Search this Topic:
Mar 24 17 1:59 AM
Mar 24 17 8:31 AM
Mar 24 17 9:48 AM
Mar 24 17 10:48 AM
Mar 24 17 11:08 AM
Mar 24 17 2:17 PM
Casey62 wrote:I heard when a new Kong movie was first pitched to director Jordan Vogt-Roberts it was to take place in 1917 during WW1. As I think about it, that would've been rather interesting.
Mar 24 17 2:34 PM
Mar 24 17 5:42 PM
Mar 24 17 5:50 PM
Mar 24 17 6:52 PM
skull island escapee wrote:Zeppelin Airships were around then, because London got bombed using them around 1917.
Mar 24 17 6:54 PM
Mar 24 17 10:13 PM
HalLane wrote:If they'd set KONG in 1917, World War Wonder Woman could've kicked his monkey butt!
Happy Anniversary, Randy! (My wife liked the movie too)
Mar 25 17 1:18 AM
Just got back from seeing this new Kong film. I liked it. Very well done. Exciting. Some really classic shots of Kong. Appreciated the lack of an Anne/Kong infatuation. Appreciated the lack of a Hiddleston/Larson romance. Truly some beautiful cinematography and location work. Liked the similarities between the title sequence here and the one in GODZILLA 2014. Thought there were many terrific effects sequences. And my, how CGI has improved in the twelve years since the 2005 Kong. I liked this tough Kong, veteran of many Skull Island wars, who has a soft side for some reason when it comes to protecting the human population. John C. Reilly was fun and a lot less loony than the trailers made him out to be. Liked the literary references and the Heart of Darkness switcheroo with Reilly the gentle military man amongst the natives while new arrivee (can there be such a word?) Jackson takes the Kurtz role of madness. The surround sound was a real treat.
Quibbles? Yes, but it's a great big summer blockbuster popcorn movie. I had some questions, though, but nothing that would destroy the entertainment value. Why are there only five copters on the ship's deck but when they get airborne there's suddenly about nine or ten? Did I miss something? Why can't the pterodactyls fly off the island or at least over the natives' wall?
Mar 25 17 2:43 AM
Mar 25 17 3:21 AM
Mar 25 17 3:42 AM
Mar 25 17 4:47 AM
Mar 25 17 7:33 AM
Kelg wrote:The FX suffers from the plague of a lot of CGI movies post Jurassic Park, and that is the
"super powered virtual reality camera man."
There is no way a camera, physically, would be able to move so rapidly around 100 foot creatures like it does and by doing so, for me at least, it breaks suspension of disbelief in a major way. I don't see a 100 foot creature, I see a human-sized creature at best, a CGI model at worst.
There is also is the issue I had with Godzilla 2014.
They get motion capture performances, but human-sized characters can not move like an elephant. And an elephant cannot move like a 100 foot creature. They weigh differently, their movement would be heavier and slower.
If you look at Jurassic Park or Starship Troopers, the large creatures have a slower movement behavior because the animators under Phil Tippett factored that into it.
I know, the old Toho Godzillas had the same problem with human actors playing big monsters but to their credit they overcranked it when filming thus it at least is moving slow, like you would expect when watching a tidal wave or avalanche.
The slow motion used in the third trailer at the end is a "post" style effect, so it is not the same kind of slow motion as what Toho would do when filming.
I knew Legendary would do this!
Ever since Clash of the Titans 2010. They insist on speeding things up for the purpose of reducing CGI rendering times, and therefore cost. They also make the skies overcast because it makes light processing faster and cheaper
Mar 25 17 8:51 AM
Mar 25 17 9:41 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.