New King Kong Movie?

CGI is best used as a background- a landscape that doesn't exist in our world, for example.

But when CGI is applied to anthing requiring animated physics, such as monsters and superheroes, the results are pathetic.

I get the impression that young moviegoers simply don't know how good special effects used to be, and swallow everything up in CGI as the "best and cutting edge."

It's not the best and it is not cutting edge. As full o lead pointed out, there was genuine work involved in stop-action technology that resulted in something more natural and believable, as far as physics are concerned.

Everything now is ersatz.
 
komondor said:
CGI is best used as a background- a landscape that doesn't exist in our world, for example.
Click to expand...

I used the wrong term in my post a while back. CGG is what Chris Reeve does to a Sebenza handle :rolleyes:

The FX in the Jurrasic Park movies were very good in all cases IMO. There were some computer generated effects, but also some good "monster building" effects. They made a lot of those creatures really come to life. So also, were the effects in the Alien movies very good. Even though you didn't see much creature in the first one.

You're all right about Ray Harryhausen. His work was fabulous for it's time, maybe all time. Like a classic work of art. My favorite was 'Jason and the Argonauts.' The Bronze Warrior sequence was absolutely awesome. Great stuff!
 
komondor said:
But when CGI is applied to anthing requiring animated physics, such as monsters and superheroes, the results are pathetic.

I get the impression that young moviegoers simply don't know how good special effects used to be, and swallow everything up in CGI as the "best and cutting edge."
Click to expand...

I get the impression sometimes that older moviegoers don't know how powerful CGI is when used properly, and swallow up stop-motion as "the best there'll ever be". ;) :D

Misused SFX _always_ look terrible. I've seen some pretty atrocious stop motion. Comparing a Harryhausen masterpiece to Star Wars 1-3 just isn't fair. Harryhausen knew the strengths and limits of his technology, and worked masterfully within them. Lucas is on the verge of firing all his actors and going full-CGI.

OTOH, Peter Jackson's Balrog and Oliphaunts looked _much_ more real than Harryhausen's Cyclops, for example. In any age, with any technology, it's all a matter of knowing how and when to use your SFX, and when to hire the best modelmakers you can afford. :)
 
I saw another picture of King Kong. Seems it's going to take place during the same time period as the original.

-Bob
 
Hollywood remakes a classic and doesn't try to "update" it, but does a period piece? My respect for Peter Jackson grows. No bad soundtrack tie-ins to worry about, and product placement will be kept to a minimum.
 
Tonight I saw the first television trailer for King Kong. Many of the highlighted special effects looked like cartoons, but some of the Kong shots looked real.

Hopefully it'll look better on the big screen.

-Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top