I've only recently watched the latest King Kong (2005 version) as I unfortunately was away when they showed it in cinema's. Unlucky for me I decide to see it five years later.
Anyway, after watchning it I happened to come across an article in EMPIRE magazine that listed the best top ten remakes of all time. King Kong was number 9 on the list and this was compared to the original 1933 version. Now at first I disagreed, purely because the original King Kong was stopmotion and thats my only biast view. But as I kept thinking, even though the original in its day was in a sense a revelation for film making effects, I couldn't say fully that the original was the best. I don't know, I'm on the fence with this one. Which one do you prefer?
Re: Which Kong?
I like the original better. The new was just too long and got too involved with the people. I liked the plot in the old film better. I love the stopmotion effects in the old which is another reason I like it better. However, I will credit Peter Jackson for creating very realistic computer effects.
In the end the original is better in my opinion.
Re: Which Kong?
I guess it's like comparing apples to oranges. Or maybe stop motion to modern CG effects. Technically the CG Kong is ultimate in anatomy, microscopic details, the bone structure....it's all meant to be correct in every possible way.
The scenery is vastly more complex, down to the littlest bugs and dirt on the leaves. The lighting is honed to perfection in matching the live action - and the camera can move to any position in space. The animation has motion blur, it's tweaked to perfection. And there are no issues with gravity effecting a real physical gorilla.
Those are all advantages to CG, so yes the new Kong is technically better.
What it's missing is that mistique that stop motion has. There's a sort of feel that stop motion has that CG can't replicate. It's the part where you know hands made every aspect and that everything is well thought out before the puppets are bought to life.
So if you ask me what do I think is technically better? Any well made CG film is. But if you ask me what is aesthetically better I'd have to go with the original Kong. At least when it comes to the animated shots.
Story-wise, each is kind of cheezy for modern audiences. I mean we've discovered most of the islands in the world and there's no such place as Skull Island. It's just not believable with google earth
Re: Which Kong?
The 1933 Kong has been around, and talked about for 77 years, PJ's Kong is almost forgotten. The film making of the first one is light years ahead of what PJ gave us, it's just a better told story, also the stop mo Kong has far more charm, than PJ's big monkey. PJ over did it in every scene, more does not mean better. The animals all look better in the original. Also, one point about motion blur, that is not why stop motion stands out, ask Dennis Murren, it's the fact that stop motion was not perfectly registration before computer technology. It just take a few frames where the puppet has strayed out of place to create a jerky shot, although personally I don't mind the old animation. The 1933 Kong ROCKS!