millenniumfalcon.com

by SI » September 9th 2004 9:54 pm

http://www.kongisking.net

A King Kong FAN SITE which looks very reminiscent of another fan site was launched today with Peter Jackson introducing the first day of shooting.

Will PJ attempt The Hobbit afterwards? :heavymetal:

by **PTGrievous** » September 10th 2004 2:25 am

GODZILLA would beat up King Kong anyday.
One heat ray and it's all over.

by **PTGrievous** » September 10th 2004 7:22 am

Yeah, I agree, PJ should never allow his cliched movie-making touch the superb awesomeness of MAN-IN-SUIT!
I can just imagine PJ's mind (let's add another huge panning battle shot, let's add another cheezy zoom, let's add more crying, let's add 20mins of Godzilla floating down the river which is totally un-needed) :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR, but some moments really make me cringe :mrgreen:

Besides what's wrong with Godzilla Vs. movies?
The first few after 1954 (Godzilla's Revenge, Vs. King Kong (it was a draw :S), Mothra) were good.
The first few (Vs. Biollante, King Ghidorah, Destroyah) after 1984 were good
All of the Millenium (post 1999) series films have been Vs. films, and they're great!

by **PTGrievous** » September 17th 2004 7:55 pm

DKR1138 wrote:I hope Jack Black doesn't ruin this movie... actually I think the actor choice they made was quite crap... Jack Black can't act for shit...

School of Rock...
But yeah, I'd agree :P

by **I_SHOT_JR** » November 28th 2004 7:43 pm

The movie stars Jack Black (as the obsessive movie director Carl Denham), Naomi Watts (as leading lady Ann Darrow) and Adrien Brody (as Jack Driscoll, in Jackson's version a playwright in the Arthur Miller mode, who's been cajoled into writing Denham's screenplay). Andy Serkis, whose acting was the basis for the digital Gollum, will "play" Kong

Hmm, I hope we don't end up with a KK that "acts" like Gollum. Serkis' body movements and physical expressions are so recognizable from LOTR, it should be an interesting challenge.

by **Dark Goji Lord** » June 15th 2005 7:53 pm

I agree with PTGrievous, The only bad "Godzilla vs" films are Godzilla vs Gigan and Megalon. As for Kong, he is a fucking retard. atch the Japanese version of KKvsG, Kong still wins but the American version cut out some of Kong's antics.

by **BearaceDougie** » June 23rd 2005 7:59 pm

That little trailer looks awesome... although it is 2 seconds of footage, looks good, cant wait till monday

by **JRA81984** » June 24th 2005 7:28 pm

Wow Peter Jackson really did lose a ton of weight, thats awesome. I think if I had the pressure of creating lord of the rings on my back, I think I would gain an assload of weight haha. Its good that he is in healthy shape now because it will keep him with us making good movies for a long time.

Cant wait for Kong!

by **flaxer** » June 24th 2005 7:54 pm

ohhhhhhhhh!!! The build up of the prequel to the teaser trailer...

something is just wrong about that.

Most people who loose weight look better...Peter Jackson looks like he is about ready to die.

Not enough sleep, or food.

by **Fantana** » June 27th 2005 8:13 pm

One quick question... I haven't seen the original King Kong before, but does this look like a remake of that story? The reason I'm asking is just because in the trailer, it looked a story I've never heard before. I was just waiting for that shot of him on top of the Empire State Building.

I am wondering if PJ made a new story, or if he is remaking the old one.

by **MTH** » June 27th 2005 8:26 pm

Seems like the original story to me. BTW, here is the trailer

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef23952443 ... large.html

by **BrotherTheFirst** » June 28th 2005 1:32 am

the trailer looks very promising.

by **The_Somnambulist** » June 28th 2005 1:36 am

I love the way the dinosaurs stretch into the shot. It's a sweet wide-angle effect.

by **ETandElliott** » June 28th 2005 1:37 am

I thought the CGI King would just be a dissapointment, but it looks like they pulled it off quite nicely. I'm no fan of Peter Jackson's current films, but I'll be seeing this.

by **BrotherTheFirst** » June 28th 2005 1:39 am

kong seems to have cartoonish eyes in the first shot. maybe it's just me.

the last one looks perfecto.

by **The_Somnambulist** » June 28th 2005 1:41 am

We need a higher resolution trailer. Isn't a fullscreen trailer a standard deal nowadays?

by **BrotherTheFirst** » June 28th 2005 1:42 am

agreed. these tiny trailers should be a thing of the past now.

by **hypertext** » June 28th 2005 10:20 am

Definately hyped up now for this one! Jack Black doesn't seem to back, actually acting in this one, can't wait for the next trailer!

by **Obi-Wan Starkiller** » June 28th 2005 10:22 am

Yes, looks very good. They are still pretty early on in the CG shots. But they still don't look too bad. This should be very good. PJ is a huge King Kong fan and I'm sure he will do it justice. I want giant spiders!

by **Devil Dodo** » June 28th 2005 10:38 pm

HOLY HI-RES PICS BATMAN!

by **ETandElliott** » June 28th 2005 10:44 pm

My god those are sexy. :heavymetal:

by **Biggs** » June 29th 2005 9:08 pm

..so thats a "no" for the HD version then?

by **sultan bey** » October 6th 2005 3:44 pm

new kong pic at aint it cool.

that picture is beautiful. surely this will be a great movie.

by **hypertext** » October 6th 2005 11:17 pm

My jaw just about dropped. Nice looking shot, should be a great movie, good ol weta at it again!

by **femme01** » October 28th 2005 11:33 pm

NY Times

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 26 - In hiring Peter Jackson, the Oscar-winning director of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, to remake the monster classic "King Kong," Universal Pictures took a daring leap, paying him $20 million to direct, produce and be the co-writer of the film.

With seven weeks to go before the movie's release, the risks are becoming clearer. After seeing a version of the film in late September at Mr. Jackson's studio in New Zealand, Universal executives agreed to release "King Kong" at a length of three hours.

The film is substantially longer than Universal had anticipated and presents dual obstacles: the extra length has helped increase the budget by a third, to $207 million, while requiring the studio, owned by General Electric, to reach for the kind of long-term audience interest that made hits out of three-hour movies like "Titanic" and the films in Mr. Jackson's "Rings" trilogy.

Here's the US official poster:

by **hypertext** » October 29th 2005 12:28 am

Hell yea, Kong looks bad ass :heavymetal:

On Nov 3, the full trailer will be up. From kongisking.net

The folks at Access Hollywood send this in: We wanted to let you know that on Thursday, November 3rd, Access Hollywood will be the first ones to show the new, full King Kong preview. Thought you might want to let the fans know about it. We've seen parts and it looks amazing! In addition, after it airs on the show on Thursday, fans will be able to visit accesshollywood.com and view the trailer in its entirety. Have a great weekend!

UPDATE: Trailer now online in HD goodness: http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/king_kong/

s
Hot damn this movie is gonna be badass! :heavymetal:

by **ETandElliott** » November 3rd 2005 11:50 pm

Haha holy shit. I really wanted to keep Kong himself a surprise if you know what I mean until I saw the movie. Anyway that trailer kind of did away with that plan. This looks breathtaking.

by **Ayatollah Krispies** » November 4th 2005 12:14 am

Fuck, that's unbelievable. Peter Jackson is living every filmgeek's wet dream.

by **femme01** » November 22nd 2005 9:25 pm

TV SPOTS.

Tremble:

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/media/tvspots/kk_tremble_700k.mov

Unknown (30 sec):

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/media/tvspots/kk_unknown30_700k.mov

Unknown (60 sec):

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/media/tvspots/kk_unknown60_700k.mov

by **hypertext** » November 23rd 2005 12:40 am

Hot damn I really cannot wait for this movie to come out :metal:

by **Ternian** » November 23rd 2005 6:44 pm

Kinky Kong looks good

by **Ayatollah Krispies** » November 25th 2005 10:59 pm

Just FYI: the DVD release (earlier this week) of the original KONG contains a restored Spider Pit sequence that was done by Weta and overseen by Jackson. It was not reinserted into the film, but is instead part of a making-of documentary, and as every effort was made to make it look authentic with regard to the SFX of the time, it probably won't look too impressive to anyone expecting modern state-of-the-art FX. But it's still kind of interesting.

by **ETandElliott** » November 29th 2005 3:54 pm

Not sure if you saw this but there's a 4 minute clip of Kong online.

Right click & save

by **sultan bey** » December 2nd 2005 1:43 am

ETAndElliot4Ever wrote:Not sure if you saw this but there's a 4 minute clip of Kong online.

Right click & save

there's so much beauty in that 4min clip. as i watch, it's like i loose myself in the film. jackson brought that ape to life. i'm thinking the end will melt the coldest of hearts.

EDIT:
drudge is calling this the first review

"And he has made a picture I can only describe as jaw-droppingly brilliant: the most entertaining blockbuster movie this year."

by **CoGro** » December 15th 2005 4:15 pm

WETA's effects work continues to be overrated as half of the movie's CG is completely atrocious.

by **ETandElliott** » December 15th 2005 9:36 pm

So I haven't seen the film yet, but apparently so haven't a shitload of other people. I guess it had a pretty disappointing opening.

http://comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=12404

by **Jordan** » December 15th 2005 9:46 pm

Thank God, for CoGro. I thought I was the only one...

by **vmsns** » December 16th 2005 10:32 am

There are mixed opinions - in my opinion ABSOLUTELY YES!

I loved it.

by **CoGro** » December 16th 2005 11:04 am

It's too long, entertaining, but most of the effects work is nothing short of rediculously horrible.

WETA is the most overrated company out there.

Jurassic Park looks about a century better.

by **Jordan** » December 16th 2005 1:25 pm

The sad part about the film is that there is a very good film in there somewhere underneath all the excess.

And yet, it looks like Jackson might do an Extended Cut of DVD with another 30 minutes added. Now, my question is what the hell else can you add to a film that is severely bloated now?

If anything, he should cut 45 minutes out of it right now and make that the Director's Cut on DVD. Of course, that'll never happen.

It's worth seeing on the big screen once and then forget about it. Not a good film at all.

And CoGro is completely right about Weta. The effects throughout the entire film(not just Kong) are even in the same league as the work done by ILM this year.

by **Topeka** » December 16th 2005 2:39 pm

It was way too long. Jackson tries too hard to inject emotion into parts of his films where there is none. Cut about half of it out... and its a pretty good flick. Effects work was quite shoddy in some areas though.

by **FightingWithClay** » December 16th 2005 4:39 pm

$9.8 Million on Wednesday
$6.3 Million on Thursday

Ouch.

by **MannyOrtez** » December 16th 2005 10:59 pm

REposting my own post from another thread since it seems more appropriate here....

King Kong had a weak opening two days. I guess we won't really know how it is doing till this weekend. Fact of the matter is, I think Jackson has severely overrated the material in King Kong, and I can't see it catching on with a mass audience. I also think Jackson is overrated himself. Lucas is actually a better director, at least in terms of the more filmic issues, and Jackson pretty much just rode Tolkien's material to awards.

Here's hoping Kong flops because I'm bitter like that.

PS: Yes, see Narnia, it's good. It's much more for children than LOTR or Star Wars, but good nonetheless.

by **skywalkerjel** » December 18th 2005 12:10 pm

Is Kong good? Yes, it's good. Is it Amazing? No. Was it really long? Yes. Did the emotional parts work? No not really.

Really the movie is overrated.

by **Dark Goji Lord** » December 18th 2005 2:18 pm

Lmfao, I love how people complain about the time, for Christ's sake; have you people gotten used to Lucas' flat characters so much that you can't bear to witness character development?

It was a good film, the bi plane flight was a little lackluster though.

by **Ternian** » December 18th 2005 3:59 pm

I don't think PJ got the emotional part of LotR down pat either. One of the things I loathed about LotR was the constant long shots of landscapes. Boring. GL suffers from the same thing, though - they forget the story for visuals.

That's my vent. :mrgreen:

by **ETandElliott** » December 18th 2005 4:42 pm

Dark Goji Lord wrote:Lmfao, I love how people complain about the time

1933 Kong: 1 hour 40 minutes
2005 Kong: 3 hours 7 minutes

Character development's one thing. This film is just way too bloated.

by **Dark Goji Lord** » December 18th 2005 5:13 pm

I got back from my second viewing, the only slow parts (Parts that seem bloated ect.) were anything with the ship trying to steer itself away from the rocks and the bi plane sequence.

by **MannyOrtez** » December 18th 2005 5:51 pm

I'm sick of long movies. A movie should be around 2 hours. W/ LOTR it was excusable b/c its just hard to make those movies any shorter, and Jackson was pretty good about keeping it to story only and leaving out other stuff (for the most part...). But the story of Kong does not justify 3 hours.

So far it's a flop.

by **Devil Dodo** » December 18th 2005 10:13 pm

(WARNING: CONTAINS OPINIONS!)

KING KONG

Absotively, posolutely the BEST film of the year. Bar none. It would seem that Jackson can indeed do no wrong. The three hours are a great butt workout but damn is it worth it. And, unlike Lord of the Rings, this is a film I can see myself watching again and again. In fact I can not wait to see it again.

This film is not only true to the nature and spirit of the original, but it adds upon it enourmously. The emotion is astouding. There were moments throughout the enitre film where I got knots in my throat, and if it wasn't for the fact that I went to see it with my mates instead of my girlfriend, there were moments I think I would have shed a tear or two... (but, then, I cried during The Lion King).

Kong himself is simply amazing. If the academy had any balls they'd nominate Andy & Peter & Co. for Best Actor. That's how good he is. There was not a single moment where I didn't totally believe there was a 25 foot gorilla right there in the frame with the other characters. Though, sadly, some of the other effects in the film suffered due to the obvious amount of time spent on Kong. The Brontosoraus stampeed is less than convincing, and some of the creepy crawlies could have done with several more months of post production. But, unlike in a film such as Sith, the quality of the CGI is forgivable when watching these amazing scenes. Because they really are amazing. So it's just as well the CGI was consistent throughout ROTS.

Kong vs. T-Rexes. Ho... ly... fuck. I can say without hyperbole that this is very possibly the greatest sequence ever put to film. I'll leave it at that as to not give anything away. Though, I will say that here the CGI is great.

Indeed it does take just under an hour to actually get to Skull Island. And, yes, it is another 20 minutes until we actually get a glimpse of Kong. But what preceeds the arrival on the island is still so great that I didn't even care. In fact, I could have done with more. The first act alone is better than most films. Though there is this strange subplot to do with one of the crew members (Billy Elliot) that really just goes nowhere, and could easily have been done away with.

I've read some reviewers had a problem with the Carl Denham (Jack Black) character. I can understand where they're coming from. I'd have preferred a character more like the original. Jack Black is sometimes just too... Jack Black. It's not distracting, and if you hadn't seen the original I don't you'd have a problem... And even though I had seen the original it wasn't really a problem for me. I liked the way he played it. It was just different.

The relationship between Ann and Kong is just beautiful. The scene where she dances for him is so warm and funny and beautiful. And the scene on the ice in New York could have been so corny and cheesy, but for me it totally worked. Beautiful.

This was always going to be totally about Peter Jackson's love affair with the original film. Of course it's self-indulgent, but that's exactly what I wanted. I can see where people who didn't like the film are coming from though. If you go into the film thinking 'this is gonna be stupid', chances are you'll think it's stupid. Yeah, so maybe I am biased. Maybe, because I'm a kiwi, because I have enourmous respect for Jackson I was predestined to love this film. Whatever. I love that I love it.

9/10

millenniumfalcon.com

King Kong

King Kong

Statistics