King Kong Tribute Thread (THE REAL KING KONG!)

[Gojira18]

*70s and it's not even close. 2005 is honestly the definitive King Kong movie.

Added in 24 seconds:

Rewatched 2005 King Kong with some friends, still as fantastic as ever.

I've been thinking of revisiting it as well! It's a great movie, and easily one of the best adventure films of the last 30 years.

Most complaints geared towards the film regard how its overly long and drawn out.

That's fine, weed out the weak.

[Major sssspielberg!]

I never really understood the bad reputation Kong 05 has with some. It's certainly bloated and self indulgent, but it's also a very unique movie, and makes a lot of great choices with the story. And of course, its gorgeous. I always love the New York scenes, which they put a lot of work into and it shows. They just don't make em like that anymore.

[Pkmatrix]

You might say the same about the LotR and Hobbit films. Jackson made a two hour plus film about a single battle.

The 2005 Kong is a good remake. Definitely better than the 80s version.

LotR yes, The Hobbit films...no. The Hobbit films were, IMO, a chore to sit through and would definitely NOT make my personal list of best adventure films since 1995.

[Vakanai]

Rewatched 2005 King Kong with some friends, still as fantastic as ever.

I've been thinking of revisiting it as well! It's a great movie, and easily one of the best adventure films of the last 30 years.

Most complaints geared towards the film regard how its overly long and drawn out.

This. I don't mind long films as long as the pacing works, like the same director's LOTR trilogy, but Kong just does not have the pacing to make that runtime work. It also suffers a bit from mood whiplash, and over the top CGI scenes like the dinosaur stampede that just doesn't quite feel like it fits. I also hate this films take on Carl Denham, making him an outright sleazy villain for comedic laughs. I appreciate the film's efforts, but ultimately it feels like one of the weakest King Kong films as far as my personal enjoyment goes, and ultimately the biggest factor is the length and pacing.

Added in 2 minutes 47 seconds:

You might say the same about the LotR and Hobbit films. Jackson made a two hour plus film about a single battle.

The 2005 Kong is a good remake. Definitely better than the 80s version.

It's the 70's version, and disagree. For all it's stumbles, I find that film better and more enjoyable than Jackson's. Not sure if that's controversial or not, but the 76 film doesn't deserve the hate I see it get sometimes.

[Gojira18]

The 76 remake is mid at best and an outright slog at worst. It's no wonder it got the middling reputation it did. 2005 actually improves on the original and is a classic in its own right.

[HedorahIsBestGirl]

You see, I think King Kong '76 is the movie that deserves to take crap for being tedious. It's over two hours long and nothing fucking happens for so much of it. No dinosaurs on the island, no real action of any kind until toward the end, just a lot of talking and gabbing while Kong does, um, unusual things with Ann "Dwan." I also find all of the characters annoying and unlikeable. And Kong's death is so brutal that it ends up being comical. I'm open to the idea of modernizing the Kong story, but this movie just misses the mark on pretty much all levels.

[Gigantis]

See, I actually really like the design of '76 Kong. He's got fierce looking eyes, a sagital crest, stands fully upright so he doesn't look too much like a normal gorilla (something I feel like the 2005 film and even Kong Escapes was a bit guilty of). Unfortunately, it's in the middle of a super bland movie. Skull Island is just so damn EMPTY in this one. There's Kong, the natives, one giant snake and... that's it? Compare that to how lively the 05 and 33 films felt. Or hell, even compare it to everything they were planning in the scrapped Legend of King Kong movie that Universal wanted to get off the ground. How is this mystical island gonna be so damn barren?

[LegendZilla]

^Apparently both Paramount and Universal Studio competed over the right to produce a Kong film in the 70's and of course the former won out. In a perfect world, the two studios would've teamed up to co-produce it.

[John Pannozzi]

^ Universal did get the rights to make their own Kong movie as long as it came out after Dino & Paramount's film, but Universal ultimately lost interest.

[Angilasman]

Well, if you look at it a certain way Kong '04 is just the Universal Kong film after almost three decades of development hell!

[Vakanai]

You see, I think King Kong '76 is the movie that deserves to take crap for being tedious. It's over two hours long and nothing fucking happens for so much of it. No dinosaurs on the island, no real action of any kind until toward the end, just a lot of talking and gabbing while Kong does, um, unusual things with Ann "Dwan." I also find all of the characters annoying and unlikeable. And Kong's death is so brutal that it ends up being comical. I'm open to the idea of modernizing the Kong story, but this movie just misses the mark on pretty much all levels.

Disagree. For all it's faults, it's watchable. 05 has moments, but most of it falls flat, feels inconsistent with the film, and is still a slog...
Plus 76 has a King Kong who looks the part, whereas 05 is just a silverback gorilla blown up.

But I'm not here to put films down, just stating I feel one gets more flack than it deserves while another is afforded more slack than it deserves.

Added in 2 minutes 11 seconds:

Well, if you look at it a certain way Kong '04 is just the Universal Kong film after almost three decades of development hell!

That's...that actually explains a lot!

[edgaguirus]

But I'm not here to put films down, just stating I feel one gets more flack than it deserves while another is afforded more slack than it deserves.

Peter Jackson does have a good reputation, so his name being attached to the film does help it.

[SpiderZilla]

You see, I think King Kong '76 is the movie that deserves to take crap for being tedious. It's over two hours long and nothing fucking happens for so much of it. No dinosaurs on the island, no real action of any kind until toward the end, just a lot of talking and gabbing while Kong does, um, unusual things with Ann "Dwan."

I tend to think that the story benefits from the removal of dinosaurs. Humans fighting dinosaurs and Kong fighting dinosaurs make for exciting visuals but they’re distractions from the main story of the humans trying to rescue the female character. The rescue is the main driver of the plot at this point of the film and the source of the tension for the viewer.

[DynomikeGojira]

Well I can at least confirm that the Disney+ King Kong series is still in development.

[Vakanai]

Well I can at least confirm that the Disney+ King Kong series is still in development.

Any source or news?

[DynomikeGojira]

Well I can at least confirm that the Disney+ King Kong series is still in development.

Any source or news?

I just emailed Joe DeVito.

[LegendZilla]

^King Kong right now is within some sort of legal grey area between being copyrighted and public domain. After 2029, the character will undisputedly be the latter.

[o.supreme]

^What is the significance of 2029? That would only be 96 years form the original films release in 1933.

[DynomikeGojira]

^What is the significance of 2029? That would only be 96 years form the original films release in 1933.

2029 is when the original film enters public domain from what I've heard

[John Pannozzi]

^What is the significance of 2029? That would only be 96 years form the original films release in 1933.

2029 is when the original film enters public domain from what I've heard

Yeah, it's 95 years, and then to the end of the last calender year.

So, January 1, 2029 is when works from 1933 enter the Public Domain, in the USA at least.