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