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		#61	[-]
Apr 25 12 10:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Then the second point will be why you are always so cost effective during the construction of the film to the point you will revamp puppets for your sequel. But you throw away footage of stop motion animation already in the can.
	Remove this ad
Tim Smyth		#62	[-]
Apr 25 12 11:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hey JadeExecutioner I'll try to answer a few questions, but all this is purely speculation. First off, they did make a demo reel to sell the RKO board, and I have no doubt they used whatever footage from Creation they could to pad out the sequence, and make it bigger than what they could produce for the ten thousand they had to make it. I agree with you that the Creation footage, while wonderful, is not up to Kong's standard, but Kong standard is so high because they were allowed to experiment on Creation for a year prior to the Kong film, that said, I am sure as the film got underway, and began to evolve, remember they shot that demo reel without a script or finished story, so as the film started to evolve into what it is now, I am sure Cooper was cutting out scenes that did not match his growing vision of Kong, in fact he probably never intended to use the Creation footage at all, he just used it to help sell the film. The same goes for the Spider pit scene, I believe it was shot, but cut out, not because it terrified audiences so much, but due to it's not conforming with the current state of Kong, and not a month before the premier in NY, but a few months before, to allow for some shots to be filmed to cover it's tracks, for all we know all the shots of the sailors falling into the ravine could be new shots and not from the reel. If reports are correct about having only one Kong model at the time of the reel, then we know they later added insert shots to better tell their tale, like the shot of Kong walking up to the log, the close ups of Kong after Driscoll stabs his fingers, with the knife, and the lizard crawling up the vine must have been a re-shoot, if they originally shot it with the spider climbing up the vine. I am unsure what puppets were revamped? Most of the Dinosaurs were from Creation, although Marcel stated that he built a larger Stegosaur for his scene. Only Kong was revamped time and time again, again I think as the movie evolved so did Kong's look. By the way, the alter scene was not in the test reel, so there was no shots needed of the big scale head in the demo reel. Again this is all speculation, but it is how I see it. Tim Last Edited By: Tim Smyth Apr 25 12 11:50 PM. Edited 1 times.
AkwenESC		#63	[-]
Apr 26 12 1:06 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But there is the shot of the big Kong head just after the t-rex fight also, when Fay is pinned to the ground by the tree and Kong is about to grab her, she looks up and she sees the big head. Of couse, they could have put this shot in later. I hardly think they built such a thing for a test reel.
Wich2		#64	[-]
Apr 26 12 9:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>First stop motion characters to display this level of expression and emotion.< With all respect to Kong and his creators, that's ignoring Starewitch's jaw-dropping work. >will be why you are always so cost effective during the construction of the film to the point you will revamp puppets for your sequel. But you throw away footage of stop motion animation already in the can.< A puppet can be made to do whatever your scene demands; preexisting footage constrains you into building your scene around it.
G Vallejo		#65	[-]
Apr 26 12 10:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Plus, if the spider scene was inappropriate for Kong, it would have been really inappropriate for Son Of Kong. A perfect Monster has no end...
JadeExecutioner		#66	[-]
Apr 26 12 10:44 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tim Smyth wrote: Hey JadeExecutioner I'll try to answer a few questions, but all this is purely speculation. First off, they did make a demo reel to sell the RKO board, and I have no doubt they used whatever footage from Creation they could to pad out the sequence, and make it bigger than what they could produce for the ten thousand they had to make it. I agree with you that the Creation footage, while wonderful, is not up to Kong's standard, but Kong standard is so high because they were allowed to experiment on Creation for a year prior to the Kong film, that said, I am sure as the film got underway, and began to evolve, remember they shot that demo reel without a script or finished story, so as the film started to evolve into what it is now, I am sure Cooper was cutting out scenes that did not match his growing vision of Kong, in fact he probably never intended to use the Creation footage at all, he just used it to help sell the film. The same goes for the Spider pit scene, I believe it was shot, but cut out, not because it terrified audiences so much, but due to it's not conforming with the current state of Kong, and not a month before the premier in NY, but a few months before, to allow for some shots to be filmed to cover it's tracks, for all we know all the shots of the sailors falling into the ravine could be new shots and not from the reel. If reports are correct about having only one Kong model at the time of the reel, then we know they later added insert shots to better tell their tale, like the shot of Kong walking up to the log, the close ups of Kong after Driscoll stabs his fingers, with the knife, and the lizard crawling up the vine must have been a re-shoot, if they originally shot it with the spider climbing up the vine. I am unsure what puppets were revamped? Most of the Dinosaurs were from Creation, although Marcel stated that he built a larger Stegosaur for his scene. Only Kong was revamped time and time again, again I think as the movie evolved so did Kong's look. By the way, the alter scene was not in the test reel, so there was no shots needed of the big scale head in the demo reel. Again this is all speculation, but it is how I see it. Actually I have the same opinion. There are three shots involving the second Kong puppet, so if it was confirmed that they had only one puppet at the time of the test reel, then it must mean there had possibly one other shot of Kong arriving at the log with Driscoll climbing down, shot that they redid later with the second puppet. My point here was mainly to try to understand the counting of scenes/shots as it is given in the book. When you leave out all the elements that were added later and if we follow logical thinking as you do, then it must mean the number of sequences is certainly not accurate. The insertion of the Creation footage that didn't connect with the rest proves that it was an unrefined process, with the editing certainly more basic than in the final version for the parts we know, with all the new elements later added. I don't see how logically you would end up with a counting of 147 or 138 scenes for the test reel.
G Vallejo		#67	[-]
Apr 26 12 2:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's no way to know how many shots the test reel was, so there's no way to know if 147 or 138 are wrong or not. (The fact they presented a very specific number--revised to another specific number, seems to indicate they had a source that was at least in the ballpark.) Either number seems reasonable to me... every shot utilized from Creation (and we don't know exactly what went in and what was lost), every closeup, every master shot, every reaction shot, all the live-action spider pit shots, shots of the Arsinoitherium, shots with the deleted seventh sailor, every shot in the T-Rex fight... you might not think it, but 138 could be a very reasonable number for a ten-minute clip of film. That's less than 14 per minute... in fact, it seems kind of low. I'm defining "shot" to mean every time the camera switches to something else... for instance, a shot of Kong interspersed with the men on the log, and then back to Kong... that's three. Am I right in this, or am I mistaken? A perfect Monster has no end...
JadeExecutioner		#68	[-]
Apr 26 12 4:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, you're right. The book doesn't say shots though, but scenes. If we strip down the part of finished film corresponding to the test reel of what should logically have been done after the reel was presented, we amount to about 100 scenes (or set ups if you want, each new angle) and something like 190 shots. If we are to believe the book, what is lost would then amount to about 38 (or 47) scenes, meaning a lot of angles for what is missing. The recreation by Peter Jackson is not that far from that, but you can see the rhythm of shots in this recreation is more "modern" in its approach and very different from the real film.
PriceMH		#69	[-]
Apr 27 12 8:19 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That revision derives from George Turner's handwritten notes (discovered posthumously), describing pertinent conversations with Linwood Dunn. Long time since I've handled those materials, but the recollection is fresh. No further sourcing, but I can only consider George's notations authoritative.
BijouBob8mm		#70	[-]
Apr 27 12 9:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If he hung onto them long enough to show them to Danforth, and I'm assuming that was decades later, then he probably kept them after that, too. I think Danforth's talking about the very late Fifties or (more probably) early Sixties. Given how detailed and complete Danforth's book is (a lot of info crammed into nearly 900 pages and this is only Volume 1), I would say he wouldn't have included this unless he had really seen the stills. (And given Danforth's love of KONG, I can't imagine him mistaking stills from one scene for another. It's possible, of course, but I think JD's account is one of the more convincing things out there that this might have actually had footage shot.) One more thing to establish is who was Orville Beckett? I checked the Kong entry for his name at IMDB, and he was not listed. At the bottom of the crew list was "Crew verified as complete" but one can only trust IMDB so far. There is an Orville Beckett listed, but for three movies from 1950... Unlike the endless stream of credits listing everyone under the sun in films made today, "complete credits" for back then were not really complete because some of the lesser support crew (assistant electricians, etc) didn't get listings. (1931's FRANKENSTEIN is the first credit given for Kenneth Strickfadden on IMDB, yet he had worked on a number of silent films in various capacities...including Chaney's 1925 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.) Under the old studio system each department might have numerous staff working on a film, but not everyone in that department was put on record for their contributions to a particular title. (Even today, IMDB still doesn't list John Huston and some of the other writers who kicked in some bits & pieces on FRANKENSTEIN.) If I recall, Beckett was a grip or similar technician early in his career, and those folks simply went and worked where they were told as just part of a day's work. And, of course, if he were doing things at an FX house after leaving the studio, credits could be hit & miss there. Last Edited By: BijouBob8mm Apr 27 12 9:25 AM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
JadeExecutioner		#71	[-]
Apr 27 12 10:32 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	PriceMH wrote: That revision derives from George Turner's handwritten notes (discovered posthumously), describing pertinent conversations with Linwood Dunn. Long time since I've handled those materials, but the recollection is fresh. No further sourcing, but I can only consider George's notations authoritative. Thank you for your answer Mister Price, it's very nice of you to take the time to do so. If I may, did those notes from Mister Turner explain the reasons why 138 is a more accurate counting than 147? Are those notes the only written source regarding the test reel itself? Were there official production documents describing its content?
G Vallejo		#72	[-]
Apr 27 12 11:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was going to post Mr. Price's response to me, but I see he's already done so. Linwood Dunn is interviewed in The Making Of King Kong, so I'll let people check him out there. It does say in the book that he now (circa mid-70s, of course) runs Film Effects Of Hollywood, so perhaps Beckett went to work for him. Also, while looking up Dunn quotes in TMoKK, I found this little detail on page 133: "A giant lizard was substituted for the spider that climbed up to Cabot's hideaway in the first filming." It also says the Triceratops and giant snake that menaces Ann were also jettisoned, which we knew but were not mentioned in detail when the book discusses the final editing (only the Triceratops, Styracosaurus, Arsinoitherium, and the pit creatures are mentioned specifically at that point). A perfect Monster has no end...
BijouBob8mm		#73	[-]
Apr 27 12 2:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	giant snake So Dino D's remake was more of an homage than we thought.
PriceMH	MORE ABOUT THAT: GEO. TURNER'S NOTATIONS	#74	[-]
Apr 27 12 5:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	George and I never discussed his notations re: Kong in detail, other than to agree that all that memo-keeping should be folded into a revised edition sooner or later. The Great 138-vs.-147 Controversy of 2012 hangs chiefly on a cross-out and a marginal notation in George's desk-reference copy of the 1975 edition, as well as a corresponding slip of notated paper. George's conversations with Lin Dunn would correspond, in turn, with this period of note-taking. That is, the Film Effects of H'wood period, before George settled in at the A.S.C. The Film FX affiliation, of course, put George in touch with archival files from RKO. Anything beyond this knowledge risks assumption.
JadeExecutioner		#75	[-]
Apr 28 12 3:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thank you very much. That is so interesting. So it's certainly safe to assume that this corrected numbering was given to Mr. Turner by Lin Dunn himself. If it's the case and Mr. Dunn made this specific correction, it would be logical to think he must still had precise notes on the reel itself, possibly? He wouldn't quote this from memory only. On a more personal opinion, do you think there are still nowadays things left to find about this film? Last Edited By: JadeExecutioner Apr 28 12 4:13 AM. Edited 3 times.
HalLane		#76	[-]
Apr 28 12 7:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks for the input, Mike! And thanks for doing what you do, sir. Speaking of George Turner and The Making Of KING KONG, in following this thread I decided to pull out the hardcover version that I recently inherited from a friend (there are slight photo and text differences from the soft cover version). So I crack the covers, and out fall a couple of newsprint clippings that my friend had tucked away there. One was a double obituary of Robert Armstrong and Merian Cooper from the weekend they died, a day apart (I remember when it appeared in our local paper). The other clipping is apparently a letter from George Turner to some fanzine with the initials TNJ (whatever that stands for), written at the time of the first edition of the book. It's kind of interesting, so I'll share it here: I got a nice letter from George Turner, co-author of THE MAKING OF KING KONG, that I'd like to share with you. Herewith, Mr. Turner: Dear Mr. Lamberti: I want to thank you for your kind words about THE MAKING OF KING KONG in the past two issues of TNJ. Goldner and I worked on this project for five years, and are pleased that it seems to have what Kong lovers (bless their hearts!) want. Needless to say, there are a number of things we would do differently if we had it to do over again. There are a few facts that we picked up too late to use, such as the identity of the girl Kong dropped from the building (she was Mrs. Gary Cooper). We could almost do a sequel in fact. Incidentally, the test frames we used in the book were for the most part collected by Goldner, plus some from Marcel Delgado, not from Gen. Cooper. Goldner built most of the trees, shrubbery, details of the New York scenes (such as all the fire escapes, trash cans, railings, etc.) the outside of the Great Wall, and other miniature properties. He animated all the flying birds, airplanes, etc. Some of the pictures we used were photographed by Mr. Goldner on the set, using a French Sept split-frame camera. He developed the roll of film, left it in the can, and we found it while we were working on the book. It had been rolled so long we had a heck of a time getting it straightened out so we could use it. So these were printed for the first time more than 40 years after they were shot! These were the pictures of the New York sets (including the ones you mentioned with the poster on "Chang") and of the Arsinotherium which was edited out before the movie was finished. I have my doubts about the color version of the final reel, although I know for a fact that Cooper wanted to do it in color. One reason I suspect that it was done only in black and white is that there are some travelling-matte shots at the end which in those days couldn't be done in color, although they were done on bi-pack stock such as was used in two-color Technicolor. Somewhere, presumably, there is some color footage in existence of another Cooper-Schoedsack project. When they were making THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII (1935), they planned it for Technicolor, but RKO balked on the expense. The costumes and sets had been designed for color, and the Eastman Company asked permission to have their crew on the set to film the thing in their new Kodachrome three-color process. Schoedsack said the fire scenes and Roman costumes were so beautiful in the color shots that he was terribly disappointed in his own black and white footage. Sincerely, George E. Turner So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Goldner personally photographed the Arsinotherium, then he must have been in a position to know what was filmed for the test reel, and surely would have known if the spiders had not been filmed -- is that too big a leap? Cool about the color POMPEII stuff, too!
JadeExecutioner		#77	[-]
Apr 28 12 9:44 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wow, thanks for sharing this Hal, it is so cool.
HalLane		#78	[-]
Apr 28 12 12:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	My pleasure, Jade. Hey, it's Kong, man.
G Vallejo		#79	[-]
Apr 28 12 3:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks for that fascinating letter, Hal! And I've said it all along, Goldner was there all along, was part of Obie's team, worked on the animation, and thus was in a position to know if the spider pit was legend or not... and he said not. End of story. I'm going to write a letter to Filmfax soon with this latest tidbit, and it will be interesting to see what sort of response it gets. A perfect Monster has no end... Last Edited By: G Vallejo Apr 28 12 4:12 PM. Edited 1 times.
JadeExecutioner		#80	[-]
Apr 29 12 4:57 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	HalLane wrote: I got a nice letter from George Turner, co-author of THE MAKING OF KING KONG, that I'd like to share with you. Herewith, Mr. Turner: "... Some of the pictures we used were photographed by Mr. Goldner on the set, using a French Sept split-frame camera. " As we can see, the real man of taste would never leave home without his Sept. "Can be a still camera, sequential camera, cine camera, still projector, cine projector, enlarger and cine transfer machine". All in one! Sold in an elegant looking (but very practical) leather case. Wouldn't you want one for Christmas? I say yes. Here is a nice scan of the original instruction manual for the first version of the camera (in french but with excellent pics).
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

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