King Kong 1933 vs King Kong 2005- Which is better?

[MOVIELORD101]

Out of the two versions of King Kong listed, which do you think is the better version? I'd have to go with the 2005 version because it remains loyal to the original while improving on certain aspects.

Note: I didn't include the 1970's remake because it doesn't really hold up well, especially after 9/11. Sorry guys.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

the 1933 original for me...and what, no love for king kong lives? lol

 

[MOVIELORD101]

the 1933 original for me...and what, no love for king kong lives? lol

King Kong Lives was a sequel to the 1970's remake. And a BAD one, at that. So, no, it doesn't count.

 

[Ghostvirus]

I like both of them for various reasons. Naomi Watts was hooot! The T-Rex fight was awesome. I also like how when Kong got lose he acted more like a ape that was confused in a city. Instead of an animal out to destroy things. But the relationship between the Kong & Watts got pretty creepy at times.

as for the 33. I am a sucker for black & white. I also thought the tribe was much creepier.

 

[Boom]

1933 King Kong.

There's really no comparison for me. The original is an American classic. Peter Jackson's is a bloated, melodramatic mess.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

King Kong Lives was a sequel to the 1970's remake. And a BAD one, at that. So, no, it doesn't count.

way to catch sarcasm there buddy, that's why i included the 'lol' at the end there.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Screw you, man! The Dude and Jessica Lange? That's my version.

 

[SuperFerret]

The 70's one is a travesty. The '33 one is a marvel of film-making (and I almost never say that). The '05 one has Kong as an actual character as opposed to just a monster.

 

[Alchemyst]

Come on stop motion animation vs CGI practically photo-realistic ape and other creatures along with various other effects!?!?!?!




1933 version FTW Can't mess with the classics

 

[DACrowe]

The 1933 original is one of the great popcorn spectacles of all time. I mean it has lived on as a cultural icon for 80 years! The 2005 film added things that gave depth to the story (the girl's personal connection with Kong, Kong having a personality, the hero not being a *****e)....but it is so long and self-indulgent. It is good but I haven't watched it in probably five years because I don't have three hours to spend on a King Kong movie.

The 1933 film will live on as a masterpiece in crowd pleasing cinema genius. The 2005 film is an interesting companion piece as an emotional epic version of Kong. But sometime simplicity just works better for a story.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I like to be beguiled by Jessica Lange. Plus The Dude abides. Charles Grodin makes a great sleezebag.


What can I say? I love the 70's one the best.

 

[Kurosawa]

The 33 version is better although I can look at Naomi Watts in the remake all day long.

What needs remade is the other famous film by the Kong team, The Most Dangerous Game. It's been filmed a few times but it's nowhere near as famous as Kong. If they gotta do remakes, it should be older films like that instead of something like Total Recall that is about 20 years old and still looks fairly up-to-date.

 

[Drizzle]

You know what? They're both good, but everyone gravitates to the original just because it's the original. I mean, it was technologically groundbreaking. But I like Peter Jackson's version better simply because of the Kong/Ann relationship. In the original, Kong was just a big dumb brute but in the remake he actually showed emotion and Ann saw that he was more than just a beast. It made for a more interesting story. My only problem with Jackson's version was it took too damn long to get to the island. The movie could have easily been cut down by at least 45 minutes.

 

[redfirebird2008]

1933 King Kong.

There's really no comparison for me. The original is an American classic. Peter Jackson's is a bloated, melodramatic mess.

Spot on assessment IMHO.

 

[:eek:]

I rather watch the 2005 version, even if it was a little bit too long. The 1933 version just feels hopelessly outdated.

 

[bullets]

I'm more infatuated with the 1933 original.

Peter Jackson's King Kong was able to improve on a lot of things and I really enjoyed that film but it should of been cut down some.

 

[redhawk23]

I didn't much like the Jackson version ever, and I have a soft spot for stop motion, not that I don't have the greatest respect for many cg artists especially at Weta Digital.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Come on. 1933 Kong will still be remembered 100 years from now. 2005 Kong is already fleeting in most peoples minds.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Original is better of course. But the 2K5 version is EXTREMELY underrated.

 

[lime]

The original is too old to be in the same category as Jackson's remake.

How come the origianl is better? It's boring, slow and just ugly to watch. I'm sorry, but I know that in 33 it was the best thing ever, but we are in a different tome now, and that movie is just boring as hell.

I go with 2005

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

You should've really put the 70s version on the poll, i suppose people who like that one best can vote on the 'hate em both part as their vote.
I prefer the 1933 original, as has been said the PJ one is just too long, it has parts that work very well, and others that are just a bit daft.
The one thing the 70s version has going for it is the relationship between Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange, that is the best one out of the three movies.
I also prefer seeing them running about the 1970s at the end of the movie, too, just because i like the 70s.
But, the 70s version is crap mainly because it has no dinosaurs whatsoever.
It was Lozenzo Semple Jnr who wrote the 60s Batman movie, and a lot of the tv series who wrote it.
And whoever said the 33 Kong has no personality is wrong, he was quite the playful scamp inbetween bouts of dinosaur fighting.
His rampage is the best too, it's funny.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Where's the "I like both" option?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

1933. In general, I find it to be faster paced and more exciting. 1933 Kong is basically wall to wall action once Kong shows up at about the halfway point. 2005 Kong is much slower.

There are a couple of other major chances than I'm not a fan of in the 2005 Kong as well. The first is Jack Driscoll, who I thought was a far better hero for this type of film in the 1933 Kong. I didn't care for Adrian Brody at all.

The second is something they always add to these remakes and that is Ann's relationship with Kong. I always found it forced and unrealistic for the girl to basically side with the monster over the humans. It just screams fake, because I can't imagine anyone (or at least any sane person) ever making that decision in the same situation.

 

[Bunker]

Is it weird the first hour of King Kong 2005 was my favorite part of the film? Anyway, the 1933 version is "better", but I'd watch the 2005 version over it any day.

 

[Passdom]

Is it weird the first hour of King Kong 2005 was my favorite part of the film? Anyway, the 1933 version is "better", but I'd watch the 2005 version over it any day.

No, my favorite parts of King Kong 05 are the beginning and the ending in New York