Kong Skull Island Comic Book Thread!

[KingKong2005]

Don't forget g14: saved by Ford.

Ah right, that one slipped my mind apparently.

And:

Super-X: Nuke brings Godzilla back from a loss. Without it there would not have been a round 2.
Super-X3: Flat out beats him.
Gotengo: Took advantage of an earthquake and sealed him in a hole in the Antarctic.

I'm a way bigger Godzilla fan than I am a Kong fan and I still expect Kong to win in their film.

Same and I'd still be fine with Godzilla losing to King Kong again. Or even Gamera should that crossover ever happen. It's getting to the point where I want Godzilla to lose just just to spite the fanboys who deny he ever loses or that he isn't the strongest monster and completely miss the point of why this character is so great.

They laugh at GINO fanboys getting all pissy over GINO 2.0/Zilla getting killed by Godzilla in GFW but fail to realize they they are ironically just as bad whenever someone brings up he lost to two skreeonking worms.

Thank you

[vibramrunner]

@Kong2005 and Ryguy

I concede your larger points that, essentially, Kong makes the easier protagonist because he is a primate, and as such seems to care about the well-being of people whom he deems to be ok. (As opposed to Godzilla, who is indifferent). However, as we saw on K:SI and the comic book series, if someone gets on Kong's bad side, he has no problem smashing you with one of his giant paws. For this reason, I'll argue that Kong likeness to humans is two-fold: Kong's emotionally fragile, given his backstory from the comics, and if something else tramatic were to occur -- maybe a military power circumvents MONARCH, puts Skull Island under quarantine and abuses the Iwi? -- it's possible Kong goes full into full World Dictator mode and decides to destroy whatever civilization is responsible.

Humans can be responsible for some pretty awful stuff. I'm just saying, it's not impossible for Kong to go full bad guy -- although I'd totally root for a bad guy Kong.

And isn't this what ALWAYS happens to Kong? He has his life on Skull Island, he has a give-and-take relationship with the native peoples there, and then modern society comes and screws it all up and he gets mega pissed and ends up causing chaos in a large metropolitan area? This has happened in EVERY KONG MOVIE (yes, even in the Mecha Kong movie.. he's brainwashed by a mad scientist to do his evil bidding), and the only reason I suspect that it didn't happen in K:SI is because they're saving it for Godzilla vs King Kong.

tl;dr Godzilla is the neutral opponent, but Kong is malleable -- he can be the antagonist if you want him to be. Personally, I think a madman Kong would be so much fun.

[BlankAccount]

Godzilla fans will cheer for Godzilla even when he's the bad guy. (source: Am a G fan).

I hope the "secrets of the Monsterverse" the tradback is promising isn't something lame.

[KingKong2005]

Godzilla fans will cheer for Godzilla even when he's the bad guy. (source: Am a G fan).

I hope the "secrets of the Monsterverse" the tradback is promising isn't something lame.

Yeah I think Godzilla needs to be the madman, because it's so stupid how he ignore buildings and humans bombing him and whatnot (except when he retreated on the bridge)

[Tyrant28]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason. He probably wasn't completely aware exactly what humans were before seeing Ford. The only time he was under attack by human forces was the Golden Gate Bridge, which he showed distress and broke through the bridge to leave the area.

[KingKong2005]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason. He probably wasn't completely aware exactly what humans were before seeing Ford. The only time he was under attack by human forces was the Golden Gate Bridge, which he showed distress and broke through the bridge to leave the area.

Nah that was plain stupid. He didnt at once bother to look at those battleships that were next to him when he was swimming? Hate how passive he is.

[Gawdziller1954]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason. He probably wasn't completely aware exactly what humans were before seeing Ford. The only time he was under attack by human forces was the Golden Gate Bridge, which he showed distress and broke through the bridge to leave the area.

Nah that was plain stupid. He didnt at once bother to look at those battleships that were next to him when he was swimming? Hate how passive he is.

What's ironic is that is a Nuclear powered carrier...which means that it should act as a beacon for Godzilla and the MUTOS to feast...

[vibramrunner]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason.

Which is why it makes more sense for Kong to go full-aggressor mode. If properly motivated by hurt or anger -- he's clearly capable of emotion regarding human beings -- he could certainly go on a murderous rampage. All the calamity this causes could be enough for Godzilla to take notice, and there you go.

[KingKong2005]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason.

Which is why it makes more sense for Kong to go full-aggressor mode. If properly motivated by hurt or anger -- he's clearly capable of emotion regarding human beings -- he could certainly go on a murderous rampage. All the calamity this causes could be enough for Godzilla to take notice, and there you go.

Except the roles would be switched. Godzilla doesn't defend humans so he wouldn't give a flying fuck. And Kong would only hurt the humans who hurt him and not kill the innocent ones, as seen when he defended the humans and knew to only kill Packard and the bad guys.

[Gawdziller1954]

Except it isn't stupid considering he is just an giant animal, animals don't go randomly destroying their environment for no apparent reason.

Which is why it makes more sense for Kong to go full-aggressor mode. If properly motivated by hurt or anger -- he's clearly capable of emotion regarding human beings -- he could certainly go on a murderous rampage. All the calamity this causes could be enough for Godzilla to take notice, and there you go.

Except the roles would be switched. Godzilla doesn't defend humans so he wouldn't give a flying skreeonk. And Kong would only hurt the humans who hurt him and not kill the innocent ones, as seen when he defended the humans and knew to only kill Packard and the bad guys.

Correction: Godzilla defends earth and by extent humans. If a monster is throwing earth out of the balance, as Kong would be in the proposed situation, Godzilla would defend humans from Kong as necessary. Anyway, Kong in the past has killed innocent people, so having this kong do it wouldn't be out of character. So no, the roles wouldn't be switched.

[KingKong2005]

Which is why it makes more sense for Kong to go full-aggressor mode. If properly motivated by hurt or anger -- he's clearly capable of emotion regarding human beings -- he could certainly go on a murderous rampage. All the calamity this causes could be enough for Godzilla to take notice, and there you go.

Except the roles would be switched. Godzilla doesn't defend humans so he wouldn't give a flying skreeonk. And Kong would only hurt the humans who hurt him and not kill the innocent ones, as seen when he defended the humans and knew to only kill Packard and the bad guys.

Correction: Godzilla defends earth and by extent humans. If a monster is throwing earth out of the balance, as Kong would be in the proposed situation, Godzilla would defend humans from Kong as necessary. Anyway, Kong in the past has killed innocent people, so having this kong do it wouldn't be out of character. So no, the roles wouldn't be switched.

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager, the buff asian guy, and funny black guy since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

[Gawdziller1954]

Except the roles would be switched. Godzilla doesn't defend humans so he wouldn't give a flying skreeonk. And Kong would only hurt the humans who hurt him and not kill the innocent ones, as seen when he defended the humans and knew to only kill Packard and the bad guys.

Correction: Godzilla defends earth and by extent humans. If a monster is throwing earth out of the balance, as Kong would be in the proposed situation, Godzilla would defend humans from Kong as necessary. Anyway, Kong in the past has killed innocent people, so having this kong do it wouldn't be out of character. So no, the roles wouldn't be switched.

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager, the buff asian guy, and funny black guy since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Nope, not extremley wrong. If you can show evidence Godzilla will 100% NOT defend humanity, and that Kong will NOT be a villain, then please entertain me. until then, leave your fanboyism for kong somewhere were it doesn't get into the way of logic. And no, going by my argument, Kong WOULDN'T kill the "buff asian guy (Srsly WTF??)" and the others, mainly because while Kong has done this in the past, he doesn't do it at every chance he gets. Seriously, you really need to do more research.

[MechaGoji Bro7503]

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager (EDIT) since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Wrong. Kong killed a ton of innocent natives and New Yorkers in the original '33 film. Not too mention all those blonds in your favorite film, KK2005.

But with this new incarnation of Kong, you're probably right from what we know.

[Ryguy]

King Kong in 1933 was much more of a "monster" than he is today. I don't remember him ever really being that sympathetic to begin with

Kong in 2005, however, was basically a giant gorilla, and while he did pick up all of those blondes, note that he was wound-up looking for Ann. He didn't just go killing out of spite, he did so out of instinct. The same goes for Kong in 2017: he blatantly saved Weaver and the sker buffalo and only attacked humans when he really needed to.

Godzilla was just there in 2014. He wasn't even a character, just a plot device. An argument can be made that "oh, he didn't attack the people on the bridge, so #heroconfirmed, but wouldn't he have just gone around damn thing if he wanted to avoid all casualties? He didn't care about humans, at all. He didn't have any grudges toward them, nor did he have any intention on preserving them either. His actions were for the greater good of himself and his territory and those alone

[BlankAccount]

So about the possibility of what the extras could be in the paperback of the comic in this comic thread?

[ernesth100]

Godzilla was just there in 2014. He wasn't even a character, just a plot device.

I always felt just like this. Godzilla was basically just a drone the whole film. With the sole purpose and drive to fight and destroy the mutos.

[KingKong2005]

Correction: Godzilla defends earth and by extent humans. If a monster is throwing earth out of the balance, as Kong would be in the proposed situation, Godzilla would defend humans from Kong as necessary. Anyway, Kong in the past has killed innocent people, so having this kong do it wouldn't be out of character. So no, the roles wouldn't be switched.

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager, the buff asian guy, and funny black guy since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Nope, not extremley wrong. If you can show evidence Godzilla will 100% NOT defend humanity, and that Kong will NOT be a villain, then please entertain me. until then, leave your fanboyism for kong somewhere were it doesn't get into the way of logic. And no, going by my argument, Kong WOULDN'T kill the "buff asian guy (Srsly WTF??)" and the others, mainly because while Kong has done this in the past, he doesn't do it at every chance he gets. Seriously, you really need to do more research.

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager (EDIT) since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Wrong. Kong killed a ton of innocent natives and New Yorkers in the original '33 film. Not too mention all those blonds in your favorite film, KK2005.

But with this new incarnation of Kong, you're probably right from what we know.

How am I being a fanboy? I'm calling it how I see it judging from the LEGENDARY FILMS. As Ryguy said, if Godzilla was a hero and intended to save humans he would have avoided going straight through the bridge and in the city would have avoided destroying buildings. Kong has been seen going out of his way to save people and animals he knows have done nothing wrong, that's the end of that discussion. Now, lets talk other Kong movies since you can't tend to stick with one.

King Kong in 1933 was much more of a "monster" than he is today. I don't remember him ever really being that sympathetic to begin with
Kong in 2005, however, was basically a giant gorilla, and while he did pick up all of those blondes, note that he was wound-up looking for Ann. He didn't just go killing out of spite, he did so out of instinct. The same goes for Kong in 2017: he blatantly saved Weaver and the sker buffalo and only attacked humans when he really needed to.

I agree with you on the Godzilla part, Ry, but not the Kong. You tell me to do research, Gawdziller, then listen to this. With King Kong 2005, what the movie was hinting at was that when the characters arrive on the island the natives weren't just about to do a sacrifice, they were doing what they always casually do which was to have the women, children, and elderly stay home while the men go out and hunt. But when they come back they see these other humans talking to their people, so one throws a spear at Mike the camera guy causing Ann to scream. When Ann screams, Kong answers her with a roar. This tells the natives that Kong is coming and so Ann needs to be sacrificed, not because she's a blonde, but because of the fact that Kong replied to her scream. The natives have a routine where they sacrifice a woman to Kong 3 or 4 times a year but Ann's scream made them rush because Kong was coming now. Ann broke their routine. And when Kong takes Ann to the top of a mountain and is roaring with her in hand, psyching himself up, Ann hits Kong with the necklace surprising him, also breaking his routine. King Kong 1933 was much more of a monster because it was a horror film. King Kong 76 tried to humanize Kong but made him feel like a perv. King Kong 2005 got it just right.

And King Kong 2005 vs Kong 2017 is incomparable. Kong 2017 is a protector and whatnot, he only has to fight Skull Crawlers and other unseen monsters but for the most part just walks around saving the occasional Sker Buffalo. King Kong 2005 on the other hand is much much much more active, fighting every single day of his life. In Kong 2017 the island was with him, King Kong 2005 the island was against him. That's why King Kong is far less tame then Kong 2017, he has to fight for survival and constantly be weary. That wraps this up, I'll be glad to answer any other conclusions you guys jump to, but at least try to be nice next time.

[BlankAccount]

Guys, take it to the Godzilla vs Kong topic.

[Gawdziller1954]

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager, the buff asian guy, and funny black guy since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Nope, not extremley wrong. If you can show evidence Godzilla will 100% NOT defend humanity, and that Kong will NOT be a villain, then please entertain me. until then, leave your fanboyism for kong somewhere were it doesn't get into the way of logic. And no, going by my argument, Kong WOULDN'T kill the "buff asian guy (Srsly WTF??)" and the others, mainly because while Kong has done this in the past, he doesn't do it at every chance he gets. Seriously, you really need to do more research.

That's extremely wrong. We already went over this, Godzilla doesn't defend humans themselves, he only cares about him. If there is a threat to him then he'll fight. Kong is the one who is far more likely to defend humans from Godzilla who unconsciously kills humans. Kong hasn't killed innocent people before, he goes out of his way to save them. He only kills people who try to hurt/kill him or the Iwi. Kong is a good guy, going out of his way to not only save innocent people, but animals too. Godzilla doesn't play that way. Going by your argument, Kong should have also killed the teenager (EDIT) since they were all on the scene, but somehow he knew they were innocent and didnt kill them. So if your proposed situation did happen, Kong would only destroy battle ships and tanks and jets, but he would try to do it in the ocean and not in a city since he sees many innocents there. Kong figured all this out as a kid and as he grows he's only getting smarter and smarter.

Wrong. Kong killed a ton of innocent natives and New Yorkers in the original '33 film. Not too mention all those blonds in your favorite film, KK2005.

But with this new incarnation of Kong, you're probably right from what we know.

How am I being a fanboy? I'm calling it how I see it judging from the LEGENDARY FILMS. As Ryguy said, if Godzilla was a hero and intended to save humans he would have avoided going straight through the bridge and in the city would have avoided destroying buildings. Kong has been seen going out of his way to save people and animals he knows have done nothing wrong, that's the end of that discussion. Now, lets talk other Kong movies since you can't tend to stick with one.

King Kong in 1933 was much more of a "monster" than he is today. I don't remember him ever really being that sympathetic to begin with
Kong in 2005, however, was basically a giant gorilla, and while he did pick up all of those blondes, note that he was wound-up looking for Ann. He didn't just go killing out of spite, he did so out of instinct. The same goes for Kong in 2017: he blatantly saved Weaver and the sker buffalo and only attacked humans when he really needed to.

I agree with you on the Godzilla part, Ry, but not the Kong. You tell me to do research, Gawdziller, then listen to this. With King Kong 2005, what the movie was hinting at was that when the characters arrive on the island the natives weren't just about to do a sacrifice, they were doing what they always casually do which was to have the women, children, and elderly stay home while the men go out and hunt. But when they come back they see these other humans talking to their people, so one throws a spear at Mike the camera guy causing Ann to scream. When Ann screams, Kong answers her with a roar. This tells the natives that Kong is coming and so Ann needs to be sacrificed, not because she's a blonde, but because of the fact that Kong replied to her scream. The natives have a routine where they sacrifice a woman to Kong 3 or 4 times a year but Ann's scream made them rush because Kong was coming now. Ann broke their routine. And when Kong takes Ann to the top of a mountain and is roaring with her in hand, psyching himself up, Ann hits Kong with the necklace surprising him, also breaking his routine. King Kong 1933 was much more of a monster because it was a horror film. King Kong 76 tried to humanize Kong but made him feel like a perv. King Kong 2005 got it just right.

And King Kong 2005 vs Kong 2017 is incomparable. Kong 2017 is a protector and whatnot, he only has to fight Skull Crawlers and other unseen monsters but for the most part just walks around saving the occasional Sker Buffalo. King Kong 2005 on the other hand is much much much more active, fighting every single day of his life. In Kong 2017 the island was with him, King Kong 2005 the island was against him. That's why King Kong is far less tame then Kong 2017, he has to fight for survival and constantly be weary. That wraps this up, I'll be glad to answer any other conclusions you guys jump to, but at least try to be nice next time.

And how does the 2005 thing prove you did research? This conclusion is apparent to anybody with 5 braincells.

[GodzillavsJason]

@Gawdziller1954

No need to insult or try rile anyone up. If I see it again anywhere, you're getting a warning.

Everyone, let's take it down a notch.