King Kong Tribute Thread (THE REAL KING KONG!)

[mikelcho]

Eh, i say it didn't. Jackson and the crew still put a lot of time and effort into it, from the film itself to behind the scenes even to the point of making an April Fools joke about their being two sequels about it. It also might be possible that maybe everything in the draft was too expensive.

Do we have titles for the two "sequels" and by any chance was one of them King Kong Meets Frankenstein?

One was called "King Kong: Son of Kong" and the other was "King Kong: Into the Wolves Lair". It was about Kiko being rescued from Skull Island just before it sank underneath the waves, brought to Nazi Germany, and was equipped with machine guns on his back and had to take down genetically engineered abominations. It might be on the DVD set, but again, just an April Fools joke.

Darn, it would've been nice if what I've been saying about a possible King Kong Meets Frankenstein film all this time could've been verified.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

I just rewatched Peter Jackson's King Kong for the first time in at least five years, and I'm glad I did. It helped me remember the reasons I love the movie, and also the problems that I have with it. The general consensus is that it's inferior to the 1933 film but I don't entirely agree. There are definitely some flaws with the 2005 film, but do those flaws outweigh its improvements over the original? Let me lay them bare.

In order to end on a positive note, I'll start by addressing the negative aspects of the film. The big one that everyone talks about is the runtime. Did Jackson's Kong really need to be three hours long? Three-hours twenty minutes in my extended cut, in fact. Let me summarize my problem with Peter Jackson's filmmaking style in one word: excessive. And in more ways than one. But the runtime is the big one. We didn't need a full hour in New York and on the Venture before our heroes even get to Skull Island. While I'm all for adding more development to the characters of Ann, Carl and Jack, I feel this all could've been accomplished in half the time. I think the single most annoying thing that padded the run time was Carl attempting to hide the true destination from everyone, which is really just stupid. Why would Englehorn ever agree to take Carl to some random spot out in the middle of the ocean? This also leads to the worst scene in the entire film, where Jimmy is eavesdropping on Jack and Carl:
- Carl: This place has a bad name, Jack. I don't want anyone getting spooked.
-Jack: What's it called, Carl?
*cue slow-mo and shaky cam as Jack types*
-Carl: S...K...U...L...L......Island
Oh, fucking please. I'd say this scene is ripe for parody, but it's already pretty much a parody of itself.

Jackson's excessiveness also goes into his portrayal of Skull Island itself. Every action sequence feels like it was conceived by an overcaffeinated 12-year-old. He's like "Remember in the original movie where a Brontosaurus chases everyone? Well, now we're going to have a whole stampeding herd of Brontosaurs! And Velociraptors, too! Oh, and remember when Kong fights that T-Rex? Well, now he's going to be fighting three of them while they fall through a vine-choked canyon!" I'm not going to say these action sequences aren't thrilling; the V-Rex fight is one of the greatest monster action scenes ever put to film. But there are completely over-the-top to the point of being downright ridiculous. And do I even need to talk about the "spider pit" scene? That was on a whole 'nother level.

Finally, I do have to address the portrayal of the Skull Islanders. I'm not usually one to go around calling out movies for being "problematic", but the portrayal of the natives is pretty racist. And once again, also excessive. What the hell's with all the skulls lying around? While the portrayal of the natives in the '33 film as primitive, monster-worshipping Africans was par-for-the-course in terms of racism in movies of the time, the 2005 version's portrayal of the natives as hissing, shrieking, murderous, implicitly cannibalistic savages is much, much worse, and to see this in a 21st Century movie is pretty shameful.

Now that I've talked about my problems with Jackson's Kong, let me talk about ways it improves upon its predecessor. The big one is the relationship between Kong and Ann. In the 1933 film, this relationship consisted of Ann screaming her fucking head off every time Kong is around her, even after he saves her from several dinosaurs. Seriously, how did Fay Wray not blow her lungs out? The endless screaming is downright annoying, and made me half-hope that T-Rex would chomp her up. Even in the finale, when Kong is mortally wounded, Ann seems to feel no sympathy for the poor guy as he falls to his death. In the 2005 film, Jackson went to great lengths to build up a genuine, two-way connection between Kong and Ann, which makes Kong's ultimate death carry much more emotional weight than it did in the original film. Some have mocked the scene of Ann doing her vaudeville routine for Kong's amusement, but I liked it. It was actually pretty funny, and developed both characters. If you'd really prefer to have Ann just shriek and scream over and over and fucking over again, then I don't know what to tell you. I'd much rather have a friendship form between beauty and beast.

Another character handled better in Jackson's take is Carl Denham. In the original film, the only thing distinguishing Carl and Jack were their occupations; one directed movies, one was a first mate on a ship, but beyond this they're both archetypal adventure serial heroes. Jackson makes the wise movie to portray Carl as a sleazy scumbag who lies to everyone, drinks constantly and cares more about his movie than the lives of the people imperiled because of it. One great scene that showcases this is cut in the theatrical version; following an attack by a Piranhadon in the swamp, Carl is filming the sailors as they escape the dangerous waters. All of a sudden, the Piranhadon lunges out and devours one more sailor...and Carl just keeps filming, much to Lumpy's disgust. Carl has always been the true villain of the King Kong story, but this is easy to forget in the '33 film. I think Jackson made the right call in having Carl be a real bastard, albeit still not totally despicable.

Another thing I love in the Jackson version is the world-building. If any of you liked the movie and haven't gotten your hands on Weta Workshop's The World of Kong, I'd strongly recommend it. I'm genuinely astounded at the lengths the production crew went to in order to create a hellish ecosystem for Skull Island. The designs of both the island itself and the many dinosaurs and other creatures that populate it are pretty fantastic, and leave me wishing we'd gotten some sort of sequel or spin-off to flesh them out more. While the 1933 film's portrayal of Skull Island as a pretty standard "lost world" was fine, I like the 2005 film's portrayal of a doomed menagerie of horrors a lot better.

Now finally, let's talk about visual effects. Both films were revolutionary for their time. While I doubt the 2005 film will have the inspirational legacy that the 1933 film did, it's worth pointing out that the '33 film came out in a time when effects-heavy films were relatively rare. The '05 films came out in a time when CGI-heavy summer blockbusters dominate the box office; of course it wasn't going to make as big of a splash. But I really do think the CGI in Jackson's Kong was the best ever seen at the time of its release, and still looks better than most films today. Hell, Jackson's Kong looks more real than the one in the MonsterVerse! I don't think there's a clear winner here; both films were incredible for their time.

I think it all comes down to a matter of personal preference in the issue of 1933 Kong vs. 2005 Kong. The original is an enduring classic, while Jackson's film is a contemporary epic that delivers more character development and holds more emotional weight than the original film, at the cost of being excessively long and over-the-top. I think I prefer Jackson's take overall, but I also think it has more flaws than the original. Both remain among my all-time favorites.

[JAGzilla]

The suicidal, single-minded viciousness of the dinosaurs and other predators is a big strike against the '05 movie, for me. Like, I know that's small potatoes in the overall scheme of things, but it's always taken me out of the film. It just doesn't make any fucking sense that they all throw caution to the wind and literally charge off cliffs or under the feet of stampeding sauropods because they're so desperate to eat humans. I can't take them seriously as animals, and I can't just shut my brain off and see movie monsters when the movie otherwise goes to such lengths to show us an ecosystem full of animals. If this ecosystem is so dangerous, how have any of these species survived so long without self-preservation instincts?

[NSZ]

Even in the finale, when Kong is mortally wounded, Ann seems to feel no sympathy for the poor guy as he falls to his death.

Okay, this out of everything I take issue with. Why should she?

Oh sure, he went to pick a flower once, an act that she wasn't even aware of. That doesn't excuse leaving her unattended repeatedly on an island full of other giant monsters that are all too happy to snap up a wayward human (sure he saved her from those, but for his own purposes), ripping her clothes off while she was unconcious, abducting her AGAIN, destroying an elevated train right in front of her for absoltuely no reason, and hauling her up to the top of the tallest building in New York where god only knows what the wind speeds are and falling means absolutely certain death.

'33 Kong is not some lonely and misunderstood scaled-up gorilla, that fact that his kid's nowhere to be seen in the first film retroactively implies that old dad actually chased him off while he was still pretty comparatively small, which is pretty damning. The '05 Kong is an animal, yes, but the '33 Kong, though, is 100% demonstrably a monster.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

The suicidal, single-minded viciousness of the dinosaurs and other predators is a big strike against the '05 movie, for me. Like, I know that's small potatoes in the overall scheme of things, but it's always taken me out of the film. It just doesn't make any fucking sense that they all throw caution to the wind and literally charge off cliffs or under the feet of stampeding sauropods because they're so desperate to eat humans. I can't take them seriously as animals, and I can't just shut my brain off and see movie monsters when the movie otherwise goes to such lengths to show us an ecosystem full of animals. If this ecosystem is so dangerous, how have any of these species survived so long without self-preservation instincts?

I don't have an answer to this, but I will say that the World of Kong book I mentioned makes abundantly clear that Skull Island is shrinking pretty rapidly as the unstable island sinks into the ocean one chunk at a time, bringing more and more species into competition and forcing them to become hyper-aggressive to survive. Realistically, yeah, a lot of them would probably have died off but I do think this desperation explains their viciousness. After all, in the real world, most animals only attack humans when their territory is stripped away and there's a shortage of food, leading to fiercer competition. This explanation works for me.

[JAGzilla]

Partly, maybe. But then there's the scene where the V-Rex drops a big chunk of meat and dies chasing the much smaller Anne...

[Terasawa]

"Excessive" is certainly right. The original King Kong might not be a perfect movie, but IMO Jackson added nothing of great importance to the story with his version. It strikes me as fan fiction on the big screen rather than an earnest retelling.

Ambiguity plays an important and underrated part in storytelling, and no, I'm not saying that should be used as an excuse for the flimsy characterizations in the '33 film. But Jackson's film completely misses the mark because everything is laid out for the viewer so we don't have to think or draw our own conclusions. The worst example of this is the "ice skating" sequence. We're told to be sympathetic to Kong, whereas in the previous versions of the story (especially the original) it's up to the viewer to evaluate for himself why Kong's death is played as a tragedy.

[The Octopus]

that fact that his kid's nowhere to be seen in the first film retroactively implies that old dad actually chased him off while he was still pretty comparatively small, which is pretty damning.

Kong's son was on the other side of the island picking berries during the events of King Kong.

[G2000]

I think factoring in Son of Kong into analysis of the original Kong King is deeply flawed on several accounts, it was a rushed sequel that they pretty much came up with on the spot after Kong '33 turned into a runaway success and was disavowed by Obie

Which is not to say it's not a valid entry but using it to critique the character of the original Kong is a bit eh

[Vakanai]

Another character handled better in Jackson's take is Carl Denham. In the original film, the only thing distinguishing Carl and Jack were their occupations; one directed movies, one was a first mate on a ship, but beyond this they're both archetypal adventure serial heroes. Jackson makes the wise movie to portray Carl as a sleazy scumbag who lies to everyone, drinks constantly and cares more about his movie than the lives of the people imperiled because of it. One great scene that showcases this is cut in the theatrical version; following an attack by a Piranhadon in the swamp, Carl is filming the sailors as they escape the dangerous waters. All of a sudden, the Piranhadon lunges out and devours one more sailor...and Carl just keeps filming, much to Lumpy's disgust. Carl has always been the true villain of the King Kong story, but this is easy to forget in the '33 film. I think Jackson made the right call in having Carl be a real bastard, albeit still not totally despicable.

Could not disagree with you more here. I much prefer the misguided but still human Carl versus the over the top parody of a bastard we got in 05. In 33 he was a person, in 05 he was a villain, I didn't care for the change. In Son of Kong I could believe that this guy feels remorse and believe he would do things differently with Kong's son. I could never believe Jack Black's character could ever understand the concept of remorse, much less experience it.

Carl should be a guy who occasionally lets his greed get in the way of his better judgment, but he should be a mostly good guy despite that. It gives nuance, and better reflects human nature. It means anyone could make the mistake of caging the beast, that you don't have to be irredeemable to make a horrible mistake like that. Never mind imprisoning Kong, I'm surprised 05 Carl didn't have plans to enslave the natives and sell their land!

Added in 7 minutes 25 seconds:

I think factoring in Son of Kong into analysis of the original Kong King is deeply flawed on several accounts, it was a rushed sequel that they pretty much came up with on the spot after Kong '33 turned into a runaway success and was disavowed by Obie

Which is not to say it's not a valid entry but using it to critique the character of the original Kong is a bit eh

I know you just got Kong and King swapped accidentally, but now I want a King Kong movie called Kong King. Or maybe Kong, King.
Oh yeah, I like that title...

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

Could not disagree with you more here. I much prefer the misguided but still human Carl versus the over the top parody of a bastard we got in 05. In 33 he was a person, in 05 he was a villain, I didn't care for the change. In Son of Kong I could believe that this guy feels remorse and believe he would do things differently with Kong's son. I could never believe Jack Black's character could ever understand the concept of remorse, much less experience it.

I liked Carl Denham's character better in Son of Kong, but he was pretty one-note in the original. Robert Armstrong himself noted that Carl got a lot more character development in the sequel and preferred the film because of it (probably the only one who did). I'd also argue that as over-the-top as so many aspects of Peter Jackson's film(s) are, Carl's character is pretty believable. There are plenty of people in media who care more about their work than the lives of others. And I think Jack Black's Carl did feel remorse at the end, when he saw Kong lying dead and delivered the iconic line.

Carl should be a guy who occasionally lets his greed get in the way of his better judgment, but he should be a mostly good guy despite that. It gives nuance, and better reflects human nature.

Well, I think Carl should be a bastard, because anyone who sees a rampaging 25-foot gorilla and thinks "wouldn't this look cool on Broadway?" obviously values fame and fortune more than the lives of others. I think Carl being greedy and obsessive is a better reflection of human nature than being a standard good guy who suddenly makes the reckless decision to try to showcase a monstrous ape in downtown New York. That decision seems against character for how he's portrayed otherwise in the '33 film.

Added in 3 minutes 47 seconds:

Partly, maybe. But then there's the scene where the V-Rex drops a big chunk of meat and dies chasing the much smaller Anne...

Yeah, that part didn't make much sense. Although, to be fair, a lot of dinosaur/killer animal movies are guilty of stuff like this. The predatory creatures are always relentlessly vicious in their attempts to devour every human in sight, even if there's much meatier prey available. The Jurassic Park series is guilty of this several times.

[Vakanai]

I liked Carl Denham's character better in Son of Kong, but he was pretty one-note in the original. Robert Armstrong himself noted that Carl got a lot more character development in the sequel and preferred the film because of it (probably the only one who did). I'd also argue that as over-the-top as so many aspects of Peter Jackson's film(s) are, Carl's character is pretty believable. There are plenty of people in media who care more about their work than the lives of others. And I think Jack Black's Carl did feel remorse at the end, when he saw Kong lying dead and delivered the iconic line.

He may have been one note, but to me it was a much better note. Not only was Jack Black's villainous Carl also one note, I disagree with you on it being a believable note. There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types. Carl Denham's supposed to be a director, they usually manage to find a rapport with their actors, 05 Carl could only find rapport probably with a hyena so sociopathic the other hyenas banished it from the pack. And I didn't get the sense he felt remorse at the end, he just said the line because it sounded catchy and might make headlines. Even at the end he was self absorbed.

Well, I think Carl should be a bastard, because anyone who sees a rampaging 25-foot gorilla and thinks "wouldn't this look cool on Broadway?" obviously values fame and fortune more than the lives of others. I think Carl being greedy and obsessive is a better reflection of human nature than being a standard good guy who suddenly makes the reckless decision to try to showcase a monstrous ape in downtown New York. That decision seems against character for how he's portrayed otherwise in the '33 film.

Not really. There weren't a lot of animal rights back in the 30s. Almost everyone, bastard and saint, thought nothing of having animals perform in the circus, zoos even, and later the various large Sea World type aquariums, one of the things I personally think the 33 film was attempting to comment on. You can let greed get the better of you without being a complete monster about it. Works better as a warning that way. If we only think the scummiest a-holes alive could be capable of this act, when history proves better, we won't take the lessons to apply to us. With an irredeemable character like in the 05 film, we can just chalk it up to some of us are awful little rats and think no further on it. And that just kind of ruins it for me. A villain who never means to be the villain and is kind of a likable guy who's mostly moral with this one exception, this one mistake, makes you think. Both may have been one note characters, but going full pond scum in 05 feels like lazy storytelling.

You can disagree with me, and there's nothing wrong with preferring Carl in 05, we all have different tastes, but you'll never convince me that change in character is an improvement over the original. Honestly, you would have an uphill battle trying to convince me it's merely a lateral movement.

[UltramanGoji]

There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types.

You sure about that?

[Vakanai]

There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types.

You sure about that? I did say "usually", meaning there are always exceptions. But you got to admit most of the worst cases of sociopathy in Hollywood tends to be the executive types.

Also, not sure, but judging by the clothes isn't that an athlete? Not exactly the creative type either. I ask though because I have no clue who that is.

[NSZ]

I think factoring in Son of Kong into analysis of the original Kong King is deeply flawed on several accounts, it was a rushed sequel that they pretty much came up with on the spot after Kong '33 turned into a runaway success and was disavowed by Obie

Which is not to say it's not a valid entry but using it to critique the character of the original Kong is a bit eh

A'ight, that's fair, but everything else I brought up still stands.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types. Carl Denham's supposed to be a director, they usually manage to find a rapport with their actors, 05 Carl could only find rapport probably with a hyena so sociopathic the other hyenas banished it from the pack.

Alfred Hitchcock famously referred to actors as cattle and was accused of sexual harassment by many of his actresses. One of the greatest film directors of all time, and also a misogynist and possibly a rapist.

Stanley Kubrick had numerous accusations of sexism and verbal abuse from his casts and crews. Once again, among the most celebrated film directors ever.

Lars von Trier is a raging misogynist and quite possibly a psychopath, yet critics worship his films.

You're welcome to dislike Jack Black's Carl Denham, but claiming that the character doesn't work because movie directors can't be awful people is an invalid argument.

Added in 4 minutes 29 seconds:

There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types.

You sure about that? I did say "usually", meaning there are always exceptions. But you got to admit most of the worst cases of sociopathy in Hollywood tends to be the executive types.

No. Just because Harvey Weinstein is the most infamous recent example of a Hollywood bigwig exposed for scumbaggery doesn't mean that producers are worse than directors on average.

Also, not sure, but judging by the clothes isn't that an athlete? Not exactly the creative type either. I ask though because I have no clue who that is.

That's Chris Sale of the Boston Red Sox. UltramanGoji posted it because of the face he's making, not to imply that he's a douchebag.

[UltramanGoji]

Yeah no, it was just a reaction image. I was wincing at the thought that it's "usually the non-creative types" which I disagree with. One of the most high profile was Harvey Weinstein, yes, but most of the awfulness seems to come mostly from actors, directors, comedians, etc. Amber Heard, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Bryan Singer, I wouldn't exactly classify them as non-creatives.

[tbeasley]

[Mac Daddy MM]

[Vakanai]

There may be awful, awful people in the media as we now know, but those are usually the non-creative types. Carl Denham's supposed to be a director, they usually manage to find a rapport with their actors, 05 Carl could only find rapport probably with a hyena so sociopathic the other hyenas banished it from the pack.

Alfred Hitchcock famously referred to actors as cattle and was accused of sexual harassment by many of his actresses. One of the greatest film directors of all time, and also a misogynist and possibly a rapist.

Stanley Kubrick had numerous accusations of sexism and verbal abuse from his casts and crews. Once again, among the most celebrated film directors ever.

Lars von Trier is a raging misogynist and quite possibly a psychopath, yet critics worship his films.

You're welcome to dislike Jack Black's Carl Denham, but claiming that the character doesn't work because movie directors can't be awful people is an invalid argument.

Never said directors couldn't be awful people, just assumed most weren't, and that those who are/were I assumed were better able to hide it (Jack Black's Carl was unconvincing at his attempts to hide how awful he is). But holy crap I didn't know that about Hitchcock and Kubrick. Doesn't change my dislike of making Carl Denham like that however.

That's Chris Sale of the Boston Red Sox. UltramanGoji posted it because of the face he's making, not to imply that he's a douchebag.

Ah. I'm not a sports fan.

Added in 6 minutes 13 seconds:

Yeah no, it was just a reaction image. I was wincing at the thought that it's "usually the non-creative types" which I disagree with. One of the most high profile was Harvey Weinstein, yes, but most of the awfulness seems to come mostly from actors, directors, comedians, etc. Amber Heard, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., Bryan Singer, I wouldn't exactly classify them as non-creatives.

Fair enough. I think the problem is I don't follow Hollywood news and gossip outside of what movies might be coming out, so I am unaware of most of these incidents. I only know what hits the "news" news, and that was mostly Weinstein and not all these others. So apparently Hollywood is full of awful people. Meh, still doesn't make the change to Carl Denham in 05 an improvement in my opinion.