King Kong Trailer
 

http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/...king_kong.html

this movie looks awesome....

Yeah I was at California and I was in the set for a scene whe he shakes some kind of bridge.

Tyrannosaurus rex? HELL YES.

I wonder if Kong snaps its jaw like in the old black-and-white film.

And I dearly hope that those weren't velociraptors, because they looked nothing like them.

I wasnt really excited nor was I paying attention to this film until I saw that trailer just now. As much I loved the LOTR trilogy and Peter Jackson's work on bringing that vision to life this is the first time I'm actually pumped for this remake of King Kong.

The trailer was neat, perhaps a bit too telling, but neat. I don't think they put enough emphasis on Kong though. In my opinion, he was slightly upstaged by the dinosaurs, but this is only a trailer. It's weird that Jackson would want to remake his favorite movie of all time, then again he was a big fan of the LotR books, so who knows. Who would want to remake the Godfather films? All and all, I'm uberly hyped and frankly a little stolked.

It was cool, thrilling and...cool. But I was like, is it Jurrasic park and kingkong meeting?

There's a King Kong movie being made? Or has this thread been bumped from several decades ago? This sounds like it would be pretty big news, but there's been no coverage of it that I'm aware of. Even Batman Begins seemed to appear quietly - that is out now, isn't it? Never even heard anyone talking about it.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrank...eviewid=576903

:D

Granted, that's from the video game, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was in the movie.

Man, this movie looks so cool!

That so awsome! :)

Right after Peter Jackson finished Return of the King, he said he would be remaking King Kong next. It won't be out until christmas, about six months from now. There is plenty of time for the thing to be overhyped before its release.

Awsome, great visuals!. Some of the scenes acuactly looked like from a battle from LOTR. And it's set in the original time too.


Yes it is, and I wasn't able to see it. But I realy wanted to. The ones with Georg Clooney were kinda cheesy. Batman Begins sounds good though.

Those were not raptors, they were giant insects. I am just waiting to here some politically correct dipstick individual out there saying, "Giant insects? thats not correct it can't happen in movies!" And I will be like "its a ****ing fantasy movie moron!" This movie will not win an oscar but I do believe it will be better than Godzilla and be a fun popcorn movie just to enjoy.

This movie looks as if it keeps to the 1930's plot. The jungle and everything look the same from the 1930's. Also that bridge that Kong rocks is a log in the jungle. King Kong is not King Kong unless it has the famious Log bridge scene and it looks like they keep with it. I am looking forward for this movie because I am a big monster movie freak. Ever since I was little I enjoyed monster movies and King Kong was my favorite.


Paramiteabe... :fuzblink:

I got some links on some images if anyone cares.


http://aintitcoolnews.com/images/kkt/kk1b.jpg
http://aintitcoolnews.com/images/kkt/kk2b.jpg

Man, they look so real.

Oh, man. Please tell me that's not an alligator-skinned pattern. What the fuck is so difficult about feathers? Come on! Even if they gave it pebbly skin, feathers would look cool along the neck and arms. God damnit, Hollywood!

And tyrannosaurus did NOT have two layers of teeth. If it had, we would have seen it in the skull.

I understand that the rexes are supposed to look scary, but is it that difficult for hollywood to make a dinosaur movie and make them look realistic? I mean, Walking with Dinosaurs couldn't even do that, and they were supposed to be this great series.

Sorry, this is me divulging my geekdom onto you.

Hmm, how ironic...

First of all, fuck you.

Second, who ever sad giant insects couldn't exist in movie? Anything can exist in a fictional movie, but I never said anything about bugs. You start by wrongfully assuming that I can't tell dromaeosaurs from insects, then base other arguements on that.

Who would be stupid enough to mistake bugs for dinosaurs? Oh, I can draw things with excruciating detail, but I can't tell an insect from a dromaeosaur. Right, that's some great use of logic, PA. Bravo.

PA, there are so many other dinosaur fans besides me who are sick of seeing them "Jurassic Park-ized" for movies, and there's nothing wrong with me wanting to see dinosaurs portrayed as something besides monsters.

The "It's just a movie" line has thrown at me before, and I always retalliate with the same arguement.

"There are paleoartists who can portray dinosars as fearsome, photogenic, AND accurate at the same time. Why can't movies do that?"

Nobody ever consults people like Brett Booth or Todd Marshall to do the concept art. These people can make dinosars look realistic AND menacing at the same time.

What is so fucking wrong with wanting to see a dromaeosaur with feathers?

That's not irony. If he had said it before I posted, then it would have been.

Look, what the fuck? I say something about the dinosaurs yet again being portrayed innacurately in a movie, and I get lobbed with insults from MojoMan and PA.

Mojo, I thought we had a truce. What happened to that?

Thanks a fucking heap, guys. I guess I can't have my own opinions anymore.

No, I wasn't trying to insult you. I merely found it to be a coincidence that PA used the word Dipstick to describe someone who would criticise the unbelievable creatures. Your forum name is Dipstikk, and you were the first person to point out the inaccuracies. It was not my impression that PA was refering to you when he said Dipstick, because it makes sense in the context of the situation. I found it to be an ironic choice of words. My intention was not to insult you, but I'm sorry that you read into it as such.

I saw the preview at the beginning of War of the Worlds, it has Jack Black (School of Rock, Shallow Hal, etc). Looks cool enough

Wow first of all I wasn't refering to you Dipstikk, I wasn't even refering to anyone on the forums. When I said Dipstick hence the spelling change, I ment some crazy person out there like a critic, who would complain because the dinosaurs diden't look politically correct. Which in my opinion is a stupid critisism. What I am getting at here is that there are some people in this world, who go crazy over little mistakes made in movies, when they should just enjoy the movie and not worry about it. Dipstikk your a cool person I wasn't talking about you, I was talking in general terms. :fuzconf:

Look I am not one to get hostile and I don't want to be like that, which is one of the reasons why I rarely visit the forums these days. I had my dues in the past on here I am not going to do that again. ;)

Paramiteabe... :fuzblink:

Looks uninspiring, boring, and unoriginal. I can't help but not get excited for this film, I feel like I already know what every scene will be (not from the original, which I haven't seen, but from that trailer and background knowledge). Jack Black looks pretty cool though.

The Dinosaurs are purposely more fantasy-ish. For example, the T-Rex is wrong in many regards (in looking as a high res render); for example, the nostrils are in completely the wrong place, and it's legs/stomach area is completely wrong.
This is a fantasy movie. They've done it differently, is all.

Actually, even though those are just examples, the legs, belly and nostrils are all done fine. :p PLEASE DON'T HIT ME, I'M FRAIL!

It's not so bad, I guess. Jurassic Park's rex was still so much better designed, though. Even if their dromaeosaurs were shit in a barrel. Hey, I call's 'em like I see's 'em.