Kong ; Skull Island

[Jose S.M.]

looks like some random giant monsters..lizard, spider..water buffalo?

To me it looks like some kind of oversized Asian or African environment, with buffalos and lizards.

[Silvanusaurus]

I wonder, when the eventual Kong vs Godzilla movie rolls around, who we are supposed to be rooting for. They've already established Godzilla as a kind of savior, and they're not gonna make Kong a villain. I wonder what reason they'll be given to fight?

This dilemma is why I am assuming they will start as enemies but then have to begrudgingly team up to defeat a greater foe, as is the case with most scenarios involving two respective 'heroes'. Kong wouldn't defeat Godzilla either way, because Godzilla.

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

[CarnegieCollector]

I wonder, when the eventual Kong vs Godzilla movie rolls around, who we are supposed to be rooting for. They've already established Godzilla as a kind of savior, and they're not gonna make Kong a villain. I wonder what reason they'll be given to fight?

This dilemma is why I am assuming they will start as enemies but then have to begrudgingly team up to defeat a greater foe, as is the case with most scenarios involving two respective 'heroes'. Kong wouldn't defeat Godzilla either way, because Godzilla.

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I'll be voting for Godzilla either way. Godzilla is awesome.

And, Sadly, I have to agree. The first trailer made it look much better. This new one seems to be to CGI enhanced, somewhat cheesy acting, and it doesn't seem to take itself seriously.

[Rain]

Kong looks way too big in these trailers. The fauna is massive , the flora? Not so much.. I prefer the way it was done in King Kong 2005, which managed to make Kong look small whilst on Skull Island.

[Appalachiosaurus]

I wonder, when the eventual Kong vs Godzilla movie rolls around, who we are supposed to be rooting for. They've already established Godzilla as a kind of savior, and they're not gonna make Kong a villain. I wonder what reason they'll be given to fight?

This dilemma is why I am assuming they will start as enemies but then have to begrudgingly team up to defeat a greater foe, as is the case with most scenarios involving two respective 'heroes'. Kong wouldn't defeat Godzilla either way, because Godzilla.

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I couldn't disagree more. "Is that a monkey?" had me on the floor! Honestly, whoever was expecting this movie to be a drama after the absolute chore to watch 2005 movie is kidding themselves, this is a B-movie in all definitions of the word (and I love it).

[stargatedalek]

I wonder, when the eventual Kong vs Godzilla movie rolls around, who we are supposed to be rooting for. They've already established Godzilla as a kind of savior, and they're not gonna make Kong a villain. I wonder what reason they'll be given to fight?

This dilemma is why I am assuming they will start as enemies but then have to begrudgingly team up to defeat a greater foe, as is the case with most scenarios involving two respective 'heroes'. Kong wouldn't defeat Godzilla either way, because Godzilla.

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I couldn't disagree more. "Is that a monkey?" had me on the floor! Honestly, whoever was expecting this movie to be a drama after the absolute chore to watch 2005 movie is kidding themselves, this is a B-movie in all definitions of the word (and I love it).

This sums me up too.

Also I really like the new designs. Remember this is as much a new Godzilla spin-off as it is a Kong reboot.

[Takama]

No offence but i personally think that People who think Peter Jackson's King Kong was a Chore to Watch probably need a little more variety in there movie going experiences.

I saw that film as teenager who craved action and guts and i thought it was a masterpiece (and no, i did not fall asleep through the boring parts). Plus the film was a lot more believable then whatever there trying to do with this film.

The very first trailer Released back in July had me all excited, but now i see its all about "ROAR GIANT APE WHO WALKS LIKE A MAN SMASHES AIR PLANES BECAUSE ANYONE WILL PAY FOR OVER THE TOP CGI THESE DAYS".

I guess after getting a lot more Serious with Godzilla 2014, i was expecting something similar here after witnesing the original trailer, but nope, its just mindless CGI featuring monsters that have little to no thought put into them unlike what Peter Jackson and the makers of Godzilla 2014 did with there films.

[Simon]

No offence but i personally think that People who think Peter Jackson's King Kong was a Chore to Watch probably need a little more variety in there movie going experiences.

I saw that film as teenager who craved action and guts and i thought it was a masterpiece. Plus the film was a lot more believable then whatever there trying to do with this film.

The very first trailer Released back in July had me all excited, but now i see its all about "ROAR GIANT APE WHO WALKS LIKE A MAN SMASHES AIR PLANES BECAUSE ANYONE WILL PAY FOR OVER THE TOP CGI THESE DAYS".

I guess after getting a lot more Serious with Godzilla 2014, i was expecting something similar here after witnesing the original trailer, but nope, its just mindless CGI featuring monsters that have little to no thought put into them unlike what Peter Jackson and the makers of Godzilla 2014 did with there films.

I will give you an alternate take on Jackson's 2005 "King Kong".

First off, let me say that my hat is off to Mr Jackson for re-creating the lost scenes - using actual stop-motion animation - from the original 1933 "King Kong", which were added as a special feature on the double DVD set of the 2005 and 1933 movies. 

Having said that, I must say that the 2005 "King Kong" was one of the biggest disappointments I have ever seen in a movie theater.

Why?  Not really very complicated to explain, so, here we go:

1.  While the re-creation of 1933 New York was masterful, the acting was less so.  In fact it was atrocious.  How so?  Well,...

2.  Jack Black as Carl Denham was one of the WORST miscastings I have ever seen.  Simply put, Black - while a fine comedic performer - is completely UN-believable in a serious role ... which kind of leads to probably the WORST feature of the 2005 "King Kong": ...

3.  PEOPLE IN THE 1930S DID NOT TALK LIKE THAT  - This goes for Jack Black, as well as all of the other actors and actresses.  As soon as they opened their mouths the entire carefully crafted illusion of 1930s New York was GONE - *poof* in a New York minute ...

As the actress and accent-impressionist extraordinaire Amy Walker once pointed out (interestingly, she had a short cameo as one of the "New Yorkers" in the opening part of Jackson's "King Kong"), every decade in America had its own "feel",  meaning sound, lingo, slang, etc.  And how people spoke was expressed not only in the sounds, but in their expressions, even body language.  Every decade is different.  (Just watch a few film scenes or newreels starting in 1927, the beginning of the "sound era", all the way through today.  Or just go to Amy Walker's youtube channel and find one of her videos on how to do accents, and you'll get the idea.)

It would not have been all that difficult for Jackson's actors in the 2005 "King Kong" to do a little bit of study, watching of old films and newsreels, and then do a credible acting job of "being" 1930s New Yorkers.  (After all, they ARE actors - that's what they DO).

But for whatever reason, Jackson either didn't see this as important, or - perhaps - thought it might "turn off" 2005 audiences, so he didn't bother with it. 

And the result was simply disastrous.  Which brings us to the SECOND biggest disappointment of the 2005 "King Kong":

4.  SUSPENSION OF THE LAWS OF GRAVITY - which took away any possible suspension of disbelief that we were actually watching 100-ton monsters.  Because, you see, a 100-ton creature CANNOT leap from mountainside to mountainside like a FLEA.  (Not on this planet anyway).  Yet that is exactly what Jackson had Kong, and the other giant critters like the V-Rexes, do.

5.  Finally, the plot line was thin - and the "natives" on the island were barely seen, much less given a central role as they had in the 1933 "King Kong" film.  This omission was surviveable for the film, but the utter loss of credibility for the filmmaker as a result of the earlier listed points was not.

The film's single shining moment for me was the opening, when the immortal voice of the Greatest Entertainer who ever lived, and the King of 1920s Entertainment, Al Jolson, was heard singing "I'm Sitting On Top Of The World" as the exquisite view of a cgi-generated 1933 New York City unfolded ... and then ... the actors began to speak ....and it was all over....

[Appalachiosaurus]

No offence but i personally think that People who think Peter Jackson's King Kong was a Chore to Watch probably need a little more variety in there movie going experiences.

I saw that film as teenager who craved action and guts and i thought it was a masterpiece (and no, i did not fall asleep through the boring parts). Plus the film was a lot more believable then whatever there trying to do with this film.

The very first trailer Released back in July had me all excited, but now i see its all about "ROAR GIANT APE WHO WALKS LIKE A MAN SMASHES AIR PLANES BECAUSE ANYONE WILL PAY FOR OVER THE TOP CGI THESE DAYS".

I guess after getting a lot more Serious with Godzilla 2014, i was expecting something similar here after witnesing the original trailer, but nope, its just mindless CGI featuring monsters that have little to no thought put into them unlike what Peter Jackson and the makers of Godzilla 2014 did with there films.

I admit I haven't seen the film in a while, so my opinion will most likely change after another viewing. I also admit I shouldn't bring down one movie to promote another, but really? Stop with this pedigree thing. Just because a movie has a %90 on rotten tomatoes doesn't make it worth my time, we all have our personal interests when it comes to movies and if I want to spend money on crappy ScyFy original movies than I don't need some stranger on the internet attacking my movie preferences.

[stargatedalek]

I agree with everything Simon said, essentially nothing more about the movie warrants mention.

I did kind of like how the Tyrannosaurs hopped (not that they did), it was rather incredible in its "avian-ness". The 2005 King Kong tried hard to make the animals and world feel plausible, but they failed this from both a human history and a natural history perspective to the point where it would have been a better movie had they not tried to limit themselves to a false sense of plausibility.

I have expectations for this one, it clearly isn't trying to limit itself by any science fiction mumbo-jumbo about midichlorians or "plausible" ninja-saurus' and is focusing on entertainment and extravagance.

[Silvanusaurus]

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I couldn't disagree more. "Is that a monkey?" had me on the floor! Honestly, whoever was expecting this movie to be a drama after the absolute chore to watch 2005 movie is kidding themselves, this is a B-movie in all definitions of the word (and I love it).

I don't understand this logic of suggesting that anyone who thinks that an un-serious film looks bad or unsatisfying, is automatically inferred to be missing the point, and must only be able appreciate something if it's a serious drama. There is more to criticsm than simply either "this is serious, so it's good!" or "this is not serious, so it's bad!". Anybody who thinks that simply not being serious excuses a film from criticism is kidding themselves. Entertainment isn't that black and white.

[RaptorRex]

What I'm confused about is how the 2005 Kong film didn't have excessive amounts of CGI but apparently this one does. The Brontosaurus stampede is proof of the opposite.

Anyway, I have high hopes for this film. Love the historical setting and the monster designs. Also, the Skullcrawlers seem to be based around these guys:

[Jose S.M.]

Well everything on the 2005 version was cgi, as far as I know everything was filmed on a small set and the landscape was cgi. Maybe people mean that this one is filmed, at least winsome portion, on location but relies on cgi more than practical effects.
As much as I like 2005 Kong, it was a big over the top cgi fest sometimes, like the 4 way fight with the v rex and the stampede scenes (I actually like the first part of that scene but it was extended more than it needed, to my taste).

[Takama]

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I couldn't disagree more. "Is that a monkey?" had me on the floor! Honestly, whoever was expecting this movie to be a drama after the absolute chore to watch 2005 movie is kidding themselves, this is a B-movie in all definitions of the word (and I love it).

I don't understand this logic of suggesting that anyone who thinks that an un-serious film looks bad or unsatisfying, is automatically inferred to be missing the point, and must only be able appreciate something if it's a serious drama. There is more to criticsm than simply either "this is serious, so it's good!" or "this is not serious, so it's bad!". Anybody who thinks that simply not being serious excuses a film from criticism is kidding themselves. Entertainment isn't that black and white.

I wish this was Facebook, because i would like your comment


Ever watch The Search for the Worst on Youtube?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxOKy-G3phBomkGrPJuQwUawQmS_1ysNN

It contains some good examples of why no movie is immune to criticism.

[alexeratops]

The river monster and probably the skull from the creature shown in the black light map.

Its cool thinking that Operation Monarch is involved with this whole Skull Island situation, like they were in Legendary Godzilla, because I can deduct that the Skullcrawlers are probably a nuisance to Kong and Godzilla (if they lived near eachother)

[BlueKrono]

I was distressed when I heard there were going to be no dinosaurs in this one. Big, prehistoric-looking reptilians definitely float my boat though.

[Silvanusaurus]

What I'm confused about is how the 2005 Kong film didn't have excessive amounts of CGI but apparently this one does. The Brontosaurus stampede is proof of the opposite.

Nobody is claiming that the 2005 Kong didn't have excessive CGI. The fact is, it's 10 years later, the CGI in this one doesn't look any better, and film-makers need to realise that putting out these kinds of overblown, trashy, computer-game visuals is mind-numbingly eroding the integrity of the fantasy genre. Fair enough, if they have no aspirations of making anything that is either timeless, iconic, or long-lasting, then by all means, they can CGI away, just don't expect me to respect it.

[Dilopho]

I agree. Although it is always going to be hard to make good CGI with Kong.
The reason that the CGI in the Godzilla 2014 film worked so well is that not only was it visually stunning, but it was used to convey only what couldn't be conveyed by any other means here- Godzilla and the MUTOs (as well as special effects) so it doesn't show up so much.
But with the crowded creature chaos on skull island- so far we have seen dinosaur skulls, the skullcrawlers, giant spiders, giant water buffalo, Kong...it's not even "special" effects when the whole movie is made of it and it stops having realistic impact.
I hope, at least, that Kong has gravity in this movie and is restrained by the laws of physic unlike the Super-Kong of 2005 who was able to leap tall mountains in a single bound.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Regarding the newest trailer, I now kind of think it looks a bit rubbish, personally. I liked the first trailer, but the tone of this one is all over the place, it looks too jam-packed with overblown cgi imagery, and it doesn't seem to present any kind of tension in it's build up to, and depiction of Kong. The "is that a monkey?" line is beyond cringe-inducing.

I couldn't disagree more. "Is that a monkey?" had me on the floor! Honestly, whoever was expecting this movie to be a drama after the absolute chore to watch 2005 movie is kidding themselves, this is a B-movie in all definitions of the word (and I love it).

I don't understand this logic of suggesting that anyone who thinks that an un-serious film looks bad or unsatisfying, is automatically inferred to be missing the point, and must only be able appreciate something if it's a serious drama. There is more to criticsm than simply either "this is serious, so it's good!" or "this is not serious, so it's bad!". Anybody who thinks that simply not being serious excuses a film from criticism is kidding themselves. Entertainment isn't that black and white.

Of course, there can be movies both very fun and very smart (some spielberg films come to mind). That doesn't mean that every film has to be that way. If you want some serious tension, go watch the Tyrannosaur scene in Jurassic Park or the gas station scene in No Country For Old Men, but sometimes you have got to watch a SciFi original movie every once and awhile. Godzilla was suspenseful and held back on showing the monsters, but that was one of its main complaints. It was too suspenseful without a good enough pay off. This movie is the answer to that, much less suspense in turn for much more pay off.

What I'm confused about is how the 2005 Kong film didn't have excessive amounts of CGI but apparently this one does. The Brontosaurus stampede is proof of the opposite.

Nobody is claiming that the 2005 Kong didn't have excessive CGI. The fact is, it's 10 years later, the CGI in this one doesn't look any better, and film-makers need to realise that putting out these kinds of overblown, trashy, computer-game visuals is mind-numbingly eroding the integrity of the fantasy genre. Fair enough, if they have no aspirations of making anything that is either timeless, iconic, or long-lasting, then by all means, they can CGI away, just don't expect me to respect it.

Jesus Christ man, you are acting like the filmmakers ran over your dog. If you want the 2005 King Kong, go watch the 2005 King Kong. This new Kong isn't going to hurt the genre anymore than the micheal bay movies already have.

[Derek.McManus]

I think that the second trailer would seem to suggest that the filmmakers are trying to engineer an appeal to all blockbuster type movie...I think the comparison with Mr Bay's products may be presient. I have to admit at the start my major concern was if there would be dinosaurs but must confess that the idea of Skull Island as  the home of huge creatures has a definite appeal and avoids the movie looking like a retread of Peter Jackson's version, which I also enjoyed, we went to see it in the cinema on intail release and where throughly entertained, I also have dvd and blu ray copies alongside my much prized copy of the 1933 orginal. Another couple brought their young children in their pajamas to watch the movie with predictable tearful results at the finale! The book the Natural History of Skull island is worth a look as indeed is the making of the movie book which explains a great deal of why certain aspects of the movie where the way they where. There is a nasty blink and you miss it bit in the Kong vs V Rex fight when Kong bites the dinosaurs tongue off...you see it being spat into the air!

Of course there are valid criticisms that can be made but I for one am happy to forgive a few in the name of entertainment!

I do wonder if the Skull lizards are a homage to the two legged lizard from the log scene in the 1933 version.