What happened to the dinosaurs?? - King Kong (1933) Discussion

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

When Ray Harryhausen saw this as a child in 1933, he was blown away, not just by Kong, but all the dinosaurs as well, which eventually lead to his own successful career as a stop-motion animator. So I think the dinosaurs were anything but a flaw.

Plus, one has to remember, the main character is King Kong. The dinosaurs helped to serve or rather set-up the other-worldly place that is Skull Island; what Denham and everyone else had to face, and ultimately what Kong always had to deal with. But once those scenarios were completed, it wasn't necessary to show them again and again. The narrative didn't call for it. It would have done what Peter Jackson loves to do - add in unnecessary fat to storyline.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

When Ray Harryhausen saw this as a child in 1933, he was blown away, not just by Kong, but all the dinosaurs as well, which eventually lead to his own successful career as a stop-motion animator. So I think the dinosaurs were anything but a flaw.

I think you misread what I meant. I meant in the context of the story.

Plus, one has to remember, the main character is King Kong.

Yet even Kong himself takes a back seat to the dinosaurs at certain points in the story. We forget about him when Denham and co are fighting the stego and the bronto.

The dinosaurs helped to serve or rather set-up the other-worldly place that is Skull Island.what Denham and everyone else had to face, and ultimately what Kong always had to deal with.

Yet, like I said, when we are done with them, Carl Denham and then later Ann Darrow and Jack Driscoll can move across half of the island without even seeing any more dinosaurs, nevermind being attacked by them. It makes the preceding sequences showing the dangers of the island kind of pointless.

Denham doesn't even mention the dinosaurs to the skipper and crew at the wall. He only talks about Kong.

But once those scenarios were completed, it wasn't necessary to show them again and again.

It wasn't necessary to shown them all in the first place. Not 5 separate sequences, and I speak as somebody loves King Kong 1933. I'm just trying to be impartial.

It might even have been better to have Denham run from a dinosaur while trying to get back to the village on his own instead of the earlier stego sequence.

The narrative didn't call for it. It would have done what Peter Jackson loves to do - add in unnecessary fat to storyline.

I disagree. The dinosaurs in the '33 film are inconsistent. One minute they are everywhere and are as big a danger as Kong, if not moreso.......then then next minute they don't exist and then are treated as if they never existed. It doesn't make sense in the context of the story. It's bizarre that Denham doesn't even mention them when he makes it back to the safety of the village. It's as if they serve no purpose in the story except to give us some fight scenes. The natives certainly don't worship them and they weren't part of the 'legend' of the island.

The dinosaurs aren't talked about in hushed tones initially........then they are there in abundance.........then they go back to being ignored and forgotten about again. In my opinion its inconsistent and can be considered a flaw in an otherwise great story.

reply

[–] raincoatriver 13 years ago

Apparently this film even influenced 'westerns'. During most 'westerns', bad guys show up from time to time and are gunned down by the star, then mostly forgotten.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

Well, as I said BuddyLove63, the purpose of the dinosaurs, the Gustave Dore background images, etc was to make Skull Island truly the epitome of a surreal, mythological lost world, as compared to the cold reality of NYC seen at the beginning. The dinosaurs played their part when the narrative called for it. King Kong then takes over afterwards. Did you want Kong to take on two more T-rexes during his chase of Jack and Ann? The worst thing you can do is add needless repetition to the storyline, much like Peter Jackson did with his version. It stops the narrative cold.

And how would you know Denham didn't mention the dinosaurs to others? Remember, when we see him talking to Englehorn, it is at the end of telling his story to the captain. Unless you have an original script, you can't say in good faith, that he didn't mention the dinos to Englehorn.

Apparently this film even influenced 'westerns'. During most 'westerns', bad guys show up from time to time and are gunned down by the star, then mostly forgotten.

Yes, and that all makes them inconsistent!

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Well, as I said BuddyLove63, the purpose of the dinosaurs, the Gustave Dore background images, etc was to make Skull Island truly the epitome of a surreal, mythological lost world, as compared to the cold reality of NYC seen at the beginning.

Yes........but then they are ignored later on and the island suddenly becomes an island where Denham and then later Ann and Driscoll can traverse across unharmed by any more dinosaurs.

Bizaare. No?

The dinosaurs played their part when the narrative called for it. King Kong then takes over afterwards. Did you want Kong to take on two more T-rexes during his chase of Jack and Ann?

Nope, but I wouldn't have minded the elasmosaur fight not be there and instead have Denham be chased by a dinosaur during his trip back to the village or Ann and Jack be terrorised by a dinosaur during their flight from Kong.

The worst thing you can do is add needless repetition to the storyline, much like Peter Jackson did with his version. It stops the narrative cold.

Actually King Kong 1933 already has 2 repeated needless scenes. The aforementioned elasmosaur scene does absolutely nothing different that the T-rex scene didn't already do before. That was one scene too many....saying the same thing twice. Needless.

I can even argue that the stego scene wasn't necessary. The bronto scene on it's own could have served to both introduce us to the dinosaurs and then for the dinosaur to make the men helpless after losing their bombs and guns.

If, as some claim, the whole point of the dinosaurs is to show us what a hell hole Skull Island is, then why not spread it out and be consistent and have some dinosaur threat to Denham and/or Ann and Jack when they are racing across the island back home?

On or two of the earlier dinosaurs scenes could have been got rid of and instead placed in a scene either threatening Denham or Ann/Jack. It would have made the dinosaur omnipresence more consistent and less flawed.*

And how would you know Denham didn't mention the dinosaurs to others?

Remember, when we see him talking to Englehorn, it is at the end of telling his story to the captain. Unless you have an original script, you can't say in good faith, that he didn't mention the dinos to Englehorn.

Because they don't mention them or even acknowledge them. It's all in the dialogue.

Denham:

"I tell you skipper this Kong is the biggest thing in the world"

Odd thing for Denham to say really seeing as the brontosaur was clearly bigger than Kong. LOL.

Englehorn:

"this.....monster you've seen....you think these bombs of yours will stop him?"

Note that Englehorn doesn't say "all these monsters you've seen, you think these bombs of yours will stop them"? Nope, Englehorn is clearly talking in the singular not plural. Only Kong.

As far as Denham, Englehorn etc are concerned the dinosaurs might well have not existed because nobody talks about them or seems to be scared about them. This is why it's a flaw that the dinosaurs are not seen or even talked about again after the mad 25 mins of little but dinosaurs in the middle.

*King Kong 2005 again makes the same mistake. It bunches all the dinosaur stuff up together and bizarrely as soon as any of the characters head in the direction of the great wall (no matter how far into dinosaur territory on the island they are) they don't get attacked. Mind boggling.

reply

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

If this was titled KING KONG AND HIS DINOSAUR BUDDIES, then your points would be much more in tuned.

All of the dinosaurs are set-ups to introduce us to the world of Skull Island and ultimately establish the main character King Kong as the mightiest thing in this primeval world. Once those set-ups have done their job, there is no need for a reintroduction of those elements for the jungle escape. It adds nothing to the narrative.

The elasmosaur scene showed us that even in Kong's lair, danger still lurks (it helped to introduce us to what type of environment Kong's own home was. Again, it is another set-up! Nothing really repetitive at all. Now, if another creature had walked into the lair, then we are going into a cycle).

And just because Denham didn't mention anything in the dialog to Englehorn about the dinosaurs, doesn’t mean he didn't speak of them. At that moment, their main concern was for Ann's safety, in the clutches of King Kong (which was Denham's focal point from the very beginning).

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

If this was titled KING KONG AND HIS DINOSAUR BUDDIES, then your points would be much more in tuned.

My points are in tune.

You obviously love all the dinosaur scenes and their placings in the film and won't hear a word against them. That's fine and all, but it's not really being objective.

I adore King Kong 1933 too but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to what I see as strange and a bit flawed.

Look, I love The Good The Bad and The Ugly. Even so I can admit that the whole bridge sequence is way over-long and doesn't really need to be in there.

All of the dinosaurs are set-ups to introduce us to the world of Skull Island and ultimately establish the main character King Kong as the mightiest thing in this primeval world.

Yet Kong is smaller than the brontosaurus and Kong doesn't even fight the brontosaurus. The dinosaurs exist in the film away from the story of Kong. The stego and the brontosaur don't even come across Kong so you can't say that they are there to show how mighty Kong is. The bronto is at least twice as big as Kong, and would probably crush Kong if they ever fought.

Once those set-ups have done their job, there is no need for a reintroduction of those elements for the jungle escape. It adds nothing to the narrative.

Of course it would. It would reinforce the premise that just the journey alone to Kong's lair is dangerous enough because of all the other beasts on the island yet suddenly the dinosaurs not only don't exist on the island anymore but nobody even mentions them........even though a second search party is about to go out.

Rather than have 5 dinosaur scenes prior to Ann and Jack's escape why not have 3 prior to their escape and then 1 after their escape and perhaps have Denham encountering something on his way back to the village too? It would balance it out instead of it all being bunched one after the other. The dinosaurs are everywhere at one point in the film then nowhere and non existent the next.........yet it's same island/jungle. It's bizarre and a contradiction.

The elasmosaur sequence could easily have been discarded in favour of a scene showing Ann and Jack fighting their way back to the village and escaping another monster.

It's just inconsistent that neither Denham or Ann and Jack are in danger from dinosaurs when they are moving away from Kong. It's totally bizarre how people heading in the direction of the village (no matter how far into the interior they are) are never menaced by dinosaurs.

The elasmosaur scene showed us that even in Kong's lair, danger still lurks

The pteranodon scene could easily have done that on its own. It could have served both that purpose and as a purpose of escape. The elasmosaur scene was completely un-needed. I like it but it was still un-needed.

(it helped to introduce us to what type of environment Kong's own home was.

That's a weak explanation. Clutching at straws. The elasmosaur scene was un-needed and was superfluous. It's one of the reasons why Jackson made the same mistakes. He crammed too much into his film because the original was 'guilty' of the same thing at times.

Again, it is another set-up! Nothing really repetitive at all.

It's a re-do of the T-rex scene from a few minutes earlier. The elasmosaur tries to eat Ann Darrow. Kong arrives in the nick of time to stop it and kills it. Same scenario as the T-rex. Change of location matters not. It's still the same premise.

It doesn't say anything that the T-rex scene already said and that the pteranodon scene will say soon after.

Now, if another creature had walked into the lair, then we are going into a cycle).

*Cough* a pteranodon comes to the lair soon after. But at least that serves a purpose because it enables Ann and Jack to escape while Kong is otherwise engaged.

And just because Denham didn't mention anything in the dialog to Englehorn about the dinosaurs, doesn’t mean he didn't speak of them.

He clearly didn't.

Denham says Kong is the biggest thing in the world. Yet the bronto was bigger so obviously Denham didn't mention the bronto and completely forgot about it.

Englehorn didn't mention the bronto or the stego when he asked if the bombs would stop them. Englehorn just asked if the bombs will stop "this monster you've seen".

Denham didn't even reply, when asked by Englehorn if the bombs would stop Kong "sure they will, I already stopped a stegosaurus with one".

LOL.

It's all a bizarre scene of dialogue considering all that had gone before.

The dinosaurs are completely forgotten and ignored by Denham when Denham comes back to the village.

It could likely be because those scenes were filmed long before they had a final idea of what exactly was going to take place during the interior island scenes.

At that moment, their main concern was for Ann's safety, in the clutches of King Kong (which was Denham's focal point from the very beginning).

And to even get to Kong they would have had to traverse much of the island through dinosaur infested jungles and swamps. Denham and the first rescue party already had two encounters with dinosaurs, the second encounter with some fatalities.

All talk and all sign of the dinosaurs completely evaporates from the story and it's like they never ever existed in the story to begin with.

At the village Denham just talks about how Kong "shook those men off that log like they were flies". He doesn't even mention the bronto smashing the raft and killing all those other sailors.

Whichever way you look at it, the lack of even mentioning the dinosaurs ever again is completely bizarre in King Kong 1933, especially as they were so much of a danger and omnipresent for 25 mins of the story.

Its one of the few poor and inconsistent pieces of writing/narrative in the film....and I say this as a big fan.

reply

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

BuddyLove, it seems you are trying to reintroduce elements (clearly used for set-up purposes), and re-establish them in the later parts of the film, in order to obtain some sort of "consistency".

One should never confuse the point that just because a situation is not being reused or mentioned again, it automatically smacks of inconsistency and therefore the narrative is flawed. It all depends on the story and for this movie, the plain and simple truth was that narrative simply did not call for it. The dinosaurs had established their purpose. There was no need to re-examine those scenarios all over again. And I will stick to what I said before, if this was indeed called KING KONG AND HIS DINOSAUR BUDDIES, then your points would be much more valid.

Denham: "If I could only bring back one of these babies alive!" Was he talking about Kong? Actually, no he was talking about the stegosaurus they just shot down. It really goes against the argument that Denham was disinterested about the dinosaurs. He was very much was fascinated by them, but the big prize was King Kong, the god of that domain. Because he wasn’t as big as the bronto, does not mean that the bronto was the most dominate. Size should never be used as a claim for the biggest justifications. It is all depended on what the circumstance is.

That stegosaurus scene was actually a great set-up into the thinking of Denham's purposes (which he eventually brought to fruition with disastrous results).

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

BuddyLove, it seems you are trying to reintroduce elements (clearly used for set-up purposes), and re-establish them in the later parts of the film, in order to obtain some sort of "consistency".

Ann and Jack being threatened by a dinosaur and blocked from making it to the wall (and safety) would not be a reproduction of an earlier sequence. It would be a new one. It would certainly have been more novel than the elasmosaur scene which was just a carbon copy of the previous T-rex scene and served no different purpose in the story.

Kong coming behind them.......dinosaur in front on them and blocking their path to the wall and 'home'? Wow, sounds more interesting than a carbon copy of the T-rex fight.

One should never confuse the point that just because a situation is not being reused or mentioned again, it automatically smacks of inconsistency and therefore the narrative is flawed.

But is IS inconsistency and flawed narrative. The dinosaurs and the threat they pose (which was substantial and very major earlier)are then completely ignored and the dialogue reads like they never ever existed.

How can Kong be the '"biggest thing in the world" when Denham also saw the much larger brontosaur?

If you don't think that is inconsistency then again I will say you are incapable of being objective and unbiased. Shame.

It all depends on the story and for this movie, the plain and simple truth was that narrative simply did not call for it.

The narrative doesn't call for the elasmosaur scene or the stego scene either....yet both are there.

The dinosaurs had established their purpose. There was no need to re-examine those scenarios all over again.

The purpose was to show us how dangerous the island was and how full of other giant beasts the island was.........yet Denham says nothing about them to Englehorn, even though they are preparing a second trip out there. Denham doesn't even mention that he knocked one out with a gas bombs even after Englehorn asked if the bombs will do the job.

That's inconsistency of dialogue whichever way you slice and dice it. You cannot argue it.

The movie sets up the jungle as hell on earth with giant beasts everywhere...yet Denham comes through on his own unharmed and so does Ann and Jack later.

It's bizarre that the dinosaurs only show up when humans are heading inland, but never when they are heading back to the wall......no matter how deep into the jungle they are.LOL.

And I will stick to what I said before, if this was indeed called KING KONG AND HIS DINOSAUR BUDDIES, then your points would be much more valid.

My points are valid and you still haven't countered them. You are merely side stepping them and are ignoring what I am saying.

The dinosaurs are a major part of the story one minute......and then are totally ignored and forgotten about the next........even when the jungle is the focus.

Denham: "If I could only bring back one of these babies alive!" Was he talking about Kong? Actually, no he was talking about the stegosaurus they just shot down. It really goes against the argument that Denham was disinterested about the dinosaurs.

You haven't listened to a thing I wrote so is there any point in me continuing?

I am talking about AFTER those scene. I didn'ts ay they were ignored during those scene. AFTERWARDS they are totally ignored and it's like they never existed...even when the dialogue is talking about going back out into the jungle again and wondering what the bombs could do. It's bizarre. Why would the dinosaurs NOT be mentioned?

He was very much was fascinated by them, but the big prize was King Kong, the god of that domain. Because he wasn’t as big as the bronto, does not mean that the bronto was the most dominate. Size should never be used as a claim for the biggest justifications. It is all depended on what the circumstance is.

Denham:

"I tell you skipper this Kong is the biggest thing in the world".

He didn't say Kong is the most dominant or the mightiest. He said Kong was "the biggest thing in the world". Yep he's talking about size for sure. Yet the brontosaur was clearly much bigger and probably even more mighty. But Denham doesn't say a word about the brontosaurus. If you don't think that's at least odd in the context of the narrative then we are clearly not going to get anywhere and I'm just butting my head against a stubborn brick wall.

Oh well.

reply

[–] raincoatriver 13 years ago

Your points are well taken, buddy. My scenario...Everyone is mesmerized by Kong (just as I am) and the Dinosaurs become 'road kill' on the way to the 'big prize'. Denham is not shown at all on his way back to the wall, leaving encounters with beasts within your imagination, if you wish. The same with Ann and Jack for they are only shown for a few seconds running in the jungle. Kong has taken precedence over everything as when they arrive at the wall, Denham can think of nothing but Kong and his anticipated arrival. Denham has already visualized Kong as the biggest 'attraction' in the world (dinosaurs? what dinosaurs?)

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

Good scenario rain! Although, "leaving the encounters with beasts within your imagination" might not work for some.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Big G-2,

I apologize for my abrupt (even rude) tone to you. It just seemed that my points (which I think were valid and still are valid) were dismissed and waved away and that frustrated me somewhat.

Apologies.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Your points are well taken, buddy.

Thank you, rain.

My scenario...Everyone is mesmerized by Kong (just as I am) and the Dinosaurs become 'road kill' on the way to the 'big prize'. Denham is not shown at all on his way back to the wall, leaving encounters with beasts within your imagination, if you wish. The same with Ann and Jack for they are only shown for a few seconds running in the jungle. Kong has taken precedence over everything as when they arrive at the wall, Denham can think of nothing but Kong and his anticipated arrival. Denham has already visualized Kong as the biggest 'attraction' in the world (dinosaurs? what dinosaurs?)

So in your imagination then, Denham and later Ann and Jack did have problems with other beasts but we just didn't see them? Ok.

Just to be facetious, how do you explain Denham not telling Englehorn how his gas bombs have already proven their power by stopping a charging dinosaur hehe?

On another note I also find it strange when Driscoll says "we came down the river" (as if the river was well known to Denham) but nobody else saw the river or even made it over the other side of the ravine. Ann and Jack come out of the river on the other side of the ravine, with still a long way to get back to the village. They would have had to cross the ravine again and then the swamp. That's another little inconsistency.

In the novelization there is a river that goes nearly all the way to the wall, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the movie because Ann and Jack leave the river not all that far from Kong's lair (we can see the waterfall in the background), then run through the jungle.

reply

[–] raincoatriver 13 years ago

"gas bombs"..."Well now you know why I brought those gas bombs". Denham had told Englehorn long before they got to the island that he had the power to stop anything lurking around there, heh. The river situation is confusing and I don't have anything to make it clear, so yes it is inconsistent. The only perfect film I've ever seen is "Once Upon a Time in The West".

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

[–] Big G-2 13 years ago

Actually Buddy, I apologize as well. I sometimes come off as bigheaded on my part, and sometimes I can’t help it. This just shows the power good movies. We both enjoy KING KONG, and yet we can have a spirited debate on certain merits.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

No worries chaps.

We are all interested in the semantics because the story is so great.

reply

[–] nyjack 13 years ago

Sheesh, folks, any nine-year old kid watching the film for the first time wonders how the three of them made it back to the wall. Did Denham swim back across the lake? Where was that river that Ann and Jack landed in and close did it bring them to the wall? No marine dinos in it?
Clearly, the movie did not think the return trips of the three to the wall needed explication; throwing in more possible encounters with creatures would have broken the rhythm of the story which requires KK to be coming after Ann in hot pursuit.
Whether or not the lack of fill in the three characters' escape back to the wall is a narrative error or not is one's personal opinion.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Clearly, the movie did not think the return trips of the three to the wall needed explication; throwing in more possible encounters with creatures would have broken the rhythm of the story which requires KK to be coming after Ann in hot pursuit.

Not if you cut out one earlier scene and show Denham coming up against a monster before cutting back to Kong at his lair with Ann. Or cut out the elasmosaur/pool scene and have Denham running from a dinosaur and just escaping.

It would be replacing a repetitive scene with scene that would be better for the narrative, i.e showing that there is even trouble when you head back to the wall and you think you are 'heading home'.

It seems in the Kong story the dinosaurs only show up when you are heading in one direction..........away from the wall but if you are heading towards the wall you are fine and dinosaur free, now matter how far into the interior you are LOL.

In my scenario the rhythm would have been the same just in a different order. Denham facing a dinosaur alone in between the log scene and the pool scene at Kong's lair, or instead of the pool scene.

Or the stego attack could have been deleted and then after Jack climbs out of the cave and goes after Kong we cut to Denham having difficulties getting back to the wall before concentrating on Ann, Jack and Kong for the rest of the jungle interior portion. A scene just a couple minutes long instead of the pool scene or the stego scene would not have broken the rhythm at all and it certainly would have said more than the pointless pool scene.

Whether or not the lack of fill in the three characters' escape back to the wall is a narrative error or not is one's personal opinion.

It's a narrative error to not even mention the dinosaurs when Denham is back at the wall.

That's not an 'opinion'. It's a fact. It's a plot hole. Denham says Kong is the biggest thing in the world (not true, the bronto is much bigger). Englehorn asks about 'this monster' you've seen (not 'these monsters' you've seen) and then when Englehorn asks if the bombs will stop Kong Denham doesn't even mention that one had already stopped a charging dinosaur.

They are narrative errors whichever way you slice and dice it. I love Kong '33 but lets not excuse everything.

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 13 years ago

For my part, I would have preferred it had Denham and Driscoll implied encounters with other monsters along the way. A throwaway line or two would have sufficed. It might have even helped the narrative a bit had they thought themselves secure for a bit in the belief that the dinosaurs might at least slow Kong down.

Carthago delenda est.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

For my part, I would have preferred it had Denham and Driscoll implied encounters with other monsters along the way. A throwaway line or two would have sufficed. It might have even helped the narrative a bit had they thought themselves secure for a bit in the belief that the dinosaurs might at least slow Kong down.

Yes I agree. Even just some brief lines would have been better than not mentioning the dinosaurs at all.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

The film is fine as it is, there are more than enough dinosaurs to satisfy avid Kong fans and movie buffs alike. The pacing in this film is perfect [in the context of superior movie fantasy] after the crew of the Venture reaches the island.

King Kong [1933] is one of the very few movies without fat or padding, and adding more dinosaur scenes would have made it more bloated than it needed to be, and also extra animation effects would have resulted in a lower-overall quality of the special effects, as happened in the production of multiple dinosaurs by O'Brien and Delgado on the 'Lost World' of 1925.

Adding needless scenes to what already exists would interrupt the natural flow of the movie, dragging it down:why spoil a brilliant movie by interfering with what we already have? The spider pit sequence was filmed and cut for the same reason: it slowed down the pacing of events, and took audience interest away from Anne's plight.

Some of the dinosaurs and Skull Island animal creatures turned up soon enough in 'Son of Kong' released the same year,----a continuation of the selfsame events in 'Kong'------ so it's not like they were never mentioned again.

There are a generous amount of fantasy and danger elements in this, one of the finest adventure films ever made: quibbling about so-called lack of dinosaurs is pedantic, pointless and needless nitpicking.

Most fantasy buffs are delighted with this film and don't want it changed,'flaws' and all: [Kong looks about 50 feet tall when he breaks through the Wall Gates, seriously at odds with his earlier supposed height around 25 feet tall: you might as well criticize this and the rods seen supporting the animation puppets briefly during the Kong/T .Rex fight,or Fay Wray not wearing a brassierre in one scene on the ship].

More valid, relevant questions than 'what happened to the dinos' would be:

How did the Venture crew hoist the unconcious Kong into the ship's hold, let alone without it capsizing?

How did Denham manage to smuggle Kong into the heart of NYC without arousing suspicion? Kong is clearly a'never seen before' entity to the seated patrons on Broadway.

These are much more relevant questions that are never covered in the movie...... the dinos were simply the required menace and were discarded [when required] in favor of thrusting the plot forwards, which was more important. Quite right as well!

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

The film is fine as it is, there are more than enough dinosaurs to satisfy avid Kong fans and movie buffs alike. The pacing in this film is perfect [in the context of superior movie fantasy] after the crew of the Venture reaches the island.

Well I wasn't arguing about the pace of the film.

I was arguing how come the dinos only appear when people are moving away from the wall?

King Kong [1933] is one of the very few movies without fat or padding, and adding more dinosaur scenes would have made it more bloated than it needed to be,and also extra animation effects would have resulted in a lower-overall quality of the special effects, as happened in the production of multiple dinosaurs by O'Brien and Delgado on the 'Lost World' of 1925.

I don't think you understood my point. I wasn't suggesting to add more dinosaurs.

I was suggesting to discard 1 or 2 and replace them with more relevant scenes.

I love the film but the elasmosaur scene doesn't say anything that the T-rex scene didn't already say. Its basically a repeat. It's superfluous.

If the elasmosaur scene was discarded in favour of a sequence showing the lone Denham either being molested by a dinosaur or trying to avoid and creep past a dinosaur while heading back to the wall that would have rounded out the dinosaur threat much better.

As it stands, it doesn't seem that either Denham alone or Ann and Jack were ever bothered by dinosaurs when they traversed cross island back to the wall, which is pretty odd considering the threat the dinosaurs constantly posed previously. It's like the dinosaurs all vanished into thin air "puff!".

Some of the dinosaurs and Skull Island animal creatures turned up soon enough in 'Son of Kong' released the same year,----a continuation of the selfsame events in 'Kong'------ so it's not like they were never mentioned again.

They were never mentioned ever again in King Kong......which is odd considering Denham and co were planning to go back out there. Denham never once mentioned the dinosaurs to Englehorn and co. Just Kong. Very weird. Denham didn't even bother to tell Englehorn that his bombs had already been proven to stop a big beastie after Englehor asked if the bombs would stop "this monster you've seen".

There are a generous amount of fantasy and danger elements in this, one of the finest adventure films ever made: quibbling about so-called lack of dinosaurs is pedantic, pointless and needless nitpicking.

It's called raising points and discussing semantics and plot holes. If you don't like discussion then maybe you shouldn't come to discussion boards.

I'm a fan of King Kong. I love the film. But I feel it's odd in the narrative that all these different dinos are all over the place one minute, then are gone and have totally vanished the next and are not even MENTIONED further.

You don't think it's even worth noting that nobody going towards the wall is ever troubled by dinosaurs, even though they have half an island to cross? LOL, I do.

Most fantasy buffs are delighted with this film and don't want it changed,'flaws' and all: [Kong looks about 50 feet tall when he breaks through the Wall Gates, seriously at odds with his earlier supposed height around 25 feet tall: you might as well criticize this and the rods seen supporting the animation puppets briefly during the Kong/T .Rex fight,or Fay Wray not wearing a brassierre in one scene on the ship].

That's mere technical and continuity errors. They are natural in every film.

I'm talking about odd plot holes and major events in the story which are ignored in the dialogue....even though they should have been CRUCIAL to be mentioned in the story.

More valid, relevant questions than 'what happened to the dinos' would be:

How did the Venture crew hoist the unconcious Kong into the ship's hold, let alone without it capsizing?

Come on, that's easy to answer.

The ship is way large enough to accommodate Kong without capsizing. It's a cargo ship and would have a heavy winch. You can't see a clear shot of the ship probably but it looks like it has a heavy winch and it certainly has a lot of cargo space.

How did Denham manage to smuggle Kong into the heart of NYC without arousing suspicion? Kong is clearly a'never seen before' entity to the seated patrons on Broadway.

Denham didn't smuggle Kong into New York. The police certainly knew about Kong otherwise how would those at the station know what Kong was when the policeman phoned up and said "send the riot squad and ambulances, Kong has escaped"

It's pretty obvious that the security and police would have been briefed about who or what Kong was.

To answer your other question, Kong could have been transported by trucks or pulled by tractors under tarpaulin (while drugged)from the ship to the theatre. Manhattan isn't very wide. It's no more than 1 mile from the docks to the middle of Manhattan and the ship could have docked as close to the theatre as possible. It's not as if Kong would have to be driven across the entire country. A quick transfer in the dead of night with a police cordon could have achieved the secrecy desired.

These are easy questions to answer.

They are nowhere near as difficult to answer as:

WHY DIDN'T DENHAM EVEN MENTION THE THREAT OF ALL THOSE DINOSAURS TO ENGLEHORN?!!!

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

Denham was a reckless charlatan, and unlikely to wait for 'quarantine permission' from the authorities to allow Kong into New York. Why would the authorities allow a 50-foot ape from an unknown island into a city center containing millions of citizens? Such a threat would have banned outright. Denham's shady character would certainly have seen him smuggled Kong in illegally, without assistance by cops or anyone else. If any NYC citizens including cops had witnessed Kong, the news would have spread like wildfire.

Denham is clearly being sued by all and sundry at the start of 'Son', heavily suggesting his actions were illegal.

Kong is clearly named on the Broadway Marquee, so citizens knew the theater contained something, but not exactly what : 'a kind of gorilla' is mentioned, but no-one seems sure of exactly what to expect. 'Kong's ' name is clearly seen lit up in lights, which explains the 'Kong has escaped' line as used by the cops.

The cops surely couldn't have failed to have noticed THIS!

WHERE is this 'heavy winch' capable of hoisting up a 50-foot ape? I've watched this movie a few hundred times, including projected blu-ray onto a 10 ft wide-screen, but no sign of this heavy-duty winch.

It would take a battleship to counterbalance the weight of Kong, and certainly much more than a modestly-scaled boat like the Venture.I do not accept they have a winch [they'd need more than ONE for a kick-off, especially on such a small boat]powerful enough for this task.

The shots of Kong changing in size dramatically are NOT 'technical or continuity errors'; they were deliberately scaled at different sizes for dramatic effect.

Your so-called 'plot hole' theory of 'what happened to the dinos' is redundant and frankly bizarre.Your assessment is meaningless and without merit. Kong kept the other dinosaurs under control, so the natives----and Venture crew-----feared and respected him first and foremost. They were more concerned, and frightened of, KK himself, who proved more than a match for even a T-Rex.

The natives clearly hold him in high esteem, elevated almost to the status of 'God', they clearly fear him more than the other monsters, so naturally credence is given to his exploits and threat, much moreso than the other creatures.

The dinos are a secondary menace, taking a back seat to the thrills and spills served up by the main attraction.That is why they occupy less screen time and scrutiny. They are simply not worthy of further examination, especially after Kong is intent on breaching the Wall.

For the camera to have cross-cut to the dinos once Kong decides to breach the wall would have seriously compromized the narrative and pacing, and thankfully, the script focused on KK from this point in, NOT the other irrelevant-to-the-plot-by-this-stage prehistoric denziens.Thankfully, the moviemakers chose the direction they did, and not the confusing, 'spanner-in-the-works' ramblings put forth by yourself.

Such a hamfisted, short-sighted move may well have seen the entire movie ruined and forgotten long ago, rather than attaining it's near-80-year stature of genuine 30s movie classic.

The other prehistoric creatures are treated as 'making up the numbers' by the moviemakers and majority of fans alike. This does NOT constitute a 'plot hole': this was DELIBERATE, EFFECTIVE STORYTELLING by professional scriptwriters and filmmakers, who were, and are, infinitely more qualified on this score than you will ever even aspire to.

Why you keep dragging out the same old tired, irrelevant 'discussions' that literally no-one else appears to care about is beyond me.If someone else wants a go at going over the same old ground, they are more than welcome to enter this pointless, boring, 'debate'.

For the record, this is my FIRST favorite movie---not my second-----so perhaps I'm more passionate about this subject than you are.

If you are just going to repeat the exact same pointless ground you insist in recounting over and over again, I won't be replying to your next post.

Some NEW ANGLES, PLEASE.Your constant recycling of the same old minutae and trivia is less than gripping.

Up 'til now, your viewpoints simply don't carry any credibility-----no-one on here is backing up your weak 'argument'.

reply

[–] magolding 13 years ago

superspygoestowar wrote: "WHERE is this 'heavy winch' capable of hoisting up a 50-foot ape? I've watched this movie a few hundred times, including projected blu-ray onto a 10 ft wide-screen, but no sign of this heavy-duty winch."

I always assumed that they built a giant raft and dragged Kong onto it and tied him down and towed Kong behind the ship to New York. I guess the raft or barge would have had to be much larger than Kong and very strongly built. They would have had to build a roofed enclosure over Kong to protect him from the elements and hide him from passing ships.

Real cranes do exist capable of hoisting a 50 foot Gorilla. If an average gorilla is five feet tall and weighs about 400 pounds, a fifty foot gorilla would have a thousand times the volume and weigh 400,000 pounds or 200 tons. If Kong was only 25 feet tall he would weigh 125 times as much as an average gorilla or 50,000 pounds or 25 tons. Cranes capable of lifting hundreds of tons are not common on tramp steamers, of course.

If the ship did not seem to have a heavy winch capable of hoisting Kong into the ship's cargo hold it might have carried one in storage which could be assembled by the crew.

If they had no mechanical crane strong enough they might have constructed a giant crane out of wood from the island and connected it to the ship's propeller shaft for power.

Or they could have built many wooden cranes powered by natives walking in giant wheels and with pulleys for mechanical advantage and used them all at once to lift Kong in onto the hold of the ship. Roman and other ancient engineers used multiple wooden human powered cranes to lift weights of tens or hundreds of tons to heights of sometimes a hundred feet.

superspygoestowarWrote: "It would take a battleship to counterbalance the weight of Kong, and certainly much more than a modestly-scaled boat like the Venture.I do not accept they have a winch [they'd need more than ONE for a kick-off, especially on such a small boat]powerful enough for this task."

The movie Kong seemed to weigh about 25 to 200 tons. A battleship would weigh ten thousand tons or even several times that much. That would be far in excess of an equal weight to counterbalance Kong. The Venture shoud have weighed hundreds of tons, or possibly thousands. And it could have been counterbalanced by many strong cables attaching the ship to the shore and also attaching the tops of cranes on the ship to the shore.

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

The Venture wasn't a big ship, though, more like a tramp steamer. There would be a huge problem in providing ballast to weigh the other side of the ship so it wouldn't capsize when Kong was being hoisted from the raft into the boat; such a small craft would have to be weighed down by heavy ballast to the point where it would probably sink.It's a very good point you made about tieing the other side of the ship to rocks or the shore or something using steel cables, to balance out the weight, I just hope this method wouldn't tear the ship apart with the strain.

Maybe the Venture did have a large heavy-duty steel winch in the hold----there was no need to mention this in the movie, but it would have helped to clarify future events if such a winch had been glimpsed during the journey to the island.

They might have had to construct a home-made crane out of wood materials as you say, but where do they get the manpower needed to hoist a massive ape? The crew is small in number by the end of the island sequence, and going by the response of the natives, [in Son of Kong they throw a spear at the Venture crew as they return] they seem unlikely to assist, after Kong has wrecked their village as a result of the crew arriving on the island.

Who knows, maybe they got a brontosaurus from behind the Wall to do all the grunt-work!

Of course, maybe they simply would tow Kong all the way to NYC on a large raft: but this gives them the logistical problem of keeping him drugged, feeding and watering him over thousands of miles.....also, they might hit stormy seas and lose Kong altogether.

I reckon it would be more desirable for Denham to put Kong into the ship's hold, whee he would be easier contained.

reply

[–] PillowRock 13 years ago

WHERE is this 'heavy winch' capable of hoisting up a 50-foot ape?

What 50 foot ape?

I know that some of the original movie posters listed that size, but that was just marketing hyperbole. I don't recall it ever being said in the movie. More to the point, everything that I've ever seen, heard, or read (including watching the movie) has consistently quoted the scale of the models being more like 18 feet on the island and 24 feet in New York.

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

Officially he's 50 foot tall, but this is likely studio hyperbole. Yes, in most of the scenes in the jungle especially, he's 18-25 feet tall. However when he breaks through the Village Wall and looks down at the villagers, Kong definitely would pass for 50 feet tall in this shot; this is dramatic license, done deliberately.

When Kong is chained up onstage on Broadway, he would pass for 50 feet tall, and the same in the shots by the elevated railway.

The film-makers played with the scale to suit the dramatic requirements, but Kong has no real consistent size or scale.
He's usually 18 or 24 feet tall, but he's clearly around 50 feet high in some shots. So, I'm not gonna put a label on his 'actual' size, coz it's not practical. Indeed his constantly-shifting size is part of his nightmare identity.

But, if we go along with the movie's inbuilt logic, if Kong is capable of expanding to 50 feet high at will, or when the situation requires this, , the Venture crew had better allow for this if they prepare to load him onship! Sounds a fair point to me.......

His height is never mentioned in the movie as far as I know: 'he's the size of a house' is mentioned, but that could mean anything.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

What 50 foot ape?

I know that some of the original movie posters listed that size, but that was just marketing hyperbole. I don't recall it ever being said in the movie. More to the point, everything that I've ever seen, heard, or read (including watching the movie) has consistently quoted the scale of the models being more like 18 feet on the island and 24 feet in New York.

Correct.

Kong, on average, is generally in the 20 something foot range.

Superspy is off his trolly for saying Kong is 50 foot tall. That's just inconsistent FX here and there.

The full size hand used would put Kong in the 20 something foot range.

Lets say Kong is 25 ft tall and around 25 tons. That's half the weight of a WW2 German Tiger tank. Hardly Godzilla.

I certainly can't see Kong being heavier than a 30 ft whale.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Denham was a reckless charlatan, and unlikely to wait for 'quarantine permission' from the authorities to allow Kong into New York. Why would the authorities allow a 50-foot ape from an unknown island into a city center containing millions of citizens? Such a threat would have banned outright. Denham's shady character would certainly have seen him smuggled Kong in illegally, without assistance by cops or anyone else. If any NYC citizens including cops had witnessed Kong, the news would have spread like wildfire.

Denham in '33 wasn't a charlatan nor a shady character.

You have obviously been watching King Kong 2005 way too much.

The authorities in New York CLEARLY gave Denham the go-ahead for his Kong show.

It simply could not have happened without it.

Denham is clearly being sued by all and sundry at the start of 'Son', heavily suggesting his actions were illegal.

Nope. He was sued for the damage and death Kong caused AFTER he broke out.

Kong is clearly named on the Broadway Marquee, so citizens knew the theater contained something, but not exactly what : 'a kind of gorilla' is mentioned, but no-one seems sure of exactly what to expect. 'Kong's ' name is clearly seen lit up in lights, which explains the 'Kong has escaped' line as used by the cops.The cops surely couldn't have failed to have noticed THIS!

They didn't. The authorities knew that Denham brought a giant monster back with him and they let him display it. They likely even complied in getting Kong to the theatre.

WHERE is this 'heavy winch' capable of hoisting up a 50-foot ape? I've watched this movie a few hundred times, including projected blu-ray onto a 10 ft wide-screen, but no sign of this heavy-duty winch.

Well we don't get a real clear look at the whole ship but in the long shot we can see there are extra masts. The ship is a cargo ship. Cargo ships have extra masts and winches for heavy lifting.

Kong isn't 50 ft tall and wouldn't weigh hundreds of tons.

The ship that Peter Jackson bought for Kong 2005 was smaller than the ship in Kong 1933 by about a third. The ship Peter Jackson bought had a cargo load weight of around 50 tons I believe.

It would take a battleship to counterbalance the weight of Kong,

Are you serious? A battleship? LOL, Kong doesn't weight tens of thousands of tons like a battleship.

At the most Kong likely wouldn't weigh more than 2 or 3 elephants. I'd say Kong wouldn't have been more than 30 to 40 tons (a 50 foot humpback whale doesn't weigh more than 50 tons)and the Venture would have had a cargo weigh capacity more than that.

and certainly much more than a modestly-scaled boat like the Venture.I do not accept they have a winch [they'd need more than ONE for a kick-off, especially on such a small boat]powerful enough for this task.

Good for you that you don't accept it, seeing that you are obviously ignorant......as two other posters before me have noted.

The shots of Kong changing in size dramatically are NOT 'technical or continuity errors'; they were deliberately scaled at different sizes for dramatic effect.

No they weren't. Kong even radically changes size on the island. That wasn't deliberate. Nor were the left in puppet rods.

The only deliberate size change was from the island to New York......yet Kong also changes size on the island LOL.

Your so-called 'plot hole' theory of 'what happened to the dinos' is redundant and frankly bizarre.

No it isn't.

Denham makes it back to the wall and doesn't even MENTION the dinosaurs....even though he planning to take another search party out. He doesn't even MENTION to the skipper that one of his bombs has already taken care of a big dinosaur even when the skipper asks if the bombs will do their job. LOL.

That's odd and a plot hole.

Denham says Kong is "the biggest thing in the world"......when the brontosaur is clearly bigger.

That's odd and a plot hole.

Your assessment is meaningless and without merit. Kong kept the other dinosaurs under control, so the natives----and Venture crew-----feared and respected him first and foremost. They were more concerned, and frightened of, KK himself, who proved more than a match for even a T-Rex.

Not talking about who was the top dog. I'm talking about why the other dogs aren't even MENTIONED.

Wakey wakey.

The natives clearly hold him in high esteem, elevated almost to the status of 'God', they clearly fear him more than the other monsters, so naturally credence is given to his exploits and threat, much moreso than the other creatures.

What has that got top do with Denham not even MENTIONING to the skipper that the whole jungle is filled with all sorts of terrible giants beasts and not just Kong?

For the camera to have cross-cut to the dinos once Kong decides to breach the wall would have seriously compromized the narrative and pacing,

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about different dinosaur scenes BEFORE that.

I've never once talked about more dinosaur scenes once Kong is trying to breach the wall.

I'm talking about a dinosaur scene before Denham makes it back to the wall and I'm talking about Denham just MENTIONING the dinosaurs in a line or two.

and thankfully, the script focused on KK from this point in, NOT the other irrelevant-to-the-plot-by-this-stage prehistoric denziens

You aren't even comprehending my argument.

I'm talking about different dinosaurs scenes during the period when THE DINOSAURS ARE ALREADY IN THE FILM.

Duh.

Thankfully, the moviemakers chose the direction they did, and not the confusing, 'spanner-in-the-works' ramblings put forth by yourself.

My alternate wouldn't be confusing at all and it wouldn't have been any longer.

I would have taken out the repetitive un-necessary elasmosaur scene and instead had a scene with Denham. Even if not that I would have had just a few lines of Denham mentioning the dinosaurs to the skipper and co.

Such a hamfisted, short-sighted move may well have seen the entire movie ruined and forgotten long ago, rather than attaining it's near-80-year stature of genuine 30s movie classic.

Nonsense. One scene done differently and/or a couple extra lines would not have changed the way folks look at it. The film is way to good to be effected by one scene and 2 extra lines LOL.

The other prehistoric creatures are treated as 'making up the numbers' by the moviemakers and majority of fans alike. This does NOT constitute a 'plot hole': this was DELIBERATE, EFFECTIVE STORYTELLING by professional scriptwriters and filmmakers, who were, and are, infinitely more qualified on this score than you will ever even aspire to.

Why you keep dragging out the same old tired, irrelevant 'discussions' that literally no-one else appears to care about is beyond me.

LOL, I have made just one thread about this subject and Im speaking as mega King Kong 1933 fan.

If you don't like it then don't come into the thread.

If someone else wants a go at going over the same old ground, they are more than welcome to enter this pointless, boring, 'debate'.

If it's boring and pointless then stop going on about it.

For the record, this is my FIRST favorite movie---not my second-----so perhaps I'm more passionate about this subject than you are.

You mean biased and uncritical? That's fanboy-ism.

If you are just going to repeat the exact same pointless ground you insist in recounting over and over again, I won't be replying to your next post.

Thank fvck for that.

Some NEW ANGLES, PLEASE.Your constant recycling of the same old minutae and trivia is less than gripping.

You've said the same thing 3 times.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Up 'til now, your viewpoints simply don't carry any credibility-----no-one on here is backing up your weak 'argument'.

Actually a couple of people have considered it and think I have a point. Clearly you haven't read all the posts in this thread.

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

The following is addressed to 'Buddylove':

Kong is easily 50 feet tall in at least three shots or sequences...see detail in my previous post above. OK here they are; shot where he breaks thru the jungle Gate/chained up on Broadway/ smashing elevated Railway.......there is NO DICE he is 18-24 feet high in these shots. But try telling me he isn't 50 feet tall in these shots...you'll have a hard time!

The brontosaurus is not 'the biggest thing in the world', the Wall, Skull Mountain, and Skull Island itself is much bigger. In fact, the bronto is not a 'thing', it's a living creature, if you insist in pedantically dredging up specific wording of the movie's dialog. Denham calls Kong 'the biggest thing in the world' soley on the grounds of the hardboiled early 30s dialog that is used to explain the events in the movie, and no other reason. You are taking the dialog too seriously and literally, to the point where your paranoia is clearly evident for all to see,

It doesn't matter how much tonnage a ship holds: stopping a smaller boat from capsizing as a single massive weight is hoisted up is extremely tricky: possible in a properly-equipped harbor with inbuilt cranes: but out in the wilds of Skull Island without harbor cranes represents a major problem. Explain how this is done if you can!This is extremely difficult, and has still not been explained thoroughly enough on this board. Unloading Kong on NYC harbor would be done by cranes fixed into the harbor, NOT the ship, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to load Kong onto the Venture without cranes on uncivilized Skull Island......a far greater plot hole than that 'dino' nonsense.

Denham is dubbed 'a crazy guy' by those he works with . He takes uneccessary, impulsive and impatient risks, that is his character, and he is not the type to 'ask permission' about anything from anyone. If he is, provide an example please. Coz all I see is him constantly taking risks.

I can't see Denham taking the time to fill in endless city authority forms and undergo stringent regulation checks while he has a dangerous monster in his charge; his objective is simply to get Kong behind the curtain on Broadway, and by far the quickest way is ILEGALLY.This is wholly consistent with his charlatan character. Early on in the movie, the Venture crew leave the harbor early to evade inspection by the city authorities---this is clearly pointed out by Englehorn. Denham is NOT a rules and regulation guy,he carries a shipload of illegal gas-bombs at the outset, enough to 'blow up the harbor'-----and indeed the entire film would fail and not work if he went 'by the rules' as you feebly put forth.

You obviously have no concept of how movie narrative is put together.Your laughable suggestion that Denham reports he has Kong to the city authorities would have changed the entire direction of the movie! There would be NO Broadway scenes and no escape sequence. WHY do you keep trying to ruin the narrative of this cracking film with your brain-dead assumptions?

All your other points have been repeated by you needlessly ad-infinitum,--and I have proved conclusively that your early ramblings are to be laughed at and dismissed summarily by GENUINE Kong fans, who you are clearly not among------ so I will not go over them again.
I will address only new points you make, as I have effectively destroyed your original ramblings.

Thank you for your attention.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

The following is addressed to 'Buddylove':

Kong is easily 50 feet tall in at least three shots or sequences...see detail in my previous post above. OK here they are; shot where he breaks thru the jungle Gate/chained up on Broadway/ smashing elevated Railway.......there is NO DICE he is 18-24 feet high in these shots. But try telling me he isn't 50 feet tall in these shots...you'll have a hard time!

Forget the odd shot here and there. That's inconsistent FX work. He's not 50ft tall in the narrative of the film nor is he 50 ft tall in the vast majority of the shots. In fact, based on consensus opinion, the only time he is around 50 ft tall is when he is scaling the ESB.

Most consistently and most often Kong is not 50 foot tall in the film. Nowhere near it in fact.

In general Kong is somewhere between the 20 to 30ft height. Most often between 20 and 25ft or thereabouts.

He wouldn't weigh much more than about 2 or 3 male African elephants. He isn't Godzilla.

The brontosaurus is not 'the biggest thing in the world', the Wall, Skull Mountain, and Skull Island itself is much bigger. In fact, the bronto is not a 'thing', it's a living creature, if you insist in pedantically dredging up specific wording of the movie's dialog. Denham calls Kong 'the biggest thing in the world' soley on the grounds of the hardboiled early 30s dialog that is used to explain the events in the movie, and no other reason. You are taking the dialog too seriously and literally, to the point where your paranoia is clearly evident for all to see,

What a load of straw clutching guff.

Kong isn't even the biggest beast on the island.

Englehorn even says to Denham "this monster you've seen seen" (Kong).

He says monster in the singular, yet in fact Denham saw multiple types of monsters but only mentions Kong. That's a narrative flaw.

Denham didn't mention the other beasties out there to Englehorn and that's a puzzling bit of dialogue. It's weird and a bit of a flaw, considering one of these other beasties killed some crewmen and put them in the defenceless position in the first place, and would be well worth at least mentioning seeing as they plan to be going out there again the next morning.

The dialogue when Denham comes back to the wall and talks to the skipper sounds like the search party encountered nothing else except Kong, and that doesn't make sense at all. The dinosaurs were every bit a danger (perhaps more) than even Kong, yet in the dialogue they aren't even worth mentioning.

It doesn't matter how much tonnage a ship holds: stopping a smaller boat from capsizing as a single massive weight is hoisted up is extremely tricky: possible in a properly-equipped harbor with inbuilt cranes: but out in the wilds of Skull Island without harbor cranes represents a major problem. Explain how this is done if you can!This is extremely difficult, and has still not been explained thoroughly enough on this board. Unloading Kong on NYC harbor would be done by cranes fixed into the harbor, NOT the ship, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to load Kong onto the Venture without cranes on uncivilized Skull Island......a far greater plot hole than that 'dino' nonsense.

It's not a plot hole because it isn't even mentioned WHAT they did. We don't know what they did do or didn't do. For all we know they might have simply built a giant raft and floated Kong,(bound in chains) to the nearest port and then sorted out a better transportation arrangement once at the nearest port in the East Indies.

You are pointlessly arguing about something that isn't even claimed in the film. We don't even know if the Venture brought Kong back to New York.

Would it have been possible for the SS Venture to have transported Kong in 'some' way to the nearest port in the East Indies?

Yes. So it's not a plot hole.

Denham is dubbed 'a crazy guy' by those he works with. He takes uneccessary, impulsive and impatient risks, that is his character,

What has that got to do with being a "charlatan" or a "shady" character?

You earlier called Denham a "charlatan and "shady". That was what I was responding to.

A charlatan is somebody who is a fake and a fraud. That's not Denham. He doesn't fake things and doesn't engage in fraudery. He goes out there to the real jungle to take moving pictures of real animals and he doesn't con people out of money.

He's not shady either. It's well known and well established what he does and he appears to be a respected movie maker.

and he is not the type to 'ask permission' about anything from anyone. If he is, provide an example please.Coz all I see is him constantly taking risks.

Again, what has being a risk taker got to do with being a faker, a fraudster and being of dubious character and honesty?

You've been watching King Kong 2005 way too much.

I can't see Denham taking the time to fill in endless city authority forms and undergo stringent regulation checks while he has a dangerous monster in his charge;

Why not?

It took the Venture over 6 weeks to get to the island so at least another 6 weeks back. Denham has already had Kong for 6 weeks. He has to organize a theatre, sell tickets, get the 'chrome steel' chains. All of that would take time anyway.

Besides, believe it or not but they did have communications in 1932/33 LOL. A lot of this stuff could have been pre-organised while on the route back to NY. Denham probably contacted the correct authorities well before the Venture even arrived in NY.

his objective is simply to get Kong behind the curtain on Broadway, and by far the quickest way is ILEGALLY.This is wholly consistent with his charlatan character.

Nonsense. Denham '33 is not a charlatan.

Early on in the movie, the Venture crew leave the harbor early to evade inspection by the city authorities---this is clearly pointed out by Englehorn.

It's Englehorn's ship and he has the last word his own ship. If you are pointing fingers at Denham then you had better point fingers at Englehorn.

So would you call Englehorn a shady charlatan character too?LOL.

Denham is NOT a rules and regulation guy,he carries a shipload of illegal gas-bombs at the outset, enough to 'blow up the harbor'-----and indeed the entire film would fail and not work if he went 'by the rules' as you feebly put forth.

LOL, a case or two of gas bombs is a bit different to a 25ft ape. There is no way Denham could have smuggled a 25 ft ape into NY harbour, got him off the ship, transported him into a theatre and kept him there until 'show time' without the officials or police knowing.

Besides, one of the guys in the theatre queue said it had better be good "after all this ballyhoo".

The press already knew about it and when they walked into the theatre, despite being impressed by Kong's size, they aren't shocked or surprised by what they see.

Quite obviously Kong wasn't "smuggled" in illegally or the cops would have been there already.

Too many people knew that Denham had something special for it to be an illegal smuggle job and your assertion of Denham smuggling Kong into NY is ridiculous.

You obviously have no concept of how movie narrative is put together.Your laughable suggestion that Denham reports he has Kong to the city authorities would have changed the entire direction of the movie!

What on earth are you babbling on about about now?

I never said they should have had a scene where Denham physically reports that he has Kong to the authorities. Where on earth did you get that from?

I just said that quite clearly Denham HAS gone through the proper channels because everything is organised properly and even the press have been informed and the cops know about 'Kong'.

WHY do you keep trying to ruin the narrative of this cracking film with your brain-dead assumptions?

LOL, I made two suggestions and neither of them are 'brain dead'.

1. That perhaps the superfluous repetitive elasmosaur scene (which doesn't say ANYTHING that the T-rex scene didn't already say) could have been changed to a scene where Denham has to get past a dinosaur when getting back to the wall.

2. That maybe a couple of lines of dialogue when Denham is back at the wall could have mentioned the dinosaurs.

That's it. Nothing else.

Neither of the above would have ruined the narrative and at the end of the day it's just a discussion on alternate possibilities.

No need to get your knickers in a twist over alternate suggestions. You are overly upset at mere suggestions and alternate possibilities.

You need to grow up and stop acting like a giant fvcking crybaby.

If you don't like DISCUSSION and critique then stay out of these types of threads and just stick to fanboy masturbation where there is no room for even the slightest criticism.

All your other points have been repeated by you needlessly ad-infinitum,--and I have proved conclusively that your early ramblings are to be laughed at

You aren't laughing at them. You are spending a lot of time trying to disagree with them.

and dismissed summarily by GENUINE Kong fans, who you are clearly not among.

I adore King Kong 1933, but that doesn't mean there aren't some things that could have been done a bit different.

The biggest thing I dislike about King Kong 1933, however, is the full size head.

You do NOT have to be a devoted fanboy unable to criticise anything about the movie in order to be a genuine King Kong 1933 fan.

I will address only new points you make, as I have effectively destroyed your original ramblings.

The only thing you have destroyed is your credibility.

A fair few people here have disagreed with much of what you have written.

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

Buddylove: I took one look at your pedantic, trivial ramblings, and decided NOT TO READ THEM, on the grounds you have no originality of thought.

GOODBYE.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

That's ok. You're crazier than Denham and I think I've proven that.

You've accused me of wanting MORE dinosaurs scenes, which I never did say, and you've also accused me of wanting a scene showing Carl Denham telling the NY authorities about Kong which, again, I never did say.

I have no idea where you pull such crap from. You haven't even got a clue what you are arguing about.

reply

[–] superspygoestowar 13 years ago

visit the psychosis farm..even if they reject you.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitelion43 13 years ago

Back to the original question..... I do see Buddy's point but about Denham's spiel before Kongs reveal at the show. He had only gave a brief summery of facts and descriptions as a teaser before the Photos were taken. After the photos were to be taken He would have told the whole story Dinos,Wall,Natives and of course Kong But he never hAd a chance. and I always presumed the river trip back was too quick for any Dino encounters(Fast moving water with them holding onto a log)

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Back to the original question..... I do see Buddy's point but about Denham's spiel before Kongs reveal at the show. He had only gave a brief summery of facts and descriptions as a teaser before the Photos were taken. After the photos were to be taken He would have told the whole story Dinos,Wall,Natives and of course Kong But he never hAd a chance. and I always presumed the river trip back was too quick for any Dino encounters(Fast moving water with them holding onto a log)

Yes that's true. I'd do along with that and that would explain his non mention of the dinosaurs during the New York stage presentation.

I'm glad you see my point about the other moments in the film though. No dinosaurs appear when people are heading back in the direction of the wall and Denham doesn't says a word about all the other giant beasts to Engelhorn when he gets back to the wall. He only talks about Kong.

Plot hole.

reply

[–] Great_Ape 13 years ago

Buddy...I did not read this entire thread, so my apologies. I could not disagree more with you here. The Dinosaurs are very important to the story and charcater arc of the story. Here are my reasons:

A) By having Kong battle other beasts, he shows us his ability to go to great lengths to protect his prize, Ann Darrow. He would die for her, which makes the ending even more tragic, he dies at the hands of another enemy, the bi-planes/humans are the beasts that eventually whip him.

B) The Dinosaur action makes the film a tremendous action/adventure/horror film. it adds greatly and does not detract.

C) Kong's ability to destroy all the other beasts of Skull Island makes him "King!" And Denham uses this as a key selling point. This also makes us root for Kong, and you can go circle back to point A where we feel for Kong and view him as a tragic victim in the end.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Buddy...I did not read this entire thread, so my apologies. I could not disagree more with you here. The Dinosaurs are very important to the story and charcater arc of the story.

They can't be that important because they are never ever referred to before they appear nor after they appear. Denham doesn't even mention them when he's back at the wall preparing to go out on a second rescue mission.

There is a whole litany of dinosaurs in King Kong 1933 because they were already built and left over from Creation.

If Creation had not been started it's doubtful Cooper would have commissioned a whole bunch of of them to be built for his monster ape story.

Granted, as I said, Cooper's idea was for Kong to fight 'something' but it was never his intention to involve many different dinosaurs in his story. They are there by accident because of Creation and no other reason.

The dinosaurs don't make the movie. Kong does. King Kong 1976 doesn't fail due to no dinosaurs. Only Kong '33 fans think that. The casual movie goer who isn't a fan of King Kong '33 does not criticize Kong '76 for no dinosaurs. There were also plenty of people who liked Kong 1976 despite no dinosaurs. Personally I don't feel the lack of dinosaurs is Kong 1976's flaw. I feel the lack of a convincing Kong is.

Here are my reasons:

A) By having Kong battle other beasts, he shows us his ability to go to great lengths to protect his prize, Ann Darrow. He would die for her, which makes the ending even more tragic, he dies at the hands of another enemy, the bi-planes/humans are the beasts that eventually whip him.

I never questioned that. I said it was always Cooper's intention to have Kong fight 'something'. But I'm more talking about how the dinosaurs are all over the story during one section and then totally ignored/forgotten about soon after. This is inconsistent.

I would have preferred to have at least the elasmosaur attack taken out and replaced by a scene where Denham is menaced by something during his lone trek back to the wall. That could have been done just after Jack starts to follow Kong but before Jack makes it to Kong's lair. It would also have been better in the script if Denham at least mentions the other dangers on the island. The brontosuarus is even bigger than Kong and it was the reason why the men were left unarmed......yet Denham doesn't even mention it to Englehorn.

The elasmosaur fight is just a repeat of the T-rex fight and doesn't tell us anything that the T-rex fight didn't already say better before. I like it, but looking at it objectively and without bias it's actually superfluous and isn't needed. The elasmosaur fight, though nice to look at, is the most meaningless scene in the whole movie.

B) The Dinosaur action makes the film a tremendous action/adventure/horror film. it adds greatly and does not detract.

But I never said they detract. I said I like them in King Kong 1933. I was just thinking about the inconsistency.

Haven't you ever wondered why NOBODY moving in the direction of the wall is ever menaced by dinosaurs?

C) Kong's ability to destroy all the other beasts of Skull Island makes him "King!"

But Godzilla is Godzilla and he doesn't need to destroy other beats in order to be Godzilla.

'King' Kong would still be the king and the ruler of the island if there were no dinosaurs...and really the 'King' part is just a catchy name tag. The film never really plays much on the 'king' aspect. Even Denham's pre-amble on the ship about Kong is more concerned with how the natives view Kong. They are terrified of Kong and it's got nothing to do with his ability to defeat dinosaurs.

The dinosaurs certainly don't fear Kong, because they are always trying to fight him. The dinosaurs certainly don't view Kong as the 'king' and they don't keep clear of him.

And Denham uses this as a key selling point.

I disagree. Like I said it's just a catchy name and nothing else. He mentions nothing about Kong overcoming dinosaurs during the New York stage show. He just mentions him being a king and a god in the world he knew. He can be both without dinosaurs.

This also makes us root for Kong, and you can go circle back to point A where we feel for Kong and view him as a tragic victim in the end.

King Kong 1976 doesn't fight any dinosaurs, just a snake. Yet we still root for Kong in '76 all the same.

My whole point is that the dinosaurs are there mostly because they were leftovers from Creation and mostly because they are good cannon fodder fight scenes. In the story the writers soon forget about them and don't mention them ever again after they are off screen.

Even Cooper when talking about the premise of Kong doesn't mention the dinosaurs.

reply

[–] StormSworder 12 years ago

King Kong wouldn't work without the dinosaurs, as I think the 1976 version proved when all Kong got to fight was a giant draught excluder. The island in the 70s version was just too 'safe', whereas the 1933 version feels like uncharted jungle full of dangerous wild animals. Kong may be huge and strong but he can only be in one place at a time. Besides, the dinosaur scenes are still classics to this day.

On their way back to the village Driscoll and Ann don't encounter any dinosaurs because the focus was on Kong and his determination to reclaim his prize/toy at all costs. A dinosaur fight or encounter at this point would have slowed or stopped the story's pacing or would have distracted viewers from the story. And therefore it would probably have ended up on the cutting room floor.

Regarding the Elasmosaurus, when I was little I thought this was one of the scariest scenes in the film. I also think it's a scene where you're made to feel for Kong.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

King Kong wouldn't work without the dinosaurs,

Of course it would. The film is called King Kong, not Dinosaurs.

Godzilla never suffered due to being a singular monster. Kong as a character was big and wonderful enough to have easily carried the film on his own.

The dinosaurs are bit part players in King Kong. They are never talked about before they are encountered and they are never talked about after they are encountered. Denham doesn't even MENTION them when he gets back to the village. He doesn't say a bloody word about them.

You don't think the New York scenes in King Kong worked? There are no dinosaurs there, yet they work wonderfully.

as I think the 1976 version proved when all Kong got to fight was a giant draught excluder. The island in the 70s version was just too 'safe', whereas the 1933 version feels like uncharted jungle full of dangerous wild animals.

The lack of dinosaurs wasn't the 1976 film's problem. It's problem was the man in the suit.

The island in 1976 wasn't too safe because they were always talking about Kong. They were more 'Kong aware' in '76 and were more worried about Kong coming to get them than the '33 film.

If anything, too many dinosaurs actually lessens the impact and importance of Kong on the island. That's one thing Kong '76 didn't want to do, and I like it for that. Kong should always be the biggest and badest beast on the island.

Kong may be huge and strong but he can only be in one place at a time. Besides, the dinosaur scenes are still classics to this day.

Id say only one is. The t-rex fight. The rest (though nice) are just there to make up the numbers and none of the rest would come in the top 5 of the best Kong '33 scenes.

The best scenes in King Kong are the meeting with the natives, the sacrifice and Kong coming to get Ann, the log rolling and trying to get Jack in the cave, the T-rex fight, the escape from Kong's lair, Kong bashing open the gate and rampaging round the village, the reveal and breakout on stage in New York, the elevated train destruction and the final battle on top of the Empire State. None of the other dinosaur scenes are as good as those.

On their way back to the village Driscoll and Ann don't encounter any dinosaurs because the focus was on Kong and his determination to reclaim his prize/toy at all costs.

But it still makes no sense in the context of the story. The dinosaurs were everywhere when they were heading out....but nowhere when they are heading back. It doesn't seem consistent LOL.

A dinosaur fight or encounter at this point would have slowed or stopped the story's pacing or would have distracted viewers from the story. And therefore it would probably have ended up on the cutting room floor.

There is no reason why they couldn't have had Denham encounter a dinosaur during his journey back. It could have been included before Kong gets to his mountain. The Elasmosaur scene in the cavern was totally un-needed. It didn't say anything that the T-rex and the later pteranodon scenes didn't say. That scene in the cavern could have been dropped in favour for a scene with Denham having to flee or avoid a dinosaur. It would not have slowed the film down at all.

Regarding the Elasmosaurus, when I was little I thought this was one of the scariest scenes in the film. I also think it's a scene where you're made to feel for Kong.

But we've already done that when he saves Ann from the T-rex.

reply

[–] StormSworder 12 years ago

But people love dinosaurs, and the fighting between Kong and the other creatures helped make the film exciting. I would love to see Peter Jackson film the un-made Kong verses Triceratops scene. In a way it's two films in one - a 'lost world' storyline and a 'monster loose in the city' story. Besides, if the dinosaurs had never been in the film, when would we have had the chance to see Willis O'Brien's greatest stop-motion dinosaurs?

Everyone loves a "Big Monster Vs Other Big Monster" film, hence the various Godzilla sequals. And speaking of Godzilla, the Big G (as I think he's known) worked on his own because the original Godzilla film was a completely different storyline involving a parable of the creation of a monster which could destroy mankind (the atom bomb).

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

I think King Kong was already exciting. The most exciting moment in King Kong to me is where we see Kong for the first time and he comes and takes Ann Darrow away from the altar.

As I said in my first post, it was always Cooper's original idea to have his Kong fight one giant monster but there was no initial idea for Kong to fight a whole slew of different dinosaurs. The dinosaurs in Kong Kong are only there becuase they were left overs from Creation so they decided to utilise them rather than let them go to waste. If they weren't already built for Creation I doubt Cooper would have commissioned them to be built for King Kong.

My favourite scenes in King Kong are the ones without the dinosaurs, where Kong is interacting/chasing/fighting humans. That's scary.

Besides, if the dinosaurs had never been in the film, when would we have had the chance to see Willis O'Brien's greatest stop-motion dinosaurs?

Well we wouldn't and that's why they are in King Kong, not becuase of any important plot structure. They are just there by happen-stance.

And speaking of Godzilla, the Big G (as I think he's known) worked on his own because the original Godzilla film was a completely different storyline involving a parable of the creation of a monster which could destroy mankind (the atom bomb).

True, but the idea of King Kong was to take the beast back to civilisation, thereby destroying him. Cooper's idea came from watching Komodo dragons in the Bronx zoo, where they died.

King Kong was partly about mankind's triumph over nature and ultimately mankind's destruction over nature.

I think King Kong would have still worked if it was just Kong as a singular monster. He owns every scene he's in. He doesn't 'need' the dinosaurs to make 'his' film work. It would have been a different film of course, but probably just as good.

reply

[–] bobisbob52 11 years ago

I disagree that they should have had a scene of Denham encountering a dino on his way back to the village instead of the elasmosaur fight. At this point in the film, more time needed be devoted to Kong. The stego and bronto may have been good appetizers but Kong is the main course and any more creatures had to be there to "put him over", so to speak.

As to whether the dinosaurs were needed. I think that added to the primeval and exotic atmosphere of Skull Island. The 76 island seemed more like a tropical vacation and while Kong was still scary, the film itself lost a lot of the fantasy feel.

reply

[–] bobisbob52 11 years ago

I also think the elasmosaur scene did serve a purpose it showed that danger lurks even in Kong's cave and that Kong is capable of defeating a different kind of monster; one that can wrap around and strangle you.

reply

[–] namaGemo 11 years ago

I agree with your comments. Why just bring back one giant gorilla, which would be a mutant of a living creature, when the real excitement would be bringing creatures, thought to be extinct for millions of years back to civilization.

reply

[–] richard-III 11 years ago

After Kong crashed the gate, the dinosaurs lived and ate happily ever after on their dream-island.

"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 11 years ago

How could they do that exactly? Unlike the 1976 version they did not have the technology to phone in an airdrop. Denham also said "if only I could bring back one of these alive" after killing the Stegosaurus. Though even with all the gas bombs in the world, without heavy equipment it would have been impossible considering they would have had to somehow drag him through a portion of the jungle and then through the whole village. He mentioned capturing Kong until his idea was shot down by Jack "any way he is on top off a cliff where a whole army could not get him". The only reason Kong was captured was because he broke through the wall and was knocked out on the shore where they could get him onto a raft and take him back to New York. I must admit as to being undecided as to whether a T-rex or a huge Ape with a humanoid resemblance would attract the bigger audience.

reply

[–] ptlucmarsh3 11 years ago

Buddy I agree with all your points with regards to both the inconsistency of dinosaurs being no where around during both Jack/Ann and Denham's escapes as well as no one mentioning them at all once they were back at the village.
One thing I do know is that there was an extended scene of Jack and Ann's trek back through the jungle that was in the script but either never filmed or just canned, never to be seen. So unfortunately we will never know what happened there.
Whilst I believe there is more inconsistency with Denham not saying something like; "Wow what an Island, with those giant dinosaurs we all thought were extinct, still roaming around here". I believe, after reading "The Making of King Kong" that one reason that (in the producers mind) we never see them again after the pterodactyl is that the producers did not want us to lose sight of the fact that Kong was the main attraction of this film and he was to be constantly in everyone's mind. Remember the reason the famed pit sequence was cut was due to the fact that it stopped the film cold and people forgot about Kong.
Personally I would have liked to have seen part of Denham's journey back. How he negotiated the swamp and Brontosaurus, as well as seeing more of Jack and Ann evading Kong.

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Buddy I agree with all your points with regards to both the inconsistency of dinosaurs being no where around during both Jack/Ann and Denham's escapes as well as no one mentioning them at all once they were back at the village.

Thank you. The more I watch King Kong the more it baffles me.

Whilst I believe there is more inconsistency with Denham not saying something like; "Wow what an Island, with those giant dinosaurs we all thought were extinct, still roaming around here". I believe, after reading "The Making of King Kong" that one reason that (in the producers mind) we never see them again after the pterodactyl is that the producers did not want us to lose sight of the fact that Kong was the main attraction of this film and he was to be constantly in everyone's mind. Remember the reason the famed pit sequence was cut was due to the fact that it stopped the film cold and people forgot about Kong.

Yes I have thought that might be the reason too. But then when we see the dinosaurs they kind of overshadow Kong. The biggest thing on the island by far is the brontosaurus. So the dinos had already taken our minds off Kong and onto them.

Personally I would have liked to have seen part of Denham's journey back. How he negotiated the swamp and Brontosaurus, as well as seeing more of Jack and Ann evading Kong.

Yes me too, even a brief few minuets or so. I think a few minutes of Denham trying to make it back alone would have been preferable to yet another fight. The elasmosaur scene should have been scrapped.

reply

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

Now along the vein of 'where did the dinosaurs go?' is the huge book that was released to accompany Kong 2005; a sort of faux natural history exploration of the fauna of Skull Island & the theme that a large number of scientific expeditions did go to investigate the prehistoric animals (often ending in disaster) up until the island was destroyed by seismic disturbances just before WW2.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] BuddyLove63 10 years ago

Hi nick.

Yes I had that book. A nice slant on things. In The Son of Kong the island crumbles into the sea.

I was more wondering what happened to the dinosaurs in the 1933 movie though. They disappear some way through the movie and aren't even mentioned by Denham to the crew members at the village. Nobody encounters any dinosaurs when moving 'towards' the wall, only when moving 'away' from the wall. Same as in the 2005 film. Weird.

reply

[–] charles-bailey 11 years ago

In 1933, the Dino's vanished because of budget constraints. Peter Jackson tried to give us dino overkill, but at the end of the day, the film is about Kong. 1976's version was the most "believable" in terms of making the fantasy aspect probable no need for the dinos and the giant snake (later used in Conan the Barbarian) instantly spun that flick off the rails for me.

-Charles W. Bailey
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2351682/

reply

[–] TonyCinemalover 11 years ago

King Kong 76 is grounded in reality the most, the Skull Island scenes are resplendent with lush beauty, but approach nothing fantasy based, which is the 76 films biggest flaw.
The rugged mountain lair that Kong takes Dwan to is the closest we get to something "prehistoric", and I thought it was a brilliant touch how the two towering rock formations that cause Jeff Bridges to study briefly resemble the World Trade Center Towers,which is why Kong at the climax scales them.

reply

[–] phoenixandrew 10 years ago

The brontosaurus that ate one of Denham's crew members was the only one that survived.

reply

[–] millsey72 (10000) 3 years ago

Considering it was 1933, the sight of dinosaurs on some uncharted island was no big deal. An oversized gorilla though would get a lot more attention

reply