King Kong (2005)'s effects. Yay or Nay?
-
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? -
atomicgirl — 4 years ago(August 23, 2021 02:11 AM)
The special effects are the worst thing about the movie and why Jackson's remake will always get a big fat goose egg from me. They are so bad that I'd rather see 100 hours of Rick Baker in a gorilla suit than see one second of CGI from the movie.
-
MissMargoChanning — 3 years ago(August 06, 2022 08:04 PM)
I think the CGI was terrific! Very realistic.
I still love the original 1930s film. It frightened me as a child. I still see the shear horror when Beauty gets her first look at the Beast!
I still admire what went into the special effects at that time.
As for the 1970s version???
I am a fan of Peter Jackson's film.
BEAUTIFUL….
You asked a pretty question; I've given you the ugly answer.
Fasten Your Seatbelts….
It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night!
!