How the 1976 King Kong created one of the great moments in cinema history

Stormyprecious said:
Naomi Watts:


In real life yes, but I meant in their respected King Kong movies
The 1976 KING KONG is one of the more laughable remakes ever made. It's just a bad movie, period.

Jackson's KING KONG may be a half-hour too long, but what it does have is beautifully executed and has one of the finest visual senses I've ever seen in a movie. And even with the complaints about its long running time, it's still just complaining about too much of a good thing.
Jackson's Kong is also a labour of love, while the 1976 remake is just a cynical attempt to make a quick buck with the name of Kong.
the only good thing to come out of 70's kong was the kongfration ride and universal studios and even it's now gone :(
King Kong '76 created one of the greatest moments in little Wilhelm's pants, when they drugged Jessica Lange and tied her up.
Watched both the '33 and '76 versions of Kong after seeing '05s version in the theaters this winter and Kong '76 sucked big time. For the most part I just judged it on story, but seeing Kong standing up and walking like a man in an ape suit totally broke my suspension of disbelief. Then there's the horrible story basically taking everything that made the original story special and throwing it out. Kong '33 was great and I believe Kong '05 improved upon it giving us an even bigger sense of wonder, '76 was just a horrible cash in, it was the Kong equivalant of the Roland Emmerich Godzilla.
Kevin Roegele said:
But don't you see? The audiences wanted to believe it was a giant robot ape, so they believed it was, and therefore believed the sets were all life size, the cars were real cars, etc. So the only difference is, they thought they were watching a robot 40-gorilla rather than a 40-foot gorilla. When in actual fact - they were watching a normal sized man in a gorilla suit on minature sets.

How can you not say that's a fantastic piece of illusion?

You are right about it being a fantastic piece of illusion, and I give credit to De Laurentiis for being a Grade-A liar. But I still think that it makes the filmmakers look more pathetic for using cheap marketing gimmicks (yes, I know, it's to be expected from Hollywood) to get viewers into theater seats.
Oh wow, I just actually read the article. What a load.

I was born in 1971. I was there. With me, my Mom and Dad and everyone I knew, the movie was a huge let-down, not because it was poorly written or anything, but because we were excited to see a giant robot and we got there and got a very obvious guy in a rubber suit.:confused:
That was the whole deal. Everyone was pissed that they lied about the gorilla.
I very distinctly remember my Dad getting mad and wanting to get our money back and I begged my Mom to change his mind because I still wanted to watch it even though they ripped us off.

So, I have no idea who these ******s were that thought there was a lot of robot footage. Not as rubber-suit savvy as a 5 year old?:confused:

Users who are viewing this thread

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"