Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

KING KONG Animated?

Nordling here.

To be fair, Kong's always been animated, except in the 1976 remake, KING KONG LIVES, and KING KONG VS. GODZILLA , where he was a Man In Suit.  But Fox Animation Studios, according to Deadline, is making another version of the classic film, this time from the ape's perspective, and set in modern day.  Christian Magalhaes and Bob Snow will write the script.  Apparently their script for MURDER OF A CAT was on the Black List, and was well received, but Kong is something else entirely.

Personally, I thought we already got a good film from the ape's point of view - it is titled KING KONG, after all, and not THE PEOPLE WHO CAPTURED KING KONG, and I can't imagine an animated film adding anything new to the story.  It's one thing to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt - say what you may about the remake but it respected the source.  But an animated modern day take of the story - if the screenwriters are writing right now that a character steps in giant monkey poop, step back from the keyboard and do something else today.  I'm sure Harry will have a thing or 76272643891 to say about this.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 7, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    I'm surprised Harry didn't post this?

    by ATARI

    What's he busy doing right now, anyway?

  • June 7, 2011, 12:25 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Bleh. Less interested. The Kong cartoon in the 90s/00s was modern day.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    "From the Ape's perspective"

    by D.Vader

    The world's first animated series told entirely from a 1st person POV.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Modern-day KONG is like modern-day DRACULA.


    It's just ... off. CHOP this project, please. Thus spake CHOPPAH-thustra.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:34 p.m. CST

    I actually loved Jackson's KONG.


    Although I could have done without Jimmy. Still, overall it's pretty fucking huge and great and heartbreaking. Thus spake CHOPPAH-thustra.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Jackson's KONG is terrific.

    by Nordling

    My beef with it is that it takes an hour to get to Skull Island. That's just fat that doesn't need to be there. But once they hit the island, it's all gravy.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong had one of the best death scenes

    by professor murder

    Those worms attacking that guy and sucking onto his arms as one finally comes up from behind and sucks it's mouth onto the dudes head and.....well, you know. Makes me feel weird every time I see it. Would SUCK to go out like that!

  • June 7, 2011, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Kong does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Anyone else think the version of Peter Jackson's KING KONG we saw in theaters should have been the DVD Extended Edition? I think it would have worked better on first viewing with 20-25 minutes or so cut out. And then later the fans could have got the extended cut with Jimmy the cabin boy subplot, etc on home release.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Does it explore if Kong raped Fay Wray?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    You know, since gorillas have very small penises, then proportionally it would be possible.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST



    Agreed. Still love it, though.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:39 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Maybe one day we'll get the story of King Kong told from Jimmy the cabin boy's perspective. Until that happens the Dojo is not interested.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Agree with Nordling.

    by xbagboy

    Jackson's Kong needs to be trimmed, there is a good movie in there.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:40 p.m. CST

    I saw the original version of king kong on dvd...

    by emeraldboy

    and I hated jacksons versions of it apart from Naomi watts who was radiant. everything else bar the effects was terrible.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    I thought Jackson was making

    by UltraTron

    Denham: Return to Skull Island with jack black. Did gulliver kill that one? I would love a new Denham monster story. He's like a crazed indiana jones that must film his shots! It doesn't matter how many of the film crew he must sacrifice. The show must go on!

  • June 7, 2011, 12:43 p.m. CST

    I want the Odyssey from the Cyclops' perspective

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    So these smelly foreigners invade his land and try to do God knows what to his sheep (they were at sea for a LOOOOONG time). He defends his home and they poke his only eye out. The horny sailers then run off with the sheep and return home to be celebrated as heroes. Totally F-ed up.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Jackson's formula for Kong

    by fatmoshe

    What's scarier than ONE T-Rex? THREE T-REXES! What's scarier than ONE giant worm thing? A HUNDRED GIANT WORM THINGS! What's scarier than ONE brontosaurus? A WHOLE HERD OF THEM! Jackson missed the point with Kong- he's not just a giant silver-backed gorilla. He's an entirely different species. That's why he's so scary in the original. Oh, and Jack Black NEVER improves a movie. I hate him as an actor (as a person, I have no idea if I would hate him or not-- I sat next to him at a screening of 12 Angry Men at the Arclight a few years back, and he was pretty cool... but I digress). I would die a happy man if I never heard him break into song, push out his stomach, or make crazy eyes again. Seriously, it's as if someone told him he looked funny doing karaoke in his underwear ten years ago, and we've all been suffering ever since. Sad, really, because I thought he was funny in Mars Attacks and pretty darn good in Dead Man Walking. What was I talking about? Oh, that's right-- Post Rings Peter Jackson movies are almost unwatchable. Did any of you even see Lovely Bones? DREADFUL!

  • June 7, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong Konged me out.

    by Yelsaeb

    There was just so much pure Kong love in that. After that, we don't need anything else Kong ever again.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Andy Serkis' death scene in Kong was terrible

    by D.Vader

    I mean, good-terrible, like such a creative way to go, but man so god-awful and stomach-churning at the same time.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Harry is too busy drooling over fake film photos too care...

    by AssyMuffJizz

    I think the miracle surgery/therapy he's getting on his back has fucked the big guy's brain up...

  • June 7, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST

    I thought we already got a cartoon Kong from Jackson

    by Flip63Hole

    Didn't cartoon characters even write the screenplay?

  • June 7, 2011, 12:52 p.m. CST

    The original Kong took a long time to die too

    by D.Vader

    It was on the other night at the same time as the Gallimimus stampede in Jurassic Park. I switched to JP, watched that sequence, turned back to Kong and he was still getting shot.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong was FRUSTRATING

    by Winston Smith

    Because it COULD have been brilliant. And really, my complaint is actually about the ACTION mainly (not the characters like Jimmy that don't go anywhere aren't a problem). Some of the set pieces are brilliant. Others don't even pretend to push the story forward. And worse, sometimes they're not exciting because the characters are invisible. Ann being thrown all around by Kong like a rag doll, yes, suspension of disbelief, but it gets to a point where there's just no sense of danger. The '33 original handles this much better. Or SHOOTING the bugs off a character. What the hell? Even an Indiana Jones movie would have a hard time pulling that off. Still, it has its moments, and digital New York City circa 1933 is one of the most incredible worlds put to screen.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    "I don't know where JIMMEH came from.." Who cares where he came from.. I want to know where he went?! That little fucker had so much screen time and then just vanished halfway through the movie. I half expected him to suddenly appear at the foot of the Empire State - looking up and screaming NOOOOOO!!! - as Kong landed on him.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST

    **not that characters

    by Winston Smith

    EDIT please

  • June 7, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST


    by Winston Smith

    God dammit batting .200 today.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST


    by professor murder

    You should play for the Seattle Mariners, haha.

  • Because you can't just have an animal character...act.

  • You're not a real reviewer because you don't even understand cinema. Your reviews are a brief plot review, some "insight" that you have already heard or read, and how you felt about the film. You don't bring anything to the table. You don't even understand the masterpiece that is KING KONG (1933) and why Peter Jackson's version is so flawed. So I'll tell you: King Kong is the antagonist in the original. He is the protagonist in the 1976 and 2005 versions because those filmmakers loved the character of King Kong but apparently had no clue about what made the film KING KONG so brilliant. Same thing with the remake of HALLOWEEN, Rob Zombie obviously loves the character of Michael Myers, but was completely ignorant about what made THE FILM so great.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    jacksons attention to detail

    by emeraldboy

    was superb. but to the person who said that he added to the story er no. he destroyed the orginal characters by turning the war hero pilot into a soppy romantic screen writer and he hired jack " arrogant ego" black to play carl denham easily one of the worst casting decisions in years.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Jackson totally missed the point if Kong.

    by cookylamoo

    King Kong is not an animal rights story. It's a story about a monster's impossible love for a creature who could only regard him with horror. Naomi Watts acted like she wanted Kong to hump her from the get-go.

  • June 7, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    PJ´s KONG...

    by AdzonVonMelk

    is a movie I really enjoyed watching in a theatre, and, from time to time rewatch some scenes on dvd. it´s not a classic or THE perfect movie, but I enjoyed it in every regard. so what would you expect more from a remake, that doesn´t bring a new story in the game but improved effects? ... well... the dancing on the frozen lake was a bit too much actually...

  • June 7, 2011, 1 p.m. CST

    I liked Jackson's Kong but...

    by Ryan

    ....there was just some really long, boring, drawn out sequences in there. I will never forget my girlfriend at the time and I watching that movie in the theater. She turned to me at one point and said "Well I guess they are going to stare at each other for another twenty minutes". Of course referring to Anne and Kong. Overall I liked it but in my opinion it is hard to beat the original.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:01 p.m. CST

    @ kamaji

    by dopepope

    Nah, it'll most likely be Michael Clark Duncan

  • Its a remake, therefore he's not wrong when he chooses to remake a certain character or plot point. The basic story is exactly the same, and that's what remains important. I don't care if I learn what drove Michael Myers to evil, or if Carl Denham is now has the drive and ego of Orson Welles. I just care if its a good story. Separate yourself from the original a bit when discussing a remake; you've got to give it some leeway.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Nothing wrong with the 1976 Kong

    by disfigurehead

    Better than PJ's

  • June 7, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    The fact that Kong is the antagonist in the original...

    by D.Vader

    Is NOT the defining characteristic of what makes it great.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Jackson turned a 100 minute into a 187 minute movie.

    by Randy

    Everything on the boat was boring and dragged out, every performance besides Watts was pretty damn boring. Brody failed as the male lead and the romance was forced, you never cared about the characters. Jackson got the visuals right and he was right to make the story epic, he just forgot how to create memorable characters. That's fine for a movie that is 100 minutes, but it's impossible to enjoy a 3 hour film with nothing to care about.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:08 p.m. CST


    by Nordling

    You've seen the original, right? Where Kong acts like an animal, because that's what he is? Where Willis O'Brien said that he's never considered Kong the villain? He treated Kong like an animal, with an inner life, and that shows on screen. Granted, the other filmmakers did take that and run with it, and that's why the original still is superior to those because the original film keeps the subtext where it belongs and don't make it overt. I like Jackson's version, but if you read real closely, acne'd nose to the screen, I never said I preferred it to the original. It's not as simple as "I love this therefore I must hate this" that you and the majority of talkbackers seem to paint things, because it's either black or white, suck or rule, and brilliant or utterly stupid. As far as being a "real" reviewer, I frankly don't give a shit. I write what I write, and you can feel free to skip it or not. Apparently enough people like what I do that I'm still here. If that upsets you to the point that you can no longer continue in this world, remember, kids, it's down the road and not across the street.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:09 p.m. CST

    King Kong Escapes rules!

    by Roman Troy Moronie

    Mecha Kong, Dr. Hu (with the very apparent ... um ... 'interesting' dental hygiene), Jackie Gleason's hot daughter (who is Jason Patric's mother), secret base in the Arctic, hot Asian spy ... violence, sex and political intrigue in a G-rated (?!?!?) movie. What's not to love?!?!

  • Is one of the dumbest things I've read on these boards.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    oh... and I forgot..

    by Roman Troy Moronie

    Paul "Burgermeister Meisterburger / Disney's Haunted Mansion/ " Frees as the English voice of Dr. Hu ... the movie was also a Rankin/ Bass production (?!?) ... even more reasons to love it!

  • June 7, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Cookylamoo, spot on post.

    by one9deuce

    You said it perfectly. Anne doesn't love Kong back. It's unrequited, hence the tragedy. The old Arab proverb at the beginning doesn't carry nearly the weight it should if Anne also loves Kong. And yeah D. Vader, that IS the defining trait of the story. You're thinking of plot, and plot and story are two different things. Any hack filmmaker could make you feel sorry for Kong being shot off of the Empire State Building if it crushes Anne to see it happen. But it took brilliance and a perfect storm of collaborators to make you feel sorry for Kong when Anne WANTS him to be shot off the Empire State Building.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Wait, the Peter Jackson King Kong movie wasn't an animation movie?

    by AsimovLives

    It could had fooled me, with all that CGI stuff all over the place.

  • Hard thing to do. In fact, it's nigh impossible. You ask too much, d.vader. Comparisons are inevitable. Even necessary.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:33 p.m. CST

    UH OH! We gots a rumble goin' on here!


    one9deuce vs. Nordling! asimovlives vs. d.vader! Keep it clean, gents. Thus spake, CHOPPAH-thustra.

  • Really. I am tired of it. It just reveals a Hollywood that wants retreads because it is considered safe financially.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:35 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Where did I confuse plot with story?

  • If you're unable to separate yourself from the original, then you should be completely anti-remakes to begin with. When you remake a movie, you've got choices, and sometimes those choices involve changing a character. You can't tell the filmmaker he was wrong to change something in a remake, otherwise you miss the concept of what a "remake" is in the first place. You may as well just be Gus Van Sant, doing a shot for shot Psycho.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    I still have a VHS copy of the animated, musical "The Mighty Kong"!

    by The Reluctant Austinite

    It was an animated musical version of "King Kong" that was actually intended for theatrical release, but Warner Bros. dumped it straight to VHS. It stars the voice of Dudley Moore, and it's so bad I could never actually finish it. I tried watching it in 5 minute increments, but eventually it defeated my resolve. It might be the worst animated musical of all time.

  • If it was, everyone would hate Cronenberg's "The Fly".

  • June 7, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Sorry, but you're talking about my favorite film ever.

    by cookylamoo

    In the Original Kong, not only isn't the first half hour boring, the first half hour is incredibly atmospheric and builds geometrically scene by scene to the moment where Anne is strapped to the poles atop the wall. Then the movie goes silent and prepares itself for the greatest entrance in movie history. Also, the middle of the movie is not about humans versus, dinosaurs, bugs or whatever. It's about Kong versus three deadly adversaries in defense of his toy. What happens to the crew is superfluous. God, and then there's the Theater scene. How was THAT for a show?

  • June 7, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST

    This is probably some non-news news...just a rumor

    by Rupee88

    Do you think this is really going to get made and released anytime soon with PJ's Kong still so recent? No way.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Kong '76 has Charles Grodin in it

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    Which automatically makes it 14x better than the one with Jack Black in it. Plus its got that full sized, barely functional Kong robot in it for two seconds. Kong '76 poster is one of the greatest of all time. OF ALL TIME Computer cartoon content of Kong '76: 0%

  • June 7, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    I liked PJs version minus a couple things

    by Nick

    The Raptor/Brontosaur Stampede JIMMY! The Ice Skating King Kong's super slow mo fall and that a writter was the main hero. Should have stuck with the captian. Shorten it by 20 minutes... and you got a great film.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:15 p.m. CST

    One thing would have made KK better

    by professor murder

    Kong taking a shit from atop the ESB and it landing on Adrien Brody killing him in an instant.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    The fanedit of Jackson's 'Kong'...

    by workshed 'The Man Behind The Mask' is well worth a look. With well over an hour cut from the movie it's a much pacier affair. Check it out at

  • June 7, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    already been done`

    by john

    king kong, you know the name of...king know the fame of...king kong...10 times as big as a man

  • June 7, 2011, 2:18 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Geek question.... but one of you boys prob knows the answer. Is the big Kong animatronic on the Universal Studio tour the one from the '76 movie?

  • Jessica Lange in short shorts and constantly getting wet automatically makes it better than the new one. Yowza.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Universal Studios King Kong

    by professor murder

    I don't think so. It was featured in The Wizard and Beverly Hills Cop 3 though, haha

  • June 7, 2011, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Is someone crying out for yet another Kong?

    by Jaster

    Feels like we've been down that road too many times already. I suppose making it from Kong's perspective would be sort of a Gulliver's Travels version? Is that an interesting enough take to justify making it? I don't know, not really. And by CGI will that be more like Pixar or more like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?

  • June 7, 2011, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Jackson's kong is painfully bad

    by INWOsuxRED

    One good performance (guess two if you count the motion capture performance), good CGI on kong and much of the island background, and nothing else going for it. Pacing is horrific, they filmed the tribe on skull island the way a tabloid TV show films murder recreations, the non-kong CGI was way beyond gratuitous, making Brody's character a screen writer was insulting but adding in slow motion typing scene took things to a new level of tedious...and then there was Jimmy.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Still can't beleive a monkey could yell JIMMY

    by Nick

  • June 7, 2011, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Surrounded by Trolls...Low on Gas...

    by doom master

    Remember to eat more beans next time.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:39 p.m. CST

    They got it right in 1976...

    by RedManley

    The 1976 remake is perfection. Grodin, John Barry, hot Lange, cool Bridges. It is the perfect Kong. Fact.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    I love King Kong but...

    by Tom Fremgen

    I'm not really ready for a new movie. Got another animated TV show, I'd probably watch that, but another movie- come on, it's the same frick'n story! Give at least 20 years between remakes.

  • June 7, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Jack Black was a multi-major fuck-up for PJ's Kong

    by Uncle Stan

    Fucked up the whole film as far as I'm concerned. Rewriting Denham's character was another huge mistake. Denham was a highlight of the original (and arguably portrayed by the most talented actor in the cast).

  • June 7, 2011, 5:55 p.m. CST

    restyles is right

    by deelzbub

    There already was a cartoon Kong series. 1977 or something. Saturday mornings. with Godzooky maybe. I bet youtube has a clip

  • June 7, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    I highly doubt it was the same Kong as the movie, but the point is moot, as the attraction burned to the ground in 2008 I believe. I am referring to the Calif. one. It has since been replaced (2010) by the KING KONG 360 3-D ride created by Peter Jackson.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Kong was also a man in suit in KING KONG ESCAPES!

    by SnootyBoots

    The second Toho Kong movie. Made a few years after Kong faught Godziila it has Kong battling MechaKong several years before Godzilla tangles with MechaGodzilla in GODZILLA VS. THE COSMIC MONSTER (aka GDZILLA VS. MECHAGODZILLA, aka GOJIRA TAI MECHAGOJIRA). Still waiting for MechaKong to fight MechaGodzilla. Why is it that over the years I have seen and enjoyed most of the Japanese giant monster movies but I haven't seen, and have no desire to see, a Transformer movie?

  • June 7, 2011, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong needed 20 mins cut out

    by Keith

    The dinosaur chase scenes and some of the general flabbiness of the first half. But it had some amazing moments as well. And the scene where Kong is reunited with Darrow is fucking magnificent. He is a bona fide character in that movie, superbly done.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:49 p.m. CST


    by Keith

    "Most people complain about the length of it and not the content anyway. And does everyone have such short attention spans these days?" Seems a slightly odd claim, given that movies have been getting longer, not shorter. Back in the late 80s a standard feature film running time was around 105 mins. Now I'd say 130 mins is the norm, and 150-180 mins is much more common than it used to be.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:54 p.m. CST


    by one9deuce

    I admit I was a little harsh on you, but when you write something like "say what you may about the remake but it respected the source" it's incredibly annoying, especially from someone that gets paid to write about film. No, Peter Jackson most certainly didn't respect the source because he missed the entire point of the film. Denham saying "it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast" in the original is very poignant, Denham saying it in Jackson's version sounds ridiculous. And he changed Ann's character, he changed Denham's character, and he changed Jack Driscoll's character. The three leads! If you change the story and the characterization you're not respecting the source material. That being said I do think that a filmmaker has every right in the world to retell/remake a story any way he sees fit, but if major changes are made and those changes don't work then the filmmaker can justifiably be criticized. I almost see the original as an accident in how perfect it turned out. The director's were making a monster movie and made cameos as fighter pilots so they could "shoot the sonofabitch down themselves", but the composer Max Steiner and the animator of Kong himself Willis O'Brien gave the character of Kong a soul that I don't think the director's ever considered. So Nordling, your post with this: "Where Willis O'Brien said that he's never considered Kong the villain? He treated Kong like an animal, with an inner life, and that shows on screen. Granted, the other filmmakers did take that and run with it, and that's why the original still is superior to those because the original film keeps the subtext where it belongs and don't make it overt." That's pretty insightful. You should include more of those sharp comments in your reviews.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Jackson's KONG is overwrought

    by Jobacca

    Half the damn 3 hour film is the CGI Kong lovingly staring at Naomi Watts while maudlin music plays. That flick needed an editor with a heavy might be amazing if they could cut it down to about an hour and a half.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:11 p.m. CST

    D. Vader

    by one9deuce

    You wrote "The basic story is exactly the same, and that's what remains important". No, the plot is basically the same. The story is changed considerably. And as far as this comment from you: "To equate Nordling's enjoyment of Kong with not "understanding cinema" is one of the dumbest things I've read on these boards". That would be dumb, but since that isn't what I was saying..... There's nothing wrong with liking Peter Jackson's KING KONG more than the original, nothing at all. It was the Jackson respecting the source material comment that spurred the "not understanding cinema" comment from me. I don't dislike Peter Jackson, but he is a bit hamfisted. He isn't great with the subtleties of a story and it couldn't have been more obvious than with THE LOVELY BONES. Wow, what a trainwreck.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    So it will be nothing like KONG: THE ANIMATED SERIES?

    by MooseMalloy

  • June 7, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    But will the new animated Kong be....

    by Odkin

    Ten Times as Big as a Man!!???

  • June 7, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong ruined by three things...

    by Odkin

    -Incredible slowness -Adrian Brody's useless character -JACK BLACK IS NO CARL DENHAM

  • June 7, 2011, 8:39 p.m. CST


    by Keith

    With a few replacements: "Half the damn 3 hour film is Sam lovingly staring at Frodo while maudlin music plays. That flick needed an editor with a heavy might be amazing if they could cut it down to about an hour and a half."

  • June 7, 2011, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Screw this, do my book, instead.

    by Warren Fahy

    FRAGMENT is the real update of KING KONG in the modern day. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:09 p.m. CST

    No more Kong!!!

    by mastermold

    Christ, can we give it a rest? There have been three films made about Kong and each has done worse than the last. Why? Because ****spoiler**** THE FUCKING MONKEY DIES! If they want to make another film, do something different: Let him live, destroy New York and use Donald Trump as a toothpick afterwards.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:26 p.m. CST

    I'm a huge fan of both King kong's before the Jackson one...

    by ufoclub1977

    Jackson Kong could be good if they cut it down to what works, but there is so much shit plot wise in there that doesn't do anything for me and even seems amateur from a screenwriting viewpoint in my opinion... Should have been heavily edited! The captain and the boy's story? Doesn't work! Doesn't even go anywhere from what I remember! Dinosaur&bug effects diarrhea was really amateur as well in story concept. Holding back a little works so much better to be mythical for me personally. Don't get me wrong the visual style was great, the effects great... but the stacatto slo-mo sequences smacked of the quality of an unsolved mysteries tv effect. WHAT THE FUCK WAS STYLE DOING IN THERE? The casting of Denham and Jack didn't really sparkle either for this tale. Of course I realize many people enjoyed it. But it was certainly not as effective as Fellowship of the Ring, Meet the Feebles, Heavenly Creatures, King Kong 33 or King Kong 76.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:34 p.m. CST

    I preferred the Rankin/Bass series from the '60s. (nt)

    by Triple_J_72

  • June 7, 2011, 9:49 p.m. CST

    what Rankin and Bass one???

    by ufoclub1977

    I wanna see this...of King Kong? cuz The Hobbit was in 1977 I think.

  • It's because they psychologically project themselves onto the movie. Kong Fans see themselves as Kong; ugly brutish beasts that are rejected by the pretty girls they all desire. But if only those girls could see the inner beauty, then they would come to love them. Kong proves his love to her by fighting off the Alpha males (T-Rexes) who only want to devour her flesh (sex). She now see's him as her protector and discovers his inner sensitivity. It's all rather obvious and shows why geeks give a shit about this worthless story which didn't need to be remade twice. The original was a classic for its use of effects and stop-motion animation. The 76 version is wretched and the 05 redux was an over-indulgent pile of irritating tripe.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:09 p.m. CST

    You guys are all right!!!

    by DarthBlart

    Jacksons Kong was bloated and with bad cgi crap and too much emotionsal manipulation.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Shooting the bugs off...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Someone mentioned that somewhere above. Right on! That part has always bugged me. I mean that is some GREAT shooting. Still PJ's King Kong rocked in many ways that it's problems are just slight road bumps. Oh yeah and this animated movie is a horrible idea.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Can't top the original, so why bother. The modern two both missed the boat.

    by Anakin_Piecocker

    shouldn't even have tried. Should just re-release it every other thanksgiving for families to go see. And there already was a cartoon, with some, straight to dvd, Kong v Atlantis movie.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    I still come here because there's still geeks who know

    by UltraTron

    Burgermeister welcome foolish mortals guy.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST


    by CreepyThinMan

  • June 7, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Dave Chapelle should voice Kong!

    by Onin Solstice

  • June 7, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST

    The only thing Jackson's Kong got right

    by INWOsuxRED

    is that women are objects and it is okay to kidnap them. Everything else was wrong.

  • June 7, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed Jackson's Kong

    by JohnIan

    I have both versions, the theatrical and extended cuts. I prefer the longer version. I didn't find the movie boring. BUT... I did have to agree with the other commentor, Jack Black was miscast. The original Carl Denham was showman by profession, but when Ann was abducted - he DROPPED EVERYTHING. 'I got the girl in this situation, I'm gonna get her out; fuck my movie'. Black's version is a douche bag to the end. The other thing was the Venture's captain. The original Cap. Englehorn was this salty old man. I would've loved to have seen someone that elderly come to Jack's aid (Adrien Brody's character) in the trech. An old man kicking ass and taking names. Anyhow, I enjoyed the film with their flaws. And I do like the 1976 version. I just wish there was a speical edition DVD, not bare bones.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Jack Black was not miscast

    by D.Vader

    It sounds like most here have a problem with the characterization of Denham in this movie, which has nothing to do with Black. In fact, Black played the egomaniacal douchebag quite well, and compared to every other role of his, he was extremely restrained. I thought he did a great job playing such a despicable character. But like I said, I think many of you are wrongly putting the blame on Black. There's a difference between disliking a character and thinking the actor did a bad job playing said character.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:16 a.m. CST

    Jack Black wasn't authentic to the period

    by FrodoFraggins

    But he wasn't the sole reason why I didn't like the movie. The unnecessary bug scene and similar "roller coaster" ride scenes were just too much. It's strange that Jackson took his favorite movie and turned it into a Michael Bay film.

  • June 8, 2011, 2 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Thanks for the clarification regarding your "understanding cinema" comment. I still think its quite a bit of an over exaggeration to think changing Kong from an antagonist to a protagonist suggests someone doesn't "understand cinema", but I think you're saying it was just an annoyed outburst in the moment. Personally, I don't think changing Kong from antagonist to protagonist is an inherently bad thing (they did it to Godzilla too), though it would be interesting to see someone keep Kong in that role for a future film.

  • June 8, 2011, 5:39 a.m. CST

    triple_j_72 wasnt rankin bass

    by john

    although they may have licensed it...not sure it was toho...clips still can be found on youtube when i was a kid, i really thought this was cutting edge animation but when i saw it again, i realized why the only thing i could remember was the title song the animation sucketh

  • June 8, 2011, 6:28 a.m. CST

    King Kong Kartoon

    by Dr. Hfuhruhurr

  • June 8, 2011, 7:08 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I compare John Carpenter's THE THING remake to the original, and the remake cames out on top. Se what i mean? Comparisons are inevitable,a dn it's foolish to expect otherwise. And the word weak was terribly misused. You should had used another far more apropos, which i'm certain you know of.

  • Which, lately, seems to be far more the rule then the exception. So many misguided remakes have happened recently one loses count. Small wonder so many people are now completly adverse to the very notion. Many good movies we love are in fact remakes. Remakes done well,. The aforementioned Carpenter's THE THING, and THE MALTESE FALCON, EL DORADO (Howard Hawks), CAPE FEAR, HEAT, to name a few. And then there's movies which have such a direct connection to a former movie which are just remakes in all but name. Movies like ASSAULT OF PRECINT 13, STAR WARS (The Hidden Fortress), to name a few. Remakes are a very old thing in film. In fact, remakes used to be even more prevalent in the past, before home video. In the 20s and 30s many, many movies were remade with only 5 years inbetween. Many were sound remakes of silence movies, like THE LODGER, just to exploit the technological novelty among other reasons. Remakes are nothing new. But it's the attitude of Holywood toward the new batch of remakes that is just so... unsavvory.

  • June 8, 2011, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Once again, Asi, you completely fail to see my point

    by D.Vader

  • June 8, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    genderblender, I think they missed a trick by NOT having Kong throw his poop. He could have been flinging those turds around like medicine balls. I'm serious - that's a great action sequence waiting to happen!

  • June 8, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Only good thing about 1976 Kong.

    by cookylamoo

    They show you how they got him back to New York.

  • June 8, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Cookylamoo you could not be MORE wrong

    by D.Vader

    The OTHER good thing about 1976 Kong!

  • June 8, 2011, 9:51 a.m. CST

    catchtheman your words echo

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    .........because you are talking out of your ass

  • June 8, 2011, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson and respect for sources

    by Palhaco

    "It's one thing to give Peter Jackson the benefit of the doubt - say what you may about the remake but it respected the source." If only he had respected the source in making "The Lord of the Rings". In his hands, LOTR became too much of a re-imagining, and it sounds like "The Hobbit" -- whoever directs -- will be the same. Changes which are necessary for the screen are one thing, but he made far too many changes to suit himself which did damage to the tone and content of both the story and characters.

  • Granted, the effects in the 2005 version were very damn good. But they were overused, the stampede, bug fight, and chase sequences were overblown and ridiculous, and the movie took too long to get going -- the first act was interminable. The 1976 version had pathos and humor. The 2005 version had special effects. Winner -- 1976 version.

  • June 8, 2011, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Can't share your enthusiasm for Jessica Lange's boobs.

    by cookylamoo

    I mean they're pretty average overall. Pretty much what's required and that's it. The only kick was seeing them in a "children's" movie.

  • June 8, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Ray Harryhausen put his finger on it

    by Peter David

    He was once asked what he thought of the new crop of CGI FX versus the stop motion that he perfected, and he said that his problem with it was that "it took the nightmarish and made it mundane." I think "King Kong" is a prime example of that. The original Kong moved in a herky-jerky, irregular manner. It wasn't smooth; it was unreal. His fur rippled at random times, (courtesy of the animator's finger imprints on the model's fur). There was an air of monstrous unreality about him because of the nature of the FX. In the remake, basically he's a Silverback gorilla. He may be the biggest damned Silverback gorilla in the world, but that's ultimately all he is. We see them in zoos and they get studied by people like Jane Goodall. Kong of the original film is rooted in nightmare because of his visuals. Kong of the remake is rooted in the mundane. In the original film, the guys are monster chasers. Now they're little more than hunters searching for big game, and our sympathies ever since the great stag intoned, "Bambi, your mother can't be with you anymore" tends to be with the object of the hunt in those situations. King Kong, the monster, is terrifying no matter what he does. King Kong, the Silverback gorilla, goes ice skating in Central Park. I'm sorry: Real Kongs don't ice skate. Although let's face it, any animated Kong in modern day is going to be better than the 1966 animated series that featured Kong traveling the world with his boy pal, Bobby Bond, saving humanity from monsters, evil robots, and the machinations of a villain named (I shit you not) Doctor Who. PAD

  • June 8, 2011, 2:46 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Then take pity and explain what i failed to understand. I'm 40 years old now, man, i'm an old man, it's all downhill from now on.

  • June 8, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Yeah PAD pretty much nailed it.

    by cookylamoo

    King Kong wasn't really a gorilla. No more than Godzilla was a dinosaur.

  • June 8, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I was really underwhelmed by Peter Jackson's KING KONG.

    by AsimovLives

    I quite like long movies. But PJ's King Kong was one of the few movies not made by Michael Bay where i was just fed up with it and just wished it would fucking stop. But ti was just not the lenght that bothered me, but the unsufferable over-indulgence in every and each frame of that movie. It has to be the strangest love letter movie i ever seen in my whole life (until Super 8, i guess). And the overbearingness of the CGI. Every scene that should had lasted 2 minutes PJ always overstretched to 10 to 20 minutes. It was ridiculous. I got so fed up, i was praying that they alreeady killed the fucking ape already! Kong dying in that movie was not tragedy, it was relief. How in the fuck the majority of the critcis and geeks at the time fell inlove with the bloody movie is a mystery for the ages! And i'm one of those who really digged the LOTR movies. KK was such a disapointment, that i couldn't evne bother to watch PJ's next movie, THE LOVELY BONES. To this day i still doesn't feel much compulstion to watch it. That was the damage that KK did.

  • Seriously, the fucking thing writes itself! They go back to the island, Denham for fortune, a hardened Jimmy in need of facing his fears and find closure for his dead friend (okay, find a better motive then, fucker), and in the process they find Son of Kong. Denham wants to exploit it like he did the first, and Jimmy becomes its protector and then liberator. In the end Kong Jr. saves Jimmy's life by sacrificing himself and getting him on to a boat as Skull Island sinks around them. There, I just did some Hollywood big shot's whole job for them!

  • June 8, 2011, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Grape Ape!

    by RedManley

    Grape Ape!

  • The movie makes it quite clear that Kong is the last of his kind. And he's aging. From where could this son of his come from, when all the other giant apes of his race were dead for so long their bones are white clean?

  • June 8, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    I think we can all agree in one thing...

    by one9deuce

    The KING KONG poster from 1976 is totally awesome! I believe it's up there with JAWS amongst the greatest in cinema history. One more thing we can probably all agree on: movie posters pretty much suck now.

  • June 8, 2011, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Son of Kong

    by Peter David

    They'd just say he came from "the other side of the island," probably. It's a generic enough dodge. PAD

  • June 8, 2011, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Adrian Brody

    by Peter David

    How has no one cast this guy as the Shadow? PAD

  • June 9, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Jackson remade the '76 version, not the '33 version

    by Nils Helstrom

    Has anyone noticed that the 2005 Kong is a remake of the 1976 Kong, NOT the 1933 version? Some scenes are lifted right from the ’76 film (for example, reporters climbing on Kong’s body at the end), and story parallels are many: Denham re-written as a jerk and played by a comedien (Charles Grodin/Jack Black), Ann/Dwan no longer afraid of Kong but rather affectionate of him, the army attacking Kong like in a Godzilla movie, the sailors having pointless character development (and including a token black sailor), Jack re-written as a sensitive scientist/writer, etc. And despite what he says, Jackson seems to hate the ’33 version… he mocks the original repeatedly in his ’05 remake (the original dialogue, natives, music, etc. are all used as jokes throughout the movie).