Peter Jackson's KING KONG Trailer Premieres

I'm also researching the lawsuit Jackson has against New Line Cineman on LOTR's profits. Some more creative Hollywood accounting? AOL/Time Warner and New Line needed the profits from those pictures as their merger put then in poor financial standing, AOL loosing many subscribers because of their cost and so-so service.

Watch the trailer (you must have Quicktime and there are three format sizes but the medium worked the best, at least on my laptop):

http://www.kingkongmovie.com/ef239524432ba87f1ca8f70eed4b1fa7/en_splash.html

The King Kong fan site with a link to stills from the movie which can be used as desktop backgrounds:

http://www.kongisking.net/index.shtml


The captions haven't been correct on some of the stills and still describe scenes from LOTR (it's the same group).

Golly, it barely looks like Peter -- what happened to the jolly, rotund Hobbit look?

The lawsuit against New Line Cinema, AOL Time Warner story:

LINK TO NEW YORK TIMES STORY

Not that this should be a diversion from his new venture in filming "King Kong," but it does explain that he's doing it for Universal.

I like the trailer. The first remake didn't hold my attention for over five minutes, but I want to see this one.

You and me both -- it has the vintage look with judicious use of color while the first remake was garish and the special effects stupendously dumb looking. Giant snake! Look out!

The trailer gives one some flashes of the dinosaurs.

It's hard to top a classic, even with modern effects, but they just may equal it.

I am so glad that they didn't modernize it like they did War of the Worlds

Many younger people may not appreciate the classi film because the special effects are rather clunky. Stop motion photography was in its infancy and sometimes Kong's fur would flutter around unnaturally and he'd loose scale to his surroundings. It was phenominal for its era and the Max Steiner score is one of the best motion picture soundtracks ever written.

Seeing King Kong for the first time: It was my first encounter with fright in a theater. I had gone to the Saturday matinee, totally uninformed. The kid in the next seat ran from the theater. I could only look at the monster with my peripheral vision. Once over, I loved it.

Okay, yes I did see it for the first time and the old United Artist theater in L.A. and it was frightening. I think Jackson can bring back that eerie, suspenseful atmosphere even if we know how the story ends. It is, after all, like "Titanic" because most of us know the ending.

I wonder if they couldn't take the original film and modernize it with a computer, remove the fuzz, for instance, and smooth out the claymation movements.

I agree that it looks entertaining, and I appreciate the vintage look, but the CGI looked pretty bad.(certainly not on par with LOTR)--I was having flashbacks to Bed Knobs and Broomsticks or perhaps Mary Poppins.

That was footage that was, unfortunately, not entirely completed. I also wondered if that was wise to put together a trailer with incomplete CGI effects. Especially when it is transferred to the interet and downgraded to load and play with Quicktime (the resolution is nearly cut 30%).

This is why you are getting the effect, especially on the quick action scenes, of deterioration in the pixalization. If they would do like they did with the first LOTR which was a Realtime download, the quality would be much better.

Nobody still seems to realize that streaming video and audio is not up-to-par with the real thing. Even on a hi-def TV, the TV showing was much better but still suffered from the transfer.

Be assured, Jackson's own CGI team will not fail to give us something as good if not better than LOTR.

Well thank God for that.

Right! I noticed after seeing the TV trailer that the streaming trailer in the Medium size was not nearly as good.

I saw it at the theater before War of the Worlds and it looked great!

How was WOTW? It also looks good and the reviews are good. Despite what I think of Cruise personally now (Brooke Shields was in the New York Times in rebuttle). I thought particularly naming another star was scuzzball, but then you have no idea how scuzzball the people are at "Scientology," which is really a hybrid of Christian Science and Rosicrucianism, not to mention Yoga.