Blooper in King Kong

[Milestogo05]

I thing I'm the only one who's ever noticed...

but when the ship gets on that little island and they find the natives, who frantically dance around...


A big white dude jumps in front of the screen for a second in the middle of all them skinny black people


Its hilarious!

[semi]

rofl

[bradc1988]

I think the biggest blooper was this movie getting any sort of acclaim

rofl

[Milestogo05]

lmao

[Mr. Pickle]

I think I'm one of the only people who liked this movie.

[Mister_Che]

Those giant bugs/centipedes creeped me the hell out. I actually felt physical disomfort being in the theater.

[Mr. Pickle]

The only stuff I really didn't like in the movie was the lines between the black guy and Jimmy. All of those lines were so cheesy and retarded.

[Tillius]

I think I'm one of the only people who liked this movie.

It was worth watching.

Not worth all the acclaim it got though. Not even for the CGI.

The CGI on Kong himself was very well done, but it's like they focused all of it on Kong and half-assed the rest of it.

[Dinosawesome]

tell me about it =/

[Tillius]

I'm telling you.

[planewreck]

The movie's middle section could have been cut down to save the movie a lot of excess (I'm partial to the first and last thirds).

Also, Ebert said it best about the film and its CGI "bloopers":
Some of the Manhattan effects are not completely convincing (and earlier, on Skull Island, it's strange how the fleeing humans seem to run beneath the pounding feet of the T. rexes without quite occupying the same space). But special effects do not need to be convincing if they are effective, and Jackson trades a little realism for a lot of impact and momentum. The final ascent of the Empire State Building is magnificent, and for once, the gorilla seems the same size in every shot.
Though the film is just good, nothing great.

[Tillius]

The Empire State Building scene was great, about the only part of the movie that lived up to the hype.

[ringworm]

i guess while most people were wondering why they spent money on such a bad film, they missed any bloopers

[Iscariot]

I liked this movie. It wasn't some sort of magical, blockbuster hit, but I really don't think it was intended to be. It's a movie about a giant gorilla, I mean really, what kind of ridiculous standards do some people have that they can't just sit down and enjoy something like that?

[team_racket]

the end was ruined for me when i saw it in the cinema. i felt sad as the last few bullets ripped through the beast and he slipped down from the steeple. this kid down the front did a laugh not to dissimilar from nelson on the simpsons.

[planewreck]

I liked this movie. It wasn't some sort of magical, blockbuster hit, but I really don't think it was intended to be. It's a movie about a giant gorilla, I mean really, what kind of ridiculous standards do some people have that they can't just sit down and enjoy something like that?
It's pretty obvious that Jackson figured it was more than just "a movie about a giant gorilla."

[ZaaR]

too long

[Iscariot]

It's pretty obvious that Jackson figured it was more than just "a movie about a giant gorilla."

Tbh I don't really care because that's all it was about to me. If a viewer can't differentiate between movies to be taken at face value and movies that are worthy of in-depth criticism, it's the fault of those viewers rather than those who produced the movie if they're disappointed.

I find it interesting how many people in here consider themselves highly evolved film critics and then they go about tearing apart a movie with a comedian playing one of the main characters, a giant gorilla for a monster, dinosaurs, blood thirsty natives, and a PG-13 rating. What the hell did people expect out of this?

The first thread about this movie had people comparing this to the original like the original was some kind of shining achievement in cinema history. They were both ridiculous and short-sighted but one of them has some shoddy CGI and Jack Black in the cast so it's automatically terrible while the other is lauded as incredible. I don't get it, I really don't.

[planewreck]

I never said it was bad. I actually liked the film. But it's mindsets like that that allow films like Transformers or White Chicks to walk away unscathed because those that don't like it are expecting too much.

Same goes for King Kong now, I suppose.

[Iscariot]

No but see that's a goddamn fact. If you go into a movie rated to allow children to make up at least 50% of the audience and expect to be knocked out of your seat by the sheer amazing quality of the film at hand, you're an idiot unfit to enter any theater at any time. Expecting too much is exactly the problem. If you don't want to see a bad movie, don't go see a bad movie. Walking into a movie that you know is going to suck, ie White Chicks, and walking out feeling like you were let down is self-indulgent and a waste of everyone's listening time when you suddenly feel the need to talk about how terrible the movie was later.

[ringworm]

If a viewer can't differentiate between movies to be taken at face value and movies that are worthy of in-depth criticism
oh good grief, we all know there are movies out there that arent exactly cream of the crop, that are still liked, watched for sheer entertainment value and not picked apart relentlously, but this film was further down the pole than even that.

Seriously it had a budget of $207 million, that doesnt sound like the movies you are comparing it to, at all

[Iscariot]

lmao

The budget of a film has nothing to do with the quality of the film. Independent films rarely have a budget over a couple of thousand dollars and I don't see anyone criticizing them to death.

[Meatplow]

I see where you are coming from Iscariot, these days I expect many family rated movies and comedy blockbusters to be average at best. Sad thing though is it wasn't always like this, with these kind of films there has been a drastic decline in quality over the years where they now generally cannot have popular appeal and be considered a cinematic achievement in one.

I dislike this trend and feel that production studios should put more effort in no matter what market they are aiming at. Still, it's not like amateur internet movie critics are going to make a lick of the difference on the subject as long as the money keeps rolling in. Might as well just let it be and enjoy what I enjoy.

[ringworm]

The budget of a film has nothing to do with the quality of the film
duh???

lol, you still missed the point, but whatever

I liked The Postman, Waterworld, Riddick and all kinds of other, less than Oscar winning films, for the same reason that you keep reffering to, face value and entertainment

none of which was present in King Kong, seriously, it was one of the worst i've seen in a decade or so on the big screen

[Iscariot]

none of which was present in King Kong

Yeah never mind that what you perceive as entertaining is completely subjective.

[ringworm]

Yeah never mind that what you perceive as entertaining is completely subjective.
exactly

[Iscariot]

Ok I get the feeling we just went full circle.

[Luc214]

Why all the hate for Jackson's Kong? I thought it was wonderful.

And how in hell was the CGI bad?

[thedeadwalk!]

Most of the grief on the CGI comes from when they're on Skull Island. As mentioned earlier, when they're running underneath the dinosaurs, though not T-Rexes, they're together but don't look connected. There was little in way of a spatial relationship that put the dinosaurs and people around each other.

Otherwise, it was great.

[ringworm]

Ok I get the feeling we just went full circle.
lol, at one point I said something similar, but I got distracted at work, when I came back I didnt include that I didnt want to argue too much about my opinion :p

but i still hated that film immensly, with the cast, crew and budget, much more could have been achieved, even the acting was far below most TV Soap Operas

[Luc214]

Most of the grief on the CGI comes from when they're on Skull Island. As mentioned earlier, when they're running underneath the dinosaurs, though not T-Rexes, they're together but don't look connected. There was little in way of a spatial relationship that put the dinosaurs and people around each other.

Otherwise, it was great.

Hmm yeah kind of, but I felt it helped add to that whole larger than life experience. I mean, unless you're looking for it, it doesn't look bad, at least to me.

And also that would be a compositing error and has nothing to do with CGI.

[Tillius]

I find it interesting how many people in here consider themselves highly evolved film critics and then they go about tearing apart a movie with a comedian playing one of the main characters
Is that to say that Jack Black did a bad job but it was acceptable because he's typically a comedian?
If so, that would be no excuse.
First off, Jack Black is a decent actor and didn't do a bad job in this.
Secondly, even if he had sucked in the movie, him being a comedian would be no excuse. If somebody is put into a role, either they sought it out or were asked. No matter how they got it, they agreed to do it and therefore they have a responsibility. If I see somebody who is typically a comedian(i.e. Jim Carrey, Jack Black, etc.) in a more serious role, I expect them to do a good job and if they don't, I'm not gonna brush it off just because it's not their normal style.

[Luc214]

I don't really like Jack Black at all, but he was good in this film.

[Ian Turner]

Great movie.