NO SPIDER PIT SCENE EVER FILMED....AND MORE! in Kong

0 Points

Forum Jump

NO SPIDER PIT SCENE EVER FILMED....AND MORE!

Author	Comment
JadeExecutioner		#101	[-]
May 13 12 5:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Apart from two shots of the dialogue between him and Driscoll from both sides of the ravine, nothing involving Denham in that part of the script correspond to what is in the finished film. The running shots and the one where his sleeve gets stuck by a branch would be later additions, again if we consider that part of the Rose screenplay as a test reel transcript. But that ravine (edited) dialogue between Driscoll and Denham is straight from the test reel and the proof that there were indeed reverse shots made for that sequence. It's safe to assume Denham was in the test reel. But as he is involved in most of those lost shots in that side, it would be interesting to know if there are traces of his schedule at the time. Or actually if there are pictures of tests for those log sequence reverse angles? I've never seen any. Did you guys here ever had access to different drafts of the script? Last Edited By: JadeExecutioner May 13 12 6:00 PM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad
Tim Smyth		#102	[-]
May 14 12 12:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, all four major stars were in the test reel, that includes Bob, Fay, Bruce, and Kong. The movie changed a bit in direction of some of the scenes which is why the script does not match, but then again the script was worked on all through the production, so it would be hard to find a finished script that corresponds exactly to the film. The Two horned beast was removed in favor of no beast, so Denham had to have another excuse no to be on the log, since he wasn't in those shots from the reel, and isn't there a reverse angle of Denham in the bush watching the scene? Those scripts are not precise in their description of the effects, since it calls the shot of the real man in the fake tree to go with a miniature rear projection, The script has Kong licking his fingers, but that doesn't mean the shot of him doing that in the film now was filmed for the test reel, in fact the script calls for a wide shot, or full shot, and the script also clearly states the men fall into mud at the bottom of the ravine, and not that they bounce off of solid rock, like in the movie, so we don't know if the mud was filmed or not. If the spider pit scene was filmed, and then cut a month before release, with all their other changes they wanted, like have Kong destroy the subway, then when would they have time to re-shoot the men falling into the pit, so I think it must have been cut much earlier than has been written, which means again we may have some faulty memories going on here. The real shame is that folks didn't get this info a few years after the film came out, instead waited for 30 years to start asking questions. Tim
spfxengine		#103	[-]
May 14 12 3:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't think that the men falling on solid rock in the ravine are re-shoot. The falling of the men was probably cut before they hit the ground and continued with the men falling into mud. Cooper probably took the whole scene as it is now because they definitly don't survive hitting solid ground. If you take the flipped scene of the falling log into the ravine and flipp it back, it land exactly as the log that we see in the surviving pictures of the spider-pit set-ups. If they reshoot it why did they flipp the falling of the log...doesn't make sense! But it makes sense if you want to distract the viewer from an angle of action that isn't annymore in the picture...the spider-pit scene. If you watch the scene with the falling log flipped back it indicates that Kong is on the right side of the ravine, that's exact where the big black spider and the lizard looks up in the Famous Monster picture. But with that point of focus removed it has a better flow with the log flipped, it suggests now that Kong is on the left side of the ravine...action flows smoother.
JadeExecutioner		#104	[-]
May 14 12 5:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tim Smyth wrote: Those scripts are not precise in their description of the effects, since it calls the shot of the real man in the fake tree to go with a miniature rear projection, The script has Kong licking his fingers, but that doesn't mean the shot of him doing that in the film now was filmed for the test reel, in fact the script calls for a wide shot, or full shot, and the script also clearly states the men fall into mud at the bottom of the ravine, and not that they bounce off of solid rock, like in the movie, so we don't know if the mud was filmed or not. That's why studying chronological drafts of the screenplay would certainly give some precious information or clues, at least on the timeline of the production and the reworking of the test reel into the film. You say those scripts are not precise, which is true, although in the case of the test reel, it's a different situation, since that part in the screenplay is to be a direct transcript of the reel. The Turner description of the reel, which reads clearly like an abstract of what is described in the screenplay, valid this hypothesis at least. The version of the script I have is the one dated June 32, the one widely available online. Are there many others? The screenplay definitely reads like a work in progress, with mistakes, elements obviously recently chopped and inserted, from different writers too, but I'm sure you'll agree the test reel part itself in the script is different. It is always very coherent in its descriptions. And it's a shot by shot script, when for some other parts of the screenplay not yet shot at the time, the scenes describe what would in the end be several angles. The Kong-Allosaurus part is a precise shot by shot description of what is in the finished film. It is definitely a transcript written from edited material. It's the test reel untouched. Then all the log part is for most completely different from what we know in the finished film. Should we believe this is a direct transcript of what it looked like originally? Everything pushes to believe so. Although there are some reverse angle shots there, not including the Arsino, that it would seem a bit absurd to cut if you have them. Maybe the effects didn't work. Test pics of those would be the proof. If there aren't any, it could also be argued that this part of the script is already a reworking on a transcript. The answer may be simply in Wallace's draft. Wouldn't the test reel be more coherent without that small piece of dialogue? Couldn't it feel like a later addition? Denham was not in the Wallace's draft log scene, right? And there are no shot of him together with the Arsino in the screenplay. Last Edited By: JadeExecutioner May 14 12 6:13 AM. Edited 4 times.
ryanbrennan		#105	[-]
May 15 12 1:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Mark Lamberti, whose letter HalLane referenced earlier, was a long time Dallas resident active in producing local film conventions and eventually serving as program director for a couple of local TV stations. Boy, did we get some fantastic classic movies when he was around! The last time I saw him was when he served as a projectionist for me during the years I was program director for The Fort Worth Film Festival. Great guy.
G Vallejo		#106	[-]
May 15 12 10:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Wallace draft is not an actual script. It's a treatment, sort of halfway between script and synopsis. It gives a very general description of the action. We posted a scan of the spider scene in the article... that should give you a good idea of what the whole thing is like. (The Girl In The Hairy Paw shows a few more pages.) There's very little dialogue, for instance, just a scene here and there giving a general idea of how the characters stand. Denham is a big game hunter instead of a filmmaker, Skull Island is Vapour Island, and Jack Driscoll is named John. John is one of the convicts that survives the log scene, along with another fellow named Tricks, and he rescues "Shirley." In my opinion, every change they made was for the better. The Rose script is the finished script, or as finished as it got. We can make a pretty firm guess on that since Cooper had this script bound and given to friends and employees. It's true Rose wrote the thing as they went along, and the production often added bits of business as they went along if it worked. But we also made the point in the article that Cooper cut a two-hour movie down to 100 minutes. It wasn't just the spider pit, the Arsinoitherium/Triceratops/Styracosaurus, and the giant snake that got cut. Apparently lots of scenes with just the actors acting (which isn't so glamorous to most people) were tightened up and trimmed down during that final edit. So it's no surprise that the film differs substantially from what Rose wrote. There's no elevated train scene in the script, for instance. That was Cooper plugging his own pet scene into the movie, after the first edit... and a good idea, at that. People might say, "Aha!" and claim that since the script changed so much between paper and final film, you can't really trust what's in the test reel portion of the script concerning the spider pit. Well, the test reel was the only part of the picture already completed, so Rose was just transcribing what was already done... so the fact that it's a spider menacing Driscoll in his cave is pretty telling. A perfect Monster has no end...
JadeExecutioner		#107	[-]
May 16 12 3:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	G Vallejo wrote: People might say, "Aha!" and claim that since the script changed so much between paper and final film, you can't really trust what's in the test reel portion of the script concerning the spider pit. Well, the test reel was the only part of the picture already completed, so Rose was just transcribing what was already done... so the fact that it's a spider menacing Driscoll in his cave is pretty telling. That was my point, actually we are saying the same thing. To what extend the "test reel" part of the Rose screenplay would be a transcript of what was shot is what i'm trying to consider here, apart from the specific part of the spider pit. Your article brilliantly makes the point that it was shot and cut, which like you I firmly believe. Not only because every comparison between script (or transcript) and the final film point in that direction, but also for me because of that mention of the scene being cut in the LA Times article of January 15th, 1933. A few weeks from the release, why would you mention cutting a scene, if it never went beyond planning stage? In my opinion, that closes the debate. I don't know if you have had access to other drafts of the Rose screenplay apart from the one currently available. If you do I'd be super interested to take a look at those pages. I've read very detailed abstracts and long extracts of the Wallace treatment but never had it in my hands, neither the treatment dated January 11th '32 nor the first draft reworking (still signed Wallace) dated January 25th. To my knowledge, there has never been any full in-depth analysis of those versions and the evolution of the story in them. Or has there been? Has anyone here read those two versions? It would be a bit tedious to go here through a shot by shot comparing of the Rose screenplay and the finished film. Many things in that "test reel part" of the script point that this version of the screenplay may not be a 100% shot by shot transcription of the test reel, but a version that already includes new elements for the integration of the reel in the film. Some parts of the log scene show clear signs of recent pasting of new elements together, including two different descriptions of the same shot and indications on possible modifications, among other things. They are already in the process of reworking the test reel into the film as this version is delivered. The Turner description of the reel is a clear abstract from that version of the script. As long as it is not sourced from production documents, it should be taken as it is: testimony from first hands witnesses gathered long time after the facts. My belief is the spider pit was shot and cut, but the reverse angles on the log scene and the Arsino are much more questionable. Actually if everything in the script/transcript and the finished film pushes to believe the spider pit was shot, almost everything about those missing shots on the log point the other way. Too bad the fans who talked to Cooper were so obsessed with the spiders that they didn't ask him about those other elements on the log scene, because he never mentions them. Like if they had never been there at all?
Wich2		#108	[-]
May 16 12 2:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"...the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime..."
Tim Smyth		#109	[-]
May 17 12 1:55 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	spfxengine wrote: I don't think that the men falling on solid rock in the ravine are re-shoot. The falling of the men was probably cut before they hit the ground and continued with the men falling into mud. Cooper probably took the whole scene as it is now because they definitly don't survive hitting solid ground. If you take the flipped scene of the falling log into the ravine and flipp it back, it land exactly as the log that we see in the surviving pictures of the spider-pit set-ups. If they reshoot it why did they flipp the falling of the log...doesn't make sense! But it makes sense if you want to distract the viewer from an angle of action that isn't annymore in the picture...the spider-pit scene. If you watch the scene with the falling log flipped back it indicates that Kong is on the right side of the ravine, that's exact where the big black spider and the lizard looks up in the Famous Monster picture. But with that point of focus removed it has a better flow with the log flipped, it suggests now that Kong is on the left side of the ravine...action flows smoother. Hey spfxengine, I will give you they might have cut the falling earlier and cut to live performers, I never thought of that, but the flipped log was I believe to match the animation cut so the side that Kong is holding lands on his side of the ravine floor, in no way do I think suddenly we have been turned around and Kong is on the right side of the ravine, in fact I never even noticed the shot was flopped till someone pointed it out to me. As for the spider climbing up the vine shot, if they filmed that, like in the screenplay, they must have changed it early on, since that shot features one of the first Kong puppets made, so that also doesn't flow with they cut the spider pit a month before the release date, either that or the script is simply incorrect, possibly from going from notes on what was supposed to be in the test reel, and not the reel itself. Tim Last Edited By: Tim Smyth May 17 12 2:02 AM. Edited 2 times.
spfxengine		#110	[-]
May 17 12 4:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dear Tim, the Spider -Pit scene must have been a short and fast cut scene so they probably cut the falling sailors halfway to the sailors falling into mud. Look at the sailor stop motion puppets in the remaining spider test shots their faces all look to the right side of the ravine with the big cave in the back. This might be an indicator to wich side the action was referring to.
	Remove this ad
JadeExecutioner		#111	[-]
May 22 12 3:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	huh, I notice that in my previous messages about the scripts, i made that stupid European mistake of switching day and month regarding the Ruth Rose script. Sorry bout that. To erase this childish mistake, here are true revelations on how those beautiful special effects were done, via the French Magazine L'Illustration of the time. Sure you'll learn something there. French journalism at its best. Bravo messieurs.
JadeExecutioner		#112	[-]
May 22 12 5:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That said, if any of you have the Creelman or the Wallace draft and have not sworn to "your good friend in Hollywood" that you would never ever share it with the plebs (but just tantalize), feel free to share. Peace.
G Vallejo		#113	[-]
May 22 12 9:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Regarding the vinecrawling spider scene, isn't it possible they just used the same elements for the other parts of the shot (Driscoll in his cave, Kong above) and edited in the newly-shot lizard? So parts of that scene were among the oldest shot for Kong, and one part was among the newest? A perfect Monster has no end...
HalLane		#114	[-]
May 22 12 9:07 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's what I always figured. Especially since the vine seems to pivot from a point halfway down the frame, a subliminal reminder of composite elements.
Tim Smyth		#115	[-]
May 22 12 11:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	G Vallejo wrote: Regarding the vinecrawling spider scene, isn't it possible they just used the same elements for the other parts of the shot (Driscoll in his cave, Kong above) and edited in the newly-shot lizard? So parts of that scene were among the oldest shot for Kong, and one part was among the newest? No, the shot is the shot as is, we are talking 1933 here, it is a long shot with all three characters in it, on a miniature set, and a moving camera as well, no way to match anything up that was shot later. There are no traveling mattes, only Driscoll could, and would, have been used again since he is projected on a rear screen. The options are, that they shot the lizard in place of the spider originally, or that they shot the lizard as soon as the project got green lit. Remember, if there was only one Kong model built for the test reel, then they did some work right away on the log sequence adding two shots of Kong model #2, so they could have also shot and swapped the lizard shots during that time. Tim
JadeExecutioner		#116	[-]
May 22 12 9:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thank you very much for your comment Tim. I learn things when i read Tim Smyth's or Jim Aupperle's comments. They are serious men. What they say is logical. Really Mister Aupperle you are one of the people whose work pushed me to go into this business. Although i'm in another part of the word, you are a real inspiration, I say it as a small potato worker. Suddenly the discussion becomes more interesting when we talk about shot composition instead of those endless moronic comments. Seriously, after reading through pages about that spider scene topic here and mainly on Kongisking.net (where at the time i didn't dare to contribute to), I was appalled at the result of the discussion. It is close to zero and basically amounts to "i've got this pic and you not and i talked to a second hand witness about the scene and hey there is a snake here, or a spider or wot, i see a real skull there". I think Vallejo and Shran, under their other incarnations in that forum tried their best to go through the scene seriously, but were not always followed. How about we go through a real shot by shot analysis of what is supposed to be the test reel? Instead of nerds measuring their dicks on pics collections? Looking from abroad, I can tell you those comments from collectors selling real or pseudo real pics and people like KingKongKessler saying"I have the Wallace script but I can"t put it online, because i swore my friend i won't but i'll answer your questions" read like as disappointing as they are really and absolutely miserable. I know you will be offended KKK and forgive me if you are, but I can tell you, outside your US collectors world, this kind of comments seems just total stupidity. It's a 79 year old film. No one is going to make money out of this. You want to protect who? the collector who gave you the script HE AND YOU DIDN'T WRITE? What is the legitimity here? Because what, you're scared? We are studying Art here. Do you not share a Michelangelo painting for studying purposes?
Tim Smyth		#117	[-]
May 23 12 2:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	spfxengine wrote: Dear Tim, the Spider -Pit scene must have been a short and fast cut scene so they probably cut the falling sailors halfway to the sailors falling into mud. Look at the sailor stop motion puppets in the remaining spider test shots their faces all look to the right side of the ravine with the big cave in the back. This might be an indicator to wich side the action was referring to. Hey spfxengine, I will give you the falling shots were supposed to be cut before they hit the ground. I also see that if your flop the image it will match the spider pit shots as far as where the tree roots go, however the only part of the set that I can find a close similarity is a cave in the back, and that has the log landing with the roots near the cave entrance, where the flopped shot in the movie has them away from that cave, flopped shot or not, it would not match. I do not know what is up with all this, maybe those sailors are a different scale for the falling shots, and therefore needed a different set? The pics of the sailors themselves could be flopped and we wouldn't know it since there is nothing to convey left from right. So I will still say the the log was flopped so it would land right to how Kong dropped it, however without the spider scene maybe it was easier to do that. Tim
Tim Smyth		#118	[-]
May 23 12 2:29 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	JadeExecutioner wrote: How about we go through a real shot by shot analysis of what is supposed to be the test reel? We can try, but we keep coming up with problems right away, like the shot of Kong approaching the log with the sailors on it, now there must have been a shot like that, but the one that is in the film now is almost certainly is not the one from the test reel. So it is hard to go through the test reel when there are so many pieces missing, including the CREATION footage. There are plenty of pictures, like Kong menacing little wooden sailors on the log, were there shots like that in the test or were the sailors always done with traveling mattes? Were those shots of Kong with the wooden sailors just publicity shots? (most likely) I will look into the description from the books on the weekend when I am not working and study up a bit, or I could just go in my closet and find my 35mm print of the test reel, spider pit scene included, but that would be too easy, and then you guys would all want to see it, and it's for my eyes only. Tim
Tim Smyth		#119	[-]
May 23 12 2:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HalLane wrote: That's what I always figured. Especially since the vine seems to pivot from a point halfway down the frame, a subliminal reminder of composite elements. Hey Hal, I had to watch this scene again to answer these questions, and I do see the pivot you are referring to, that is to keep the vine in the right place so the projection of Driscoll can grab it, the wires supporting the lizard however go all the way up to the top of the screen, so no optical work there. Sorry O'B. Tim
HalLane		#120	[-]
May 23 12 5:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tim, thanks for taking the time, bud -- your insight is much appreciated! Next time I watch the scene I'll be looking at it with a whole new set of eyes.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

NO SPIDER PIT SCENE EVER FILMED....AND MORE!