King Kong (2005)'s effects. Yay or Nay?
-
high_rollin2-1 — 17 years ago(December 19, 2008 06:04 AM)
The effects themselves are very impressive when you consider what was done. Kong is impressive in the sense that an organic creature covered in long fur is a very hard thing to create digitally. And he did look pretty damn real in a number of shots.
But the overall look of the film was quite fake when you look back on it. The effects are a bit inconsistent in realism.
Obviously, Jackson and co. were going for a surreal look to be somewhat of a throwback to the original in terms of visual quality, only done with today's technology. So you could argue that it's exactly as it should be.
But today's audiences crave for realism and believability to be coming out the wazoo, so of course it's gonna be panned for looking fake.
There are a few shots of Kong where it looks fully like a real huge gorilla. I wish the entire movie could have been like that, because then it would have been amazing.
That's the reason some people think they're great and some people think they're terrible. Because there are great and terrible effects in the movie. The YAY people will focus on the good shots and the NAY people will focus on the bad shots.
I'm in the middle. -
blippster — 17 years ago(December 19, 2008 06:26 AM)
Interesting. That being said, there are literally only a couple of shots where I remember the effects looking fake (one when Kong is chasing Jack in the theatre, and one where Kong is on the frozen pond).
Remember, remember the fifth of No
v
ember -
natasemllac — 1 month ago(February 28, 2026 08:42 PM)
100% agree with the additional view that what do movies become if they become so realistic visually while we know on the inside that what they are depicting is simply a fantastic(al) story? I'll argue that nothing will be real enough until a person could actually experience it in real life. That then simple turns the story into a horrific nightmare, though I have no doubt there will be those willing to experience that if given the opportunity. But that's just weird.
It's along the lines of Digital Art. There are portraits and art pieces done digitally and even on canvas that can be difficult to distiguish from a photograph. But what does that do? It shows technique and a steady hand and attention to detail, but it does not show style, nor interpretation of reality. Movies are interpretations of what we wish reality would be.
The 2005 version was great, as the sequels and offshoots began coming out, each were far more stylized than the previous. In that aspect, It really becomes much more of a personal take. (color schemes, the variety of surroundings, the other creatures in the films). The 2005 imo wanted a more plausible take, which it achieved I think. -
ian-wr — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 09:09 AM)
I was lucky enough to be invited to a BAFTA screening of this film.I was blown away by the fx,especially the Empire state building.I got vertigo! I am normally sceptical about cgi,but that scene just looked absolutely real to me.
-
high_rollin2-1 — 17 years ago(March 22, 2009 05:55 PM)
The non-creature effects were without a doubt amazing. It's staggering to think that New York about 80% digital. And the jungle (created through a blend of CGI and miniatures, as well as some practical sets) was perfect. Really other-worldly and believable.
-
politicidal — 9 years ago(July 22, 2016 06:08 AM)
I give it a yay too. The stampede chase and those giant bats are the one scene that's pretty jarring though. Everything else from the recreation of Depression-era NYC to Kong himself to most of the dinosaurs look fantastic.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals. -
MovieKnut — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 12:46 PM)
Yay.
I thought the effects were tremendous. That being said, we live in an era where we expect movie effects to be continuously ground breaking. As such, they were no better than I expected them to be.
The original is often put down as being dated. However, I can appreciate how an audience watching the original would have been truly blown away by Kong. As sfx were in their infancy there was little to no reference for what the audience could expect.
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink! -
gottaluvafriend — 9 years ago(October 01, 2016 08:56 AM)
I'm pretty high on King Kong's (2005) special visual effects. I think the brontosaurus stampede is a little unbelievable, though. But my sentiments might be effected by my sympathy for them as veggie-saurus victims as it was pretty brutal. It's not the effects that I have a problem with it's what Jackson, a totally brilliant filmmaker, at times did with them. For instance, the sequence where Watts and the T-rex are falling through the vines is cartoonish to me, and the Kong/Watts ice skating scene is ridiculous. In terms of visual effects these examples are close to perfect, I just disagree with Jackson's vision in places.
-
ToastedCheese — 4 years ago(August 21, 2021 09:16 PM)
I'd rather watch the magic of the 1933 original.
Jackson went way overboard, it was over-indulgent in many areas, especially the runtime, and it played out like a cartoon.
With the exception of Naomi Watts, the casting of Jack Black and Adrien Brody was poor decision making too, as I don't like either and find them both unappealing to watch.
The film wasn't quite the hit anticipated and perhaps rightly so.
Norman! What did you put in my tea?