Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Original Kong Still King


WhyaDuck
 Share

Recommended Posts

Watching TCM as I type this. The original King Kong is on. The way they fimed this and the way Kong moves in this is still the best and so is the musical score to it.

 

They have tried to remake this monkey a few times and both are second rate compared to the original. In the 1970s version you can tell Kong is just a guy in a gorilla suit and that ruins the entire movie. They changed the Empire State building to the Trade Center and added a hippie type look to the whole movie, but its just not very good. Now you have this 21st century version with its computer effects but thats the problem, its too much computer and not enough story. They try to sell it on Kong fights three T Rexs but its not as good. Then there is the lousy King Kong vs Godzilla thats just awful.

 

They might as well quit trying remake this movie because you just can't top the 1930s original. There is music where there should be music. Silence when there should be silence. Great animation and trick photography but ....there is also the story told in a quick moving and dramatic way that keeps you watching because if you miss just a few minutes you miss alot. Very fast paced and I like it that way.

 

If you see or have seen the later versions and go back and watch the original King Kong on TCM, you will see that this original Kong is still King. Great special effects, way ahead of its time, a classic music score and great sound effects. More over is the story that doesn't get cast aside by special effects as the more recent versions have done. Its short and its sweet and its the best. Just watch the different angles and scenes of Kong quickly climbing though New York, such as on different roof tops or climbing different buildings. Its very good and can't be topped ever.

 

Another station is showing the newest version but TCM is showing THE BEST version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>They might as well quit trying remake this movie because you just can't top the 1930s original. There is music where there should be music. Silence when there should be silence. Great animation and trick photography but ....there is also the story told in a quick moving and dramatic way that keeps you watching because if you miss just a few minutes you miss alot. Very fast paced and I like it that way.

 

I agree. The music is outstanding, and it perfectly matches the film in the right places.

 

The story is great.

 

The scenes of the elevated train are outstanding.

 

The Natives are very good and their part is well staged. I wish I knew who the Chief was because he was a perfect actor.

 

Nobody has ever played the girl as well as Fay Wray does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing can touch the 1933 version

This is the granddaddy of the monster movies. This film gets more recognition than the Lost World

King Kong is still superior to many movies from back then to now

I think only a small handful of giant monster movies are right up there than the King, but not quite as good, but that doesnt mean theyre bad are

Beast from 20000 Fathoms

Them

Valley of Gwangi

Honorable mention - Gorgo , Tarantula, Mothra, Rodan, One Million Years BC ..these are also better than most

I think that the only movie about a giant monster that is as good as King Kong, and to many die hards is superior for one reason or another is the immortal

Gojira - Godzilla 1954

I have watched giant monster movies for 30 yrs amazingly..still love em

King Kong still rules :)

but so does Godzilla

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HiYaDuck,

 

though i agree with u on the OG of King Kong movies as usually all originals are the best...there is 1 remake of Kong that i trluy believe standsout of them all plus i have a sweet spot for THAT paticular Kong..sweet eyes i called him.....lol...anyway my fav King Kong without dought was the remake with the GORGOUES Ms.Jessica Lange and the equally gorgoues Mr,Jeff Bridges and the VERY funny Charles Grodin....that version to me was the best...everything about it! First off they stayed the closest to the og then the other ones....the cast was PERFECT....and last but not least the man himself...King Kong was just toooooo sweet!..What eyes....lol..

 

Anyway i actually just watched it a couple nights ago on another channel...heehee...anyway great stuff!!

 

Ty all

AvaG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that the 1970s version with Lange and Bridges was GREAT STUFF. I can't get past the cheap special effects of the guy walking around in a gorilla suit. Its like watching one of those real cheap Godzilla movies. Just a guy in a gorilla suit and its just not as good as the animation in the original, in spite of that mans eyes in the gorilla suit. .......I also took young children to watch this version in the 70s and really didn't expect or need Jessica Langes hooters bared on the big screen. It wan't R rated and I had these 7 and 8 year old children with me. That was an unpleasant surprise. I'm sure Ms Langes hooters were added to sell tickets, but I didn't know that would be in there and for so long. I thought I was taking the kids to see a nice family movie....Wrong !!!! Bridges was Super Hippie and I missed the actors of the original.

 

As for the 2000s version, its all computer effects and no substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duck......lol...

 

First off cheap effects u cant get much cheaper then 1933 as far as cheap effects...lol...and yes even though they werent 2008 Kong effects they certainly were not as bad as u say and as far as taking kids to see it...and how do u say seeing jessica langes HOOTERS....with all due respect the way u SPEAK about a womans breast is about as CHEAP as u can get if u ask me...and a movie any movie....so thats all i have to say to u...oh yea take a chill pill and go learn some manners!

ty

AvaG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey TripleHHH,

 

im great hun..how u doin...i dont think our duck freind is doing very well.but hey u cant please every1...lol...what a mouth...honestly i found it very offensive the way he spoke..and that it was directed to mein response to my thread...talk about cheap..sheeesh...he says kids and hooters in the same breath...and then practiclly crucifies me for my opinoion on a king kong movie...hmmmmmmm

 

anyway its all good..i still thought that version was GREAT STUFF!!! lol'

 

AvaG ;-)

 

Message was edited by: AvaG92260

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don?t think Duck intended to insult ?women? in general. I think he intended to insult the makers of the 1976 version of the movie. The original Kong movie doesn?t need any naked women in it to get people to watch it, and it?s the one that?s known as the ?classic?, not the other two versions.

 

When women?s breasts are shown off in films for the shock effect or to get a few **** to pay to see the film so Dino De Laurentiis can bring in a few thousand extra dollars ? while insulting the vast majority of the rest of us theater-goers ? then we think less of him and the actress. It makes me want to avoid his films and her's too. I didn?t go to see that movie to see her breasts.

 

It was 1970s films like that that finally caused me to stop going to see new movies in theaters. I doubt if I saw another 10 new films in theaters after I saw that one 32 years ago. Before the 1970s, I went to see films in theaters about once a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred...

 

u know i adore u so whatever u say ok..but u need to read it again...i mean he went off the deep end..and hes talking to ME..hes insulting what i said..hes quoteing ME...GREAT STUFF...and in one breath hes ranting and raveing about taking his kids to see it..lol..and then screaming about her hooters,...i mean really! Something is very wrong there..i dont think its such a big deal and honestly when i saw this movie to me it was almost Grated ....lol....i thought Jessica was perfect as the Beautiful, breathy, sexy actress thats what she played...and she played it well..nothing more nothing less and sheeesh what was it 1976 HELLO,...movies were showing a bit of the breast BIG DEAL......anyway again i dont really see what the big deal is...so there..lol

 

how u doin tonight Fred? :-) im watching Rebecca..greaaat movie!

AvaG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are free to like that version best. And of course the breasts didn?t bother you as much as they bothered some of us men. Some of us men believe there is a time and a place for naked breasts, but not in a King Kong movie. I don?t want to see them in a Titanic movie either. Or in a Western movie or a War movie. There are naked breasts in the parade scene in the 1925 Ben Hur movie. That?s ok with me. They are appropriate in a movie about ancient Rome, and they weren?t enlarged to full screen in that film.

 

Duck?s point about the small kids he took to see the movie is a valid point. I think movies of that kind are inappropriate for young kids, yet the producers knew young kids would see the movie and without any warning to their parents.

 

I saw a version of ?Mutiny on the Bounty?, the 1984 version, and all the Island girls in the movie were completely bare breasted. I thought this was really the most ?authentic? version of the film. This was why all the sailors went berserk when they saw the beautiful Island girls, and it's one of the main reasons why they wanted to leave the British Navy and return on the island. This film didn?t offend me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred

 

honestly how much of her breast could havd been shown? lol....and i didnt say my opinion about the movie even thinking that ..honestly i dont rememeber that her breast were shown...and now that i have been pointed out that it will NOT make me hate the movie....i think thats silly...i actually think this conversation is silly really...i still like this version and thats that...

 

i didnt mean to offend anyone (as usual) ..lol...didnt even think about something so trivial as that when im looking at a whole movie..exspecially King Kong...

 

thanks for your input Fred i still love ya...

 

AvaG ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to hear different opinions about movies. I hated "All About Eve" for years, until someone finally convenced me to watch it all the way through again, and note the complexity of the characters and the plot, and then I finally began to understand how great the movie really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred,

 

well agreed ...i listen to other ppls opinions as well and stay respectful to them as well...i dont JUMP down there throats or get RUDE to them because there opinion differs from mine..the only time i get jumpy...lol...is when ppl come at ME...rudly..u can state your opinion without being rude or making ppl feel offended by it.....and ppl who have manners know how to do this...thats all im saying....again Duck is entitiled to his opinion but when he gets RUDE to me in response to mine (or other ppl as well) thats when hes stepped over that line and i feel he did that a bit...a bit...but its all good i said my peace...no harm no foul...

 

enuff said..next subject,,please... :-)

 

Ty

AvaG

 

Message was edited by: AvaG92260

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off cheap effects u cant get much cheaper then 1933 as far as cheap effects.>>

 

I don't know if the 1933 effects were cheap to produce or not, I suspect they may not have been all that cheap as it required stop-motion, detailed miniatures, matte paintings and more.

 

But for many of us, those effects, and to some degree Kong himself, are better than most of the effects and the gorilla in Dino's *Kong*.

 

Dino said back then "Whenna my Kong die, everybody cry." Unfortunately for Dino, most of us did not cry and wished we had some way to get those two hours plus back.

 

However, you found something wonderful in that version and that is something that no poster can take away from you.

 

As for Peter Jackson's version, it only goes to show that no matter how much money you have to throw at special effects, it won't necessarily make your movie better. That Kong had some great sets and some great scenes, however the trek across Skull Island seemed to take at least an hour and the movie never really recovered from that.

 

At least that's my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In th3 1933 version, there are scenes where Kong rips off the clothes of Fay Wray & sniffs them. No breasts were shown, but they almost were. Womens breasts are very beautiful to me , not meaning that pervertedly. There is a scene in Clash of the Titans at the beginning where baby Persius is being breast fed, on my DVD you see her breast, some versions do not show this.

I dont think you need breasts or as my friends say 'boobies' to make a King Kong film. To me its not really appropriate, even if theyre on a jungle

I recall many breasts shown in Baby Secret of the Lost Legend as well, and thats a family film

In 1976 they made Jessica Lange a sex object of sorts. The sex sells mentality

As for PJs King Kong I was very depressed on how awful it was, Id rather watch the Mighty Peking Man, or the Mighty Gorga...anything except for one called A*P*E*

Anyone see that movie..garbage LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the time period King Kong was made. Showing breast - NO WAY! Movies couldn't even show belly buttons until the 1960's.

 

I have a Vitaphone short "Night Court" and it show a belly dancer doing a (at that time) a provokative dance routine. She is wearing a traditional belly dancing outfit along with a towel wrap around her waist. Another movie "Child Bride" 1937, showed an innocent skinny dipping scene and it was completely edited out and was very controversial. The missing scene has only been recently found. The stronger "decency standard" introduced in 1934 lowered Betty Boops dress. One can not get any more uptight then that.

 

The previous replies talks about "cheap" special effects, the effects are not cheap but were state of the art at that time. The strange movement motion you see in King Kong and Clash of the Titans is the result of the lack of motion blur. Ever freeze frame anything in motion? Stop motion in earlier times before CGI couldn't introduce the effect of artificial motion blur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Don't forget the time period King Kong was made. Showing breast - NO WAY! Movies couldn't even show belly buttons until the 1960's.

 

Hey, why do you think us teenage boys liked classical art so much back in the old days?

 

(See "The Three Graces" by Peter Paul Rubens.)

 

Message was edited by: FredCDobbs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, Ms. Lange's boobs were added less for bigger ticket sales. than for disguising her atrocious acting. In fact she took time off after that film to actually take some drama classes. In her case, it worked, and in a ,matter of a few years, she was actually performing in some major films, and doing a good job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one Kong and he was born in 1933. Willis Obriens effects work are still a land mark of stop motion animation- and rememeber Obie and his talented team did everything by hand. If you want cheap effects look at the ridiculous 70's version. The last remake while it had its heart in the right place was too long and had some surprisingly shoddy fx work( the dinosaur stampede).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

 

I wish I knew who the Chief was because he was a perfect actor.

>

The Chief was played by Noble Johnson. He was also in THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, THE MUMMY and MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE (all 1932), as well as UNCONQUERED, 1947 and SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, 1949.

 

For an excellent book on the film, see The Making of King Kong, by Orville Goldner and George E. Turner, first published in 1976. Goldner was one of the technicians who, under the brilliant direction of Willis H. O'Brien, brought Kong and the other denizens of Skull Island to life. It's a fascinating read and highly recommended.

 

Among other things, it reveals the care and attention to detail that went into animating Kong & co. and shows that the effects were most definitely not "cheap!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original 1933 King Kong has always been and still is among my most favorite movies.

The sets, the pacing, the story, the filming techniques and the special effects, even the actors, all make it hold up well even today.

 

But I gotta sand against the grain here.

 

I also think the 2005 version is equally a great adventure movie. It was the fastest 3 hours I ever spent in a movie theater. The CGI was awesome. Kong looked real, the dinosaurs looked real and although it was non-stop action on skull island and over-the-top, I was swept up by it all and for the most part, I enjoyed the ride.

For me, though, they could have cut out the sequence at the bottom of the gorge with those hideous carnivorous plants and giant insects. Whew! gross!!

I was ok with the casting except for Adrian Brody. I would have liked to see a more heroic-looking actor in that role, but he pulled it off ok.

The movie is a little too long, yes. I think the first third of the film could have been shortened.

 

So I have some issues with this re-make but I still like it a lot.

 

For that matter I have one issue with the original: Ever since I learned that Kong was an 18 inch tall doll, I can't stop thinking about that every time I watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1933 version of King Kong was a ground breaking film, with special effects techniques being invented on the fly. For my money the film holds up to this day. It?s still a pleasure to watch.

 

The version aired on TCM this past Monday, though, is missing at least one very important scene. If my old memory serves me correctly, that is. I distinctly remember seeing a version that included a scene where Ann Darrow tore a strip of cloth from her dress and bandaged Kong?s finger that had been stabbed by Jack Driscoll. A very nice bit of pathos, that. That same version was minus the scene where Kong scratches off most of Ann?s clothes. Nor did it have the scene where Kong mashes a couple of natives into the mud. Curious.

 

Does anyone else remember that finger bandaging scene? Any idea as to why it?s not included in the version shown on TCM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...