Tweet
Hugely disappointed that they never made this movie.
-
I understand what your saying. But you have to remember they weren't making Kong in the late 50's when sci-fi films were popular and could get away with that. We're talking about the mid 70's here. You had 'Land of the Lost' on television. And NO ONE in Hollywood was going to finance any big budget film that could get compared with a Saturday morning kids show. Especially when you were talking about remaking King Kong. The '33 version was innovative for it's day. The makers of the '76 wanted to take the idea of innovation and apply that same spirit to the '76 version - Do something no one had seen before. And that's what they did. No one had ever seen Kong like this and the technique used was expensive and innovative. They weren't interested in making a copy of what already was. So they modernized the setting and the effects. I think that is why it has it's fans. When I saw it as a kid, it felt very real and very contemporary. I feel the same way when I watch Jaws. I remember how real it seem to me and that is the charm of it. Everyone knows the shark is mechanical, but you still remember how it made you feel when you first saw it. Kong '76 is the exact same way for me. I cheered and was relieved at the end of Jaws, while I was very sad and tearful at the end of '76 Kong. Those are great iconic moments in film. And just because one is a remake doesn't remove it's importance.
Oh and Hector we're all good bro!
This is a great discussion. I appreciate the fact I'm given the chance to defend it.
Last edited by MIB41; Oct 12, '11, 2:50 PM.Comment
-
another great point Tom!I understand what your saying. But you have to remember they weren't making Kong in the late 50's when sci-fi films were popular and could get away with that. We're talking about the mid 70's here. You had 'Land of the Lost' on television. And NO ONE in Hollywood was going to finance any big budget film that could get compared with a Saturday morning kids show. Especially when you were talking about remaking King Kong. The '33 version was innovative for it's day. The makers of the '76 wanted to take the idea of innovation and apply that same spirit to the '76 version - Do something no one had seen before. And that's what they did. No one had ever seen Kong like this and the technique used was expensive and innovative. They weren't interested in making a copy of what already was. So they modernized the setting and the effects. I think that is why it has it's fans. When I saw it as a kid, it felt very real and very contemporary. I feel the same way when I watch Jaws. I remember how real it seem to me and that is the charm of it. Everyone knows the shark is mechanical, but you still remember how it made you feel when you first saw it. Kong '76 is the exact same way for me. I cheered and was relieved at the end of Jaws, while I was very sad and tearful at the end of '76 Kong. Those are great iconic moments in film. And just because one is a remake doesn't remove it's importance.
Oh and Hector we're all good!Comment
-
I am not sure how "inovative" the 76 was. In 33, they made a life size head, to bite people with, hand to hold Fay Wray in and foot to crush people with. The original Kong was easily the "Jurrasic Park" of its day. The 76 is entertaining for sure, but I have never, even as a kid, thought of it more than a guy in a suit.I understand what your saying. But you have to remember they weren't making Kong in the late 50's when sci-fi films were popular and could get away with that. We're talking about the mid 70's here. You had 'Land of the Lost' on television. And NO ONE in Hollywood was going to finance any big budget film that could get compared with a Saturday morning kids show. Especially when you were talking about remaking King Kong. The '33 version was innovative for it's day. The makers of the '76 wanted to take the idea of innovation and apply that same spirit to the '76 version - Do something no one had seen before. And that's what they did. No one had ever seen Kong like this and the technique used was expensive and innovative. They weren't interested in making a copy of what already was. So they modernized the setting and the effects. I think that is why it has it's fans. When I saw it as a kid, it felt very real and very contemporary. I feel the same way when I watch Jaws. I remember how real it seem to me and that is the charm of it. Everyone knows the shark is mechanical, but you still remember how it made you feel when you first saw it. Kong '76 is the exact same way for me. I cheered and was relieved at the end of Jaws, while I was very sad and tearful at the end of '76 Kong. Those are great iconic moments in film. And just because one is a remake doesn't remove it's importance.
Oh and Hector we're all good!View My Customs
www.type3toys.com
or check here
http://megomuseum.com/community/memb...5-HumanWolfmanComment
-
-
But calling Fay Wray outright ugly is fair & deserved?
Slamming me for not only complimenting Jessica Lange's physical appeal of the 70's but praising her current work (in support of your statement that she has "done well for herself")...fair & deserved?
Two demerits for you MIB41
Comment
-
King Kong 1976 the worst movie ever made! LOL
Comment
-
Uhm...where did I "slam" YOU in the sentence you referenced?But calling Fay Wray outright ugly is fair & deserved?
Slamming me for not only complimenting Jessica Lange's physical appeal of the 70's but praising her current work (in support of your statement that she has "done well for herself")...fair & deserved?
Two demerits for you MIB41
It was directed at critics who label the movie as described. But yes, I consider Fay Wray rather unappealing. That's an honest opinion. As a matter of fact, I think she's dog ugly. But that doesn't take away from the merits of the '33 film. We were just discussing physical attributes between the three women and their cosmetic appeal. I can't find any with Fay. Jessica has many obvious advantages over the '33 model. 
If you like her, more power to ya! 
Comment
-
Above is where you castigate me (along with Mikey) on an erroneous assumption that I was dogging on Jessica Lange because I posted pictures of her from her new cable series (Below is my post which prompted your response). You then insinuate that we were clueless in regard to what the comparison was all about even though I had clearly stated that both women were appealing in their own eras.
I went on to clarify my postion in this post:Both women were cinematic goddesses, each in their own (polarizing) eras.
Would it be fair to say that a preference for Jessica may be rooted in the fact that when seen on the big screen for the first time we were hormone raging err...impressionable young teens? Whereas our first images of Fay Wray were witnessed way back in our youth when girls still had cooties and young women were Moms? Just a thought.
As for Jessica today...she is absolutely THE highlight of American Horror Story. (Wednesdays, 10PM, On FX - ).
As for which one I prefer, you and I are on the same page. I just find your sensitivity & defensiveness regarding JL interesting when you pay so little regard to how offensive your ugly comment is to FW fans. That's all!Comment
-
i want a 3d 1933 KongComment
-
Those pictures you posted of Lange were fairly unsavory. I didn't find anything in that post supportive of her. Calling Lange the highlight of a horror show is not my idea of a compliment. Whether she was associated with Kong or not, I would have reacted the same way. It appeared you were knocking her in old age. If your intention was something else, then I would have worded it better with other pictures supporting that intent.Comment
-
There is nothing "unsavory" about those photos...they're official promo shots for the show for God's sake! Calling Lange the highlight of the series is ABSOLUTELY a compliment to the woman's skill set as an actress (the core of her being). There are some heavy players in the show, and she outshines and overshadows them all. An insult to the woman would be to say that she was nothing more than a sex object whose best days are behind her. The lady is an extremely gifted and multifaceted actress who maintains the power to command the screen and steal the scene.
I find your assumption of my intent insulting and your opinion of Jessica's appearance in those photos superficial. Now I understand why you can so easily toss out the word "ugly" in reference to a lady with whom you have no natural attraction to. Yikes!Comment
-
sigpicComment
-
If this were a picture of my Mom, and somebody referred to it as unsavory, I'd take 'em out...wouldn't you do the same?
In this photo, I see a glamorous & talented lady. MIB sees the same photo, but tags the subject as "unsavory".
Last edited by Dark Shadow; Oct 12, '11, 11:43 PM.Comment
Comment