KING KONG '05 --What did you think ?

[Mikey]

Just watched it for the first time on TNT tonight..
I know i'm a few years late :grin:

I really wanted to hate and pan this movie --- but I actually liked it.

A nice dignified homage to the original, imo

Unlike the '76 version, which was a piece of crap.

[Overkill]

I still haven't seen it. It'll probably be replayed again. I'll catch it later.

I heard that in the movie Fay Wray was supposed to say the last line in the film but she died before it happened. That would of been a very nice touch. Too bad. =(

[Hector]

It was very good, I liked it a lot.

I believe this is the very first time I felt for a CGI character...this Kong had soul.

Although Kong beating three T-Rex' at the same time was a bit too much for me to believe and swallow.

The blonde chick was very good too.

[toys2cool]

It was alright for me I guess :grin:

[BlackKnight]

I thought it was a Great Movie. the Only Kong Movie I can sit threw & Watch. However given what Peter Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings,.. I was just wanting & thinking More for some reason.

[huedell]

Never saw it---my thoughts were that nothing could beat 1976 for me---I grew up on
that one....still love it.

That being said...maybe one day I'll check out the newer one.

[Type3Toys]

I loved the 05 Kong. Very true to the original(which was one of the best movies of all time). The gorilla moved and acted like a gorilla. The 76 version was horrible! Kong looked ok, but the way he movied? He was a guy in a suit all the way! It is hard to shock an audience today. I would have loved to have been in a theater back in 1933 when the original Kong strolled out on stage!

[Mikey]

I think the biggest thing I didn't like about it was Jack Black as Carl Denim

Don't get me wrong, I like Black

But I think he was too young for that part.

He just don't give the impression of "seasoned"

Somebody like Steve Martin would have been much better, I think

[apes3978]

I think the biggest thing I didn't like about it was Jack Black as Carl Denim.

Don't get me wrong, I like Black, but I think he was too young for that part.

He just don't give the impression of "seasoned"

Jack Black should have never been cast in that film. He wasn't right for the part. I don't know who I would have chose, but I know it wouldn't have been him.

Jack Black aside, I think the 2005 KING KONG is on par with the original. It's probably even a better movie, but the 1933 KONG will always be the classic one. It still holds up and it's been around 75 years now...

[apes3978]

I believe this is the very first time I felt for a CGI character...this Kong had soul.

I agree here... The CGI was very well done in this film. They made a believable gorilla in KING KONG 2005.


I still haven't seen it. It'll probably be replayed again. I'll catch it later.

Don't waste your time watching it if TBS/TNT replay it. Go rent it, it will save you the trouble of setting thru the hour or more of commercials that they threw in. Plus, you can watch the DVD extras.

[noelani72]

Aside from it being reall really Peter jackson Lord of the Rings looong...I liked it. It's CGI is done really well and I loved watching Kong's facial expressions....sitting on his butt, eating tree branches...all the flies buzzing around his face...
If I had one complaint...again, I'd guess it would only be the length of the film.

I liked the 76 show, but my love for Rick Baker's work may bias me a bit. LOL

[Mikey]

I watched it last night on TNT --- and believe it or not, the commercials weren't that bad.

They seemed to go quick (like they played fewer commercials)

I was shocked to find out the movie was 4 hrs.

My guide had it listed as 3 hrs 7 mins.... but it was 4

8:00 to 12:00 (commercials included)

[ramsey37]

I saw it at the local theater when it came out, and have the deluxe DVD as well. It was obvious that Jackson is a HUGE Kong fan, and he really put his heart into this movie. The only thing I dislike about the film is that it takes twice as long as the original movie to tell basically the same story. Beyond that, it's definitely worth a viewing.
George:ape:

[Type3Toys]

I saw it at the local theater when it came out, and have the deluxe DVD as well. It was obvious that Jackson is a HUGE Kong fan, and he really put his heart into this movie. The only thing I dislike about the film is that it takes twice as long as the original movie to tell basically the same story. Beyond that, it's definitely worth a viewing.
George:ape:
You are so right about it being a long flick. I think the length was even more obvious because it had a few slow spots. The original just moved and flowed.
Not a dull second and the story was layed out perfectly. I saw a show on the making of the 05 Kong and Jackson was a huge fan of the original. George, you seem like a dude I could watch a few monster movies with.

[Mikey]

Worst thing for me was how long it took to get to Skull Island.

The original Kong seemed to take too long..

This movie was like crazy long

It's like..... Enough with the character development already--- I need me some GIANT MONKEY stat !!! :)

[4NDR01D]

Started a little slow, but once it got going, HOLY CRAP!!! Loved it. I only wish that somebody would do an actual MONSTER movie with as much style and class. IMHO King Kong is not a MONSTER he's just a monstorous sized ape. Cross this with Cloverfield and I think it would be my favorite movie ever.

[ramsey37]

George, you seem like a dude I could watch a few monster movies with.
It's a date! ;)
George

[Evel KMego]

I thought it was very good and the CGI was very good on Kong. The only complaint I have, is the scene where they are running from the dinosaur stampede was too obviously blue screen,especially when they were running on the edge of the crumbling cliff! But overall I liked it a lot:smile:

[mego73]

I 05 it was great, 76 is pretty much only good for camp and nostalgia and the original is the King :)

[Brue]

I really wanted to hate and pan this movie --- but I actually liked it.

A nice dignified homage to the original, imo

I had exactly opposite expectations and findings

-edit-

oh yeah - I forgot to add that even though i HATED this movie, I thought the CGI was out of sight. I agree that this is the first time CGI has really seemed real

[apes3978]

I still haven't seen it. It'll probably be replayed again.

It was on again tonight and it will be replayed on TNT Sunday night at 8pm (7pm Central).

[jessica]

I wasn't sure what I would have thought of the movie, being a remake...but I actually enjoyed it. I thought it was odd Jack Black was there--it was hard to take him seriously--he kind of stuck out like a sore thumb but other than that, the movie was very enjoyable to me. I loved how King Kong bit off the T-Rex's tongue.

[Seeker]

It was worth it just for the dinosaurs and giant bugs. The big monkey was a bonus.:ape:

[monkey tennis]

Peter Jackson's movies are great but I don't want to spend all
day watching one of his long long movies, I have other things
to do...I think.

[4NDR01D]

oh yeah - I forgot to add that even though i HATED this movie, I thought the CGI was out of sight. I agree that this is the first time CGI has really seemed real[/QUOTE]

Some scenes were shot with Andy Serkis(Gollum) is a king kong suit, it was seemless with the cgi, but of course if your talkin' about the the stampede see et al. that of course wasn't.:wink:

[Sideshow Spock]

It did drag somewhat in the beginning, and the various creepy-crawlers on the island were a bit much (and gross), but I thought everything else was fantastic. Kong was rendered (in all ways) beautifully, and his bond with Naomi Watts was very touching. I felt true heartbreak at the end of the film. I own the dvd and watched parts of the TNT broadcast, but not the end.. it's too friggin sad... :cry: :monkey_y:

[txteach]

Very slow in the beginning but good afterward.

[Tyme2tyme]

I agree that Jack Black was miscast but Naomi Watts made up for it:wink_y: I also found the bug sceens a little to high on the gross scale, but I really enjoyed the movie.

[Man of Action]

Kong has alot of soul....plus he kicked three T-rex's butts with a hot blonde in one hand, sometimes a foothand....:wink:

[spiderrogue]

I LOVED IT...kinda slow at first, but it was pretty awesome...
true story..my sis in law wont watch it because it's cruelty to animals....yea..you guessed it...the ape(kong)....the fake ape, that is...true story..how could i make that up? she is weird....lol...

[Mikey]

Cruelty to animals ? :smiley1:

Show her all the human bones next to Kong's lair :smiley1:

[thunderbolt]

I liked it a lot, really did like the Black casting. He played up the con man aspect of Carl Denham pretty well. The only thing that bugged me were a few of the LOTR like camera tricks and slow mo stuff.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I thought it was okay, but not really good. The CGI was okay, but they did what a lot of new films do these days and threw in LOTS of filler to hilight the effects. (WHY was there a car chase....?) So yeah; it's like, five days long and tells essentially the same story the original did in 88 minutes.

One thing that DID bother me was how they changed Anne's origin. In the original she was a street kid that they took along because they knew nobody would miss her if something happened. They SORT of did that in the new one, but it didn't make sense. She wasn't an outcast or misfit like they SAID in the dialogue.... she was someone employed, with a careeer, during the freakin' DEPRESSION! She's HARDLY one of society's forgotten....!

THAT kinda bugged me 'cos it undermines the whole point of the film; that her and Kong shared a link 'cos they were both misfits.

Don C.

[jayihdz]

I really liked the movie, it was long but it was cool to have different "monsters" and "bugs" to figth with besides kong.

[Bill]

I liked it until they found Kong. At the point of using the dinosaur as a glider I couldn't watch anymore. Ugggg..... I really thought I'd like the movie; one of the few times I've actually stopped watching a DVD.

[Vortigern99]

I love all three versions, and I know them like the lines on my own face.

1933: One of the all-time great adventure films; probably THE all-time great adventure film! There's not a wasted shot or line of dialogue in the entire movie; the cinematography is amazing, including the rear-projection, which is among the best use of that FX technique ever shot; the script is rapid-fire and witty, and brilliantly expresses character. The stop-motion is powerful and dynamic at the same time that it is nuanced and artistically-crafted. I love this movie; it is one of the rare 5-STAR films in existence.

1976: Much better than people are willing to give it credit for. Some of the dialogue is hokey, the ape is clearly an actor (Rick Baker!) in a suit, and there's a distinct lack of monsters apart from the giant snake -- but it is nonetheless a unique and dramatic film, with intriguing characters and sense of verisimilitude ("real-seeming") that many fantasy/adventure movies (including the 2005 re-make) lack. I've always found the animatronic ape-mask very life-like and expressive. Kong's death, in particular, is incredibly moving in this version, and the emotions of the lead actress are heart-wrenchingly spot-on, IMO. Also one of my favorite movies, though I recognize its flaws.

2005: A clever and well-made homage to the original 1933 film, with terrific action scenes and compelling use of CGI. Kong feels like a living, breathing creature with a heart and mind all his own. However, the movie is overlong by at least 45 minutes, and feels -- not like a series of real-world events that are actually happening -- but rather like a clever and well-made homage to another film. Some of the would-be romantic banter between Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts is just painful, and the "It's not an adventure story, is it, Sir?"/"No, Jimmy it's not!" sidebar feels forced, contrived and just plain boring. Black is fair, but he's straining to keep up with the dramatic demands of his role, and it shows. The entire voyage from NYC to the island is an almost complete snooze-fest. All that said, when it comes down to the stirring climax -- the urban rampage, the climb to the top of the ESB, the sunset bonding between beauty and beast, and the breath-taking biplane shootout, the movie redeems itself, and reminds us why we came to a re-make of KING KONG in the first place. In my opinion it's the weakest of the three versions, but it's still an eye-popping spectacle... and of course, one of the great adventure films of all time.

[spiderrogue]

would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!! see, no one would see that coming. it's like watching titanic...you know what's going to happen, no matter what, in the end...
but KK was still a great movie...made you believe that kong really could be real...some outstanding cgi...and did anyone else know that jackson is one of the plane gunner's towards the end? he's in all of his flicks, supposedly...

[ctc]

>would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!!

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

Anyone remember THAT flick? Anyone? Anyone?

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Unfortunately I do.

[Bo8a_Fett]

Great film...even better if Black was recast.

[MegoScott]

It left me cold in the end, but the Dino fight was out of control.

[spiderrogue]

wasnt there a son of kong, too? or something stupid like that in the 80's?? or is that the same one as kong lives?

[apes3978]

One thing that DID bother me was how they changed Anne's origin. In the original she was a street kid that they took along because they knew nobody would miss her if something happened. They SORT of did that in the new one, but it didn't make sense. She wasn't an outcast or misfit like they SAID in the dialogue.... she was someone employed, with a career, during the freakin' DEPRESSION! She's HARDLY one of society's forgotten...

I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow. She was dancing in what was essentially a Vaudeville house, performing for dwindling audiences. And, remember as they exited the theater, she asks that old man if he ate today, so obviously they weren't making any money at it. Then to show up and see the theater closed and locked up with no chance of getting the money they were owed hardly makes her (or any of the others) one of societies top rung.

[apes3978]

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

I rented it a few months back and I have to say it was downright horrible.

[apes3978]

wasnt there a son of kong, too? or something stupid like that in the 80's?

Yes, there was a film called SON OF KONG, but it was released in 1933, the same year as the original KING KONG... Not a bad film, but nothing great either. Mediocre viewing.

[ctc]

>I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow.

...but she was still a part of society. She had co-workers, associates and presumably friends. In the original she was a street kid; a literal castoff from society. And yeah; the original probably had friends and associates too, but you had more of a sense of her being alone 'cos we never really see her interact with anyone or being part of a group.

Not a HUGE dif; but it's one that irked me. Kinda like they figured nobody'd sympathise with a homeless person but EVERYBODY wants to win on American Idol....

Don C.

[namtab29]

i enjoyed it a lot...but--even though i tend to love long movies, i thought it was too long. i think it took waaaay too long to get to the Island, and then each successive set-piece after that just went on too long.

2 1/2 hrs woulda been a great run time. 3 hrs, just too much.

rob!

[cjefferys]

I have to admit, I liked it better than I thought I would, I guess lowered expectations help. :) It was longer than it could have been though, by about 30-40 minutes. The HD DVD looks absolutely stunning, so that probably helped my enjoyment of the film too.

[The Bat]

I LOVED it!! the CGI Kong really seemed like a live Gorilla...He was AMAZING!!! That said...I think the Movie was about 20 minutes too long. I would cut out the running "underneath" the Brontosaurus's Sceen...and the Bug Sceen...and the Movie would flow a bit better. But all, in all...a great labor of love for Jackson, and a fantastic homage to the Original.:yes:

[polyester]

I liked the special effects but i think Jack Black ruined it. He is one of the most irritating people on screen. bleh.

[darklord1967]

KING KONG (2005). A stunning achievement all around.

The film was a bit long and could have benefitted from some judicious cutting.

But the performances from the various actors (Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, etc.) were all very good.

The set pieces were brilliantly staged and executed, and the visual effects were top notch.

Parts of this film were downright beautiful in its visual poetry, and emotional sensitivity.

Also, this was the first time that I felt Kong was a carefully thought-out and performed character. Andy Serkin did an amazing job fleshing him out, while physically and emotionally transforming himself into the ancient huge gorilla with a full spectrum of emotions. That man is an astounding talent who doesn't get nearly enough accolades for his impressive abilities.

What I think is sad is that there are quite a few people who will see KING KONG for the first time at home on their small TV, and they will NEVER understand the real majesty and splendor of that film.

In order to truly appreciate the artist's (filmmaker's) intentions and aestetic choices, certain films absolutely MUST be viewed on a theatrical big screen, with impressive sound. The film should make the first time viewer feel small and insignificant compared to the bigger-than-life characters and situations featured in this stunning period piece.

The film should also be (first-time) viewed with an audience. The communal experience of film is so important for a film like this. A comedy is MUCH more fun when 200 other people are in a movie theater laughing along with you. A horror film or thriller is MUCH more gripping when 200 other people are screaming in fear right along with you.

I can't tell you how many people I run into who unfairly judge a really well-made and crafted film (like this one) after seeing it at home for the first time on a crappy bootleg DVD with poor sound and picture (illegally shot with a camcorder)!

And of course, at home, they usually have a billion and one distractions (phone, kids, doorbell, etc.). These people constantly get up to use the bathroom, fix a drink, grab a snack (or whatever), and they repeatedly destroy the continuity of the film... for themselves and others around them.

Naturally, when asked what they thought of the film, these people almost always respond with, "Uhh... it was okay. I didn't see what the big deal was, though."

Yeah. That's the point. You didn't see. You were too busy picking your nose, scratching your butt, and chatting on the phone.

Maybe my viewpoint is colored by the fact that I'm an eternal New Yorker, and a big movie fan. But I can tell you that in New York, big event movies are a very big deal. In this city, camping out to see the first showing of a big event film is pretty common. There is NOT a more enthusiastic audience anywhere than a New York audience. And I've travelled all over this country, and seen films in virtually every major city.

I'll never forget the cheering, shouting, and applause of 1,400 people at the Loews Orpheum in New York City on May 25th, 1983, the openning day of Return of the Jedi. There was just nothing like it.

Sadly, it's an experience that is gradually being fazed out of our culture.

Atttention spans are shrinking, and the specifics of being a good audience are being lost.

But I digress. I loved 2005 King Kong.

[Vortigern99]

>I'd hardly say that she was employed during the Depression, not gainfully employed anyhow.

...but she was still a part of society. She had co-workers, associates and presumably friends. In the original she was a street kid; a literal castoff from society. And yeah; the original probably had friends and associates too, but you had more of a sense of her being alone 'cos we never really see her interact with anyone or being part of a group.

Not a HUGE dif; but it's one that irked me. Kinda like they figured nobody'd sympathise with a homeless person but EVERYBODY wants to win on American Idol....

Don C.

What I think you may be missing is that the Jackson version provides Ann's backstory of how she became homeless and jobless. The Ann Darrow of the original is homeless and poverty-stricken, certainly, but how did she get that way? She wasn't born on the streets, that much is evident by her demeanor and the way she speaks. All Jackson & co. are doing is showing you, "Look, this is how she started out -- a stage actress, a comedienne, who lost her job and wound up on the street."

Also, I agree with everything 1967 said in the above post. *applause*

[ctc]

>What I think you may be missing is that the Jackson version provides Ann's backstory of how she became homeless and jobless.

Fair enough; but I don't think it's something that really NEEDED to be extrapolated on. A street kid during the Depression wouldn't be an unusual character so you wouldn't really need to explain to the audience where they came from. So yeah, it's nice that they thought to flesh her out a bit but it was unneccessary. And for me it detracted from the effect 'cos of what I mentioned before. Not to a huge degree, bit it was kinda wasteful.

...and I think that's what bugged me about the film; and a LOT of films nowadays... no sharpening. No focus. And a car chase wether the film needs it or not.

Don C.

[MIB41]

I have absolutely no problem saying I LOVE the '76 version. For those not yet concieved or too young to remember this period, Kong was very successful. Jaws had become the first film to pass $100 million the previous year and Kong passed $50 million the next. What gave the film some criticism was producer Dino Delaurentiis' early predictions that Kong would overtake Jaws as the top grossing film of all time. Clearly a dumb thing to say but also a very calculated statement to pull audiences in. Still the film did very well and reviews were very good. Kong even appeared on the cover of Time magazine instead of the presidential candidates for that year and the film garnered an Oscar for effects.
The purists from the '33 deplore this film because, "It doesn't have dinosaurs". God save us all. Some one go back to the mid-70's and tell me how a dinosaur was made (namely 'Land of the Lost') and I'll show you real cheese. I'm glad they left them out! This gave the movie time to finally develop a relationship between ape and girl (something the '33 never did and what Jackson borrowed for the new version).The other complaint is a "man in an ape suit"... Versus what at the time? Gumby with peach fuzz made 34 years earlier? Someone show me a really good ape mask prior to the '76 Kong and what do you have? Planet of the Apes. Rick Baker's mask DESTROYED the Planet of the Apes makeups in every conceivable way and went on to revolutionalize what Hollywood could do with masks thanks to those "special contributions" (as understated in the film's credits). Rick Baker became the authority on makeups from that film forward and no one ever saw apes the same way again. Check out his portfolio and that argument is laid to rest.

Now I love POTA and I appreciate the '33 Kong, but I don't need glasses to see they looked dated when the '76 Kong came out. And the 2005 Kong was visually incredible against this film made almost 30 years earlier...as it should. I guess the reason why I love the '76 version is because it was the first time I saw something on film that made me ask, "How did they do that?" That mask was incredible back then and I loved the mechanical hand. I always imagined what it would have been like to be on the sets for that film. Also consider that most critics of the day were led (by Dino's hype) to believe it was a robot doing those performances and the reviews indicate the hype fooled them! Most thought the performance was amazing especially since it "was a robot". Obviously by today's standards we know better, but not then. The actual robot had about 5 seconds screen time (5 seconds too long in my opinion) but Dino had to deliver since he said one was in there.

Finally I love the cast. In 2005, USA Today did a poll as to who was the best liked girl in Kong's hand and Jessica Lange won hand's down against both Fay and Naomi. Let's not forget she acted against both Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin, both of which delivered fine performances and went on to their own careers. Jeff Bridges is currently in the top grossing film right now... IRON MAN. So, yes, I'm a proud fan and one who doesn't mind defending it. Alot of talent was in that fim and alot of great careers were started because of it.

How can you say no to this?
http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/files/3/7/4/DwanKong.jpg (http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/showimage.php?i=4522&c=3)

[MIB41]

>would have been cooler if jackson had changed the ending...ape lives!!

They did that with the 70's version.... "King Kong Lives!"

Anyone remember THAT flick? Anyone? Anyone?

Don C.

Actually made in the late 80's...:wink: and not at all close to the '76 classic. Actually watching that one will quickly show you what crap is.

[mego73]

I have absolutely no problem saying I LOVE the '76 version. For those not yet concieved or too young to remember this period, Kong was very successful. Jaws had become the first film to pass $100 million the previous year and Kong passed $50 million the next. What gave the film some criticism was producer Dino Delaurentiis' early predictions that Kong would overtake Jaws as the top grossing film of all time. Clearly a dumb thing to say but also a very calculated statement to pull audiences in. Still the film did very well and reviews were very good. Kong even appeared on the cover of Time magazine instead of the presidential candidates for that year and the film garnered an Oscar for effects.
The purists from the '33 deplore this film because, "It doesn't have dinosaurs". God save us all. Some one go back to the mid-70's and tell me how a dinosaur was made (namely 'Land of the Lost') and I'll show you real cheese. I'm glad they left them out! This gave the movie time to finally develop a relationship between ape and girl (something the '33 never did and what Jackson borrowed for the new version).The other complaint is a "man in an ape suit"... Versus what at the time? Gumby with peach fuzz made 34 years earlier? Someone show me a really good ape mask prior to the '76 Kong and what do you have? Planet of the Apes. Rick Baker's mask DESTROYED the Planet of the Apes makeups in every conceivable way and went on to revolutionalize what Hollywood could do with masks thanks to those "special contributions" (as understated in the film's credits). Rick Baker became the authority on makeups from that film forward and no one ever saw apes the same way again. Check out his portfolio and that argument is laid to rest.

Now I love POTA and I appreciate the '33 Kong, but I don't need glasses to see they looked dated when the '76 Kong came out. And the 2005 Kong was visually incredible against this film made almost 30 years earlier...as it should. I guess the reason why I love the '76 version is because it was the first time I saw something on film that made me ask, "How did they do that?" That mask was incredible back then and I loved the mechanical hand. I always imagined what it would have been like to be on the sets for that film. Also consider that most critics of the day were led (by Dino's hype) to believe it was a robot doing those performances and the reviews indicate the hype fooled them! Most thought the performance was amazing especially since it "was a robot". Obviously by today's standards we know better, but not then. The actual robot had about 5 seconds screen time (5 seconds too long in my opinion) but Dino had to deliver since he said one was in there.

Finally I love the cast. In 2005, USA Today did a poll as to who was the best liked girl in Kong's hand and Jessica Lange won hand's down against both Fay and Naomi. Let's not forget she acted against both Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin, both of which delivered fine performances and went on to their own careers. Jeff Bridges is currently in the top grossing film right now... IRON MAN. So, yes, I'm a proud fan and one who doesn't mind defending it. Alot of talent was in that fim and alot of great careers were started because of it.

How can you say no to this?
http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/files/3/7/4/DwanKong.jpg (http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/showimage.php?i=4522&c=3)

Like I said, I liked 76 on a camp and nostalgic level and the effects were, for the most part, good for the time.

What I remember people complaining about the most, besides the full size Kong that got almost no screen time are the blue screen shots. But until Star Wars most film blue screen shots were flawed with registration errors, blue fringing and matte lines.

Rick Baker's Kong suit rocked but I remember him saying that they forced him to perform Kong walking and standing upright (when he knew the way to do it was hunched over, like an Ape). Also, many shots were not filmed high speed to slow him down to give the illusion of larger mass.

[MIB41]

Rick Baker was put through the ringer during King Kong, but one of his biggest complaints was Carl Rambaldi. Rambaldi had seen Baker's initial ideas and tried to sale many of them as his own since he was competing with Baker for the task of creating the Kong suit. The final version however was Baker's prototype (with human qualities). Dino ended up having both parties work together which was not what either wanted. Rambaldi had actually considered making Kong more of an ape/man than straight gorilla and Baker actually quit the project, but Dino wooed him back. Contrary to popular belief Kong did have arm extensions when the cameras shot him at a distance, but the slightly upward stance was completely intentional. Both director and producer wanted a slightly human quality to Kong, so he wasn't quite ape or man, but something in between. Some mistaken this as a lack of artistic skill given to the intrepretation of Kong as a "man in a suit". That wasn't the case at all and even Baker defends that notion to this day. Ultimately Baker was unhappy with his experiecne on Kong because of the constant competition and deception by Rambaldi. If there's ever any question as to who was better, you need look no further than 1986's 'King Kong lives' for comparison. That was all Rambaldi's work. Compare '76 Kong to that and suddenly you see how much Rick Baker actually did, even though Rambaldi took the greatest credit. That's why Baker is so bitter. Rambaldi stole the lime light that should have been his in the remake.

[Vortigern99]

MIB41, I agree with just about everything you've posted about the '76 Kong. It's an extremely well-made and emotionally affecting film, with convincing performances and startlingly realistic prosthetic effects. What people tend to dislike about it is the dialogue, which is a bit "campy" in places, as written by the scripter of 1980's Flash Gordon and many of the Dozier Batman TV episodes. But those instances ("Here's to the big one!"; "I've snapped a few monkeys in my day, Fred," etc.) are few and far between, and for the most part the tone is gritty and real-world. The style of the filmmaking is not flashy or "stylish", but it is subtly crafty and extremely well put together in terms of editing -- choice of close-ups, medium shots etc. The cinematography is lush and luminous. However, there's a somber, "down" mood that sneaks into the movie after Kong's capture, and never relents for the remainder of the story -- possibly another reason why people dislike it: it's kind of a bummer. (As a child I cried my eyes out at Kong's death. My mother tells me I was "inconsolable".)

I too have read of Rambaldi's questionable ethics and Baker's struggles for just and fair recognition for his contributions to the suit and mask -- not to mention for actually playing the creature himself. (Yes, folks, Rick Baker IS King Kong... IN... King Kong! Rated PG.) In the opening credits, Rambaldi is said to have "created" King Kong, while Baker gets a "special contributions by" tag. The portion of input Baker had, and the work he did, was considerably greater than that credit he was given.

I recommend the journalistic paperback The Making of King Kong for the lowdown on all this. It's a fascinating story.

[apes3978]

KING KONG (2005). A stunning achievement all around. What I think is sad is that there are quite a few people who will see KING KONG for the first time at home on their small TV, and they will NEVER understand the real majesty and splendor of that film.

Oh, I agree with that statement all the way... When I seen it at the theater and even later on watching it on DVD, I always said that if there was ever a film made to be seen on the big screen, it's KING KONG (2005).