MovieChat Forums > Kong: Skull Island (2017) Discussion > Ape was a major disappointment compared ...

Ape was a major disappointment compared to Jackson's


What I liked most about Jackson's ape in 2005 was that he was proportioned exactly like an oversized gorilla, not a man in a gorilla suit. His bodily movements, his facial movements, all were those of a gorilla, not a man trying to act like a gorilla. Skull Island gave us the man in the ape suit again. Even if he was CGI, they just gave us a CGI man in an ape suit. While Skull Island was visually stunning in most ways, the ape himself felt like the 1976 Kong. Just a let down. They could have done better.

reply

I noted that too, but, to be fair, this Kong isn't specifically called or identified as a big gorilla. In Jackson's movie, Kong is specifically referred to as a giant gorilla.

Aside from the line: "Is that a monkey?" (which is different from an ape and inaccurate in this case anyway), I don't think it's called anything but Kong in this movie.

This is TOHO Kong which is a giant monster before anything else... one that just looks very similar to a giant ape. Probably a giant sasquatch would be a more accurate description.

And I say this as someone who is a big fan of both movies/versions...

reply

Agreed 100%.

reply

Yes I only heard the monkey comment. Good observation.

reply

I always liked the idea that Kong was a unique creature that looked closest to a gorilla but really wasn't one. So I don't mind him being bipedal anymore that I didn't mind the apes in the classic Planet of the Apes films looking "kind of" like apes.

reply

Somewhat off topic here... although Tim Burton's POTA movie gets little love or respect, I was impressed by the practical effects used in that movie to turn human actors into apes. It was leap years better than the original makeup effects use in the 60s versions. Honestly, I think it was even more impressive than the CGI effects used in the most recent re-makes.

reply

The makeup effects and the correct depiction of chimpanzees were the two saving graces of that movie.

reply

The CGI in the WFTPOTA is outstanding.

reply

It's good for sure. Usually it's the eyes though that strike me as unnatural. The uncanny valley effect is no longer around, but they haven't really nailed the 'wet' look of real eyes.

It also seems to depend on the picture setup. I watched the original LOTR at the theatres and found the special effects seamless. But when I later watched it on BluRay on my HDTV -- which I tend to have set for bright saturated colours and sharpened picture -- the edges of the special effects were immediately noticeable.

Similarly, when I watched the resurrected Peter Cushing in The Force Awakens on my big-screen HDTV, his eyes immediately identified him as a CGI effect. In this case, it was more that often they weren't focusing correctly. Talking to a person in front of him, the eyes were sometimes focused off in the distance, looking THROUGH the character. And Princess Leia looked outright bad.

I didn't see this movie at the cineplex but every review I read, raved about how realistic the CGI characters seemed.

reply

I suppose I should get around to watching that one some day.

reply

I still haven't seen Peter Jackson's King Kong, but I have seen clips and I love the way he moves and his weight.

One thing that was interesting to note with this new Kong from Skull Island is that they specifically didn't want him to act like a typical gorilla, but have more of an upright gait to match that of a man. The reason for this -- if memory serves me correctly -- is that when he eventually faced off against Godzilla it would make him a more formidable and agile threat.

When you see Godzilla vs Kong you can quickly recognize how a less mobile Kong would have been easily obliterated pretty early into the fight when they finally faced off on solid ground in Hong Kong.

reply