OK, the 1976 film stunk, but... in Kong - 8th Wonder of the World Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

OK, the 1976 film stunk, but...

Author	Comment
Grant		#41	[-]
Jun 6 09 6:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This might not be just the right thread (as opposed to the right board) to go into it, but again, that's always been my problem with the original movie's following - people taking that anti-hero idea a little farther than it's usually taken, and glossing over certain things. Like the sacrifices on the island - you have to wonder now and again about what happened to Fay Wray's "predecessors." Or the scene where he smashes the natives between his teeth - it's been pointed out that the fact that he doesn't actually EAT them somehow "takes the curse off it" for the audience, which is kind of a comical technicality. And then there's probably the best-known one, where he drops the blonde woman after realizing she isn't Fay Wray - that should put a big dent in any sympathy he's gotten from the audience so far, but even the people who mention it don't seem any too bothered by it. Again, I've always LIKED the "anti-hero" idea in a lot of stories, but with most of the ones I like (like Bonnie and Clyde), there's a pretty large "body of people" who are against that attitude, which creates a kind of "healthy balance." With King Kong fans, I almost never hear about anything BUT the admiration for the character, in spite of some of the very bad (you might say "very human") things he does that really CAN'T be blamed on the human characters (like that last one I mentioned). All of this might be taking things too literally, but there's always that kind of risk in these discussions.
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#42	[-]
Jun 6 09 8:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Grant wrote: This might not be just the right thread (as opposed to the right board) to go into it, but again, that's always been my problem with the original movie's following - people taking that anti-hero idea a little farther than it's usually taken, and glossing over certain things. Like the sacrifices on the island - you have to wonder now and again about what happened to Fay Wray's "predecessors." Or the scene where he smashes the natives between his teeth - it's been pointed out that the fact that he doesn't actually EAT them somehow "takes the curse off it" for the audience, which is kind of a comical technicality. And then there's probably the best-known one, where he drops the blonde woman after realizing she isn't Fay Wray - that should put a big dent in any sympathy he's gotten from the audience so far, but even the people who mention it don't seem any too bothered by it. Again, I've always LIKED the "anti-hero" idea in a lot of stories, but with most of the ones I like (like Bonnie and Clyde), there's a pretty large "body of people" who are against that attitude, which creates a kind of "healthy balance." With King Kong fans, I almost never hear about anything BUT the admiration for the character, in spite of some of the very bad (you might say "very human") things he does that really CAN'T be blamed on the human characters (like that last one I mentioned). All of this might be taking things too literally, but there's always that kind of risk in these discussions. Yeah, but aminalz iz cuter than humanz. - Jeff
DonM435		#43	[-]
Jun 6 09 9:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	For those of us who watched Kong'33 as kids, it was an important step in our critical thinking. We slowly came to realize that, big and scary as he was, he was ultimately the victim of others, and we felt sympathy for him. But it was subtle, and we felt pretty smart at figuring it out. Kong'76 continually hits you over the head with Kong as pitiful victim. The rest of the film wasn't good enough to redeem it from that flaw. Last Edited By: DonM435 Jun 7 09 10:28 PM. Edited 1 times.
Wich2		#44	[-]
Jun 7 09 9:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"For those of us who watched Kong'33 as kids, it was an important step in out critical thinking. We slowly came to realize that, big and scary as he was, he was ultimately the victim of others" Well, I didn't catch up with KK '33 till I was 15 - but even then (see evidence mentioned in this thread), I saw him as BOTH Victim and Victimizer. It's a monster movie, fer cryin' out loud!
Kingkongkessler		#45	[-]
Jun 7 09 9:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have watched the original my whole life, saw it at age 4 (45 now) and I always knew he was a Monster, the greatest Monster of all time in MHO, but a Monster nonetheless. Kess
Grant		#46	[-]
Jun 7 09 9:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: I saw him as BOTH Victim and Victimizer. Exactly. I know I SORT OF overanalyze it, but to me he's almost a case of the "oppressed becomes the oppressor."
Speanistar		#47	[-]
Jun 8 09 11:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When I first saw the original Kong, I thought he was one of the most terrifying monsters ever. Despite the fact that he did'nt eat people made it a bit more terrifying for some strange reason. But I could also see his ''Human'' side too.
Great Ape		#48	[-]
Jun 8 09 3:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kong is a Monster. But I always viewed our greatest "monsters" as misunderstood creatures. Kong, Frankenstein's Monster, The Wolman...all are dangerous and unpredictable as Monsters should be, but all are also victims of society.
The Giant Pacific Octopus		#49	[-]
Jun 8 09 8:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Great Ape wrote: Kong is a Monster. But I always viewed our greatest "monsters" as misunderstood creatures. Kong, Frankenstein's Monster, The Wolman...all are dangerous and unpredictable as Monsters should be, but all are also victims of society. I always thought the "Wolman" was the victim of a swarm of moths.
The Mighty Bongo		#50	[-]
Jun 8 09 8:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Giant Pacific Octopus wrote: Great Ape wrote: Kong is a Monster. But I always viewed our greatest "monsters" as misunderstood creatures. Kong, Frankenstein's Monster, The Wolman...all are dangerous and unpredictable as Monsters should be, but all are also victims of society. I always thought the "Wolman" was the victim of a swarm of moths.
LCranston		#51	[-]
Jun 24 09 2:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought Wolman was the dyslexic main character in "Deaht of a Selasman." "I live the unknown, I love the unknown... I AM the unknown."
rvoyttbots		#52	[-]
Jun 25 09 12:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Speanistar wrote: Despite the fact that he did'nt eat people made it a bit more terrifying for some strange reason. . Lol But he sure loved to chew on them.
BijouBob8mm		#53	[-]
Jun 26 09 8:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But he sure loved to chew on them. All the flavor, none of the calories!
MJ Simpson		#54	[-]
Jun 30 09 2:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here is a translated Dutch review of the King Kong 76 Blu-Ray which includes 14 minutes of deleted footage and the documentary that I appear in but have never seen. http://www.MJSimpson.co.uk - cult movies and the people who make them
BijouBob8mm		#55	[-]
Jul 2 09 12:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks, MJ! Now if that stuff would only make its way Stateside....
Hausenfan		#56	[-]
Jul 7 09 3:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Dino's Kong is one of those films I have mixed feelings about. In December 1976 I saw the film in a theater and was very disappointed, mainly because of the hype. The Paramount publicity department promised the greatest monster movie ever made. What we got was a big budget Godzilla-style romp. I've often wondered if stop motion animation could have saved the film. Jim Danforth admits to being involved with the film, but was dropped when Genius Delaurentis decided his stop motion (for Kong's fight with a dinosaur) would not blend with the monkey suit scenes. Kong was not the massive hit everyone thought it would be. Most reveiws were negative. The film returned $36 million to the studio, giving Paramount approx $11 million of profit. Compare this to Jaws' $100 million profit. Seeing the film on TV a few years later, I was somewhat forgiving of the films flaws. It does have a sense of humor. The work with Kong's mechanical arm is great. The various facial expressions of the Kong mask were well done, and I just like Jessica Lange. The extra footage for the TV version was quite unnecessary though. Today, I watch the movie along with King Kong vs Godzilla and War of the Gargantuas for the fun of it. It ain't Shakespeare, but it beats watching The Notebook with my wife. I'd actually welcome a Bluray with a documentary. Carlo Rambaldi's work warrants a doc, although it's merits on the screen may seem dated now. For the ultimate in Kong bashing, see the Cinefantastique issue with the War of the Worlds cover.
Ted Newsom		#57	[-]
Jul 7 09 4:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Danforth was never involved in the deLaurentiis project, so he never "admitted" to it. Look into the history just a bit deeper and you'll discover that at the time there were TWO rival Kong projects, one via Paramount and one via Universal. Joseph Sargent was, I believe, slated to direct the Universal version, with Peter Falk as a rather severe Carl Denham (or Denham-type), in a 1930s period version rather than a modern update. The effects were to have been primarily stop motion. Since there was some question of whether the rights to the Delos Lovelace novelization and the story rights to the RKO film were separate, incidents which were only in the latter were off-limits; alternate action sequences & alternate dinosaurs were to be done instead. Eventualyl Universal decided to kill their project and settle with Paramount, letting the latter buy out any rights to the novel Universal had.
Doc Dynamo		#58	[-]
Jul 7 09 4:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ted Newsom wrote: Danforth was never involved in the deLaurentiis project, so he never "admitted" to it. Look into the history just a bit deeper and you'll discover that at the time there were TWO rival Kong projects, one via Paramount and one via Universal. Joseph Sargent was, I believe, slated to direct the Universal version, with Peter Falk as a rather severe Carl Denham (or Denham-type), in a 1930s period version rather than a modern update. The effects were to have been primarily stop motion. Since there was some question of whether the rights to the Delos Lovelace novelization and the story rights to the RKO film were separate, incidents which were only in the latter were off-limits; alternate action sequences & alternate dinosaurs were to be done instead. Eventualyl Universal decided to kill their project and settle with Paramount, letting the latter buy out any rights to the novel Universal had. It seems like the Universal version would probably been a lot better.
Count Brickenstein		#59	[-]
Jul 7 09 5:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rakshasa wrote: The photo on the right was actually in Time Magazine (believe it or not). I was nine years old when that issue came out in 1976 and I sure couldn't believe it! I first saw that issue of Time and this picture at a Cub Scout meeting when I was about 8 years old. The article on King Kong obviously attracted a lot of attention from kids that age. I swear, The Flash would have been envious at the lightning speed at which the den mother swooped in to confiscate the magazine and save our young, impressionable minds from the permanent trauma that image might cause. Alas, she was too late. It seems like the Universal version would probably been a lot better. Not if you believe what Bob Burns had to say about it. He stated that he did a screen test for the part and that Universal ultimately wanted to go for the man-in-the-suit approach, even going so far as to use a midget in an ape suit for long shots. He hinted that the Paramount version was the superior of the two (as sad as that may seem). Last Edited By: Count Brickenstein Jul 7 09 5:38 PM. Edited 1 times.
The Mighty Bongo		#60	[-]
Jul 7 09 7:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Count Brickenstein wrote: Rakshasa wrote: The photo on the right was actually in Time Magazine (believe it or not). I was nine years old when that issue came out in 1976 and I sure couldn't believe it! I first saw that issue of Time and this picture at a Cub Scout meeting when I was about 8 years old. The article on King Kong obviously attracted a lot of attention from kids that age. I swear, The Flash would have been envious at the lightning speed at which the den mother swooped in to confiscate the magazine and save our young, impressionable minds from the permanent trauma that image might cause. Alas, she was too late. It seems like the Universal version would probably been a lot better. Not if you believe what Bob Burns had to say about it. He stated that he did a screen test for the part and that Universal ultimately wanted to go for the man-in-the-suit approach, even going so far as to use a midget in an ape suit for long shots. He hinted that the Paramount version was the superior of the two (as sad as that may seem). Bob also said that rather than using his Kogar/Tracy suit, ( with Rick Baker sculpted head ), the braintrust at universal chose to use the ratty mess that Andre' the giant sweated his arse off in as bigfoot. The head was sculpted by Chris Mueler on a cast of Joe Don Baker and was so big, it had to be glued down so Bob could wear it without flopping all over on his head. With the seaming lack of enterest in having Bob wear a suit that actually looked good, I couldn't imagine what the rest of the production would have looked like. I think the the recycled fur suit they gave Bob to wear would have looked like a joke next to Rick Bakers.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

OK, the 1976 film stunk, but...