They just don't make'm like they used to. Too bad....

I miss those miniatures.

I remember as a kid, many years ago, we would put in a tape of one of these shows from the rental store and watch then on a Saturday night. Of course they were dubbed in english. After watching them more times then we should have we would turn the volume down and dub them ourselves.
 
I love those old monster movies!

While we're on the topic of miniatures...

I don't expect too many people to really appreciate this... since it's about a minute from a standard AD episode... with a complicated story at it's climax, but if you laugh your ass off at THIS and you haven't been a fan of Arrested Development... this is the kind of stuff you've been missing... and you have no idea how smart everything was leading up to this unexpected moment.
 
It's too bad Hollywood couldn't understand that these cheesy [but state of the art for back then] effects would make so many movies so much better than the latest 3D love fest high end computer generated FX work.
You just can't beat the 50's and 60's monster movies for real entertainment.
 
I'll take miniatures and dudes in rubber suits 100% of the time over something that isn't really there.
 
I honestly think that's one of the reasons the first couple Aliens movies were so scary.

There's something about real people and real objects... that CGI just can't seem to replicate (at least not yet). There's a certain... visceral quality... in the imperfection of reality... that's lost when every exacting detail of light and motion is 100% decided upon.

I've said this dozens of times now... but I still say there's a fortune to be made in a "chaos" program... kind of like the wiggler or whatever for "motion" or "shake"... but just a "slider" of realistic randomness... such as slight wavering through balance... or missteps... or any of a million other things that REAL people and objects do... while FX simply execute flawlessly... which constantly pops the bubble of fantasy, because nothing in our world is truly perfect.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Of course, but the 30's Kong didn't have a man in a suit. That was the 70's version.
Click to expand...

But it had miniatures and real stop motion creatures. Not that that makes it inherently superior. The script was tighter as well. They got on the island in under 20 minutes. The PJ Kong took an hour.
 
Batutta said:
But it had miniatures and real stop motion creatures. Not that that makes it inherently superior. The script was tighter as well. They got on the island in under 20 minutes. The PJ Kong took an hour.
Click to expand...
I think the point of PJ's script was to expand the story on a grander scale. Kong didn't show up until the mid point in the 30's version either. But since PJ's remake was much longer, it also takes longer time to reach the midpoint.

Anyway, the point was I was making a response to HorseFilm's comment about him taking rubber suits over CGI any day, so I can't really compare a better version of Kong against the CG version, right?
 
Pookie said:
It's too bad Hollywood couldn't understand that these cheesy [but state of the art for back then] effects would make so many movies so much better than the latest 3D love fest high end computer generated FX work.
You just can't beat the 50's and 60's monster movies for real entertainment.
Click to expand...

Though I make some of my money with CGI, I could not agree more Pookie.
Actually I hate CGI when it is visible..

Frank
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
I think the point of PJ's script was to expand the story on a grander scale.
Click to expand...

Which it absolutely did NOT need. Kong is a muscular story that doesn't need frills. I didn't need to see the painstakingly detailed arc of Jimmy the cabin boy. Too much of PJ's KONG felt like a stylistic hangover from LOTR. He forgot he was making a fundamentally different type of film. Kong should've been lean and mean, not indulgent, fanciful and drawn out.
 
Batutta said:
Which it absolutely did NOT need. Kong is a muscular story that doesn't need frills. I didn't need to see the painstakingly detailed arc of Jimmy the cabin boy. Too much of PJ's KONG felt like a stylistic hangover from LOTR. He forgot he was making a fundamentally different type of film. Kong should've been lean and mean, not indulgent, fanciful and drawn out.
Click to expand...
I liked it. I thought it was nostalgic, and I like nostalgia. But I can see how the problem is with the style of it.
As it was, it felt kind of like an 80's or 90's movie. Like Jurassic Park. You know, "cinematic" and "fantastical" sort of. It might have been better to go with a more modern and "gritty", "bournesque" type feel, like they did with Bond. But I mean, it's King Kong, and it's not the 1930s anymore.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
I liked it. I thought it was nostalgic, and I like nostalgia. But I can see how the problem is with the style of it.
As it was, it felt kind of like an 80's or 90's movie. Like Jurassic Park. You know, "cinematic" and "fantastical" sort of. It might have been better to go with a more modern and "gritty", "bournesque" type feel, like they did with Bond. But I mean, it's King Kong, and it's not the 1930s anymore.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the worst movie ever, but it was too indulgent. And badly cast. I didn't think there was any chemistry between Brody and Naomi Watts (she was good on her own though), and Jack Black did not have the gravitas to pull off his role. Actually, Jack Black is the antithesis of gravitas. Anyway, what was this thread about?
 
Even the posters were cooler....

godzilla-king-kong-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top