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

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Man, I forgot how much I hate this movie. Turned it off right after the t-rex fight, I just couldn't take anymore. It's so stupid, cartoonish, and unrestrained. On top of that is has awful pacing, and on top of that it looks awful with garish lighting, horrible CGI and bad post-processing (on both discs). I really hated blockbuster films and CGI for a good while in the later 00s and early teens and this movie is honestly a big reason why.

Anyway... my hatred of the movie aside, I compared the BD to the UHD again out of MrHomeTheaterMan curiosity and I think I'd take the UHD pretty easily on this one. The color looks way better and the HDR adds a lot of depth to the awful looking CGI. It's definitely garish at times with ugly harsh lighting but that's mostly just how the movie looks, you can't get away from it. Same thing with the funky processing, they both look like that. I'll take the HDR and color improvements over mildly better grain that's irrelevant in this cartoon anyway.

3 t-rexes out of 10.

Could not disagree more with all of this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Man, I forgot how much I hate this movie. Turned it off right after the t-rex fight, I just couldn't take anymore. It's so stupid, cartoonish, and unrestrained. On top of that is has awful pacing, and on top of that it looks awful with garish lighting, horrible CGI and bad post-processing (on both discs). I really hated blockbuster films and CGI for a good while in the later 00s and early teens and this movie is honestly a big reason why.

Anyway... my hatred of the movie aside, I compared the BD to the UHD again out of MrHomeTheaterMan curiosity and I think I'd take the UHD pretty easily on this one. The color looks way better and the HDR adds a lot of depth to the awful looking CGI. It's definitely garish at times with ugly harsh lighting but that's mostly just how the movie looks, you can't get away from it. Same thing with the funky processing, they both look like that. I'll take the HDR and color improvements over mildly better grain that's irrelevant in this cartoon anyway.

3 t-rexes out of 10.

Last two times I've watched the movie it's literally sent me to sleep and I've had to resume watching it the next day, and good lord that extended version is so, so bad. It's not even that much longer but it's so utterly redundant (even PJ doesn't consider it to be the bestest version, it really is just a marketing cut).

[MegatronX]

I think it's a shame Jackson's didn't make the film back in '96.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Last two times I've watched the movie it's literally sent me to sleep and I've had to resume watching it the next day, and good lord that extended version is so, so bad. It's not even that much longer but it's so utterly redundant (even PJ doesn't consider it to be the bestest version, it really is just a marketing cut).

Yeah its crazy how too much noise and visual anarchy actually just becomes boring. The first hour is poorly paced build up with some stiff acting and dialog, but it still feels like a movie and I still enjoyed it. Once it turned into a bad video game you can't play though I just started toning out. I literally reached for my phone during the t-rex fight, something I almost never do, because I was so bored.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Man, I forgot how much I hate this movie. Turned it off right after the t-rex fight, I just couldn't take anymore. It's so stupid, cartoonish, and unrestrained. On top of that is has awful pacing, and on top of that it looks awful with garish lighting, horrible CGI and bad post-processing (on both discs). I really hated blockbuster films and CGI for a good while in the later 00s and early teens and this movie is honestly a big reason why.

Anyway... my hatred of the movie aside, I compared the BD to the UHD again out of MrHomeTheaterMan curiosity and I think I'd take the UHD pretty easily on this one. The color looks way better and the HDR adds a lot of depth to the awful looking CGI. It's definitely garish at times with ugly harsh lighting but that's mostly just how the movie looks, you can't get away from it. Same thing with the funky processing, they both look like that. I'll take the HDR and color improvements over mildly better grain that's irrelevant in this cartoon anyway.

3 t-rexes out of 10.

I agree on the BD vs UHD take: there's only one format to watch it on, all things considered. However, while I understand why you don't like the too much muchness of the movie, I just kind of settle into a vibe on this one and enjoy it for everything that you don't. (the original cut btw, not the extended) It's fun to me moreso than the idiotic Fast and Furious, Marvel, or Kong tentpoles from the last 5 years. Even the heavy-handed, cloying heartstring pulls are better than the "family" tugs we have now.

But again, at least we agree that the 4k is the way to watch it. lol

[jess1581]

King Kong 05 is a mixbag for me. Overall, I was impressed with the visuals and clearly, PJ is a fan of King Kong 1933. I also think that PJ was WAY overindulgent on the film. It absolutely did NOT need to be over 3 hours long. Too much "character development" for certain players that really had no significance to the narrative namely the Skipper's youthful ward, and the story just plods along before getting to the island. Also, not every moment needs to have a slow-mo emotional angle. Not everything needs an explanation.

I can watch it and be dazzled, but thankfully I have patience a mile long for PJ's indulgence. Peter, I love ya... but King Kong is not Lord of the Rings.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah its crazy how too much noise and visual anarchy actually just becomes boring. The first hour is poorly paced build up with some stiff acting and dialog, but it still feels like a movie and I still enjoyed it. Once it turned into a bad video game you can't play though I just started toning out. I literally reached for my phone during the t-rex fight, something I almost never do, because I was so bored.

Exactly that, when it's bug attack/beastie attack/bug attack/dino stampede etc etc etc it reaches a terminal velocity of numbing action craziness and I just zone out.

[sanjuro78]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Man, I forgot how much I hate this movie. Turned it off right after the t-rex fight, I just couldn't take anymore. It's so stupid, cartoonish, and unrestrained. On top of that is has awful pacing, and on top of that it looks awful with garish lighting, horrible CGI and bad post-processing (on both discs). I really hated blockbuster films and CGI for a good while in the later 00s and early teens and this movie is honestly a big reason why.

Anyway... my hatred of the movie aside, I compared the BD to the UHD again out of MrHomeTheaterMan curiosity and I think I'd take the UHD pretty easily on this one. The color looks way better and the HDR adds a lot of depth to the awful looking CGI. It's definitely garish at times with ugly harsh lighting but that's mostly just how the movie looks, you can't get away from it. Same thing with the funky processing, they both look like that. I'll take the HDR and color improvements over mildly better grain that's irrelevant in this cartoon anyway.

3 t-rexes out of 10.

I saw this in the theaters, LOVED IT! Enjoyed the Extended DVD but about a year after that I COULDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM no matter how many times I tried. I bought the bluray and 4K and I switch it off before Kong even makes his first appearance every time I try and give it another shot. I think Jackson really did suffer from post Oscar anxiety of "I'm an Academy Award winning Best Director, am I doing enough?" Because more is more seems to be the only thing on his mind. Does Denham really have to high jack his film? In the original he said he was making the movie and the executives were like "cool" boom, we're on a boat now as an audience, the story is moving. But in Jackson's hands we now have close to 30 minutes of filler before we even get to the damn boat. And don't get me started on the obnoxiously written executives or the fact that Denham legitimately uses a glass on the door to listen in like he's 5 years old. The part that always kills it for me is the boat crashing sequence. If any sequence illustrates the excess of the filmmaking it's this one. It seems like Jackson used every piece of footage shot for this sequence. After over a minute of shots of the boat crashing and water splashing and people rushing around, I as an audience member am ready for the next story beat, BUT THE SEQUENCE KEEPS GOING!, We are overfed the information of this part of the story and yet the sequence STILL keeps going! Its usually at this point I stop watching. Sometimes I'll try and watch more but the first encounter with the island natives ALSO takes too long to not advance the story.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Also, not every moment needs to have a slow-mo emotional angle.

Not the same exact thing but this reminds me to rant about something else. There's a suuuuper long slo-mo if a tribesman getting shot before he kills Denham, with multiple long cuts of him falling, and yet there isn't even a hint of bullet wound. Obviously it's PG-13 but good lord, why focus so much on someone getting shot and take literally 30 seconds of slo-mo to show them fall when there's obviously no wound or blood whatsoever??? So weird and distracting.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Not the same exact thing but this reminds me to rant about something else. There's a suuuuper long slo-mo if a tribesman getting shot before he kills Denham, with multiple long cuts of him falling, and yet there isn't even a hint of bullet wound. Obviously it's PG-13 but good lord, why focus so much on someone getting shot and take literally 30 seconds of slo-mo to show them fall when there's obviously no wound or blood whatsoever??? So weird and distracting.

I'll definitely give you that one. It's an obvious thing for sure that calls attention to itself.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

Could not disagree more with all of this.

There's things to enjoy in this version but the CGI isn't one of them. It holds up very poorly today. And that's a problem when it's one of the main attractions of the film. That extended dinosaur sequence, while epic on paper, looks pretty bad now. Video games look better and that's not an exaggeration. And I can see how many call the extended version over-long and over-indulgent, even though I generally like extended versions of films. I don't hate the film but it's a bit of a mess.

[sanjuro78]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Not the same exact thing but this reminds me to rant about something else. There's a suuuuper long slo-mo if a tribesman getting shot before he kills Denham, with multiple long cuts of him falling, and yet there isn't even a hint of bullet wound. Obviously it's PG-13 but good lord, why focus so much on someone getting shot and take literally 30 seconds of slo-mo to show them fall when there's obviously no wound or blood whatsoever??? So weird and distracting.

This always bothered me too!!!!! It also bothered me that the slow motion was done in post and not shot at a high frame rate, so it looks super choppy and bad looking.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There's things to enjoy in this version but the CGI isn't one of them. It holds up very poorly today.

The dino stampede scene already looked pretty bad back in 2005, but the rest? I think it still looks fantastic to this day.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There's things to enjoy in this version but the CGI isn't one of them. It holds up very poorly today. And that's a problem when it's one of the main attractions of the film. That extended dinosaur sequence, while epic on paper, looks pretty bad now. Video games look better and that's not an exaggeration. And I can see how many call the extended version over-long and over-indulgent, even though I generally like extended versions of films. I don't hate the film but it's a bit of a mess.

The stampede sequence has been criticized since 2005 (mostly due to poor green screen compositing). But overall, I thought Weta did a wonderful job. Kong especially looks near flawless, and most of the Dinos are blended well with the environment. To each their own.

[Bernardo A.]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

The stampede sequence has been criticized since 2005 (mostly due to poor green screen compositing). But overall, I thought Weta did a wonderful job. Kong especially looks near flawless, and most of the Dinos are blended well with the environment. To each their own.

Some have speculated that it was intentional, as a nod to old "back projection" technique from 1930s and 1940s films.

That compositing is really bad even by 2005 standards.

[ImBlu_DaBaDee]

I think most of the VFX in this film have held up extraordinarily well for a 2005 film. The finale in New York on top of the Empire State Building looks flawless on the 4K (outside of some terrible smoothing done to Naomi Watts in a few shots) and better than anything in modern movies like Quantumania and Godzilla x Kong

[Infallible Presence]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

[Show spoiler]The original color grading, while having some of the usual color blankets, still feels to me like exactly what it is - carefully applied, deliberate color pallette. It fits the style of the film and creates specific atmosphere, which, I think, sometimes can be lost on the UHD.

Just for fun:

BD


UHD


Official VFX shot (full range?)

I actually out of curiosity went to checkout my UHD just to see how it compares and if possible match it to the Official VFX shot. And damn! While it's not like Official VFX shot, but with HDR applied that SDR of the UHD is completely bogus. It looks more closer to the BD shot, but without the overly green. Most notability Watts looks more closer to the UHD, but without the over zealous yellow. In fact probably the best way to put it without a proper photo of my TV is that the UHD with HDR takes the best of both screenshots (color-wise). Or it's just not overly green or yellow.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

The stampede sequence has been criticized since 2005 (mostly due to poor green screen compositing). But overall, I thought Weta did a wonderful job. Kong especially looks near flawless, and most of the Dinos are blended well with the environment. To each their own.

Sure, but the stampede scene is like a 10-minute sequence of non-stop cgi mayhem. It's not like a quick bad cgi shot. It's hard to ignore when it's one of the highlight scenes of the film. Some of the cgi elsewhere looks pretty great I agree.

Originally Posted by Bernardo A.

Some have speculated that it was intentional, as a nod to old "back projection" technique from 1930s and 1940s films.

That compositing is really bad even by 2005 standards.

I don't buy that for a second.

[Bernardo A.]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I don't buy that for a second.

The result is indeed absolutely cringeworthy, regardless of any intentions or lack thereof.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Bernardo A.

The result is indeed absolutely cringeworthy, regardless of any intentions of lack thereof.

I mean, it's fun, in terms of the sheer chaos going on, but it looks awful and always did so it really knocks the film down a rung for me.