Overrated beyond belief? - King Kong (1933) Discussion

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

Very true it had no Oscar nomination while the 1976 remake had two Oscar nominations and won the Visual Effects statue.

reply

"Very true it had no Oscar nomination while the 1976 remake had two Oscar nominations and won the Visual Effects statue."

Just wanted to clarify something here - special effects weren't given Oscars in those days, at least not when "Kong" had been released (although producer and then-production head of RKO David O. Selznick really tried to get Willis O'Brien's work recognized by the Academy Board of Governors). In fact, Oscars for visuals effects only came about in 1938.

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

Colin, it is not just fans that love the movie, but as Peter Jackson has stated, it is probably the one film that has inspired more filmmakers than any other. And I am not talking about just special effects artists like Ray Harryhausen and Eiji Tsuburaya. Directors like John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells and of course later on with George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Jackson. Heck, the movies you mentioned probably would not have been possible without KING KONG.

And the movie has endured, not because of the special effects, but because of King Kong himself. He is the ultimate tragic character - monstrous and frightful, but he was also mortal as well, and through no fault of his own, met a horrible demise. Yes, he was a stop-motion puppet, but he showed more personality, more dimension than a lot of actors I've seen.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

I'm not complaining about the stop-motion puppet. I'm complaining about the fact that the movie has nothing going for it other than some admittedly very impressive effects.

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

It was the ultimate escapist adventure story (at a time when people needed escaping). And it is a tragic tale as well. You are not complaining about the stop-motion Kong puppet, but not giving him his due either. It is just like Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN. A tragic character who made the whole thing memorable.

Special effects alone are not the only ingredient for making classic movies. Cecil B. DeMille's films from that period (from the 1920s to the early 1940s) were chalk full of great special effects, but aside from film buffs, no one really talks about them, or they are not as fondly remembered as KING KONG because there was really no one memorable character to help carry the movie and take it to the next level.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

That last paragraph is my exact point
Yes, I get that this is a tragedy, but I couldn't get into the characters due to bad writing and the odd bit of hammy acting. While the effects are great, the film itself didn't have enough for me to get into it.
Which pulls me back to my point in the first place: is this film just grossly overrated?
I couldn't get sucked into Kong as a character, because all I saw was an impressive but still very obviously stop-motion ape.
I also just want to clarify, if this movie went goofy, then I could enjoy it more. I love the original Godizlla movies for that exact reason. But everyone harps on this movie for being heart-breaking, and a love-story, and I just can't get it.
Taking the special effects argument out of this, I enjoyed 'Godzilla Vs King Kong' more than I enjoyed any actual 'King Kong' movie to date.

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

But, what were you expecting? In terms of the acting, try to remember that acting methods were a lot different than they are today. Look at any movie from that period including the celebrated ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. Very different from what you see today, and yes, there was a bit of hammy acting in that picture.

In terms of bad writing, how would you have approached the story? Keep in mind, this is a movie about a giant ape in a lost world full of dinosaurs. Eliminate the dinos? Heck, eliminate the ape?!

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

If I was in the 30's, I'd have done it something like a Godzilla movie.
Giant monster destroys stuff, FIN.
But if I were Peter Jackson and doing a remake, I'd do it a little more cleverly, with lines like 'problematic evolutionary chains' and 'unknown sub-species' and junk like that.

Also, when I mentioned the writing, I meant the stuff that they parodied in the remake, like
'I've never been on a ship before!'
'I've never been on one with a WOMAN before!'

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

Also, when I mentioned the writing, I meant the stuff that they parodied in the remake, like
'I've never been on a ship before!'
'I've never been on one with a WOMAN before!'

Actually, that was all based on true events. The screenplay for KING KONG was written by Ruth Rose. The first time she went on a ship, she told this big husky guy exactly that, and the guy responded the with those same words as in the movie. It turns out the guy she talked to was Ernest Schoedsack the future director of KING KONG. As it was, they did fall in love in that ship and would marry not too long afterwards. In essance, Schoedsack was Driscoll, Ruth Rose was Ann Darrow and Denham was based on Kong creator Merian C. Cooper, who was just as eccentric as Robert Armstrong had portrayed him.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

Well, regardless it was still pretty badly written. I mean, you have to admit, that's pretty sexist.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

Well, regardless it was still pretty badly written. I mean, you have to admit, that's pretty sexist.

You do realise that this was written 80 years ago when man's attitude was totally different towards women and the roles were generally; man the breadwinner and woman the housekeeper etc. The chances of a woman being on a cargo ship, being the only woman, sailing through South East Asia would have been very limited at best. So he is not wrong with his assumption.
As to it being badly written, well the script certainly wouldn't win any Oscars but it says what it needs to and is far more to the point than Jackson's remake.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

So by that logic films where the word *beep* is flung left right and centre are okay now because that's just how it was back then?

Oh, and what about the line
'Hey, I think I love you.'
Comes right out of nowhere and is unimaginative as all hell.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

I never said it was right but I can't simply build a time machine and show them the errors of their ways. I just see how cultures change over the years and can identify with the times. Going by the "that's offensive logic" most films would fall into that category. For example calling Germans, Nazis and Krauts is demeaning, yet people happily use those terms. Any number of Tarrentino films are racist most contain the n word. Many adverts today centre on the formula that man is an imbecile and the woman is cool, calm and in control.
As for the love scene between Ann and Jack that is pretty much how Rose (the writer) met her husband Ernest (the producer). I am sure I have used far worse chat up lines in a night club than Jack's line lol.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

Yeah, but Tarantino makes explotation films. xD

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

As to your original question I guess it is down to opinion. You mention Star Wars as having a better story line and effects. That may will be true but for me I hated the last 3 films and was indifferent to the first 3. The only scene that really sticks out for me is the battle of Hoth, but that is just my view.

A lot of people will agree with you that the main selling point of this film is the effects. I have seen this film described as a B movie with A movie effects. Whilst I appreciate the first 20 minutes of this film now, I remember as a child finding them boring and just wished they would get to the Island so I could see the monsters.

However this has remained my favourite film for 38 years now, one I have seen countless times and one where I still see things I have never seen before in it. Also whilst not so much now it is meant to be a horror, Kong a caricature of an ape with human characteristics, designed to stir our sub consciousnesses, something I feel the two remakes miss the point totally, with their approach towards a buddy/chick formula (especially the 2005 version with it's overblown silverback). For me it is the story line; Start off in depression hit New York and finish fighting bi planes on top of the ESB. Wow come on that is brilliant thinking, whilst throwing in a few memorable scenes such as the T-rex fight, Kong's assault on the native village and scaring the crap out of everybody who sees him including Ann and my imagination plays overtime even now and that is my point the imagination that this film invokes on me even now is such that I love this film.

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

Well, regardless it was still pretty badly written. I mean, you have to admit, that's pretty sexist.

It may sound corny from today’s point-of-view, but then again, that was how Driscoll was. He never wanted a woman on board, and as we would later find out, he thought they were a nuisance. Believe it or not, sexiest attitudes like that existed! In a strange way, Driscoll was more brutish to Ann than King Kong was. And that actually help make the point. Driscoll is not supposed to be the sympathetic character here. That distinction goes to Kong. Again, it is Kong himself that made the movie memorable.

As to your original question I guess it is down to opinion. You mention Star Wars as having a better story line and effects.

Curiously, among that list was 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY and that movie does have a reputation among some of being nothing more than an empty spectacle. Great effects, great music, but otherwise charmless, and with really no memorable characters other than Hal, and I never found him all that interesting myself.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

I can understand people loving this film, but for me, I just don't get it.
I agree with what you said, B Movie with A Movie effects. To me, it's completely true. The only thing I can see people liking this film for is the effects, which are immensly impressive.

Actually, something I should have said before, the effects are the highlight of the movie to me.
Like you said, the battle with the T-Rex is one of the best bits in the movie, and I've even see a reconstruction of the spider-pit scene, which was mind-blowing as well. The effects are great, and the effects on Skull Island itself are great.
But like I said before, is that all this movie is? JUST good effects? Is there really much else?
I know that it's the Beauty-And-The-Beast story, but when it's a young woman and a literal beast, it's understandable. When it's a young woman and a GIANT FRIGGING APE... it gets a bit kooky. :/

And I agree, the newer Star Wars movies have been terrible. :/
But the original trilogy, particularly 'Empire', will always be gold to me, no matter how much George Lucas tries to bury them alive.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

I see what you are getting at yes the acting does leave a lot to be desired and you are correct in how the effects make the film. Yet unlike many movies that just put in effects for the sake of it, or just to make it look cool, the effects here help make tell the story. Would Star Wars still be held in such high regard without the effects? What is more they had to make the effects look believable. This film still looked great compared to many films that used effects 40 years later.

With Kong, I feel you see more than just an 18 inch puppet covered in rabbit fur, despite everything he has done (native stomping, trashing Manhattan) you still really feel for him on top of the ESB thanks to the love put into him by O'Brien. So yes in a way I guess you are right mediocre acting made better with brilliant (for the time) effects that intertwine perfectly to make a great story.

Though I still put it down to opinion. For example I saw the first 2 Godfather movies, great acting but my God it was boring until the last few minutes of each film. Yet they are considered brilliant films, the same can be said of Citizen Kane and Gone with the Wind as far as I am concerned.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

Yeah, it's understandable.
My problem is that I CAN'T feel for Kong because, despite how impressive the effects are, the concept of a giant ape and a woman falling in love is just bizarre to me. I'm open to weird stories, don't get me wrong. I love the Godzilla movies, for example. But they were having fun with their bizarre idea, whereas Kong is very serious and sombre, with a very tragic ending. And while the ending is indeed very sad, I sitll have trouble actually feeling sorry for a GIANT APE.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

Fair enough it is an extreme telling of Beauty and the Beast I grant you. How ever not once did Ann feel any sympathy towards Kong what so ever not even when he died. She was not only petrified of him but hated him. Something I feel Jackson's remake got wrong by turning them into best friends halfway through. This version, to me anyway, was the most realistic telling. Everyone here, was scared of Kong they either ran away, screamed or died. I think that many people would have reacted the way Ann did in this version.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

Yeah, I probably should have clarified that I'm drawing from all the movies, the original, the 70's remake and the Jackson movie.
Yeah, that was a definite problem with the remake, but I still can't get into the story enough to sympathise with a giant ape.
Like I said, with movies like Godzilla, the original movie is pretty dramatic and even scary at times, but in later movies they realised how ridiculous the idea was, and had fun with it, by introducing characters like Mothra, Rodan, Ghidorah, Mechagodzilla, etc...
With Kong, it's always so serious. Nobody ever makes jokes about it or has a laugh at it. The Kong movies are always so serious and hard-edged, it's too difficult to take them seriously.
Just step back from King Kong for a second, and hear me out here. Just forget about King Kong even existing for a second.

There's this movie where a bunch of people go to an island to film a movie, and discover a giant ape.
Just from that, it does sound kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?
I understand there's more to it than that, but like I said, it's being treated so seriously I just can't get into it.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

Ah the problem of fanboys/girls. I agree that people can be very protective of films they love. I have been banned from a users site on you tube for daring to criticise the film Where Eagles Dare even though my points are valid., or been called childish names by keyboard warriors for daring to express a different opinion that does not coincide with theirs.
With Kong, yes it is meant to be a serious horror movie though there are some things that make me laugh or cringe such as the close ups of him with the bust of his head they used.
As to the story yes can it be seen as ridiculous but no more than any other classic horror films such as the mummy or wolf-man. Even today, movies with an unrealistic premise are made such as the Harry Potter genre.
Though what is amazing is how this film is based on factual accounts that helped make this up. Cooper and Schodersnack were well known explorers who filmed their journeys. Then their bosses complaining that it would make a lot more with a love interest in it.
Cooper had a dream of a giant ape on top of the ESB, coupled with a story he heard about Komodo Dragons being taken from their natural habitat and dying in a zoo within a very short time after their capture which brought about Kong's being.
How Denham met Ann was similar to an account told to him by Steve Clemento (the Witch Doctor) who directed shows on Vaudeville.
A great book to read where you can see the similarities of this movie and the producers lives is; The Making of King Kong by Turner and Goldner.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Ah the problem of fanboys/girls. I agree that people can be very protective of films they love. I have been banned from a users site on you tube for daring to criticise the film Where Eagles Dare even though my points are valid.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Ya bastard! I love that film (hehe).

reply

[–] michael-abatemarco 8 years ago

And Cooper and Schoedsack made cameos as as a fighter pilot and gunner during the climax. Cooper flew several missions during WW I and was shot down twice.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

I've seen this movie, and the 70's remake, and finally the Peter Jackson blockbuster, and every time I just sat there, staring at the screen, asking myself and those around me:
'What's the big deal?'
I don't hate the movie by any means, but I can't understand why so many people fangirl over this movie.

Because it was one of, if not the first, to realise the potential of what was possible in film and Kong himself was likely the first major character born for the movies and not from a play, book, comic strip etc.

King Kong gave us amazing spectacle which you simply could never get from a book or a stage play. It was a real pioneer in that sense and its plaudits are fully justified.

It's also a great great adventure story, with little fluff, and once the story really takes off it almost never slows down. It's bang bang bang.

It has mystery, suspense, thrills, horror, action, spectacle/visuals, love and an incredible amount of atmosphere. It has many variables. It's also amazing how they bring the character of Kong (this little stop motion puppet) to life with all his little quirks and mannerisms.

It has flaws, sure, but it's still an all time classic film and I love it to this day. It's better than either remake.

The most common excuse is 'the effects', which I grant you are very impressive, but other films with amazing effects include 'Star Wars', 'The Invisible Man', '2001: A Space Odyssey', and many others
But these films are praised for much more than their effects, for having amazing stories and characters and mythos and everything else.

I can say the same thing about Star Wars. I was the perfect age for it. I saw it at the cinema age 7 in 1977, but it didn't do a thing for me at all. Today I consider Star Wars to be one of the most overrated films ever made. I thought the story was simply a clichéd war film or western transplanted to space, the characters cardboard and flat, acting average, Guinness looked embarrassed to be in it with dialogue that was childlike etc.

So when you put it in perspective, does 'King Kong' have anything going for it other than it's effects?

Yes, it practically invented the idea of film transporting us to 'another world' in ways that had never really been done like that before. And according to a number of film historians it inspired more people to become film makers than any other film in history.

That last paragraph is my exact point
Yes, I get that this is a tragedy, but I couldn't get into the characters due to bad writing and the odd bit of hammy acting. While the effects are great, the film itself didn't have enough for me to get into it.

Then you don't really love build up and anticipation/expectation in film I suppose. The first 20 minutes of King Kong are an excellent example of wondering about all the mysterious hints and the way the story will pan out. The dialogue is actually pretty good in installing a sense of mystery. All the hints and nods about where they are going, what are they going to find etc. It's actually quite clever and its done in relatively few lines.

If anyone can't get involved in the scenes where the ship's crew meet the natives in a tense confrontation and when Ann is being sacrificed (both which involve no action or special effects at all)then I have to wonder just how much they like film. When the bolt of the giant gate is pulled back and the doors open to spooky blackness, it's wonderful cinema.

I couldn't get sucked into Kong as a character, because all I saw was an impressive but still very obviously stop-motion ape.

...who had quirks and mannerisms similar to the puppeteers behind him.

I also just want to clarify, if this movie went goofy, then I could enjoy it more. I love the original Godizlla movies for that exact reason. But everyone harps on this movie for being heart-breaking, and a love-story, and I just can't get it.

I don't consider it heart breaking and a love story. Most Kong fans wouldn't call it that either. Kong really has to die but the really clever thing about King Kong is that they make us care about him when he dies despite what an aggressive bloodthirsty rampaging beast he was. And that is a very hard thing to pull off. It's all due to the mannerisms and quirks they give Kong.

Godzilla, in contrast, is a one dimensional 'character' and the film is way too serious and up its own backside with it's moralistic nonsense and "poor us" Japanese whining that I don't like it.

Taking the special effects argument out of this, I enjoyed 'Godzilla Vs King Kong' more than I enjoyed any actual 'King Kong' movie to date.

I'd say you loose lot of credibility right there. King Kong v Godzilla is a more or less forgotten pile of cash in rubbish. Complete cheese. Fun when 6 years old but that's it.

But like I said before, is that all this movie is? JUST good effects? Is there really much else?

You didn't notice the undertones of man overcoming/destroying mother nature in the story? Cooper was inspired to dream up King Kong in part because of the Komodo Dragons in the Bronx zoo which were taken away from their natural habitat and succumbed to 'civilisation' and died. Kong has elements of that. There is also the wonder of exploration and journeying to the far flung corner of the globe for thrilling adventure. The directors were real life adventurers to exotic lands. King Kong is not just spectacle.

Yeah, it's understandable.
My problem is that I CAN'T feel for Kong because, despite how impressive the effects are, the concept of a giant ape and a woman falling in love is just bizarre to me.

Neither fall in love. Ann is terrified of Kong and Kong doesn't 'fall in love' with Ann but rather wants her as a trinket or sees her as something like a pretty flower.

You seem ok with the idea of a Wookie piloting a space ship though I see.

I'm open to weird stories, don't get me wrong. I love the Godzilla movies, for example.

The original Gojira is deadly serious, even preaching. There is zero fun in Gojira.

And while the ending is indeed very sad, I sitll have trouble actually feeling sorry for a GIANT APE.

Seriously? Apes are relatives of mankind. Perhaps you'd rather feel sorry for a robot like C3PO.

Yeah, I probably should have clarified that I'm drawing from all the movies, the original, the 70's remake and the Jackson movie......With Kong, it's always so serious. Nobody ever makes jokes about it or has a laugh at it. The Kong movies are always so serious and hard-edged, it's too difficult to take them seriously.

What have you been watching?

King Kong 1976 and Kong Kong 2005 actually have a fair bit of humour in them. You are correct that King Kong 1933 doesn't have as much humour but it does have some. The Chinese cook has humorous moments and even Driscoll has a couple of humorous lines. One example is after Ann calls the skipper a sweet old lamb. Driscoll laughs and says he'd hate to have the skipper hear HIM say that. There are other lines that have humour too but in the main King Kong is supposed to be a serious thrilling adventure horror story.

There's this movie where a bunch of people go to an island to film a movie, and discover a giant ape.
Just from that, it does sound kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

Nowhere near as ridiculous as a 400ft tall giant lizard smashing whole cities underfoot while breathing fire, or Wookies flying space ships and mind control special powers as in Star Wars.

I understand there's more to it than that, but like I said, it's being treated so seriously I just can't get into it.

There is no King Kong aficionado anywhere on this planet who treats the King Kong story as seriously as the most rabid Star Wars fan treats Star Wars and none of us dress up or fantasise about being actual characters from the film. Your geeky Star Wars fans do and many even put down Jedi as their religion...and some of them are being serious. They are quite nuts.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 10 years ago

Well, that was a mouthful
First, I LOVE suspense and build-up in a movie. One of my favourite movies is 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind'. It's just that I couldn't get into the mystery of the Kong movie itself
Like, in CE3K, we know it's aliens, but it's the sheer amount of build up to them that's great. They don't even appear until the final 10 minutes of the movie, and even then it's briefly. The rest of the movie is just building them up, and the pay off is great.

Also, I like Star Wars. You don't. You like Kong, I don't.
I didn't insult you for liking what I consider to be a piece of *beep* movie, but since you started insulting me for my differing tastes, I might as well continue with you.
Kindly get off your high horse and stop insulting people for being so fanatical about what is truly a great trilogy of movies.
You hate them. Congrats. I hate Kong. But I'm not sitting in my ivory tower, laughing at the little people with their plastic ape masks for being so childish.
The very beauty about being a fan about something is just that. You love something so much you'll incorporate it into every aspect of your life, no matter what other people might think about it.
You can laugh and scoff at Star Wars fans if you want, but in reality, they're a lot happier than you clearly are.
Star Wars fans are some of the most vocal people in the world because they're so happy with loving such a great franchise that they don't care if they look weird. They don't care if people laugh at them.
Hell, I'm the same way with superheroes. I recently went into Hamley's, a huge toyshop, and bought some Lego Marvel toys to build and stick on my shelf because I love Marvel that much. The cashier and the people behind me gave me weird looks, but if there hadn't been kids there, I'd have waltzed out of there giving them all the finger for acting like there's something wrong with a person loving a franchise.
At the end of the day, it comes down to who's happy with what. And I, like many other people, am happy with Star Wars. But if you are so deeply insecure about what you like that you actually have to go around mocking other people for what they like, then I truly weep for you. My heart is breaking at the thought of you never being able to be comfortable with what you love.

And all of the 'mysterious hints' aren't that mysterious when you know they're going to a place called Skull Island to find a giant ape.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Well, that was a mouthful
First, I LOVE suspense and build-up in a movie. One of my favourite movies is 'Close Encounters Of The Third Kind'. It's just that I couldn't get into the mystery of the Kong movie itself

Well there you go. The type of story of King Kong just isn't your kind of thing. Or you just can't appreciate 80 year old films in black and white and from an era when the talkies hadn't long come by and the acting is a lot different to today's or even from the films of the 1940s to 1970s. Doesn't mean the film is *beep* just because YOU can't appreciate it.

Like, in CE3K, we know it's aliens, but it's the sheer amount of build up to them that's great. They don't even appear until the final 10 minutes of the movie, and even then it's briefly. The rest of the movie is just building them up, and the pay off is great.

As it is in King Kong.

Also, I like Star Wars. You don't. You like Kong, I don't.

But I'm not going to the Star Wars boards trashing it. See the difference?

I didn't insult you for liking what I consider to be a piece of *beep* movie,

And I didn't insult you in my previous post. Please point out where I insulted you in particular. I made no mention that YOU were a geek who declared his religion to be Jedi and who dresses up as characters out of Star Wars and fantasises that he/she wishes to be like them. I said 'your geeky Star Wars fans' and I never said that all people who like Star Wars are geeks. Just the ones that go overboard about it. I only said some of them are nuts......but now that you have appeared to have taken personal offence at this it appears you might be one of those very people. Does the truth hurt?

Also I have never called Star Wars a "piece of *beep* movie.". It clearly isn't. Neither is King Kong 1933. Only a buffoon and a cinematic ignoramus would refer to an all time classic movie like King Kong 1933 or Star Wars as a "piece of *beep*" so again you have outed yourself as somebody who really doesn't know very much what he/she is talking about.

but since you started insulting me for my differing tastes,

Which I never did. I never insulted YOU PERSONALLY previously.

I might as well continue with you.

Thanks. This is easy.

Kindly get off your high horse and stop insulting people for being so fanatical about what is truly a great trilogy of movies.

People who refer to their religion seriously as Jedi and dress up as their heroes in Star Wars and fantasise about them and take the films very seriously are just asking to have the piss taken out of them. It's that simple, chum.

You hate them.

Hehe I don't 'hate' the Star Wars movies. I am indifferent to them and I certainly wouldn't waste my time on the IMDB boards of Star Wars trashing the movie. I only mentioned Star Wars because YOU brought it up.

Congrats. I hate Kong.

Sad. Extremely sad to have hate over an old movie that is hardly even in the mass public consciousness much these days.

But I'm not sitting in my ivory tower, laughing at the little people with their plastic ape masks for being so childish.

That's because there are no people dressing up as Kong or taking the film ultra seriously. Your point is a ridiculous one. Grown adult aficionados of King Kong do NOT go around dressing up as an ape or fantasise about being on Skull Island hehe. We just like it as a film. No more than that.

The very beauty about being a fan about something is just that. You love something so much you'll incorporate it into every aspect of your life, no matter what other people might think about it.

Every aspect of your life? Wow so do you wear a Wookie mask when shagging your girlfriend or boyfriend?

Weird.

Jaws is my absolute favourite movie of all time but I don't take Jaws into every aspect of my life or fantasise about it. It's just a film.

You can laugh and scoff at Star Wars fans if you want, but in reality, they're a lot happier than you clearly are.

Hehe and how exactly would you know how happy I am or not? I have just come back from a nice holiday abroad and I have a new relationship with a wonderful and beautiful woman. I couldn't be happier. Thanks. It's amazing how after just one post, some internet clever cloggs think they 'know you'.

Star Wars fans are some of the most vocal people in the world because they're so happy with loving such a great franchise that they don't care if they look weird. They don't care if people laugh at them.

Boy you really go on and on about defending Star Wars in your post...but yet you've countered NOTHING with regards to my eloquent defence of the nuances in King Kong.

Hell, I'm the same way with superheroes. I recently went into Hamley's, a huge toyshop,

I do know what Hamley's is thanks. I was going there likely before you were even born.

and bought some Lego Marvel toys to build and stick on my shelf because I love Marvel that much. The cashier and the people behind me gave me weird looks, but if there hadn't been kids there, I'd have waltzed out of there giving them all the finger for acting like there's something wrong with a person loving a franchise.

Big difference between loving a franchise and being completely obsessed with it, fantasising over it and declaring your religion to be Jedi.

I'm a Marvel fan too. I was reading Marvel comics in the 1970s. My favourite artists are John Romita Snr, Jack Kirby and John Buscema. I still have a large collection of comics up in the loft and I have most of the Marvel films on DVD. I will be taking my nephew to see Captain America The Winter Soldier and Amazing Spider-Man 2 soon.

But again, I'm not obsessed with it and nor do I take Marvel too seriously.

At the end of the day, it comes down to who's happy with what. And I, like many other people, am happy with Star Wars.

Yeah I get it. You've made that point...again and again and again. Why don't you tell me some more how you just love Star Wars? I didn't hear you the first *beep* time, sunshine.

But if you are so deeply insecure about what you like that you actually have to go around mocking other people for what they like, then I truly weep for you.

Why would I be insecure about liking women, whisky, foreign travel, football, military history, camping, hiking, mountain biking, cooking etc etc?

I have never once gone to the Star Wars board mocking people for liking Star Wars. YOU, however, DID come to the King Kong board mocking and lambasting King Kong while at the same time declaring your love for Star Wars. You came here. I didn't go there. You put YOURSELF in the position to be shot down. If you don't like the result then don't engage in such silliness to begin with.

My heart is breaking at the thought of you never being able to be comfortable with what you love.

See above.

And all of the 'mysterious hints' aren't that mysterious when you know they're going to a place called Skull Island to find a giant ape.

Ah a smart arse. That's like saying CE3K or Jaws aren't suspenseful and thrilling because we know the Aliens visit and the shark dies at the end of those films.

Have a word with yourself son. Your babblings are inane and empty and your posts are full of hypocrisy and contradictions. You don't appear to make any sort of cohesive sense.

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

I'm both a Star Wars and King Kong buff. It's a little much to say King Kong has no grip on the popular consciousness at all, considering it was remade almost a decade ago. It IS fair, though, to say that it's a product of a different time and place and that certain attitudes come off a ridiculous by today's standards.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Edit. Double post.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

It's a little much to say King Kong has no grip on the popular consciousness at all,

But I didn't say that. I said and I quote:

"Extremely sad to have hate over an old movie that is hardly even in the mass public consciousness much these days.""

Not the words "hardly" and "much". I never used the words "no" and "at all".....so I didn't actually said what you though. No worries, just clarifying.

considering it was remade almost a decade ago.

Well I wasn't talking about the Jackson remake. I was talking about the 1933 Kong. It's over 80 years old and that film specifically (not the 2005 remake) isn't much in the public consciousness these days. You cannot really argue that it is. It really isn't. Sure, the iconic image of black and white Kong fighting the biplanes on top of the Empire State Building probably still is but not much of the film still is and how many youngsters know who Fay Wray is? I'm pretty sure most people today couldn't visualise Robert Armstrong and Bruce Cabot from the film and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be able to say what happens in most of the film. Before Jackson's version came out most people didn't even remember there were dinosaurs in the film (the 1976 Kong was more in the modern public consciousness by then). In fact THE big and most often asked question when Jackson's film came out was "whey are there dinosaurs in King Kong?". I used to shake my head at that.

It IS fair, though, to say that it's a product of a different time and place and that certain attitudes come off a ridiculous by today's standards.

Yeah but no person who appreciates film should ever call King Kong 1933 "a piece of *beep* ". Now that would be ridiculous. That is more ridiculous than anything in King Kong. King Kong 1933 quite obviously is not "a piece of *beep* ". Do you agree that it's not a "piece of *beep* "?

What next for these people? Claiming Nosferatu (1922) is a "piece of *beep* " because it's over 90 years old, completely silent with archaic stage like acting and isn't scary in the slightest? Declaring Buster Keaton to be "rubbish"?

There are plenty of things that are 'ridiculous' with some of today's films (yes including Star Wars) so it's not unique to King Kong.

I get really fed up with kids or younger people today who hold everything up to today's standards and are simply incapable of appreciating 80 year old films without judging them by modern standards or mocking what was usual in another era. This shows a complete lack of objectivity and even worse, a complete lack of how just to enjoy a movie no matter how old it is. I can do that. You can probably do that. Other people are incapable.

I grew up with Jaws and Star Wars, CE3K and Superman in the 1970s (saw all of them at the cinema on their first releases) yet I would still enjoy watching King Kong 1933, the 1930s Flash Gordon and Laurel and Hardy etc etc on t.v, and so did my school mates. It's my perception that a larger number of younger people these days have far less capacity to enjoy older stuff than when I was younger and are far more cynical and mocking about 'old stuff'. It gets annoying.

Do ignorant kids today expect to turn on King Kong 1933 and see the same or similar things we see in modern movies, including the lingo and slang and the way of acting? Are they that dense that they become 'shocked' when it looks and feels old and dated? My goodness!!! Incredible. Heck I've even heard some young folks, like the OP, whine about the way Driscoll comes across in the film....yet that is what many men of the era were like. Men of few words, a bit sexist, not good with showing their emotions and awkward with them In fact Jack Driscoll reminds me a lot of my grand father (born in 1910). He even looks kind of like him.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

does 'King Kong' have anything going for it other than it's effects?

Another classic aspect of King Kong besides the effect and the feeling on wonder/adventure/thrill on screen is the use of the score.

Max Steiner's King Kong score is often referred to as the grandfather of the movie score. It was the first time such a vast and complex score was used to accompany the visuals and the score was a major part of the overall experience with leitmotifs for both Ann and Kong. The score is very very important in the history of film music.

On top of that the sound effects (separate to the visual effects) were also quite revolutionary and very important for film history. All those jungle sounds, animal sounds and whatnot were quite unique for the time. They couldn't just pick them out of the sound library. They had to come up with them, using interesting techniques.

""To create Kong's roar, Spivak went to Selig Zoo and recorded the growls of lions and tigers. He spliced the growl together and then played them backwards at a really low speed (which lowered their tone an octave, making the growls sound like they coming out of much bigger animals) as he re-recorded them. [...] For Kong's distinctive love grunts, Spivak recorded himself grunting into a megaphone and then re-recorded the results at slow speed.
To create the sound of Kong's footsteps, Spivak wrapped plungers in foam rubber and stomped them across a box filled with gravel.
Kong's chest beats proved to be one of Spivak's biggest challenges. Spivak tried striking his assistant Walter Elliott on the chest with the drumstick while a microphone was held up to Elliott's back. The resulting sound was the one they ended up using.
On the advice of a vertebrate paleontologist from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Spivak decided to have the dinosaurs hiss and croak rather than roar. To create the hissing sound, Spivak recorded the noises from a compressed air machine. He did the croaking himself. For the T-rex, Spivak mixed in a backward recording of a panther growl. Spivak used an elephant's roar for the Triceratopses (before they were cut, of course) and some bird squawks for the Pteranodon. Bellows were employed to create the sound of the creatures' heavy breathing. All of the sounds were re-recorded at a slow speed to create a lower tone.""

Remember this was only a few years after sound in movies began. King Kong has a hell of a lot of sound throughout the film as well as a hell of a lot of visuals.

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

Actually, I agree with just about every point you made, and I appreciate your clarifying things

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

No worries man. Greetings!!

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

Some great points made Buddy and unfortunately all too true. I wonder if people will still hold the last 3 Star Wars movies (and Return Of The Jedi, which was a 2 hour advert for Palitoy/Kenner toy products) in such high regard as Kong 80 years after they were made. Hell even PJ's Kong is now almost forgotten about.
By the way, correct me if I am wrong but why do people class their religion as Jedi when (as far as I remember) Jedi was a race of people with special powers, therefore not a religion.
Sorry about my quip on Where Eagles Dare great story line and music and it would make for an awesome video game lol.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Some great points made Buddy and unfortunately all too true. I wonder if people will still hold the last 3 Star Wars movies (and Return Of The Jedi, which was a 2 hour advert for Palitoy/Kenner toy products) in such high regard as Kong 80 years after they were made. Hell even PJ's Kong is now almost forgotten about.

Thanks. I haven't actually seen any of the 3 Star Wars prequels properly, only snippets. They don't interest me, even as a curiosity. So I couldn't say. But from what I can gather they don't seem to be highly rated (except amongst die hard fans) by the general public who have seen them.

You are right about Jackson's King Kong. It didn't really even make that big a splash when it came out. In fact I'd say Kong 1976 made a bigger splash and was more popular in it's time than Kong 2005 was in it's, despite the sucky up reviews it got at the time.

By the way, correct me if I am wrong but why do people class their religion as Jedi when (as far as I remember) Jedi was a race of people with special powers, therefore not a religion.

Hehe I have no idea. I can't answer that.

Sorry about my quip on Where Eagles Dare great story line and music and it would make for an awesome video game lol.

Ah it's ok. I was only joking. I love the film but take it for what it is, a knockabout Boys Own adventure story.......with the most incompetent and stupid German troops ever seen on film. Maybe that's why they were stationed in the quiet section of the Bavarian mountains instead of on the Russian Front? The German high command didn't want them anywhere near the real German soldiers. LOL.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

Thanks for the reply. I agree about the reference to Kong 76 and 05. I remember being 6 when the 76 version was released and the promotion it received over here in Britain. I don't think any film has had as much publicity over here before or since. There were features done on it in kids magazines, children news and other programs. I remember my dad taking me to see it at the cinema and there were the posters of him on top of the Twin Towers clutching the never used jets on every bill board. Most of the info I got for the 05 version was via the kong is king net (ok perhaps things would have been different if the internet had been around in the 70's).

Like you said the 05 version was quickly forgotten about. I could get the blu ray for a couple of pounds now easily. Unfortunately unlike the 76 version which was a re-imaging of the original and is very good in its own right. Especially the story PJ missed the point. Kong was an overblown Silverback as opposed to some hybrid humanoid ape creature designed to stir our subconsciousness, the best friends forever act was not the point of the original. In that one everyone was petrified of him. The bad cgi in various sequences such as the bronto stampede and the over padding of the story line. A great example of this is at the beginning when we are treated to 10 minutes of film to show us the depression. When the original covered it in about 10 seconds with Denham looking at the line of women outside the refuge centre. Though I will say the one thing that was done brilliantly was the ESB section I still get vertigo from watching that lol.

As for Where Eagles Dare yeah they were the classic caricature of the "useless goon" though I suspect that an ACME salesman had just made a killing selling their line of bullets, grenades and vehicles with highly volatile engines. Sorry I forgot to add the scenery was also amazing.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Thanks for the reply. I agree about the reference to Kong 76 and 05. I remember being 6 when the 76 version was released and the promotion it received over here in Britain. I don't think any film has had as much publicity over here before or since. There were features done on it in kids magazines, children news and other programs. I remember my dad taking me to see it at the cinema and there were the posters of him on top of the Twin Towers clutching the never used jets on every bill board.

I was about the same age as you so I can vouch for that, although I'd say Jaws had more promotion the year before. Or at least it seemed to be more talked about and anticipated. But yeah I do at least remember the King Kong poster everywhere. It was a real big deal here.

I'm from Britain too by the way.

Most of the info I got for the 05 version was via the kong is king net (ok perhaps things would have been different if the internet had been around in the 70's).

Yeah that's true. The non internet publicity for Kong '05 was pretty weak.

Like you said the 05 version was quickly forgotten about. I could get the blu ray for a couple of pounds now easily. Unfortunately unlike the 76 version which was a re-imaging of the original and is very good in its own right. Especially the story PJ missed the point. Kong was an overblown Silverback as opposed to some hybrid humanoid ape creature designed to stir our subconsciousness, the best friends forever act was not the point of the original.

Oh geez yes, tell me about it. I will say though that after they went for silverback gorilla Kong, I do think they brought him to life brilliantly and the Kong realisation in '05 is better than in '76. The big disappointment in Kong '76 is the full size Kong. The close up face is super though.

But yeah I wish they had made Kong '05 more unique and more prehistoric ape 'like' creature...not just a giant silverback.

In that one everyone was petrified of him.

Yes so true. The original '33 Kong was a terrifying beast. The '76 Kong was not as terrifying but he could still get brutal. The '05 Kong was overly sympathetic (for the audience)and he only ever carried out his acts as a reaction to being treated harshly. My goodness, the '05 Kong even runs away from the search party on his island when he hears them coming after him. That's not 'Kong'. What was Jackson thinking?

The bad cgi in various sequences such as the bronto stampede and the over padding of the story line.

I really don't care for the vast majority of the island interior segment of the film. Every set piece action scene is stretched out to the point of tedium and the scenarios are overly silly/fantasy.

A great example of this is at the beginning when we are treated to 10 minutes of film to show us the depression. When the original covered it in about 10 seconds with Denham looking at the line of women outside the refuge centre.

Yep, in the '05 film it was 20 minutes before they even left the island. Both Kong '33 and Kong '76 were at the island by that point.

Kong '76 of course begins just as they depart for the island.

Though I will say the one thing that was done brilliantly was the ESB section I still get vertigo from watching that lol.

I agree. I actually really really like the whole New York part of Kong '05 and that ESB climax is great.

As for Where Eagles Dare yeah they were the classic caricature of the "useless goon" though I suspect that an ACME salesman had just made a killing selling their line of bullets, grenades and vehicles with highly volatile engines

Yeah I hear ya, but I still love it. That and Kelly's Heroes. Same kind of thing.

Sorry I forgot to add the scenery was also amazing.

Speaking of that, I've actually been where they filmed it. I was in the Bavarian Alps camping and hiking then I took a little trip down to Werfen, south of Salzburg, in Austria. Burg Hohenwerfen is there and that was the castle used in the film, although its not as high up as the movie makes us believe. Lovely scenery indeed.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 10 years ago

I forgot about Jaws, another fantastic film. Yes there was a lot of publicity for it I remember a few of us wearing cloth badges of the big shark on our jackets. I probably forgot about that as it was an AA rating and there was no way we would be able to see it unlike Kong which whilst not really for kids with its gory ending we were still allowed to go and see with our parents.

I too was a bit disappointed with the man in the suit job done in this version, especially with all the hype of Kong being a giant robot, that was going around at the time. Though you are right, in saying the mask close ups were excellent and Rick Baker does a pretty good job overall. Despite some cheesy lines (though I am a fan of Batman and Lorenzo Semple's writing, I still think they should have put up a couple of KAPOW/WAMMO captions when he smacks the helicopters lol) I think it is still a good addition, far superior to those Japanese efforts and I keep hoping they will release the extended version of it one day.

Wow I bet that was a great trip. The closest I got was Innsbruck 30 years ago. A beautiful country and one I would love to visit again one day. As for Kelly's Heroes an absolute classic, especially Odd Ball.

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

I'm a Godzilla buff as well, and shake my head that GODZILLA, KING OF THE MONSTERS! with Raymond Burr gets trashed in comparison with the unadulterated Japanese film, but you couldn't have gotten away with showing Ogata comparing Godzilla to "the atom bomb which still haunts us Japanese" in the mid-Fifties, or a woman on a train saying "First Nagasaki, then this" if you were to show it outside Japan. Even the most liberal Japanese possible (like the director, Ishiro Honda)of the era had little right to be preaching to Americans about anything. The people behind the Americanization kept as much of the anti-nuke theme as they would have dared at that time.

reply

[–] Chrisbc-1 10 years ago

Up until 1993 and Jurassic Park, this movie was as good as it got for kids who loved dinosaurs. The cheaply done dinosaur films of the 70's and 80's pale in comparison to Willis H. O'Brien's intricate stop motion animation. I first saw this film around 1987 when I was 5 years old and it was able to turn me into a life long fan when it was over 50 years old. Will 2014 films randomly create new fans in the 2060s? Maybe, maybe not.

reply

[–] FirstBlood1982 10 years ago

The only Kong film I really like is the 2005 version.

I think the acting (particularly Watts and Serkis) is fantastic and the relationship between the two of them was incredibly emotionally resonant. The movie does a great job of balancing different genres, going back and forth between adrenaline-pumpking and heartfelt, the Empire State Building finale would be the best example. I loved moments like Kong and Ann in Central Park and the sunrise scene at the island.

It's a great combination of spectacle, heart and fun...extremely well acted, shot, scored, directed...one of my favorite films.

To me whatever the 1933 film may have been in its era, it holds up as nothing more than unintentional comedy now, and I've always thought the 70's film was terrible.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

I think the acting (particularly Watts and Serkis) is fantastic and the relationship between the two of them was incredibly emotionally resonant. The movie does a great job of balancing different genres, going back and forth between adrenaline-pumpking and heartfelt, the Empire State Building finale would be the best example. I loved moments like Kong and Ann in Central Park and the sunrise scene at the island.

Is this Peter Jackson?

reply

[–] SwissCheeze 10 years ago

I also think Jackson's Kong (although hardly a classic) is a better film. The 1933 film is very charming due to its early 20th century groundbreaking effects, however, it is plagued with one dimensional characters behaving stupidly.

And before anybody claims that I cannot 'appreciate' film from another era, I would like to say that I absolutely adored Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927). A film, like Kong, that was quite groundbreaking for its time and had an epic scope. Metropolis ALSO had plenty of questionable (quite honestly, hammy) acting moments, however the characters in Metropolis were far better written. They were tangible and carried emotional gravitas unlike any of the characters of 1933's Kong.

I completely understand the love for King Kong because it is a classic film. It was groundbreaking at the time. Before Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Avatar, and other films that transport you into a foreign world, there was King Kong. And for that, I think it deserves to be studied and appreciated. However, when I look at it objectively I do find it lacking and at times it even comes across as a comedy (not in a good way). Although I must say, I wouldn't mind owning Kong Kong in my collection, only because it is like owning a piece of time. Its interesting seeing how it contrasts to films today and how people felt about film way back in 1933. I think Kong's seniority (80+ years!) makes it a film worthy of being studied.

reply

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

I also think Jackson's Kong (although hardly a classic) is a better film. The 1933 film is very charming due to its early 20th century groundbreaking effects, however, it is plagued with one dimensional characters behaving stupidly.

Yes, apparently 1933 Denham should have worried more about shooting his film during Ann's rescue (catching guys actually getting killed - what a shot!). 1933 Driscoll should have driven that cab causing damage in even more areas around the city. 1933's Ann Darrow should have gone ice skating with Kong, after Kong has killed people and caused major destruction. Now that is behaving smartly!

reply

[–] Trax-3 9 years ago

Yes, special effects showpiece with cardboard story and characters and wooden acting typical of the horror pictures of the era (though not as bad as some others, I admit).

Someone tried to excuse the acting by mentioning an A picture like All Quiet on the Western Front but that was a very early talkie, by '33 there is really no excuse.
Even DeMille spectacles from around the same time have better acting.

It may sound harsh but I still kind of liked it, it's not a bad movie, just not a great one.

reply

[–] twofacetoo 9 years ago

I half-agree
Old horror films like Dracula, Frankenstein and even the Mummy and Wolf Man movies are actually better in my opinion, since they feature better acting (need I even mention Karloff and Lugosi?), better writing (admittedly taken from another source but even so, it was adapted well into the film with several changes which were still good), and in those cases the effects were lesser but were impressive for the time. In the case of the Invisible Man, the effects they used are still used today.
All in all, I just don't see anything truly appealing about King Kong other than it's effects, which is like saying I enjoyed Titanic for the colour they painted the ship.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]