King Kong 4K UHD (2005) (Ultimate Edition)

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by panasonicst60

Just got my steelbook in and it's a gorgeous looking steel. I'll be revisiting this movie in a week or so. Haven't seen it in about 15 years. Hopefully the cgi holds up.

4k cgi looks great. Even the brontosaur stampede looks much better (although still not great) vs the blu-ray. It's a definite uptick all around.

Originally Posted by happydood

Well, this might be anathema to some around here, but I just saw this and it was my first UHD blu-ray- I'd bought it a couple of years ago when I didn't have a player, but wanted the bonus disc and this edition was cheaper than the blu-ray. I managed to snag my first UHD player off of Ebay this week so now, I've seen it and I'm officially in the UHD club. I kinda have to process what I saw still as I don't fully know what to look for in the format, but I was pretty impressed.

I watch this movie every Thanksgiving as well as the 1933, so I'd just seen the regular blu and this kinda blew it out of the water.

I'm still figuring out the best settings for my tv with the player. My tv is a low-nit and no wide color gamut affair, though it supports HDR10. 4K content on Disney Plus looks too dark to me and I've read that my tv probably doesn't handle HDR as well as a higher end set. Maybe that's why this disc didn't look blown out as some have suggested here, but I think I'll be watching the movie on this disc from here on out...

Now, I'm in the wonderful position of deciding what title to pick up next. I'm watching the Middle Earth threads for everybody's thoughts on the regular...

Welcome to the club! You have a ton of great options in front of you on the uhd disc side. Since you grabbed KK maybe take a look at Kong: Skull Island or Godzilla: King of the Monsters if you're into the MonsterVerse. The Lord of the Rings looks fabulous in 4k, too. Oh, and get Jaws!!

[happydood]

Originally Posted by RalphoR

4k cgi looks great. Even the brontosaur stampede looks much better (although still not great) vs the blu-ray. It's a definite uptick all around.



Welcome to the club! You have a ton of great options in front of you on the uhd disc side. Since you grabbed KK maybe take a look at Kong: Skull Island or Godzilla: King of the Monsters if you're into the MonsterVerse. The Lord of the Rings looks fabulous in 4k, too. Oh, and get Jaws!!

Thanks, Ralph!

Yeah, Jaws is the reason I decided I was going to get a UHD player in the first place. It's my favorite movie and I watch it every year on my b-day to mark the start of summer, but this past year I was being extra-cautious with Covid and job security, but am happy to report that's worked out fine, so far. I have a few months before my annual viewing, but I'll be picking that up, for sure, as well as the Middle Earth movies...

[Swissangel4616]

Great upgrade. Specially in Sound DTS.X . King Kong is closer than you think. :-D
Not sure why everbody talks about the CGI. They are what they had back in 2005. Still love the 1933 and 1976 (non-CIGI)-versions but also still like this. 3 hours 20 min pure entertainement.

[Scarriere]

I should finally watch this after having the disc for a couple of years.
"The Pit" scene freaked me out in the theater and I'm hoping that isn't extended.

[Schwartzy]

Originally Posted by Swissangel4616

Great upgrade. Specially in Sound DTS.X . King Kong is closer than you think. :-D
Not sure why everbody talks about the CGI. They are what they had back in 2005. Still love the 1933 and 1976 (non-CIGI)-versions but also still like this. 3 hours 20 min pure entertainement.

In my opinion the cgi is great, its just that the aggressive hdr ruins alot of it and makes it more artificial

[levcore]

Yeah i think this is a great looking disc, and i love the movie... mostly. I enjoy the long running time but i do think it's at a detriment when the last 50 minutes or so is such a massive downer. I know this is the King Kong story but to spend so much time on Kong's misery and demise is just not fun for anyone. This is where i think the original movie worked better in the final act.

[Swissangel4616]

Watched now the whole movie on UHD with DTS.X sound. Some scenes are really creepy/shocking/thrilling with that sound in the own room.

[SideEffect34]

A bit undecided based on some mixed reviews. Is it worth upgrading my Blu-ray (which I’d sell) and get the 4K steelbook that’s on sale for $9.99? Or just pass?

[motorheadache95]

I'd like to know as well-- I still have the extended cut DVD, would I be better off with the Blu-Ray or UHD? I've heard mix reactions, some saying it's an improvement, other saying the HDR grade is redonkulous.

[Zimmy]

Maybe they upgraded the disc but I'm watching the 4k version of the extended edition from iTunes and it looks (almost) no better then the watching a blu-ray.
It almost bumps Batman Begins from 2nd on my most disappointing 4k transfer list.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Zimmy

Maybe they upgraded the disc but I'm watching the 4k version of the extended edition from iTunes and it looks (almost) no better then the watching a blu-ray.
It almost bumps Batman Begins from 2nd on my most disappointing 4k transfer list.

Extended version on streaming is HD 1080p.

4K is TC and it sucks every bit like the disc.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I'd like to know as well-- I still have the extended cut DVD, would I be better off with the Blu-Ray or UHD? I've heard mix reactions, some saying it's an improvement, other saying the HDR grade is redonkulous.

You didn't aks for my opinion, but it's here anyways: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...8#post13944918

[levcore]

I enjoyed re reading your review Geoff and having watched the movie again the other week I can't disagree with anything you say.

I've always thought the CG in this movie is fantastic, it's just the compositing that lets it down. For 2005 the CG in this movie was way ahead of it's time. The bronto stampede is a fantastic sequence that is let down by some really wonky compositing of the human actors into the miniature/ digital environment. To be honest though the worst shots are very fleeting, I think the absolute worst is when Jack shouts "No!" At Bruce Baxter just before Baxter starts shooting at the Raptors. It's really just a split second shot though.

[fred25_Ca]

I found the movie to be really too ambitious, Jackson was way too much into excess. The whole movie was all green screen, that also didn't help. He had found such a great balance with his Lord of the rings trilogy where it was shot on locations, had great sets, wonderful miniatures and practical fx, mixes with some cgi (that have aged badly unfortunately). With Kong he threw all of that out of the window and went all CGI and he's never recovered as a filmmaker.
Had he shot Skull Island on location, shortened the movie, removed most of the dinosaurs and instead put most of his fx budget on Kong, the movie would have looked a lot better. Instead it's a mess. There is just too much. Yes, there are some great fx but because of the sheer number of them, there are also so many bad ones. The green screen in this is awful, it takes the audience out constantly. Kong Skull Island did it so much better, shooting on location really helped.
I don't dislike Jackson's version (saw it twice in theaters, bought two different dvd versions, then the blu ray and then the 4k... :P ) but it couldn't live up to the original and tried way too hard (in the original movie Kong fought a T-Rex? Well, let's have him fight 3 this time. Why? Because we can!).
Excess sums up this movie well. I admire Skull Island a lot more for trying something else with the Kong mythos.

[Brian81]

I feel this is the weakest of the three King Kong adaptations (30s, 70s, and 00s). People have an issue with the 70s one but it moves at a good pace and is entertaining. The Jackson one tells the same story as the 30s one but takes three times as long to tell it.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by fred25_Ca

I found the movie to be really too ambitious, Jackson was way too much into excess. The whole movie was all green screen, that also didn't help. He had found such a great balance with his Lord of the rings trilogy where it was shot on locations, had great sets, wonderful miniatures and practical fx, mixes with some cgi (that have aged badly unfortunately). With Kong he threw all of that out of the window and went all CGI and he's never recovered as a filmmaker.

I may be mis remembering but doesn't King Kong use more miniatures than all 3 LOTR movies combined? It certainly wasn't "all CG" as you say above.

As for your point about the fight with 3 T Rex (actually V Rex in the movie), Jackson had settled upon that idea and the bronto stampede when he was developing his Kong movie that was originally planned for the late 90s, before he did LOTR so I'm not sure we can chalk that up to his post LOTR "excess" as you put it.

Jackson very much wanted Skull Island to be like another world, like no location on Earth that we know, completely wild and untamed. Something he could only achieve by 100% production designing the location.

[Schlomo]

Originally Posted by SideEffect34

A bit undecided based on some mixed reviews. Is it worth upgrading my Blu-ray (which I’d sell) and get the 4K steelbook that’s on sale for $9.99? Or just pass?

IMO no, the UHD looked very artificial to me, with contrast and sharpening dialed up without restraint.

[fred25_Ca]

Originally Posted by levcore

I may be mis remembering but doesn't King Kong use more miniatures than all 3 LOTR movies combined? It certainly wasn't "all CG" as you say above.

As for your point about the fight with 3 T Rex (actually V Rex in the movie), Jackson had settled upon that idea and the bronto stampede when he was developing his Kong movie that was originally planned for the late 90s, before he did LOTR so I'm not sure we can chalk that up to his post LOTR "excess" as you put it.

Jackson very much wanted Skull Island to be like another world, like no location on Earth that we know, completely wild and untamed. Something he could only achieve by 100% production designing the location.

A good filmmaker needs to know his movie budget's limit. You have to make sacrifices when you make a movie. Jackson decided not to, he went full ahead with his vision, which I can respect but there is more to it than to follow your vision when you make a film, it's all about compromise. The movie suffered greatly from it, imo. And yes, there are miniatures but the green screen effects are so evident that it kills the suspension of belief.
Spielberg had to compromise when he did Jaws and Jurassic Park and both movies were the better for it. So did Lucas with the original Star Wars trilogy, unlike the prequels where he had no limitations and where the movies suffered from it. Same with Jackson. He had to compromise a lot for LOTR but a lot less for Kong (he had a lot more power by then).
I think part of the beauty of making a special effects movie is to try to hide the effects and do as best as you can with your budget, something Lucas and Jackson don't adhere to anymore.
Jackson's Kong IS all about excess. Twice the length as the original, 3 times more t-rexes (or V-Rex), more of everything. More bugs, etc. More is not better when it comes to movies. Simplicity sometimes is king.

[levcore]

Jackson had pretty much the biggest budget ever (at the time) for King Kong, he decided to go all out, I don't blame him, this was his passion project after all.

Literally every big budget fx heavy movie has a mix of excellent and dodgy vfx, I'm not sure Kong is unique in this regard. This was true in 2005 and is still true in 2020.

You mention Spielberg who has made several mega CG fests in recent years so comparing his earlier work that was made pre CG or when the tech was in its infancy doesn't seem like an apt comparison. BFG and Ready Player Ome are pure VFX excess.

[fred25_Ca]

Originally Posted by levcore

Jackson had pretty much the biggest budget ever (at the time) for King Kong, he decided to go all out, I don't blame him, this was his passion project after all.

Literally every big budget fx heavy movie has a mix of excellent and dodgy vfx, I'm not sure Kong is unique in this regard. This was true in 2005 and is still true in 2020.

There are few things more distracting to a fx movie than bad fx shots. Stephen Summers was the king of bad cgi for example.
Bad fx can hurt a movie. I really enjoyed Star wars Rogue one but the CGI Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher really hurt it. Bad Fx takes the audience out of a movie and kills the momentum. That's one of the big reason Jurassic Park has aged so well, Spielberg choose meticulously every FX shots and man does it holds up.
Jackson did not. He threw everything at the screen. Everything. Good and bad. And while the good still holds up beautifully to this day, the bad really hinders the movie.

I also put Jackson's version at the bottom.
If I had to rank all the kong movies, it would be
33, Kong Skull Island, KKvsG, 76, 2005, KK escapes and then King Kong lives.
But I love even KK lives, that's how much I am obsessed with Kong and monsters haha. I might be blasting Jackson's version (because I think he did a very disappointing job with it) but I still like the movie and i am looking forward to watching the 4k version down the line. Hell, I owned 3 times the Jean Reno Godzilla movie (and now on 4k), that should speak volume how much I love these movies haha.