...how they got Kong back to New York???
I would have gladly sacrificed an hour out of the existing movie (particularly the interminable chase/fight scenes on the island, and the overextended ending) so that they could go into detail on that most logistical challenge.
They caged him and used a boat.
"'Extremely High Voltage.' Well, I don't need safety gloves, because I'm Homer Sim--" - Frank Grimes
Well, yeah, of course... but HOW? Think of the logistics involved!
Look for that on the directors cut. Look for the infamous nude scene between Jack Black and the scraggly native woman....
share[deleted]
kicke_blueblack,
I'm delighted you found my question so amusing. Perhaps you'd be so good as to explain what, exactly, King Kong being a fantasy movie has to do with the unexplained logistics of bringing him back to NY? Does not a fantasy -- especially one involving normal human characters -- have to abide by certain rules? Would we accept the humans sprouting wings and flying to the moon as being just part of the fantasy? No, if anything, a movie with fantastic elements should be MORE observant of general physical rules. Without them, a film would feel like a ridiculous free-for-all. Just because there is a giant ape fighting a prehistoric monster does not mean that I would accept someone twitching their nose and having Kong magically transported from one place to another. Furthermore, the logistical details would have added a particularly fascinating element to the story.
[deleted]
>> However, I couldn't even bother to read more
>> than one or two sentences of this post.
Yes, I figured you were not the type of person to make much of an effort at anything.
I think we're done here.
[deleted]
That's not really the point of the story. I mean, yeah, I'd like to know how to, but the point of the story is man's exploitation.
"I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but I am."
-V for Vendetta
I always used to wonder how they got Kong off the boat in New York and into the theater without anyone noticing. That, and the ship just seemed too small to carry him. So I get what you're saying.
In the 1976 version, there is an act that describes exactly what you're asking about, where they are on board the ship on their way back to NY with Kong in the cargo hold (it's an oil tanker).
The difference is that in the 2005 version, Denham was still intent on having Baxter play the leading man role in the upcoming show in NY. Once Kong was captured and Darrow rescued, Denham had no further use for Driscoll. The 1976 version, on the other hand, didn't have a Baxter character and Fred Wilson therefore (the Carl Denham character) was offering the leading man role to Prescott, who by then had a more established romantic relationship with Dwan than Driscoll did with Anne Darrow.
Thus, the scenes in question explored a dynamic which simply didn't exist in the 2005 version. And I'm not sure if there were any other compelling reason to add a similar act to the 2005 movie, which wasn't big on showcasing logistics in the first place.
Yeah, I always thought the 1976 version was the only one that had a viable way of transporting Kong from Skull Island to NYC. A team of helicopters pick him off the island out to the tanker and off to the big city!
shareIn the original, Denham did build a raft (Or at least said he was going to)
shareIt's possible they could of have had him on a raft, if not got rid of some of those extra animal cages and dosed him regularly to keep him immobile.
shareI would take out a lot of the scenes on the boat. Some of it was kind of dumb. Like showing Jack type on a type writer in slow motion.
share