Agony Booth analyses all three King Kongs

[mego73]

I thought he was a little tough on King Kong 76.

Franchise Evolution: King Kong @ the agony booth : making fun of movies and TV since 2002

[MIB41]

I just wanted to puke when I got done reading that assessment. It was anything but objective. Okay... everyone knows I would get pulled into this, so here we go. I'll give my own two cents on the three films and counter some points made by the writer of this article.

First and foremost, I feel it necessary to point out this is not an epic story. In many ways, it's an outlandish premise that many have desperately tried to weave a hidden novel into. And while each version explores different approaches to beauty and the beast, some weigh the importance more than others. So let's examine the basics of each of the three films.

Dialogue/casting:

Let's be entirely honest and take off our fan glasses. Kong '33 has some of the worst dialogue ever written for any film considered a "classic". I would go as far as to say it's cringe inducing. To add, it flaunts sexism and racism in the worst possible way. Women are talked down to and slapped. Blacks are often portrayed by white men and Kong reflects that attitude by treating Fay Wray as little more than a possession. Yes, those may have been the prominent attitudes at that time, but that doesn't mean we celebrate them today and give it a pass. Fay Wray is portrayed as a brainless, witless, blonde who is little more than a sexual toy for both man and Kong. Her greatest attribute is she can scream. The '76 Kong had something of a dilemma because they wanted to make some reference to the Fay Wray character, but needed to approach it from a less indignant manner than '33. So Lange carries some of that dingy homage to the 30's treatment. But she also stands her ground in places as well. Both to men and Kong. The Jackson version handles that approach the very best, by taking the treatments of both predecessors and finding a middle ground to reflect the 30's but also offer the female lead a sense of identity through the process. For ranking, this is how I see dialogue/casting:

1) Jackson's Kong
2) Kong '76
3) Kong '33

King Kong effects:

This is where the debate gets well divided. It's also where credit and critique gets unevenly handed out. Much has been said about the stop motion of the '33 Kong. And to it's credit that praise is well deserved. In many ways it is the Star Wars of it's era from a special effect perspective. Very forward thinking in it's approach at the time, and exciting for it's day. But where is that technology now? It's gone. It's Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer. It was passe' in the 70's, it's even more so today. And most importantly, this Kong looks more like a Sesame Street monster than ape.

The '76 Kong is forever ridiculed for being a 'man in a suit'. And much of that criticism is over Dino's decision to give Kong a humanoid posture. Rick Baker wanted the arm extensions to reflect more of an ape-like quality. But Dino wanted Kong to retain a unique quality, so that his size was not the only thing that distinguished him from the ape species. But the gears and motorized technology from that mask and outfit are still used in film. Not only from a cosmetic perspective but also when they puppet creatures. It was anything but just a 'man in an outfit'. Is Jaws just a robot in a rubber skin? Sure the effect is dated today. But the purists act like there's some grand discrepancy between '33 and '76 because they didn't use little miniature armatures covered in latex. Both films used different techniques and both were successful for their day. And both looked dated today.

Peter Jackson's Kong was fascinating to see on the big screen. Watching him climb to the top of the Empire State Building was breath taking. And just like with Kong '76, this installment made its predecessor look woefully weak in the effects department. But what I didn't like about this Kong was that Jackson tried so hard to make him look like a regular ape. And that took away a very important feature for this version. He doesn't have an exotic quality to him that makes him 'other worldly' like the first two Kongs. There's a magic to those Kongs that is missing here. He has no grand entrance to the throne like Kong in 1976. He doesn't look or feel like a king. He just looks like your basic mountain gorilla on the Discovery Channel. But what was completely surprising was how poorly the effects transferred to DVD. On my HDTV he reads flat. There's too much separation. The CGI is very noticeable. And I don't know who is at fault there. But it certainly didn't register that way in the theater. For all of the obvious reasons, the latest still retains the position for best effects.

1) Jackson's Kong
2) '76 Kong
3) '33 Kong

Overall treatment:

My favorite here is Kong '76. I just think when it comes to balancing the absurdity of the concept while finding a certain charm for the monster, this version satisfies me the most. I think it farms out the best ideas for what I feel is a pretty limited story. Girl gets sacrificed to giant monster. Monster falls for girl. Girl gets away. Monster gets captured trying to get girl back. Monster gets shipped to America. Monster escapes. Monster finds girl again. Monster then climbs tallest building in town so he may die WELL. Girl and audience feel bad for monster. Each version tells that same story. Kong '33 gets loads of credit for being the first to create this story and deserves props for being ahead of it's day. Jackson's Kong borrows heavily from both films, but ultimately gets bogged down in unneeded narrative that doesn't add anything to the overall concept. The result is a three hour picture that only has enough story for 90 minutes. This is why I can seldom watch it and why, while it achieves so much right, it can't allow itself to just tell the story.
Jackson was too close to the project and couldn't step back and be objective in the editing room. He's a big nerd of the '33 film and it showed.

1) Kong '76
2) Kong '33
3) Jackson's Kong

[kennermike]

Im not wasting my time on some unknown dumb arse writting some article dogging the 1976 version,Ed Harris ????? who cares
Im with Tom my fav is the 1976 version.always

[mego73]

MIB41 have you tried Peter Jackson's Kong on blu ray? I don't see a CGI problem (besides the usual issues that I can have with it) on the blu ray. I still like '33 the best. The operatic look and dialogue adds to the charm for me and the incredible special effects work stands as a real achivement then and now.

Peter Jackson's Kong tried to combine and expand on the best of 76 and 33 and overall did fine in my opinion. Anf the CGI Kong works, even if some other selected CGI does not completely. I love that they tried to maintain the specticle and the time period of the
original movie. Jack Black is a liability though.

76 Kong I do enjoy a lot. I do agree with the blog that the sanctimonious character Jeff Bridges was playing wore thin. And yes, I can understand him being mad that they were going to shoot Kong off the WTC but hated that he cheered when copters with pilots just following orders got smashed by Kong. Special effects were dicey for Kong 76, even considering the technology back
then. The Kong suit and mechanical masks were great but most of the blue screen work was really bad. They also didn't undercrank the Rick Baker in Kong suit scenes enough to slow down his action to a larger lumbering look. The miniature work fares better in the city scenes over the skull island set ups. The snake was pretty rubbery and didn't have much life too. The full size Kong that had driven much of Kong 76's publicity was only on screen for less than a minute since they couldn't ever get non robotic looking movement from it. Still, I love the fact that they tried to make a full size Kong and perhaps the publicity mattered more than it working for the film. Anyway, it all looked real to me back in 76 though. Looking at the movie today, I couldn't help but think
that they were intentionally going for a campier tone, especially with Dwan and the whole "Deep Throat saved my life" and " Why you GD cheuvanist pig ape". I like how they work up sympathy for Kong which was not present in the original. I love Kong 76 but still think of it as the weakest of the three.

I am certainly glad a museum member alerted the group to an import blu ray of Kong 76 that was available for about $25 back then. I checked seceondary sellers now and it goes for something like $150. So, I am able to say I have all 3 Kongs on blu ray.

[thunderbolt]

I can't even look at the 76 version anymore, the effects were horrid and just the whole movie is very shoddy looking.

[MIB41]

76 Kong I do enjoy a lot. I do agree with the blog that the sanctimonious character Jeff Bridges was playing wore thin. And yes, I can understand him being mad that they were going to shoot Kong off the WTC but hated that he cheered when copters with pilots just following orders got smashed by Kong. Special effects were dicey for Kong 76, even considering the technology back then. The Kong suit and mechanical masks were great but most of the blue screen work was really bad. They also didn't undercrank the Rick Baker in Kong suit scenes enough to slow down his action to a larger lumbering look. The miniature work fares better in the city scenes over the skull island set ups. The snake was pretty rubbery and didn't have much life too. The full size Kong that had driven much of Kong 76's publicity was only on screen for less than a minute since they couldn't ever get non robotic looking movement from it. Still, I love the fact that they tried to make a full size Kong and perhaps the publicity mattered more than it working for the film. Anyway, it all looked real to me back in 76 though. Looking at the movie today, I couldn't help but think that they were intentionally going for a campier tone, especially with Dwan and the whole "Deep Throat saved my life" and " Why you GD cheuvanist pig ape". I like how they work up sympathy for Kong which was not present in the original.

I never thought about the idea of undercranking the camera to lend more weight to Kong's scale. That's a very good point Mego73. I've been watching this film so long, it's something I just never considered and your perspective makes alot of sense. Well said. I didn't have any problems with the Jeff Bridges character because his story responsibilities (from a social perspective) are as the environmentalist against greedy corporate America, who are stripping the world of it's resources. Grodin plays a weaselly opportunist who looks for any angle to gain notoriety for his interests. So Bridges plays off of Grodin nicely. I like that dynamic, especially since that was such a big issue back in the mid 70's and even more so today. They're fighting about that very issue in Washington right now.

The camp quality is something I just have a different opinion about. The very concept of Kong is pretty campy. I don't think you can get away from that no matter how many times the film is made. So the trick, in my eyes, is to decide where to embrace it and where to back off it. For me, the dialogue in Kong '33 is so bad and said with such bland insincerity, it's just laughable. It's like watching a bad play. There's no emotional connection because you don't believe in what they're saying. But I really like the dinosaur scenes and Kong's fight with the T-Rex. That will always be entertaining. In Jackson's Kong I think they found a really nice middle ground to apply the dialogue and I think it was all played out pretty well. But what kills that film for me is Jackson takes the material TOO SERIOUS. Naomi Watts dances for Kong, goes on ridiculous, impossible rides, down the vines while Kong fights a T-Rex. And even slides on the ice with Kong. It's overkill. It becomes a shaggy dog story with an Old Yeller ending. That film loses it's traction because Jackson tries to find meaning where there isn't any and desperately wants to give everyone a tour of the island instead of sticking to the story. In trying to take it so serious he actually exploits it's campy tendencies.

To me, Kong '76 offers the best in what can be pulled from the concept. Give us a pretty girl. Give us a connection between her and Kong that we sympathize with. And give us a villain that we like seeing Kong kill. Then give us a heart felt moment as Kong dies. I think this film does that really well, while winking along the way. And I don't think the 'winks' compete with (or undermine) the dramatic elements. So when the film ends, I think it has captured everything the concept can convey as a fantasy piece. But I like what you had to say Mego73 and I think you make solid points too. Kong '76 is no masterpiece of film making. And I would NEVER suggest it. But I will always defend it when you get some of these '33 purists who start pounding their chests claiming that Dino p*ssed all over their little 'wanna-be' Shakespearean play. Anytime I hear that, I just want to stand up in the virtual classroom and say, "You need to go home and rethink that. The concept is not that deep. Pick the one you like the most and move on." All three have their strengths and are fun to watch. That's the concept talking. But I have never understood this irrational beating a few like to give the '76 version. I just find that bizarre.

[Mikey]

I can't stand Jack Black, so he ruins the new Kong for me...

If they would have cast ANYONE else I would have liked it a lot better ...

I never cared for Kong '76 because I thought it was kinda boring (yes, I said boring ) LOL

The "guy in a suit" stuff don't really bother me - I love Japanese giant monster movies

[mego73]

To undercrank it takes much more lighting. I am wondering if it was budget or the fact that Rick Baker was already suffering in that Kong suit (more lighting would make things even hotter for him) that kept them from doing it more.

I don't think of Kong '33 as having bad dialogue persay. I always thought of it as straightforward, operatic and of the fashion of the period. The archtypes that are now worn out (intrepid macho explorers, damsels in distress) were pretty new back then. Talking movies were even still new back then and the acting in movies still were keying on how people were performing on stage, bombastically and bluntly.

I liked how Jackson was attempting more depth in his Kong, alluding to "Hearts of Darkness" and such. Still, with all that attempt at depth you have to wonder why he set the NYC scenes in wintertime which had you a bit distracted wondering why Ann wasn't feeezing her keester off in her time with Kong. He might've gone overboard with the serious approach but I tended to think he was asserting that Kong was part of our American mythology and was treating it as such.

But like I said I enjoy all 3 Kongs and didn't like that this blogger seemed to only want to dump on 76.

I never thought about the idea of undercranking the camera to lend more weight to Kong's scale. That's a very good point Mego73. I've been watching this film so long, it's something I just never considered and your perspective makes alot of sense. Well said. I didn't have any problems with the Jeff Bridges character because his story responsibilities (from a social perspective) are as the environmentalist against greedy corporate America, who are stripping the world of it's resources. Grodin plays a weaselly opportunist who looks for any angle to gain notoriety for his interests. So Bridges plays off of Grodin nicely. I like that dynamic, especially since that was such a big issue back in the mid 70's and even more so today. They're fighting about that very issue in Washington right now.

The camp quality is something I just have a different opinion about. The very concept of Kong is pretty campy. I don't think you can get away from that no matter how many times the film is made. So the trick, in my eyes, is to decide where to embrace it and where to back off it. For me, the dialogue in Kong '33 is so bad and said with such bland insincerity, it's just laughable. It's like watching a bad play. There's no emotional connection because you don't believe in what they're saying. But I really like the dinosaur scenes and Kong's fight with the T-Rex. That will always be entertaining. In Jackson's Kong I think they found a really nice middle ground to apply the dialogue and I think it was all played out pretty well. But what kills that film for me is Jackson takes the material TOO SERIOUS. Naomi Watts dances for Kong, goes on ridiculous, impossible rides, down the vines while Kong fights a T-Rex. And even slides on the ice with Kong. It's overkill. It becomes a shaggy dog story with an Old Yeller ending. That film loses it's traction because Jackson tries to find meaning where there isn't any and desperately wants to give everyone a tour of the island instead of sticking to the story. In trying to take it so serious he actually exploits it's campy tendencies.

To me, Kong '76 offers the best in what can be pulled from the concept. Give us a pretty girl. Give us a connection between her and Kong that we sympathize with. And give us a villain that we like seeing Kong kill. Then give us a heart felt moment as Kong dies. I think this film does that really well, while winking along the way. And I don't think the 'winks' compete with (or undermine) the dramatic elements. So when the film ends, I think it has captured everything the concept can convey as a fantasy piece. But I like what you had to say Mego73 and I think you make solid points too. Kong '76 is no masterpiece of film making. And I would NEVER suggest it. But I will always defend it when you get some of these '33 purists who start pounding their chests claiming that Dino p*ssed all over their little 'wanna-be' Shakespearean play. Anytime I hear that, I just want to stand up in the virtual classroom and say, "You need to go home and rethink that. The concept is not that deep. Pick the one you like the most and move on." All three have their strengths and are fun to watch. That's the concept talking. But I have never understood this irrational beating a few like to give the '76 version. I just find that bizarre.

[ddgaff1132]

Gotta point this out. It's OVERCRANKING!!! Undercranking is used to speed up a scene. Like a car chase or Charlie Chaplin chase scene. Overcranking exposes more frames per second and appears slower when projected in normal 1/24 frame speed... Sorry. Its a pet peeve.
The other point I wanted to interject was an under lying myth of the time (1930). In those days many people were getting thrills from exploits of Frank Buck and other exotic animal hunters. These guys got big press in news reals and papers. Capturing dangerous animals for zoo's and circus's and just hunting and killing them. About this time. An outrageous myth started that you couldn't take a female into the wilds of Africa because she would attract gorilla's. (Especially if she was menstruating.) Some low brow films even covered this myth with less candor. But in general. Its just a depiction of a fear some men harbor. That since men have become civilized. Our Females can be easily swayed away by some caveman type.
I think Jane Goodall disproved this myth.
Kong 33 still tops my list. I love stop motion animation and this is its peek. I love it for what it is and for its time.
Jackson's version echoes this. That is why its 2nd runner up
Spaghetti Kong I try to avoid. Too much tree hugging hippy crap! It wants to be epic and just becomes a spectacle (And not in a good way.) And the sequel just proves the point that they had no idea what the heck they were doing!

[Brazoo]

To me, the original King Kong is unmatched. The production was groundbreaking, it's one of the true icons of film history, and it's a purely cinematic experience. The history of the film is part of that experience - and that is something you can't ever get in a remake.

Personally, I don't find it racist or particularly sexist. I'd argue that in some ways it's fairly progressive for it's time - but that's a whole other essay in itself.

Off-hand I can't remember where any women being slapped. I am slightly senile though. Was it a "snap out of it" slap?

___

I think MIB41 has some great points about the nature of the story being taken too seriously by some - "weaving a hidden novel into". To me, Jackson's movie is kinda like that - too much character psychology on one end - too much cartoony spectacle on the other.

Personally, I'm not excited about the 70s remake - but that's just me. The '33 version happens to be one of my favorite movies - but different strokes...

[mego73]

Yeah, I realized I miswrote what I meant about film speed

Gotta point this out. It's OVERCRANKING!!! Undercranking is used to speed up a scene. Like a car chase or Charlie Chaplin chase scene. Overcranking exposes more frames per second and appears slower when projected in normal 1/24 frame speed... Sorry. Its a pet peeve.
The other point I wanted to interject was an under lying myth of the time (1930). In those days many people were getting thrills from exploits of Frank Buck and other exotic animal hunters. These guys got big press in news reals and papers. Capturing dangerous animals for zoo's and circus's and just hunting and killing them. About this time. An outrageous myth started that you couldn't take a female into the wilds of Africa because she would attract gorilla's. (Especially if she was menstruating.) Some low brow films even covered this myth with less candor. But in general. Its just a depiction of a fear some men harbor. That since men have become civilized. Our Females can be easily swayed away by some caveman type.
I think Jane Goodall disproved this myth.
Kong 33 still tops my list. I love stop motion animation and this is its peek. I love it for what it is and for its time.
Jackson's version echoes this. That is why its 2nd runner up
Spaghetti Kong I try to avoid. Too much tree hugging hippy crap! It wants to be epic and just becomes a spectacle (And not in a good way.) And the sequel just proves the point that they had no idea what the heck they were doing!

[LadyZod]

I live with a man who worships the 76 Kong.

I'm biased.