Possible ROTK review?

[Marcus Telcontar]

Watch it, it's spoiler loaded. Pity it reads like a LOTR's geek wet dream and not to be trusted.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/996638.asp

[TCM'74]

That was an interesting article, I like the third and last page about director's next project, King Kong.

After the 1976 remake disaster starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. The big ape might finally get the treatment he rightly deserves.

Nothing better than a Harryhausen stop-motion clay King Kong than perhaps a representive CGI one. Peter Jackson's version may surpass the 1933 original.

[Darth Viscera]

More than that, it could be the first franchise ever that didn’t, at the end of the day, let audiences down—either because of laziness, pretension, greed or other phantom menaces.

right on the money. *gives george lucas the finger*

[JMK]

I was going to make light of that quote as well. That's a real kick in the pills for Lucas and SW fans. But is the writer wrong? I don't know....

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
right on the money. *gives george lucas the finger*

I really miss Jonathan. :\

[Mu Satach]

Originally posted by TCM'74
Nothing better than a Harryhausen stop-motion clay King Kong than perhaps a representive CGI one. Peter Jackson's version may surpass the 1933 original.

Unless the CGI animators can imdue Kong with a better "personality" than the one O'Brien did, I doubt it will surpass the original.

Plus there's a lot of other funky stuff the original has going for it aside from Kong. My favorite character is Carl "Scream Ann, scream for your life!" Denham.

And are you implying that only a Ray Harryhausen claymation King Kong could out due O'Brien's King Kong, or are you stating that King Kong was animated by Ray and made of clay? If it's the former, Harryhausen & O'Brien did surpass Kong technically in Mighty Joe Young. If it's the latter you're wrong on both counts, it wasn't Ray and Kong is not clay.

Sorry to be such a stickler but the development of stop-motion animation has a super special place in my heart. :)

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The affects in Mighty Joe Young were pretty darn amazing, if I remember correctly.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Unless the CGI animators can imdue Kong with a better "personality" than the one O'Brien did, I doubt it will surpass the original.

Considering the astounding job done on Gollum, I have no doubt WETA can more than do Kong justice - they have already created a believeable CG character that has emotional depth. There simply has not been a CG better done than the Gollum / Smeagol argument. Rumour has it Andy Serkis is booked to do the 'acting' work for Kong. Naomi Watts is already booked as the female lead.

This is the one Jackson really wanted to do, I doubt he'll frell it up.

Note about the 'review' - the writer in question has confirmed they have seen the finished movie, twice, in one of the audio takes linked in the article. Preview / critical screenings begin in LA Nov 27.

Given it's now so close, why is there a lack of saturation marketing? Where's the posters, the ads, the trailers attached to shed loads of movies? There's been a conspicuos absence of much details. I knew much, much more about TTT this time last year than I do about ROTK now. Hell, even the running time is still a rumour.

This level of silence from a studio with such a movie is very unusual

edit : and just as I said that, i found a whole bunch of stuff posted at theonering.net that bought a huge grin to the face! One of my biggest fears is gone! JOYGASM!

[Mu Satach]

I'm not slamming Jackson's ability, nor the talents of the people at WETA. I'm just leary of *any* classic movie remake. Regardless, of whether there's great cgi, or wonderfull acting behind the cgi, I'm leary of any project that tries to remake a classic icon. I have yet to see one that surpasses the original. I would have just as much reservation about a remake of Chaplin's Modern Times or Well's Citizen Kane. Why? Because we know these characters so well. They've been imprinted on our brains so much we know them like old friends. We all know Kong's character so well we tend to refer to him almost as if he was an actor from Hollywood's Golden Age. That character's expressions, body movement and "personality" came directly from O'Brien. To many, as there is only one Charlie Chaplin so too is there only one King Kong.

It will be the job of the animators to either
A - recreate O'Bien's Kong personality for which they will be scrutinized beyond belief

or

B - create a new Kong personality, but then it won't really be Kong anymore will it (Godzilla 2000 anyone?)

It will be a tough job either way and undboubtedly will come under fire from some corner of the film world but only time (I'm talking decades) will tell if it would be able to surpass the original.

[TCM'74]

Great post Mu, nearly throws my point out the window. Save for one detail, maybe King Kong is due for a modern makeover. Like LoTR, Jackson has stated over and over again how much he admires the original 1933 film.

Though it is going to be much more demanding endeavor to bring Kong to life on the big screen than Smeagol/Gollum. Mainly due to the magnitude of the creature's disportionate size. But looking back at Jurassic Park, it can be done. And Weta already had done something quite similar with oliphaunts. It could be time for Kong to return in full color glory. Now shot on-location at exotic lush tropical locales (and back lots). Sure Jackson has his work cut-out, because he still has to recapture the emotional delivery of the original. But not necessarily the quirks. A modern rendering is very welcome, and can be a visually astonishing undertaking. Even though something is lost, sacrificed in the character of Kong.

[Mu Satach]

Too true, too true, I don't envy them the task. Regardless of which route Jackson's crew take it, I will be interested in seeing what they eventually turn out. And unless they completely butcher the job most likely will enjoy it for what it's worth. :)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by JMK
I was going to make light of that quote as well. That's a real kick in the pills for Lucas and SW fans. But is the writer wrong? I don't know....

No, the writer is not wrong. I cannot overemphasize how much the Han Solo character interaction thing contributed to ESB. Star Wars NEEDS a character like that

[Marcus Telcontar]

Though it is going to be much more demanding endeavor to bring Kong to life on the big screen than Smeagol/Gollum

I very much doubt anything that Jackson does with Kong is going to come close to what the production LOTR has turned out to be.

Consider as well -

a) They now know how to do a realistic CG character. Size matter not in a computer. What matters is details. Weta understands this. To say something bigger is going to be more challeging is a nonsense.

b) The details of hair and skin rendering have already been solved. Doing Gollum taught them how to make a emotive and expressive CG character.

c) WETA have some of the most talented people and powerful computers in the world. Across the pond in Australia is another bunch of skilled techs and artists.

d) That talent will WANT to work with Jackson.

e) This is the one Jackson really wants to do. I doubt he's going to bork up something he loves.

I would suggest making a good version of Kong is not as big a problem anymore. Not when he has the setup and experience right now.

[Sanis Prent]

Originally posted by Darth Viscera
No, the writer is not wrong. I cannot overemphasize how much the Han Solo character interaction thing contributed to ESB. Star Wars NEEDS a character like that

I'm glad you aren't writing the PT then, because the last thing I want to see is the entire first trilogy simply redux-ed and packaged as the same thing, but earlier.

[Darth Viscera]

And the last thing I want to see is the entire first trilogy simply devoid of some nice character interaction.

[JMK]

ding ding ding!!!

[TCM'74]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
I very much doubt anything that Jackson does with Kong is going to come close to what the production LOTR has turned out to be.

Consider as well -

a) They now know how to do a realistic CG character. Size matter not in a computer. What matters is details. Weta understands this. To say something bigger is going to be more challeging is a nonsense.

Yes, what they accomplished in sheer scope with LoTR is simply amazing. But I am speaking of Kong's interposed image with a much more diminutive human cast. Weta can't use the human participants and in relation the backgrounds of each scene as an example measure on detail, shadings, lighting, etc and how that would relate to the Kong character and making sure Kong looks convincingly real. There is going to be much more math and problem figuring involved.



Originally posted by Mu Satach
Too true, too true, I don't envy them the task. Regardless of which route Jackson's crew take it, I will be interested in seeing what they eventually turn out. And unless they completely butcher the job most likely will enjoy it for what it's worth. :)

I have a seen a slew of movies recently that relied heavily upon CGI and little else (sans LoTR of course). All the characters were uninvolving and uninteresting, and found myself wishing I had chosen my entertainment more wisely (i.e. Kill Bill, PT, Revolutions, etc.). So yes, the potential for Jackson butchering King Kong is very high if he only succeeds in hitting droll notes and not taking heed to what made the original so successful. I have seen it happen before.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Personally I have no interest in a King Kong movie, it has been remade like what two times (counting a horrible sequel to the first remake). I think it just won't work it might come out like Godzilla, *shiver*

About the SW bit I expect but kind of ignored, I have said a million times I don't compare them it is insane to do so, for me they are different films and both amoung favorites I just keep them seperate and don't try to make stupid comparisons between them.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Yes, what they accomplished in sheer scope with LoTR is simply amazing. But I am speaking of Kong's interposed image with a much more diminutive human cast. Weta can't use the human participants and in relation the backgrounds of each scene as an example measure on detail, shadings, lighting, etc and how that would relate to the Kong character and making sure Kong looks convincingly real. There is going to be much more math and problem figuring involved.

:: sigh ::

There is no difference to a computer for relative size when it comes to lighting, shading or any other element in a CG shot. None. At. All. They are all pixels and elements, layers and masks in the end. The computer or it's programs do not care. The only maybe issue is keeping Kong at the right relative height, but even low end 3D effects programs have that solved right now.


There is going to be much more math and problem figuring involved.

You really dont know much about computers. Please, do not play again. Even a retard at full blown 3D animation like me can see the solutions right now.

[TCM'74]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
:: sigh ::

There is no difference to a computer for relative size when it comes to lighting, shading or any other element in a CG shot. None. At. All. They are all pixels and elements, layers and masks in the end. The computer or it's programs do not care. The only maybe issue is keeping Kong at the right relative height, but even low end 3D effects programs have that solved right now.



You really dont know much about computers. Please, do not play again. Even a retard at full blown 3D animation like me can see the solutions right now.

It makes all the difference in the world when you consider the meshing the live-action shots and computer generated images. The backgrounds, shadings, lightings, shadows, proportions, etc will have an appreciatively lessened and/or heightened effect on King Kong in relation to the live action performers. It makes all the difference between realism and obvious design.

[Marcus Telcontar]

"Mr Jackson, how this look?"

"Kong needs to be darker"

* click *

"Yep. Render it"

5 seconds. That's all you need to move a lighting scalar on an individual element in a shot. Lighting, proportions and shadows is nothing these days, it's all patience and mouse clicks. You really are quite ignorant on how easy it is to manipulate shading, sizes lighting and shadows in CG these days.

I'd be more concerned about items like fur. But Pixar have that one solved in Monsters Inc.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/play.html?pg=2

For a geek view of WETA. Yum.

[JMK]

My biggest worry is getting live action actors to properly react to the cg Kong. In the Star Wars prequels it at times looks as though the actors are trying to look at Jar Jar's eyes, but they're missing completely. The folks at WETA more or less fixed that with Gollum, but how do you get people to be staring in the right place for Kong?

[TCM'74]

No I am not ignorant, Marcuss. You just have an overbearing belief the system can't fail. Don't count your eggs before the kettle laid them. Whether Kong will be a success special effects and film wise remains to be seen. It may totally suck especially because there won't be any leniency in world's construction and design. It is not going to be a fantasy realm like LoTR but largely the real world ... our world simulated.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Oh BS. I just said it can be done and a good deal easier than your trolling is making out.

* click *

Man I love the ignore button.


Originally posted by JMK
My biggest worry is getting live action actors to properly react to the cg Kong. In the Star Wars prequels it at times looks as though the actors are trying to look at Jar Jar's eyes, but they're missing completely. The folks at WETA more or less fixed that with Gollum, but how do you get people to be staring in the right place for Kong?

Now that could be a problem, agreed. But again, I'm sure they will fix that by giving the actors a reference point.

However, looking at the Gollum making of in the DVD's the actors and Jackson acknowledge that the best shots were always with Serkis involving himself in the shooting. You have to react to somethign that wont be there. In LOTR, you got sold that the monsters were really there. Must feel stupid for an actor to act with no real reference points, but it can be done I guess. But your point is very valid.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

It worked well with Gollum, because they used Andy Serkins in all of the shots...much like they did with whoever it was who plays Jar Jar, and then just took him out and plopped in Gollum.

So, obviously, for King Kong, they'll just get a huge two story gorilla to stand in for Kong until they can put in the CGI Kong. :rolleyes

[JediBoricua]

From personal experience, smaller things look better on cgi than larger things.

For example, the clonetroopers and the uruks in Helm Deep look way better than the cows that Anakin ride on Naboo, or the oliphants(sp?).

The fact that King Kong will be in a city with familiar landscapes will make it tougher. Not only will it interact with buildings, but with choppers and fighter jets. Another example of CGI gone bad because of size is Hulk. When he was running through streets and bashing car he was not believable, of course the color green does not help, but we can conclue that Kong will be a tougher task than Gollum.

[JMK]

So, obviously, for King Kong, they'll just get a huge two story gorilla to stand in for Kong until they can put in the CGI Kong.:lol


Hmm, that makes way more sense. Shame on the rest of us for not realizing that :D



For example, the clonetroopers and the uruks in Helm Deep look way better than the cows that Anakin ride on Naboo, or the oliphants.
I think a lot of that is because Clones and Uruks only have to be modeled after the movement of humans. Difficult, but doable.
The problem with those things Anakin rides is what are they supposed to move like? They're completely alien and we don't recognize their movements, which is one reason why I admire ILM, they make creatures that don't resemble anything on this earth and try to 'invent' a species. I find that cool.

[Mu Satach]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
Another example of CGI gone bad because of siez is Hulk.
It's the mighty flea of the Southwest! Personally I think they didn't do enough color shading and texture variation on his skin, thus leading to the rubbery plastic look.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by JMK
:lol
Hmm, that makes way more sense. Shame on the rest of us for not realizing that :D


When are you people going to realize that I'm always right? :mneh

[TCM'74]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
From personal experience, smaller things look better on cgi than larger things.

For example, the clonetroopers and the uruks in Helm Deep look way better than the cows that Anakin ride on Naboo, or the oliphants(sp?).

Exactly, smaller CGI figures and images have less detail to account for. Now then, on a comparitive scale with that of a human actor, a smaller CGI creation or creature has much more to draw from live action participants. Giving the graphic designers a great estimate or excellent point of reference.