Wasn't sure where to post this but I just saw king kong last night and OMG it was amazing visually. The movie overall was good but I must say it was the best and most intense intricate vfx I have ever seen. I mean the amount of difficulty pulling off some of the live action interaction with the cg is just unreal. The scene when they were running in between the legs of the dinosaurs was incredible . Almost seemless as to when the cg model characters where used as to the real people. Last but not least the fight scene between the T-rex's and kong just blew my mind. Must have taken forever to render lol. It was not only very long but jaw dropping and the choreography I thought was awesome. Especially when they were hanging there and the T-Rex was pushing off the rock wall to get the girl. Great work.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
King Kong Movie
- Thread starter Espnetboy3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i remember when the log with the people on it fell down the cliff, you could see that the peole jumped about a foot off the log halfway down, and it went back a few frames later.
kinda obvious and fake lookin, but for the rest pretty good. i have to give them creds for what they do do in the small amount of time they have.
kinda obvious and fake lookin, but for the rest pretty good. i have to give them creds for what they do do in the small amount of time they have.
I though King Kong was crap. Sure the visuals were sweet but they just repeated them over and over and over and over and over and then over again.
"Oh rad, some dinosaurs are falling out each other"
"Some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"Hmmm, some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"Hrmmpf "Oh rad, some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"I paid 8 bucks to watch an hour of dinosaurs fall over?"
Sure this is exagerrating but it wasn't just the dinosaurs repeated.
The intro was terrible. There really is no storyline, and what storyline there is pretty poor. It was just too damned long.
"Oh rad, some dinosaurs are falling out each other"
"Some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"Hmmm, some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"Hrmmpf "Oh rad, some dinosaurs are falling out each other again"
"I paid 8 bucks to watch an hour of dinosaurs fall over?"
Sure this is exagerrating but it wasn't just the dinosaurs repeated.
The intro was terrible. There really is no storyline, and what storyline there is pretty poor. It was just too damned long.
visually fantastic - insects, dinos and kong were incredible. but yes the storyline was still very weak. the first what seemed like 2hours (until we meet kong) was far too drawn out. As a film studies student i can appreciate the value of an films' introduction but this affair was far too drawn out in my opinion.
my buddy was the cg animation supervisor on king kong. He has since left Weta and gone to work for EA Games in Vancouver.
Effects don't make a movie.
It was way too long - the begin was good, good character development, but when they get to the island it all goes down hill.
After walking around the island a while, its obvious that its a dangerous place - but how many times does the audience need to be reminded....
They could have dropped the whole insect scene and shortened a few others and it would have worked a little bit better.
And in the end, when King Kong is making his final stand on the Empire State building it was a bit odd. Anyone else notice that there wasn't any one person in control of the attack? There was no face to the human side of the conflict - I thought that a little odd - but it might have been on purpose, I'm not sure.
D
It was way too long - the begin was good, good character development, but when they get to the island it all goes down hill.
After walking around the island a while, its obvious that its a dangerous place - but how many times does the audience need to be reminded....
They could have dropped the whole insect scene and shortened a few others and it would have worked a little bit better.
And in the end, when King Kong is making his final stand on the Empire State building it was a bit odd. Anyone else notice that there wasn't any one person in control of the attack? There was no face to the human side of the conflict - I thought that a little odd - but it might have been on purpose, I'm not sure.
D
Once again for simple eye candy it was unreal. The interaction between the chic and kong when they were on the ice in central park. I mean come on I even had some feelings for kong as thats insane being that he is total cg. They made you feel for this animal and thats hot good the vfx teams were on this. The insect scene was great especially the film score during it.
I have to say, I though the dino stuff in Jurassic Park looked more real. And that was 1993.
Honestly, i was not impressed with Kong. It was entertaining sure. But PJ needs to learn to trim down his stories a bit. He seems like he wants to show the audience every single idea and concept that he thought about for the movie. Hes afraid to throw out any scenes or dialouge.
Im afraid he is gonna become a very pretentious director as a result of LOTR tril. He thinks anything he films is gonna have to be some 3+hour epic masterpiece.
The cgi on kong was good. Thats where it ended. Some of the digital sets looks ok, as long as they were static and inanimate. Anything that moved looked extremely fake. The lighting and bluescreen work between the live actors and CGI looked way off.
Honestly, i was not impressed with Kong. It was entertaining sure. But PJ needs to learn to trim down his stories a bit. He seems like he wants to show the audience every single idea and concept that he thought about for the movie. Hes afraid to throw out any scenes or dialouge.
Im afraid he is gonna become a very pretentious director as a result of LOTR tril. He thinks anything he films is gonna have to be some 3+hour epic masterpiece.
The cgi on kong was good. Thats where it ended. Some of the digital sets looks ok, as long as they were static and inanimate. Anything that moved looked extremely fake. The lighting and bluescreen work between the live actors and CGI looked way off.
I couldnt disagree with you more. First off im talking aside from screenplay and storyline. VFX is my thing and thats what im discussing. There were some shots maybe 1 or 2 at most wher eyou could tell wow thats backscreening stage but most were just untouchable so far to date. Your forgetting alot of the jurassic park stuff was animatronics with basic movements nothing really intricate. On top of that the guy made a trilogy which had to be the length it was and a king kong movie that was 3 hours. His other few movies werent. Its not like everything he did is 3 plus hours. LOTR was a must to be long its just the storyline and kong maybe could have been 2.3 hours. Then you have movies like Narnia which should have been a 2 part movie and was cut too short I believe.
I understand you are discussing the FX. They arent as great as everyone is saying. End of story.
And, when I referred to JP, I was referring to the CGI, not that puppets, stopmotion stuff.
I am no stranger to visual FX. Trust me.
You are telling me that only 1 or 2 shots were noticeable for greenscreening? are you high? People I watched it with that have ZERO vfx knowledge noticed it as much as i did. They were shocked at how poorly the live/cgi stuff blended. There were at LEAST a dozen shots in the canyon dino scene that were terrible. And thats ONE sequence.
Maybe in the theater it wasnt as noticeable, but in my theater at home, it was very bad.
And, when I referred to JP, I was referring to the CGI, not that puppets, stopmotion stuff.
I am no stranger to visual FX. Trust me.
You are telling me that only 1 or 2 shots were noticeable for greenscreening? are you high? People I watched it with that have ZERO vfx knowledge noticed it as much as i did. They were shocked at how poorly the live/cgi stuff blended. There were at LEAST a dozen shots in the canyon dino scene that were terrible. And thats ONE sequence.
Maybe in the theater it wasnt as noticeable, but in my theater at home, it was very bad.
I liked the movie because of King Kong. The magnanimity of King Kong on the big screen is just too cool to not be in awe of.
irmongoose
irmongoose
Espnetboy3 said:
I haven't read the C.S. Lewis books in ages but in all honesty, The Lion, the witch,and the wardrobe seemed to follow the book rather well without the usual unnecessary hollywood filler. The movie clocked in at 2hrs 12 min. and another movie is already in the works to continue the chronicle.
http://www.narniaweb.com/news.asp?id=749
Lebowski said:
they WERE real.
animatronics are real things, tangible.
thusly they still look "good" on a TV.
we all see King Kong in the movies, or LOTR.
Take the DVD home and notice that anything CG looks kind funny, lit differently etc...
an animatronic robot was on location, and looks like it belongs.
Very true SD about the animatronics. Another thing labowski is its easy to point out and say oh look that dino and that 50 foot ape dont look real. Um maybe because its not real to begin with. People need to remember this stuff because cg is mostly used for things that dont exist. I said to my friend the lion from narnia looks pretty good and he is like no its fake , well ya cause flying lions dont exist lol. But I bet you cant tell that all the cg set extensions in kong are fake. There isnt one building in that movie more than 1 story high. If they had a room with 12 chairs and 1 was cg you wouldnt be able to tell. Its simply because the things recreated in cg arent real or just cant be made in real life and do the things and actions they wish to have them do.
which is why Peter Jackson, the b-movie splatter fest director, was allowed to:
make LOTR
and
King Kong
he is a genius when it comes to doing things that are impossible to do, figure out the specifics and get it done, effectively and cheaply (relatively).
Special FX is peter jackson's forte, not being a director. I beg anyone to argue.
make LOTR
and
King Kong
he is a genius when it comes to doing things that are impossible to do, figure out the specifics and get it done, effectively and cheaply (relatively).
Special FX is peter jackson's forte, not being a director. I beg anyone to argue.
Only thing I will argue is Cheap. How can you say that when the budget was around 210million or something. I heard it barely made a profit. When your spending that much its hard to profit.
Ok, i get the fact that you think you are far above the rest of us here with your FX knowledge. I truely am impressed.
Seriously, some of you are not reading what i am typing.
Im NOT talking about PUPPETS IN JP. I am talking the CGI dinos. All of the shots were not animatronics and stop motion. It was a mix of many different tricks. The Galamymus (sp?) scene in particular, was ALL CGI dinos. They looked 10x more realistic than anything in kong.
Again, I am not saying Kong looked fake because its a 50 foot gorilla. I get that its not a REAL animal..... Actually, Kong was one of the only realistic looking things in the movie. The hair physics were amazing as well as the amount of detail....
I am talking about the mixing of LIVE ACTION elements with CGI set extensions and creatures. They DO NOT LOOK THE SAME. The live action stuff is clearly obvious as being matted onto a CGI background. Notice how the lighting on the live action actors is TOTALLY off from the CGI elements. Some of the actors have very noticeable halos of light around them, that COULD NOT be ambient light. I understand that its a movie, and none of it is real. I am not disputing that. I am just stating that for what a big production it was and the amount of talent that went into it, the effects were very poor looking to me. I was expecting a much more polished film as far as FX shots.
Seriously, some of you are not reading what i am typing.
Im NOT talking about PUPPETS IN JP. I am talking the CGI dinos. All of the shots were not animatronics and stop motion. It was a mix of many different tricks. The Galamymus (sp?) scene in particular, was ALL CGI dinos. They looked 10x more realistic than anything in kong.
Again, I am not saying Kong looked fake because its a 50 foot gorilla. I get that its not a REAL animal..... Actually, Kong was one of the only realistic looking things in the movie. The hair physics were amazing as well as the amount of detail....
I am talking about the mixing of LIVE ACTION elements with CGI set extensions and creatures. They DO NOT LOOK THE SAME. The live action stuff is clearly obvious as being matted onto a CGI background. Notice how the lighting on the live action actors is TOTALLY off from the CGI elements. Some of the actors have very noticeable halos of light around them, that COULD NOT be ambient light. I understand that its a movie, and none of it is real. I am not disputing that. I am just stating that for what a big production it was and the amount of talent that went into it, the effects were very poor looking to me. I was expecting a much more polished film as far as FX shots.