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!

I THINK KONG LOOKED LIKE !
What do you think about that? ANSWER ME BLIPPSTER! RIGHT NOW!

They looked decent enough.

It's mostly yay but there are a few scenes with some spotty CGI.

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.

Peter Jackson PERFECTED the King Kong story. Period.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins!

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?

I think that they were adequate for the time in which it was released.

Have you seen the 1976 version of King Kong?

Kong himself looked good. The dinosaurs? Not so much.

Kong? Yay
Dino stampede? Big nay.

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.

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!

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.

Naythe giant ape was moving in ways no heavy animal could movethe dinosaur stampede and the dinosaurs in the vines were way over the top. Less is more.

Nay. The dinosaurs look fake and cartoonish. Animals this huge could never move that quickly.

Yay, of course.
Volker Flenske: (While torturing David) I don't know why you're doing this to yourself!

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.

Hell yay!

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.

Just the title character. Nuff said.

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.

Nay they look just too fake i mean the insects were great but the T-Rex and several shots of kong just look bleh. the dinosaurs also looked pretty f'ed up.

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