When monkey die, everybody cry.
"Intellectuals gonna love Konk; even film buffs who love the first Konk gonna love ours. Why? Because I no give them crap. I no spend two, three million to do quick business. I spend 24 million on my Konk. I give them quality. I got here a great love story, a great adventure. And she rated PG. For everybody.”
Yeah, right. No crap. This from the guy who said we’d get a full-size mechanical Kong, and gave us a lame, mechanical-looking Kong that was on-screen for fractions of a second. The effects were generally awful and the very point of the scenes misunderstood.
“Original has Kong on Empire State Building? we’ll go better by having Long on the World Trade Center!” The scenes, shot in the dark with no city panorama below, showing Kong most non-ape-like double-fist striking a model helicopter, carried not an iota of conviction and absolutely no drama. Just like the fight with the giant snake (a plesiosaur in the 1933 original) looks like an actor in an ape suit wrapping himself in a hose. Say what you will about Jackson, he knew what the point of the scenes was supposed to be, and gave them all the drama and effects work they needed to b effective.
The best part of the 1976 Kong was Rick Baker’s ape-suit work and Carlo Rambaldi’s mechanical arms. Baker has the be filmdom’s all-time gorilla suit master. When I saw Gorillas in the Mist, I didn’t realize that many of the gorillas were actually Baker in a suit – he’s that good. Rambaldi had been proving his talent for years, and came a helluva long way from mechanical beasts in Hercules films. He went on after this to do the alien head in Ridley Scott’s Alien. The rest of the effects were laughable. And Lorenzo Semple writing the screenplay (He wrote the TV series Batman)? Yeesh.
I can understand the interpretation of the '33 King Kong as something of a metaphor for the treatment of African-Americans by US society, but I have to doubt that this was a conscious intention of the filmmakers.
OTOH, for a loing time I thought Atlas Shrugged was about running a railroad, so what do I know?
Given how Rand beats the reader over the head over the course of a thousand pages, that’s actually rather impressive.
Annoyingly, To Kill a Mockingbird gave me no useful advice on killing mockingbirds.
Proves you can’t judge a book by its cover.
Just because Kong was meant to be sympathetic, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have been a racial metaphor.
Maybe it was a ‘liberal’ message, still bogged down by the racial tropes of the day.
Like: Slavery was terrible and inhumane. We should’ve left those darkies alone.
I would have said Jessica Lange’s boobs but to each his own.
I don’t think there was a mockingbird in the move, alive or dead.
What makes you think the island is in the South Pacific?
Are there lines about it?
The ship leaves NYC. (going into the Atlantic) The movie doesn’t mention them going through the canal or around the horn of Africa or around the end of South America. I thought the island was off the coast of Africa, in the Atlantic probably south of the equator.
I’ve heard interpretations that Kong represented sexuality or sexual desire.
The representation of the villagers in the film is not ‘racist’. We’re uncomfortable with it but those were the ‘tropes’ of the time of how people living in an African village at the time. Heck, the film had lots of roles for Blacks, several speaking roles for them. As far as I can tell, those actors are real blacks and not people in black face. Then again, there aren’t a lot of blacks in the NYC scenes. Not even the crowd scenes.
I think I hit puberty early because of that movie. 
They showed Ms. Lange’s boobs naked in photos in Time magazine, but not in the movie. How is that fair?
at least I got to see Baker’s expressive ape masks and Rambaldi’s ape arms in their full naked glory in the film.
What was the explanation for the changes in King Kong’s size? In one scene, his hand is big enough to carry Fay Wray-in another, he was small enough to fit into a truck. Something wasn’t right!
Goldner and Turner say in their book that King Kong’s scale was changed when they shot the New York scenes because even he seemed dwarfed by the buildings, so they upped the ante without fanfare. In truth, though, I think hi size changes from scene to scene. In fact, his appearance changes from scene to scene – the different models they used weren’t perfect clones of each other.
They also played with the scale on the dinosaurs. Even when I was a kid, I was troubled by the ludicrously huge size of the heads of the stegosaurus and brontosaurus, with their mouths big enough for a man. I’d been to the American Museum of Natural History, and knew you could hold each of the skulls comfortably in two hands (Well, it was really a Camarasaurus skull, but we won’t get into that now). The guideline was “make it impressively big”, regardless of reality or previous continuity.
King Kong, by the way, never got into a truck. I suspect you’re thinking of the same crew’s movie Mighty Joe Young, a kindler, gentler version of essentially the same story made 15 years later. Joe rides in two different trucks.
Maybe Fay shrunk, or the truck grew!
Obligatory(?) link.
As noted in my post above, King Kong never got in a truck, in any incarnation. Mighty Joe Young got in two trucks, but he was much smaller. Kong was big enough to much on people, but Joe would never have gotten Fay Wray in his mouth. Or his hand. What’s not right is your confusing two different movies.
They used two different scale models of Kong in the original movie.
In the posters he looked 50 feet tall, so they were a bit over the map on his size.
…as I said four posts above.
But it doesn’t relate to Ralph’s posts about a truck.