MovieChat Forums > King Kong (1933) Discussion > This Kong killed more people (spoilers)

This Kong killed more people (spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by misskaren2016
19 replies | jump to latest

My son was watching Kong made in 2005 the other day and we got into a funny little debate over which Kong was more dangerous. I say the Kong in the 1933 Kong was more dangerous than in the 2005 version and actually killed more people but my son disagrees. What is puzzling is he saw the 1933 version but is still convinced the 2005 Kong (the ape, not the movie) was extremely violent.

I mentioned to him that:

Kong killed more people in the 1933 version. Most of them for no good reason.

1.)The 12 sailors that tried to help rescue Ann. When he tossed them from the log he seemed to be enjoying himself as they fell to their deaths.

2.)The two villagers that he stepped on grinding his foot into the ground to make sure they were dead.

3.)The villager who he put in his mouth and bit down on

4.)The man in NYC who he put in his mouth and bit down on

5.)The poor woman who was sleeping in her bed only to be pulled out of her window and dropped

6.)The poor people riding in the train. Kong not only knocked the train off the track but he smashed it with his fist for good measure. He had found Ann by that time and did this out of spite.

In the 2005 version I think there were 17 victims. In the 1933 version there were 17 not including the people on the train (not sure of the number). My son is still unconvinced.

Did I miss anything?

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 9 years ago

I never did a body count to determine which Kong killed more damage, but off the top of my head, I say your analysis seems right.

People need to remember King Kong is a monster in a monster movie. He's supposed to be a vicious, dangerous creature capable of dealing tremendous death and destruction. Unfortunately Peter Jackson and Dino de Laurentiis decided Kong was supposed to be more sympathetic than monstrous, thus dumbing down the concept. Merian C. Cooper referred to Kong as a sonofabitch himself. That's not a term generally applied to someone a person has affinity for.

Thus, while I agree just based on memory, Kong '33 was the most destructive of the lot, I think this was intentional on each filmmaker's part as a way to present his vision of the story to the audience.

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

What a load of crap. Just because Jackson's version had a different interpretation doesn't mean "they got it wrong." It was just different.

The remake would have been entirely boring if they just updated the effects and not the story. Instead, they went for a different angle on Kong, which meant that we got an actual relationship between Kong and Anne. So that when Kong died, the audience actually felt sad, and the emotional pay off was greater. You should be glad that you have two different versions of Kong to watch.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

There are three versions of Kong to watch, not two.

Kong 1976 actually had the best relationship balance out of the three versions. The girl felt sympathy for Kong but she wasn't his best friend and was still wary. Kong 2005 went way over the top and was too schamltzy. It became a buddy movie chick flick some way in.

There was little wrong with the story of King Kong 1933. Sure, some tweaking and some modern adaptation is good but King Kong 2005 totally re-wrote every single character (including Kong) to the point that apart from the same names, they have zero resemblance to the original characters. In fact Jack Black's Carl Denham is a much more like Charles Grodin's Fred Wilson from 1976.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

The only schmaltzy moment that rang false for me was the ice skating scene between Kong and Anne.
Otherwise, imo, it was a believable relationship between a human being and a giant, silverback gorilla.

In the 30s and 70s versions, you feel sorry for Kong, but in a somewhat detached way. He's just a big, dumb animal that is caught amongst these humans.
In the 2005 version, I actually felt for Kong as a more rounded character, one that has emotions beyond blind instinct or covetousness.

But apart from that, the 1933 version is the best of the bunch.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

I think there were just too many weepy moments in Kong 2005. First the sunset/beautiful moment on the cliff, then who whole reaching out to Ann after being harpooned where she's bawling her eyes out, then the ice skating in Centra Park, then the sign language on top of the Empire State. The final death is supposed to be sad but there was too much hanky stuff going on before that.

Kong 1976 had the best balance. It wasn't overcooked. There was a nice sympathetic moment in the oil tanker but it wasn't hanky moment. The only hanky moment in '76 was Kong's death at the end. I have heard a number of people saying they were more affected by Kong's death in '76 than in '05.

Kong '76 isn't a big dumb animal. He's more sympathetic than Kong '33. Kong '05 took that aspect from '76 and ran with it. Kong '76 doesn't even attack the sailors on the log bridge until after he is shot at.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Those moments might seem cheesy, but to me they emphasize the tragedy of their relationship, and develops their connections. I also found Naomi Watts to be better in the role than Jessica Lange, with Andy Serkis convincingly bringing Kong to life.

The scenes where Kong and Ann bond in the '76 version are just so goofy, and Kong seems to view her more as a trophy than actually developing feelings for her. But I haven't seen that version in a while, so it's hard to compare.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

What's goofy about the oil tanker hold scene in '76? Kong is going mad smashing the tanker sides, the captain orders him drowned, Dwan goes to try and calm him down, Dwan falls down into the tank, Kong catches her, looks at her then lets her go and she climbs back up and nearly faints from the whole experience. Far more believable than what goes on in '05, where Naomi Watts loses ALL fear of Kong very early on, and willingly sleeps in the palm of his hand etc.
I will admit that the waterfall scene is cheesy (mainly due to Kong's smiling face) but it's no more cheesy than the ice dancing scene in '05 where Naomi Watts giggles like a school girl on her prom night.
The thing is, in Kong '76 Dwan and Kong didn't really 'bond' as such two way. They weren't best friends. It didn't turn into a buddy movie or chick flick. Dwan felt sympathy but she was still wary of him until right up to the end when she finally goes towards him. That was handled with far more restraint and aplomb in '76. It was too overcooked in '05. Way too much. Nearly everything about '05 was over done and over the top.
I'll admit that Watts was very good. I liked her. I'd give her the nod over Lange. Shame about Black and Brody though. Totally miscast.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

I actually kind of liked Brody. I thought he was an unconventional hero, and worked pretty well.

The only parts of the story I didn't care for was the Captain and the kid subplot that went no where.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

I thought Brody's character was the weakest main character out of all 3 versions and he wasn't convincing as somebody who had to go off and rescue Ann alone, unlike Bruce Cabot in '33 and Jeff Bridges in '76.

In Kong 2005 the captain (Thomas Kretschmann) should have been the love interest for Naomi Watts. There was more chemistry between them in 2 seconds on the dock than Watts and Brody had in the whole film. Brody's character was superfluous, as were many others. We didn't need the Hayes and Jimmy sub plot and Preston was superfluous too. As was the movie star Bruce Baxter.

Unfortunately once those two women (Walsh and Boyens) got hold of the King Kong script they turned it into a wannabe epic that couldn't make up it's mind what it wanted to be and ended up turning into chick flick buddy movie. That ain't King Kong.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Sometimes the least likely of heroes are the ones who end up saving the day. It would have been intriguing for a change up to have the Captain as the love interest, but then we wouldn't have Jack Driscoll as the man who saves the day, like in the original (even though the characters are different). Maybe they should have had the Captain be the Jack Driscoll character?

Didn't care for Jeff Bridges interpretation, he seemed more like a crazed, hippie cave man than a love interest. In fact, I'm not much of a fan of the 70s version in general.

However, I'll admit, the 2005 one had some sappy moments, but it worked better in capturing the spirit and as a homage to the original. I'll be damned if I wasn't distraught when the light went out his eyes, and Kong slipped off the building. Even if it is inferior to the '33 one.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] aceventura2013 9 years ago

Exactly the reason I think the 2005 version is better though It has a lot of problems mainly pacing problems. The 1933 version was just a simple action movie with no emotions or good characters. Although I appreciate it for what it have done for cinema and for what it achieved for it's time.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

That's why King Kong 1933 worked. It didn't try to be anything else. It had economy in dialogue and plot and was a straight ahead adventure thriller and didn't get bogged down in unnecessary claptrap. A perfect example of how to tell a story concisely and effectively. The story of King Kong doesn't require superfluous sub plots,back stories and characters.

King Kong 1976 also told the story more concisely and to the point and stuck to it without going off here there and everywhere.

Clearly, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens were still in Lord Of The Rings mode unfortunately. It's nearly half an hour of back stories before the ship even leaves port.

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 8 years ago

You're right. 2005 Kong is radically different from 1933 Kong. 2005 Kong is also an overblown, goddamn horrible movie that looks and feels more like an '80s Saturday Morning cartoon than like a portrayal of the quintessential movie monster.

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.

[–] Degree7 8 years ago

the portrayal of Kong was almost perfect, and certainly the most lifelike out of all the versions. The Kong/Anne relationship also had the most character development out of all of them. This is a fact.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 8 years ago

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion before declaring the latter to be the former in the future.

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.

[–] Degree7 8 years ago

So do you.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Buddy-Love63 9 years ago

The opening poster is correct. Kong '33 was a pissed off nasty malicious rampaging monster. He was pro-active. Kong 2005 was only re-active. He never did anything unless provoked. At one point Kong '05 even RUNS AWAY from the search party when he hears them coming. Kong '33 would have turned back to smash them up.

[–] Woodyanders 8 years ago

I love that Kong is depicted as a deadly and ferocious beast in this film. He's meant to be an animal and really comes across as such in the movie.

I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (1848) 6 years ago

Thanks for this. The original is on TCM now and I knew there was a good reason I didn't want to watch it. Too much of this going on currently in real life including a certain national leader barely distinguishable from Kong--of huge bulk and tiny intellect, who goes for pretty blondes but is all for the destruction of the "less attractive" people of other ages and races (the 2005 Kong went out of its way to be racist in this manner), destructive of life and property, displaying callous indifference to human rights including guilty of kidnapping! Also strangely attracted to tall buildings in New York. Hmmm.