How Do You Like Your "Kong"?

[kennermike]

Thanks Dark Shadow. I thoroughly enjoy your comments as well. It's my fault this happened and I thank you for working it out with me. Kong '76 is unfortunately where my nerd rage sometimes gets me. I need to work on that.

the 1933 and 2005 version suck arse! am I right? LOL

[Figuremod73]

can you guys believe ive never seen son of kong?
is it good?

[MIB41]

can you guys believe ive never seen son of kong?
is it good?

Honestly? No... For nostalgia sake it's kinda fun to watch. But it's pretty silly and mostly forgettable. If you like skull island from the '33 version, you will not like the ending.

[kingdom warrior]

Fay wray was beautiful and the original Kong is fine for it's time.
I like the 76 version of Kong, Lang was smoking hot and the acting is more believable.
I was bored with Peter jacksons version my *** was numb sitting in a packed theater for 3 hours knowing the monkey was gonna get a bullet up his ***....I've never seen it again since

[PoorMansJB]

I have to strongly disagree on that point completely. Kong '76 was groundbreaking with many effects used. First and foremost was the advancement of technology in mask making. There had never been a gear driven mask like the one used in Kong. That technology was introduced in this film and is still being used today. The giant mechanical hand was also a first and remains fairly impressive to this day. And of the course the most important contribution of Kong was introducing RICK BAKER to the industry in a big way. That exposure gave him immediate demand. So he took the technology created in King Kong and developed it further in little films like Star Wars, American Werewolf in London, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Gorillas in the Mist, Mighty Joe Young, Wolf, Men in Black, Planet of the Apes, Hellboy, and the recent remake of The Wolfman. All of these are offspring from technology used in Kong '76. Oh, and Kong won an Academy Award for those effects too. So I roll my eyes a bit when I hear people underplay the film as just a 'guy in a suit' film. Okay, if we're going to play that game then Kong '33 was Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer as a monkey. Talk about camp! And what is the 2005 Kong? He's nothing. He's a digital cartoon. And looks it too. So I'll take my 'guy in the suit' every day over that lot.

No. It's not that at all. It's just that SOME people like to place a very unfair and undeserved label on the remake. I've heard all the b*tchin' for years about, "Oh it should have stayed in stop motion" REALLY? How mundane and idiotic that would have looked in the 70's. He would have looked like Gumby for Christ's sake. And then there is the whole "man in a monkey suit" critique. REALLY? You should go back and read the reviews of the day. Most critics thought it was the robot Dino had advertised. And how 'amazing' it looked. After people were told it was Rick Baker, suddenly everyone pulled back their praise and changed their perspective. "Oh it's a guy in a suit?" Gee. What a jip. Of course no one understood what that meant either. No one understood the mechanics inside of said "suit". No one thought about the expressions coming from that mask. The best effort prior to that was POTA. And this technique BURIED John Chambers makeups. Destroyed it. But people got hung up on this "guy in a suit" image. The criticism there is completely without merit. Especially when you consider they still use it today. And you want to talk about longevity? Kong '76 is THE most televised version of the three on cable today! So clearly there is an audience and new generations hook on. And I'm not trying to take anything away from the '33 version. It truly deserves it's place in the sun as a original piece for it's day. But Kong '76 also made significant contributions and continues to endure as well.

Kong '76 is unfortunately where my nerd rage sometimes gets me. I need to work on that.

As a kid what killed it for me was the awesome production shots we got before, and the mediocre guy in suit we got after. I heard most of the budget went into the animatronic Kong that was used for.... oh, a few minutes of film.

From my buddy Chad:
>I think that the true tragedy of the '76 remake is that a bunch of studios were all vying for the remake rights to the original movie and Dino DeLaurentis won out primarily because he convinced the copyright holders that Kong would be portrayed by a giant, state-of-the-art robot (it does appear in the film- as a barely moving statue in a cage). He apparently even went so far as to attempt acquiring a permit for his robot to climb the World Trade Centers (which the city, not surprisingly, didn't even entertain). His version edged out the attempted Universal Pictures attempt, which was planned to be a big stop-motion animation fest with a dinosaur-heavy Skull Island. Interestingly, one of the conditions of the remake was that none of the prehistoric creatures from the original could be used. DeLaurentis circumvented the issue by not having any dinosaurs in the film at all. The proposed Universal version, however, was going to feature a sequence with Kong facing off against a herd of angry Triceratops (something that had been entertained in the original movie but dropped due to time and budget constraints) and a giant centipede!

It's interesting that so often on forums that along with these "what is your opinion of [insert subject here]" there are invariably one or more persons quite prepared to tell you your opinion is wrong.

Despite considering myself pretty-well versed in facts surrounding Kong'76 at the time, I had since largely forgotten most of De Laurentiis' grandiose claims for the film, in particular the bit about having a "robot" climb a building (which, even as a kid, I recognized was absurd ... yet was simultaneously excited to see pulled-off on-screen).

For a host of personal reasons (which I won't bother detailing here save that I loved -- nee, obsessed over -- the original and in '76 was still naive enough to believe a remake could be a good thing) Kong'76 should have been a seminal film ... should have been. Yes, Baker's animatronic work is an advancement -- every generation seems to have its guerilla gorilla, whether it's the apes of 2001, or Baker's Kong, or Kongo (ya, I went there) -- but, again, for a movie that promised to astound, that was supposed to truly push moviemaking to new limits, it failed: I understand some of you -- and apparently, you're quite insistent about it -- saw something else, but I saw a guy in a suit. I distinctly recall there not being a dry [female] eye in the house as the end credits rolled on premiere night that December but all I could think was: That's it?!* Murky cinematography, lousy cast, rubber snake, unnecessary gore, crappy matte work, poor direction, and now everyone is crying ... over a guy in a suit ... A GUY WHO -- based on the press -- WASN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?! (Remember that while his name was given fleeting mention here and there -- official materials simply reference resorting to a suit for "some scenes where the electronic Kong could not be used " and even the TIME magazine cover story gives him a scant two paragraphs -- we didn't really learn about the true extent of Baker's contributions until later, well after it came to light that De Laurentiis' mecha Kong never actually made it to the screen for more than a few seconds.) For me, this isn't about whether Baker broke new ground or whether the film could or should be slammed as just "another 'guy-in-a-suit' movie" but that it's not what this then high school kid had been promised and had been looking forward to for so long (did I mention I subscribed to De Laurentiis' Kong newsletter? Still have every copy).

I understand many of you don't care for Jackson's film and I've already stated that while I find it sumptuous, I readily agree it doesn't quite come together (the more I think about it, the more it feels like the work of someone trying desperately to get all the facts exactly right but missing the core elements that connect with an audience). Curiously though, while we're busy praising Baker, there's not been a word here about Andy Serkis, Jackson's Kong. While his was "digital," Serkis' Kong is almost equally "a man in a suit" yet -- though I'll grant (as I think someone else here suggested) it comes off a bit like watching National Geographic footage -- there's nary the telltale human gesture (or proportions) of Baker's performance.

Kong'76 did, in fact, win a "special achievement" award at the Oscars in 1977 ... an action prompting the resignation of a number of Academy members. As with the occasional nod to people like DeMille for The Ten Commandments, this was not -- at the time -- actually a recognized category with various titles competing for the honor but a statue that was generally associated with PR efforts and ticket sales (indeed, Logan's Run was originally to be recognized until De Laurentiis' team "intervened"). The award effectively endorsed De Laurentiis' continued hype over the film's robotics (Baker suggested in more than one interview that De Laurentiis basically "bought" the trophy for Rambaldi as, again, a means of emphasizing his work over Baker's) and essentially condoned the on-going slighting of Baker, all of which contributed to the walk-out. Jackson's film, by the way, also won a similar award, but in what was by 2005 a standing visual FX category.

Not sure what cable company anyone else subscribes to but I haven't seen Kong'76 aired but once that I'm aware of in years, and that was during a free AMC preview while Jackson's film has been in interminable rotation. (Someone like SyFy -- on that's right, they don't run sci-fi or fantasy programming anymore ... damn -- should run all three films in succession some time.)


*Funny that Kong'76 actually succeeds on a point that most action films movies; that is, the dialogue sequences work where they invariably fail miserably in comparable films.

[MIB41]

It's interesting that so often on forums that along with these "what is your opinion of [insert subject here]" there are invariably one or more persons quite prepared to tell you your opinion is wrong.

Despite considering myself pretty-well versed in facts surrounding Kong'76 at the time, I had since largely forgotten most of De Laurentiis' grandiose claims for the film, in particular the bit about having a "robot" climb a building (which, even as a kid, I recognized was absurd ... yet was simultaneously excited to see pulled-off on-screen).

For a host of personal reasons (which I won't bother detailing here save that I loved -- nee, obsessed over -- the original and in '76 was still naive enough to believe a remake could be a good thing) Kong'76 should have been a seminal film ... should have been. Yes, Baker's animatronic work is an advancement -- every generation seems to have its guerilla gorilla, whether it's the apes of 2001, or Baker's Kong, or Kongo (ya, I went there) -- but, again, for a movie that promised to astound, that was supposed to truly push moviemaking to new limits, it failed: I understand some of you -- and apparently, you're quite insistent about it -- saw something else, but I saw a guy in a suit. I distinctly recall there not being a dry [female] eye in the house as the end credits rolled on premiere night that December but all I could think was: That's it?!* Murky cinematography, lousy cast, rubber snake, unnecessary gore, crappy matte work, poor direction, and now everyone is crying ... over a guy in a suit ... A GUY WHO -- based on the press -- WASN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE THERE?! (Remember that while his name was given fleeting mention here and there -- official materials simply reference resorting to a suit for "some scenes where the electronic Kong could not be used " and even the TIME magazine cover story gives him a scant two paragraphs -- we didn't really learn about the true extent of Baker's contributions until later, well after it came to light that De Laurentiis' mecha Kong never actually made it to the screen for more than a few seconds.) For me, this isn't about whether Baker broke new ground or whether the film could or should be slammed as just "another 'guy-in-a-suit' movie" but that it's not what this then high school kid had been promised and had been looking forward to for so long (did I mention I subscribed to De Laurentiis' Kong newsletter? Still have every copy).

I understand many of you don't care for Jackson's film and I've already stated that while I find it sumptuous, I readily agree it doesn't quite come together (the more I think about it, the more it feels like the work of someone trying desperately to get all the facts exactly right but missing the core elements that connect with an audience). Curiously though, while we're busy praising Baker, there's not been a word here about Andy Serkis, Jackson's Kong. While his was "digital," Serkis' Kong is almost equally "a man in a suit" yet -- though I'll grant (as I think someone else here suggested) it comes off a bit like watching National Geographic footage -- there's nary the telltale human gesture (or proportions) of Baker's performance.

Kong'76 did, in fact, win a "special achievement" award at the Oscars in 1977 ... an action prompting the resignation of a number of Academy members. As with the occasional nod to people like DeMille for The Ten Commandments, this was not -- at the time -- actually a recognized category with various titles competing for the honor but a statue that was generally associated with PR efforts and ticket sales (indeed, Logan's Run was originally to be recognized until De Laurentiis' team "intervened"). The award effectively endorsed De Laurentiis' continued hype over the film's robotics (Baker suggested in more than one interview that De Laurentiis basically "bought" the trophy for Rambaldi as, again, a means of emphasizing his work over Baker's) and essentially condoned the on-going slighting of Baker, all of which contributed to the walk-out. Jackson's film, by the way, also won a similar award, but in what was by 2005 a standing visual FX category.

Not sure what cable company anyone else subscribes to but I haven't seen Kong'76 aired but once that I'm aware of in years, and that was during a free AMC preview while Jackson's film has been in interminable rotation. (Someone like SyFy -- on that's right, they don't run sci-fi or fantasy programming anymore ... damn -- should run all three films in succession some time.)


*Funny that Kong'76 actually succeeds on a point that most action films movies; that is, the dialogue sequences work where they invariably fail miserably in comparable films.

I think when it's all said and done, it's whatever you choose to watch. Each origin film of Kong has tried to build upon the effects of the prior effort. Each has it's merits and each has it's short comings. My preference is the '76 version. When I saw it brand new in the theaters, I was in 6th grade and the film was a blockbuster. I loved Rick Baker in the role and loved the score of the film. For myself it updated the story and even permitted him to fall from an even taller building. I admired it's uniqueness for trying to be it's own "animal" and not simply mimic what came before. The purists rolled over and cried foul. The rest of the world embraced it and moved on. From your account, you went in with expectations no film would likely meet. Especially if you were getting newsletters from Dino's publicity machine. How could any film measure up to that? It's apparent you still harbor resentment for investing that much. And from that perspective, I can understand your disdain. Fortunately I did not drink from Dino's Kool-aid. I simply saw the trailers and went in based on those expectations and walked out thrilled. Kong looked the same in the film as he did in the trailers. If the monkey suit was so obvious, how did you go in with such high expectations? I don't know... All I can say is I can watch any of them when they are on television. I love the fantasy aspect of the story, but am never so consumed I don't notice the absurdness of the concept. All three films are fun. But from my perspective, Lorenzo Semple Jr's treatment was spot on. His story took notice of it's own absurdness while still finding the heart of what made it work. Jackson's version was so serious it was like a three hour character study made by a nerdy fan-boy. It was fun, but the campiest of the three (my opinion). So I'm sorry Dino burned you so bad with his hype. But hopefully you can still sit down and watch it along with the other two for what it is, rather than what you thought it should be.