# King Kong
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [April 7, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228 "2010-04-07T02:21:29Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/1 "2010-04-07T02:21:29Z")
Was/were the “King Kong” movies considered the state-of-the-art in their day for special effects, or did they know they were cheesy even then?
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/2 "2010-04-07T02:49:56Z")
The original? Top-of-the-line special effects that influenced just about every special effects film ever made. There are things (e.g., the wind blowing through Kong’s fur; the way the snake moves with a broken neck) there that they still can’t do as well today, even with CGI. Nothing cheesy about them.
I’d rather see Willis O’Brien than 90% of today’s CGI films, which aren’t anywhere near as realistic or well done. You can bet that those who are making film today go back to watch Kong to see if they might be able to duplicate it.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/3 "2010-04-07T03:12:23Z")
Holy crap - human beings in the same with special effects elements, consistently?
Totally unheard of.
_King Kong_ was a game changer; no cheese there, _mon frere_.
---
### Author:  [@cormac262](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cormac262)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/4 "2010-04-07T03:14:09Z")
> [@Jinx](#):
>
> Was/were the “King Kong” movies considered the state-of-the-art in their day for special effects, or did they know they were cheesy even then?
This OP would be worth archiving: I am guessing the same was asked of the original “Star Wars”, then “Jurassic Park”, and give it maybe 10 years, “Avatar”.
---
### Author:  [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/5 "2010-04-07T03:26:54Z")
The OP is under the mistaken assumption that the effects are seen as cheesy now. They’re not. Perhaps a little archaic and no longer state-of-the-art? Yes, but there is still great artistry, emotion, innovation, and ingenuity throughout the film’s special effects, and that is exactly the opposite of “cheesy”.
---
### Author:  [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/6 "2010-04-07T03:29:39Z")
> [@Jinx](#):
>
> Was/were the “King Kong” movies considered the state-of-the-art in their day for special effects, or did they know they were cheesy even then?
Cheesy? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
How are they cheesy?
---
### Author:  [@blondebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blondebear)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/7 "2010-04-07T03:45:16Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> You can bet that those who are making film today go back to watch Kong to see if they might be able to duplicate it.
Peter Jackson did a featurette for the '05 Kong DVD using O’Brien-era tech. It showed crewmen from the ship being attacked by worm- and spider creatures.
---
### Author:  [@Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crown_Prince_of_Irony)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/8 "2010-04-07T06:47:50Z")
I love the original movie, but I won’t go so far as to say the effects don’t look dated - in today’s post mo-cap, CGI world, the animation does look stiff, and there’s only so much you can do to make a scale model gorilla truly emote. Compare this to the Kong in the '05 remake - say what you will about the latter movie as a whole (personally, I like it), but having Andy Serkis handle the motion capture and facial expressions made the character of Kong more vibrant than any of the actual people in the movie (which is perhaps the problem most folks have with the movie, that the people were less lifelike than the monkey).
But this aside, as for the original - imagine yourself in the theater back in '33, when nothing of the sort had been done on this scale, and I don’t imagine the effects looked cheesy at all.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/9 "2010-04-07T15:11:46Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> the wind blowing through Kong’s fur
As far as I know, the SF folks on King Kong couldn’t get rid of the way their fingers moved the fur on the models and made it look like that. They didn’t like the effect and considered it one of their mistakes.
---
### Author:  [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/10 "2010-04-07T15:17:13Z")
I don’t think audiences in the 1930s had the same expectations when it came to special effects that we do. None of them really expected King Kong to look like a real giant gorilla and they were just willing to fill in the gaps with their own imagination. As special effects have gotten more sophisticated over the years the bar has been raised. We’re not as forgiving when something doesn’t look “real” even if we know it can’t possible exist in real life.
---
### Author:  [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/11 "2010-04-07T15:57:25Z")
Well, the 1976 version of _King Kong_ with Jeff Bridges and Charles Grodin \*was \*cheesy as hell, even for its day. I remember seeing it in the theater and being embarrassed for the filmmakers.
---
### Author:  [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/12 "2010-04-07T15:59:14Z")
> [@Mahaloth](#):
>
> How are they cheesy?
Worst. Pesci. Ever.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/13 "2010-04-07T16:06:44Z")
They invented effects for King Kong that had never been used before – like _miniature rear-projection_, and heavily used others that hadn’t seen as much use – like _rear projection on an acetate screen_. There are multiple _layers_ of effects in many shots, and lots of things you’ll tend to miss unless you actually look for them. (When the fog lifts and you first see the island, there are waves crashing on the shore and you see silhouettes of birds flying by; When Kong attacks the subway (actually an elevated) train, there are people running by in front of him, and people gesturing in the windows to the side)
There were reports of women fainting from seeing the film (which played at the two biggest theaters in NYC simultaneously). there might be hype to that, but I’m inclined to believe it – there wasn’t the familiarity with special effects we have today, and films in general were much “tamer”. We’ve been spoiled and jaded by effects work – when this came out, it eclipsed even O’Brien’s previous film, **the lost World** , by a mile. Yet thirty years later, no one objected to me watching it on TV.
the film made a mint and was re-released ito the 1950s, then was sold to television. Its special effects were copied, as was the story and basic elements. There were certainly people not awed by the effects, but most were. The movie was insanely popular.
this sort of thing happens over and over. Kubrick – the director himself – had a hand in the effects of **2001** , and both the effects and the style transformed space movies. Before this, space ships were streamlined and cigar-shaped. Space stations looked as if they were twisted out of balloons\*. After 2001, ships got blockier and detailed. They looked as if they were covered in glue and rolled in piles of old model parts. The _Millenium Falcon_ and \* Dark Star\* wouldn’t have looked like “piles of junk” if it hadn’t been for 2001.
- Which they were. Most of those 1950 space stations were based, directly or indirectly, on von Braun and company’s plans that ca;lled for the station to be built fromm inflated sections that would be covered by semi-cylinders of metal.
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/14 "2010-04-07T16:55:38Z")
My father liked the “Flash Gordon” serials and said those were regarded as great special effects in the 1930s. I imagine he regarded “King Kong”- a far higher budget-as really great special effects for the period.
---
### Author:  [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/15 "2010-04-07T17:40:40Z")
From the original 1933 _New York Times_ review:
> [@](#):
>
> Through multiple exposures, processed “shots” and a variety of angles of camera wizardry the producers set forth an adequate story and furnish enough thrills for any devotee of such tales.
>
> Although there are vivid battles between prehistoric monsters on the island which Denham, the picture maker, insists on visiting, it is when the enormous ape, called Kong, is brought to this city that the excitement reaches its highest pitch. Imagine a 50-foot beast with a girl in one paw climbing up the outside of the Empire State Building, and after putting the girl on a ledge, clutching at airplanes, the pilots of which are pouring bullets from machine guns into the monster’s body.
>
> It often seems as though Ann Redman, who goes through more terror than any of the other characters in the film, would faint, but she always appears to be able to scream. Her body is like a doll in the claw of the gigantic beast, who in the course of his wanderings through Manhattan tears down a section of the elevated railroad and tosses a car filled with passengers to the street. Automobiles are mere missiles for this Kong, who occasionally reveals that he relishes his invincibility by patting his chest.
The reviewer seems impressed, but not exactly knocked out.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [April 7, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/16 "2010-04-07T23:09:41Z")
> [@Sigmagirl](#):
>
> From the original 1933 _New York Times_ review:
>
> The reviewer seems impressed, but not exactly knocked out.
Hey! Forgetaboutit. It’s the NYTimes.
🙂
---
### Author:  [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/17 "2010-04-08T00:40:49Z")
> [@Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](#):
>
> But this aside, as for the original - imagine yourself in the theater back in '33, when nothing of the sort had been done on this scale, and I don’t imagine the effects looked cheesy at all.
A fond childhood memory of mine:
One night in the late 50’s as my Dad tucked me in for the night, he told me about seeing KK when it first came out, at a theatre in El Paso. He would have been about 8.
I remember him telling me it was like nothing he’d ever seen before, people were completely blown away by it. He also told me how fascinated he was by a display item in the ticket booth, a model Brontosaurus\* that had an air bladder of some sort inside that made the sides heave as if it were breathing. Really made an impression on him.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that toy mentioned in the KK Special Features disc from a couple of years ago.
- Yes I know, but that’s what they called it then.
---
### Author:  [@TreacherousCretin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TreacherousCretin)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/18 "2010-04-08T00:42:00Z")
> [@Telemark](#):
>
> As far as I know, the SF folks on King Kong couldn’t get rid of the way their fingers moved the fur on the models and made it look like that. They didn’t like the effect and considered it one of their mistakes.
Correct. The “moving fur” is fingerprints.
.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/19 "2010-04-08T01:16:07Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Telemark
> As far as I know, the SF folks on King Kong couldn’t get rid of the way their fingers moved the fur on the models and made it look like that. They didn’t like the effect and considered it one of their mistakes.
>
> Correct. The “moving fur” is fingerprints.
They could, with the right kind of fur, according to Orville Turner in _the Making of King Kong_. Unfortunately, they’d gotten the wrong kind for the animation model used in many of the shots. They wanted to re-shoot the scenes – which would’ve taken a lot of time and cst a LOT of money, until they heard an RKO executive during the screening of the “rushes” exclaim “Boy, Kong is mad! Look at his fur bristle!”
I have my doubts about the story, but that’s what he told.
In the 1990s they shot a parody of one of the wscenes of King Kong for an “Energizer Bunny” commercial. I’ve heard that they actually used a rod puppet, rather than stop-motion, for the scenese, but they wanted to get the same “bristle fur” effect, so they used a blast of air from off-camera to move the fur.
as for not being able to get rid of the effect – note that it’s not in every scene. And you won’t see it in **Son of Kong** or **mighty Joe Young** , both done my mostly the same team.
---
### Author:  [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)
#### Post date: [April 8, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228/20 "2010-04-08T01:39:47Z")
TIME Magazine:
> [@](#):
>
> King Kong, “conceived” by Merian Coldwell Cooper, was not made entirely by enlarging miniatures. Kong is actually 50 ft. tall, 36 ft. around the chest. His face is 6½ ft. wide with 10-in. teeth and ears 1 ft. long. He has a rubber nose, glass eyes as big as tennis balls. His furry outside is made of 30 bearskins. During his tantrums, there were six men in his interior running his 85 motors. Naturally no such monster would be limber enough to wrestle with a tyrannosaurus. Most of Kong’s fights were photographed in miniature, some of them in “stop-motion”—using models of which the positions are minutely changed after each exposure, like the drawings in an animated cartoon.
Variety (amusing enough to quote at length):
> [@](#):
>
> “Kong” surpasses anything of its type which has gone before it in commercial film-making. The work has many flaws, but they’re overcome by the general results. The errors will probably be overlooked.
>
> It takes a couple of reels for “Kong” to be believed, and until then it doesn’t grip. But after the audience becomes used to the machine-like movements and other mechanical flaws in the gigantic animals on view, and become accustomed to the phoney atmosphere, they may commence to feel the power. As the story background is constantly implausible, the mechanical end must fight its own battle for audience confidence. Once won, it reaches a high pitch of excitement and builds up to a thrill finish in which the ape almost wrecks little ol’ New York. Brute is finally picked off by airplanes while doing a balancing act on the mooring mast of the Empire State.
>
> There are times when the plot takes advantage of its imaginative status and goes too far. On these occasions the customers are liable to laugh in the wrong way. A most tolerant audience at the Music Hall broke down now and then, but on the whole was exceedingly kind. It seemed that while a few details were too strong to swallow the picture, as a whole, got them.
>
> Neither the story nor the cast gains more than secondary importance, and not even close. Technical aspects are always on top. The technicians’ two big moments arrive in the island jungle, where Kong and other prehistoric creatures reign, and in New York where Kong goes on a bender.
>
> Besides Kong in the jungle among other freaks to appear are a triceratops, a brontosaurus, a tyrannosaurus, a pterodactyl and a 60-foot snake. Kong battles three of them, including the snake. His first scrimmage is with the tyrannosaurus, which looks like the better known dinosaurs, and it’s a wrassling match the likes of which is never seen at the Garden. As an illusion it beats anything that follows, and there is plenty following. After Kong breaks them apart he picks up the pieces for a hasty examination and then beats his breast in token of victory. All he does with the serpent is slap it up against a rock a few times.
>
> In New York, where he’s on exhibition, the giant ape breaks his bonds, bursts through the theatre wall and climbs the side of a hotel to recapture the blonde. He rips up the rest of the town, including an elevated track and plenty of the citizens with one hand. The girl is held in the other. He’s careful with the gal, and she’s never apparently hurt, but always frightened.
>
> When Kong reaches the top of the Empire State he’s stuck. Airplanes snipe at him and finally get him, but not before he picks one out of the air like a mosquito and dashes it to earth.
>
> In adhering to the proper perspectives the technical crew has never missed. The illusion of comparative size is splendid. The errors arrive when mechanical figures are obviously used in place of the ape impersonator.
>
> As for a story, in place of Conan Doyle’s museum expedition, this one concerns an animal picture specialist, who downs and captures the huge Kong with gas bombs. But how the ape is shackled and brought to this country isn’t shown.
>
> Fay Wray is the blonde who’s chased by Kong, grabbed twice, but finally saved. It’s a 96-minute screaming session for her, too much for any actress and any audience. With the blonde still screaming while in Kong’s palm atop the Empire State, after having screamed all the way from the first reel, another of the unbelievable facts is that Kong shouldn’t drop her and look for a non-screamer–even if he has to settle for a brunet. The light hair is a change for Miss Wray. Robert Armstrong, as the explorer, and Bruce Cabot, as the blonde’s other boy friend who doesn’t make her scream, are the remaining principal characters and snowed under by the technical end.
>
> A gripping and fitting musical score and some impressive sound effects rate with the scenery and mechanism in providing “Kong” with its technical excellence.
>
> While not believing it, audiences will wonder how it’s done. If they wonder they’ll talk, and that talk plus the curiosity the advertising should incite ought to draw business all over. “Kong” mystifies as well as it horrifies, and may open up a new medium for scaring babies via the screen.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/king-kong/535228.md?page=2)