How Do You Like Your "Kong"?

[Dark Shadow]

Uhm... She's 62 years old fellas. When and if either of you make it to that stage, let's see how good you look.

Well aware of her age there MIB...and for the record, I was NOT knocking her current appeal, quite the contrary. I was NOT being facetious...Jessica Lange absolutely rocks her new character on American Horror Story. If it wasn't for her role, I don't think I'd give the show another view. I'll even go so far as to say that she's aged rather well & done so gracefully. I applaud her natural beauty and her good sense to avoid the plastic abuse that seems to plague the Hollywood stars & Westside bimbos (or would that be bimbi?).

We're talking about these ladies in their prime during their respective Kong projects.

As was I. And then I simply noted that Jessica STILL has the "X" Factor.

Apology...accepted

[Hector]

My vision is just fine...like this photo. No contest. Fay is not even in Jessica's zip code.

http://megomuseum.com/mmgallery/file...4/KongLang.jpg

Even though I think 76 Kong is just comical (because of the short-armed gorilla, lol)...I have to agree with you on the different Kong Ladies...Lange was super duper delicious and nutritious...she's my pick as well...

[kennermike]

Uhm... Jessica Lange has done real well for herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpxPW...eature=related
This ones for you Tom!

[Cmonster]

Hands down, 1976. The basic concept is far fetched any way you slice it. So, in my eyes, it needed some style to give the story some kick. The 1933 version is cool for it's day with regards to the stop motion animation. But by every standard, even for the 30's, the acting is horrid. The dialogue is horrid. Laughable actually. The 1976 nails it just right. The dialogue is humorous where it should be and applies emotion when needed. BUT it never takes itself too seriously. See that's the problem with the other two films. When they try and give the treatment this Shakespearean irony, the concept collapses and then becomes true camp. It's a giant animal that falls for a blonde. The idea of "Beauty killed the beast" carries with it many levels of meaning, but they don't all apply to the story of King Kong.

'76 Kong's approach to the sacrificial throne is still dramatic. The entrance for the 1933 and Jackson remake? Yawners. The girls - Fay Wray (ugly). Naomi Watts is pretty, but she's easily second place to Jessica Lange. Who wouldn't go ape over that body? The soundtracks - Sorry but John Barry is King of the Kong soundtracks. Nobody touches his memorable scores. His contributions lent so much to the mood of the '76 version.

The apes - The 1933 version barely resembles anything having to do with an ape. He's a hybrid of something else. And from that perspective, I agree with the interpretation. Kong is not just a big monkey. He's an entirely different breed which lends it's own mystique. The '76 version takes that to the next level and gives the ape more human qualities. And BTW, the arms were meant to be that length. That was not an oversight. Kong was purposely created to be part ape, part humanoid. I understood that as a kid, my kids understood it when they saw it. But there are still a few 'critics' who simply don't "get it". The Jackson Kong is so ape-like he's without mystique. He's just a big ape. Well you lose something in that translation. He still needs to have that rare, old-world, look to him that both the '33 and '76 captured. The Jackson Kong just comes across as a mountain gorilla on steroids.

And one final comment - I quietly laughed at Jackson after seeing his film, because he was such a tasteless critic of the '76 remake. He went out of his way to attack the makers and cast of that film, which I thought was in bad form since they are his professional peers. He bowed at the throne of the '33 version and figuratively speaking, sucked it's arse. Unfortunately when it came to the approach of Kong he borrowed DIRECTLY from the '76 version. All of the humanistic qualities of Kong and his interaction with Naomi Watts was a direct steal from the '76 story. Those aspects were NOT in the '33 version. Fay Wray never bonded with Kong on any level. And she only felt pity for him after death, the way you would feel if you saw a dog on the side of the road. The '76 Kong attempted to reevaluate that relationship and make it more meaningful. The Jackson Kong followed in lockstep. So much for Jackson's criticisms. Hypocritical b*stard.

Not quite sure how I missed this thread, but Jesus Christmas-- This is by far, one of, if not THE best movie related post in this entire forum. Bravo, dude-- VERY well said.

SC

[Werewolf]

Hands down, 1976.

I liked the 1976 version very much and I agree on the Kong suit. It's my favorite part of the movie. Love the look of it. Complaining about his short arms is like complaining that Godzilla doesn't look real. They're not supposed to be realistic animals. They're monsters.

I do, though, think you are being over harsh on the 1933 movie. Obviously, the 76 version wouldn't even exist without the original. That aside, keep in mind the movie is nearly 80 years old now. The special effects in that movie were cutting edge for its day. The acting was also on par for the time. Don't forget King Kong is only a few years out of silent films. I can also understand Fay Wray not being considered sexy by today's standards but she was far from ugly.

As fun as the 76 version is, its honestly just as dated as the 33 version in its own way. But I still enjoy them both.

[Hector]

[DocDrako]

1976.

[Mikey]

I always thought the '76 version was kind of like a Toho Godzilla movie because it was basically "guy in a monster suit" - which means a cheapo production.

[thunderbolt]

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6098/...f3a3698e_o.jpg

THe Most Exciting ORIGINAL Motion Picture Event of All Time???

[PoorMansJB]

The '33 version is still thoroughly watchable and it was my introduction to Kong so I'll go with that iteration. If lost footage (for example, the insect pit sequence in Jackson's film reconstructs a bit cut from the original as audiences then found it too gruesome ... though there's some conjecture as to whether the scene was ever shown outside a studio screening room) were restored, I wonder if we'd even be talking about a third remake ... or any remake.

While the pathos of the '76 is an improvement, the lack of any technological advancement -- indeed, the "man-in-a-suit" is a complete throwback, especially disappointing given the hype and budget -- somehow make it less interesting than the original. The film is fun and there's some great dialogue, but there are also some preposterous events and the fact that none of the cast include it in their resumes speaks volumes.

The Jackson film is amazing visually but fails on a number of points: It's much too long, there's a good deal of unnecessary background on the Depression, the in-bred islanders are just plain disturbing (and, thus, a complete distraction) and -- as others have pointed out here -- Kong as simply a giant gorilla as opposed to some sort of mutation took me out of the film. I also think the film is largely miscast: Watts is lovely but just not right for the movie and as much as I like Adrien Brody, "Driscoll" needs to be someone at least remotely physically attractive (save the "even a mensch can get the girl" angle for another story). The supporting players (such as the ship's crew), however, were uniformly excellent -- giving their deaths an impact lacking in the prior installments -- and I have to disagree about Black: this is one of the few roles in which I can actually stand to watch him.

BTW, Universal (who backed the Jackson effort) were originally set to basically remake the '33 film as a color period piece when De Laurentis announced his modern retelling. They didn't want audiences having to choose between two Kongs so they stopped production. A story treatment is floating around, though I've never read it; would be interesting to see what, if any resemblance it bears to Jackson's script.

[ctc]

>especially disappointing given the hype and budget

Yeah. 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!

Don C.

[MIB41]

While the pathos of the '76 is an improvement, the lack of any technological advancement -- indeed, the "man-in-a-suit" is a complete throwback, especially disappointing given the hype and budget -- somehow make it less interesting than the original.

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.

[palitoy]

[Mikey]

http://images.wikia.com/godzilla/ima...cartoon_05.jpg

Yes !!!!!!! and we get Dr Who to boot

[Brazoo]

1933 - I'm going to get all artsy-fartsy, but that movie transcends normal movies to me - it's a cultural iconic force of nature - it's always been there and it's seems like it's always going to exist. It's more like the Mona Lisa - and like the Mona Lisa the paint stroke technique isn't the really important thing (though the movie is actually done incredibly well) the really important thing about the work is it's truly iconic. There's something magical in it that completely embeds itself into culture around the world - for forever.