by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 03:56:03 AM
You got banned? For what? That Aquaf@g TB is a fucking cesspool. It should be called "Home for Trevorfactor's Sharing". Oh well, lay down with dogs and all that...
moviemack by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 04:01:49 AM
Is that all you've got? I know the Batman Begins reaming must mean you'll never sleep without a nightlight and a rubber sheet ever again, but son, you've got to pick yourself up and move on at some point.
fuck remakes by CuervoJones	Dec 4th, 2005 04:58:47 AM

Its a giant monkey fighting dinosaurs! Who wouldnt pay 8 british by Reelheed	Dec 4th, 2005 05:01:16 AM
Basically i dont give a fig how many oscar nominations this film may or may not win. ROTS was a bag of suck in terms of character/story ("where is padme? is she alright? Noooooooooo!!!" = worst movie ending ever ) but i loved it for the spectacle. This film promises that at least. Hey! JC! Forget Alita. Hows about Kong2 - Kongs:this time its war!?
CAN'T WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by Fugazi32	Dec 4th, 2005 05:13:13 AM
Rock on Kong!
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 05:13:58 AM
Wow, your last two posts are without a doubt your funniest yet. You try to come across as being nuanced and sensible in your cinematic theories, but your inanities and unbelievably shallow views on just about everything will not be denied. By your reasoning, not only is Batman & Robin a better film than Batman Begins, but trolls, fell beasts, glowing green ghosts, orcs, elves, giant spiders, towers with eyes, balrogs, Minas Tirith, ents and marsh phantoms aren't "fantastic" enough for you because they exist in a world where people actually get dirty and cry. Your idiocy is without peer.
Oh, and Ringbearer9... by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 05:15:20 AM
...in what film did King Kong actually eat dinosaurs? Sounds awesome.
Ringbearer9 by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 06:21:11 AM
Ah, I knew you'd say that. As soon as someone hands your ass to you and mentions a film which contradicts everything you've said, you say "I haven't seen it", which means one of two things: 1) you have seen it but are at a loss as to how to confront the argument and are trying to win time, or 2) you actually haven't seen all those movies (such as the original KK) which means your opinions are all the more invalid. Is that Jackson Smaug something you've made up or has he actually stated that that's how he'd do it?
What? No mention of the king's 'Donkey' Kong? by Doc_Strange	Dec 4th, 2005 06:50:58 AM
They should make this movie 3-d so when you see Kong flopping around, it's in your face. You know you want it.
I take it back, Ringsucker... by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 07:00:27 AM
...the "fucking up the fantastic" is your funniest post ever. First of all, that Jackson's cinematic version of LOTR isn't "fantastic" enough for you speaks volumes about how sadly disconnected from reality your real life must be. Secondly, it's obvious you haven't even seen the original KK, which your posts at times have painfully shown. Thirdly, no, I suspected the Jackson Smaug was something you made up because his "ancient" fell beasts were pretty much aerodynamically impossible yet graced the screen all the same. This is symptomatic of your entire style of debating and critiquing films; you pick and choose the "fantastic" and the "real" whenever it suits your assholish take on the films in question. Luckily, you're very much in the minority since millions and millions of film lovers around the world were completely immersed in Jackson's LOTR and made believers of the "fantastic" during the hours spent in the spell of the movies. In fact, I'd wager that even most people who didn't even like LOTR at least felt Jackson made fantasy very much a believable "reality". You're such a miserable tit that I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
Devin's a jackass, but his problem with the film makes a lot by genro	Dec 4th, 2005 07:53:32 AM
PJ is enough of a jackass to expand upon Denham and company because filmmakers can never restrain themselves when they're writing about filmmakers. I mean, how do you mentally justify making your leading man a screenwriter? And until an original Jackson idea does huge business, he shouldn't be considered anywhere near Spielberg's, or even Lucas, level.
"many millions who supposedly disagree with me" by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 08:39:09 AM
Of course, because as we all know, the millions who saw and "supposedly" loved the LOTR films were merely doing what you do, namely meticulously and repeatedly scrutinizing films they loathed in order to argue their flaws online. On a personal note, I find that I have no trouble at all arguing my own points against yours. Don't flatter yourself. If one of your arguments is that Kong has "an unattractive pot belly", I shudder to think what it is in giant fictitious apes you do find attractive. A bit of advice: watch the original KK before you open your figurative fetid maw again and spew your usual uninformed garbage. Try schooling yourself before schooling others.
Ah, GoatZinger... by DocPazuzu	Dec 4th, 2005 08:40:33 AM
...and here I was, thinking we had reached an undeclared truce of sorts. Silly me.
Batman Begins is great by Terminator	Dec 4th, 2005 09:11:01 AM
Stop trying to team up with moviemack because your getting your ass handed to you, Ringbearer. Bend over and accept defeat.
I get to make my mind up for myself Monday morning 10 am... in N by HypeEndsHere	Dec 4th, 2005 09:19:14 AM
and i'm not even that into Kong.
"The background CGI effects stick out like a sore thumb" I assu by minderbinder	Dec 4th, 2005 09:51:47 AM
The BG's are probably 90% model, 10% digital. But thanks for trying.
oh please by Novaman5000	Dec 4th, 2005 09:56:01 AM
1) there's no way this movie will flop. Even if it's terrible: Look at fantastic 4. 2) I don't think i'll ever understand such hardcore bitching about a movie that hasn't even come out yet. If you're so sure it sucks why bother even talking about it?
Whatever respect I have for Jackson and his film is killed by . by Rhett Butler	Dec 4th, 2005 10:25:09 AM
The threat of yet another extended cut of one of his movies on DVD. Check out the interview over at Dark Horizons. What is wrong with contemporary directors - can
strangely, it's the studios that release these films on DVD by HypeEndsHere	Dec 4th, 2005 10:59:33 AM
directors can make any movie they want now, knowing that even if it's hacked to bits to get a PG, their cut will ultimately be seen on DVD. it's not the directors fault. very few of them want multiple versions of their film out there. (Lucas, anyone?) the studios that chop a film for the masses at the theatre, if anyone, are cheapening the artistic vision. well, they don't have artistic vision. they're cheapening the director's (temporarily).
This movie is gonna suck by Indiana Clones	Dec 4th, 2005 11:14:37 AM
That is all.
"The threat of yet another extended cut of one of his movies on by IAmLegolas	Dec 4th, 2005 11:36:44 AM
You are not forced to buy it and it's not like they are making the theatrical version disappear, so what exactly is your problem? I'm a fan of extended versions if they restore the director's vision because of compromises with time constraints, ratings boards or studio interference.... or heck, even if it just plain improves the film in my eyes, even if the director disagrees. But yeah there are studios that release stuff just to try and squeeze more money out of fans, but those are usually sh*tty movies that need to recoup their money like AvP, Elektra, etc., buit I won't mark Peter Jackson's films among them. But having said that, I don't see why KING KONG would need to be over 3 hours long, but then again, I haven't seen the movie yet. Maybe the movie will blow everyone away and they'll be begging to want to see that "beach scene" and.or "swamp monster attack" (as taken from the Dark Horizon interview) back in?
Good Point Hype . . . by Rhett Butler	Dec 4th, 2005 11:36:56 AM
If a director
aikimoe by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 4th, 2005 12:12:04 PM
I was just going to point out a talkbacker with absolutely no sense of humor. Next time I'll try to come up with a great handle that's full of meaning... Something like "aikimoe."
If there's one thing we can all agree on... by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 4th, 2005 12:17:40 PM
It's that DocPazuzu is a MAJOR asshole. Am I right or am I right, people?
My point Legs . . . by Rhett Butler	Dec 4th, 2005 12:24:05 PM
Is made by
Rhett Butler by IAmLegolas	Dec 4th, 2005 01:02:37 PM
ROTK:EE was better than the theatrical version, heck, all 3 EE's were better than their theatrical counterparts. The whole story needed the extra time, it's a damn big book. Unfortunately, not too many people want to go to the theater and watch a 4 hour & 18 minute movie (referring to ROTK:EE) without breaks. People are already bitching about KONG being 3 hours. But I agree, it sucks to have multiple version floating around, but it sucks even more to not have a choice (imagine being stuck with only the theatrical version?). The arbiter for which version is good/bad should be the director (although I would disagree when too much time has passed and they start rethinking things), but ultimately it falls to the viewer. The advent of DVD is both a blessing and a curse.
Jar Jar 4 Prez by aikimoe	Dec 4th, 2005 01:20:54 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who were you pointing out? Why did it destroy my "credibility" to agree with DocPazuzu? And a user ID doesn't have to have "meaning." It's just amusing to have some one with your handle talking about "credibility."
by ringbearer's logic, by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 4th, 2005 01:24:13 PM
the fantasy in the prequels is better than the fantasy in the OT, because the OT is gritty, and goes for the realistic, used look. Discuss.
When we leave this place... me no like! by BlueMax	Dec 4th, 2005 01:37:47 PM
Do not be fooled! I urge you to not believe the intense hype this film is generating. If you give in and pay your hard earned scratch to see this in a theater with fellow chumps - Remember... you've been warned. You may not like what you see!
Actual PJ said and I quote, he got everything he wanted in there by Orionsangels	Dec 4th, 2005 01:51:07 PM
So he can't really say, oh i wanted this in there too, so now we have the 4hr version, because he's releasing everything he wanted to release, we may get deleted scenes and bloopers though
"Whatever the guys at WETA do to make their effects look that mu by TS Thomas	Dec 4th, 2005 03:03:55 PM
WETA are nowhere near ILM in what they've achieved to date. Lord Of The Rings for example, consistently looks fake, not to mention the rush job they did (Archers in frame repeatedly not firing arrows for example). In fairness I'll have to see Kong to judge how they've done this time (The trailers look decent, even if it is ultra colorful). But still, ILM have a far better idea how to do convincing effects. Didn't anybody watch War of the Worlds?
believe the intense hype by Gargamoth	Dec 4th, 2005 03:05:16 PM
Shaner Jedi, I heard Lucas himself said that they were doing less and less miniature work. I'm not part of the Weta/ILM debate. I just love miniatures and I'm a fan of the work on Skull Island. You will be too!
Ive seen the movie and it was great. One of my favorit by Lovecraftfan	Dec 4th, 2005 03:16:31 PM
As the subject said I have already seen the movie. I didnt send in the review for covering my butt purposes. Im not supposed to be talking about but I just had to come on after watching you already trahing the movie and acting really pissed at Peter Jackson for whatever reason. The movie is great. I loved the lots and lots of character work in the begg. Yes it ultra sentimental but it works and thats what was suprising. The acting scenes especially the spider pit scene(wait til you see the worms) is great and in the end it s surprisngly depressing. WETA did a great job of turning a 50 foot special effect into an actual character. The point we finally have an escapist action adventure with substance. You guys are ripping it apart like its a Michael Bay film.
Its supposed to be colorful by Lovecraftfan	Dec 4th, 2005 03:17:57 PM
For the complaint6 it looks to colorful it is. Its part of the tone of the film.
the weta/ilm debate is stupid by slappy jones	Dec 4th, 2005 04:23:18 PM
you do realise that most of the effects guys are freelancers? they all move around film to film....there are lotr guys who worked on prequels and vice versa....they don't just start at one place and stay there forever....and why does one have to be better than the other...this is like a lame ass "my dad could beat up your dad" argument in a fucking day care. they are both great effects houses. they are both producing the best we have ever seen....so why bitch about it.
Nole = Jackie Harvey fom The Onion by wash	Dec 4th, 2005 05:25:54 PM

*from by wash	Dec 4th, 2005 05:26:13 PM

Weta Vs. ILM Jackson Vs. Lucas by Lavaman	Dec 4th, 2005 10:23:54 PM
slappy jones, I would rather just enjoy great movies, instead of arguing about who's Franchise is better. The problem is that certain Posters on this site always have to trash Lucas and ILM, when any Talkback concerning Jackson and Weta comes up. So I always feel the need to balance it out, by defending Lucas/ILM. The truth is, I do love and appreciate what Peter Jackson and his Effects team Weta create. I greatly respect Richard Taylor of Weta Workshop as well, as his Miniatures and Bigatures have amazingly fine detail. Make no mistake about it, I am definately looking forward to seeing King Kong the week of Dec 14th. Hell, I haven't even seen the movie yet, and I already anticipate seeing it at least 4 times in the Theater, just like each of the LOTR movies.
I saw it......and it's kinda not very good. by earl of sandwich	Dec 5th, 2005 12:55:13 AM
Saw it on Thursday and let me tell you the naysayers are going to have a lot of fuel for their fire. For every great moment (i.e dinosaur fights!) there are truly crappy moments. And by crappy moments I mean escaping from the top of a cliff by hanging on to the legs of a giant bat crappy. Newsweek brought up the pond scene in their review, also truly crappy. If there is one scene that will top Vader's "NOOOOO" it's a monkey sliding on his bum, holding on to his girl, LAUGHING. The monkey actually starts laughing while sliding on his bum. There's plenty more groners, but I'll leave those to the haters to discover for themselves. Not to lay a hate down on the movie, on the whole it's kinda fun, but not a memorable type of fun. I just can't for the life of me see anyone comparing this to LOTR, there's just no comparison. LOTR had story, scale, pacing and amazing charaters. Kong has a pretty girl & a monkey....and some killer dinosaur fights!!!!!
Someone... by buster00	Dec 5th, 2005 04:41:52 AM
on the TalkBacks observed that if you keep saying "Kong" over and over again to yourself, it sounds really funny. THAT PERSON IS CORRECT. I've been doing it all weekend. "KONG!" It's not even a WORD to me anymore. It' taken on "mantra" status. Like "nog." Or "C.H.U.D." As far as the movie goes, I'm tellin' ya guys, I'm gonna go opening week with the rest o' ya, but I don't expect anything better than "God-Damn-I-Just-Wasted-Eight- Dollars-Zilla."
"After he pulls off some original masterpieces - something he cr by minderbinder	Dec 5th, 2005 07:25:40 AM
Jaws? Schindler's List? Minority Report? Hook? Jurassic Park? The Color Purple? Catch me if you can? All based on books. In his huge list of movies he's directed, he only has a couple writing credits. Don't be a fucking hypocrite. The job of a director is to direct, that complaint is ONLY aimed at Jackson, when other directors use other people's material, the double standard kicks in and people let it slide. Are you going to call Coppola an unoriginal hack for not writing the Godfather? Idiot.
"I'll probably enjoy it" Why is that a little hard to belie by minderbinder	Dec 5th, 2005 07:32:08 AM
You do realize that the only purpose your posts serve is further humiliating yourself, right?
At least you're consistent...nothing like offering opinions by minderbinder	Dec 5th, 2005 12:18:28 PM
I'm hoping to be enjoying it in a couple weeks. You know. When I'm actually watching it. But whatever floats your boat.
minderbender, by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 5th, 2005 04:16:32 PM
I'm not totally disagreeing with you, and just so it is said: i think PJ is a terrific director. but consider this: with lotr, PJ had one of the greatest stories ever told as source material (I'm not saying it was easy to film), as well as terrific visual interpretations by alan lee and john howe (if i remember correctly). Jaws and the godfather however were two pretty trashy pulp novels elevated to cinematic art by spielberg and coppola. there is a difference there. as i said, PJ's a terrific director, but his two latest (and biggest) efforts have relied heavily on previous interpretations made by other people. it would be cool to see something big come out of his own imagination. on another note: why does a story like kong need to be 3 hours? it is expertly told in 90 minutes in the 33 version. 3 hours sounds a little on the indulgent side for a story about a giant ape. I'm dying to see it though, and sure it will be great fun. Peace.
Boffo rave review from FANGORIA by Yojimbo Jones	Dec 5th, 2005 07:13:45 PM
Boffo rave review from Fangoria: "Let
"If I were gay (which I'm not) I would lust after Jackson!!! by Jar Jar 4 Prez	Dec 6th, 2005 10:33:04 AM
Meesa thinks thou doth protest too much.
All great directors delegate. by minderbinder	Dec 6th, 2005 03:03:21 PM
They get great costume designers, cinematographers, sound designers. And yes, writers. And those people all deserve much credit. I don't buy the notion that directors only get credit if the movie comes from a weak book. If a book is elevated to something better, that's because of both the screenwriter and the director.
of course minderbender, but that's not what we're talkin by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 6th, 2005 03:51:53 PM
there's a difference between delegating and drawing upon previous works of art. and imo, it's more of a feat to make jaws a work of art than to make lotr. lotr the novel is still better than the films (that's not saying lotr are bad films, it's just that the novel is one of the greatest works of art ever).
I guess we'll just have to disagree. by minderbinder	Dec 6th, 2005 04:23:11 PM
As much as I like the LOTR books, I think they have many obstacles to becoming a film. It's nice to have elf calendars for visual inspiration, but there are many incredibly tough decisions to be made to make them into great movies. If it's so easy to make LOTR into a movie, why are previous attempts so bad? Why didn't someone else come along and take on the "easy" job of making the LOTR movies? Before PJ came along, there were a number of filmmakers who declared LOTR absolutely unfilmable.
absolutely by Colonel_Blimp	Dec 6th, 2005 06:06:06 PM
I never said it was easy, I'm just saying that lotr was a much more ready-made work of art before PJ came in than for instance Jaws was when Steve came in. But they're still both amazing achievements.
"less of a feat" sounds like easier to me. by minderbinder	Dec 7th, 2005 10:17:31 AM
I just don't agree that LOTR more "ready made". Sure, there was more stuff there, but besides being potential material, tiat stuff is a source of obligation for the filmmakers. Jaws is a fairly simple and straightforward tale (and I'm not saying that's a great achievement). But to say it's "more of a feat"? I don't buy that. A great book doesn't magically turn itself into a great movie, there's still tons of material to create and tons of decisions to be made. The disasterous previous attempts at LOTR are great examples of how it's not ready made.

Talkbacks

1st & 2nd AICN Geek Reviews of KING KONG

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks