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

I'm a sucker for big sprawling epics and an even bigger sucker for dinosaurs, but I mostly hated the new Kong. Sure, I dig the Rex fight (the Rex suspended by the vines trying to snap at Ann is one of the greatest images I've ever seen) and love the guy from Early Edition, but a King Kong movie has no business being three hours long.

The original movie is barely an hour and a half, and yet there's still room to make it tighter.

Original all the way for me.
 
I love them both. Cannot really compare the two, imo, the film industry changed alot in the 72 years between the films.

I don't understand the hate the length of the 2005 film recieves. Bunch of ADD ridden people out there I guess. I have no problem with a three hour film as long as it can fill the three hours with meaningful material and KK2K5 did just that.

And leave the 76 version alone, sure it can't match the other two but Jessica Lange was banging and it had it's moments. And King Kong Lives had a nice clip of the side of Linda Hamiliton's breast.
 
PJ's Kong is technically a better film. of course, it also has the benefit of color, state of the art sound and effects, and 60 years of evolved film making techniques. i, personally, find the remake a very enjoyable movie to watch and it's one that i regularly pop in every once in a while if i want to escape my mundane reality.

as for the original, i saw it once, and it was very hard for me to get through...but that's just because i've been spoiled so much by color, sound and great effects that i find it hard to watch any effects heavy film past the 70's. however, you cannot have the beauty of the remake without the beast that was the original...and i mean that in the most positive way possible.


all in all, i had to vote with my own opinion and while i respect the original a great deal, i also had to struggle to watch it the whole way through...so i voted that the remake is a better movie.
 
2005 for me, but I also like the original also. Well I actually like all three versions. The length of the 2005 Kong doesn't bother me at all but I like long movies. And I actually connected with Kong in the 2005 version where the '76 and '33 Kong is just a gorilla. And as far as King Kong sequels go I'll take King Kong Lives any day over Son of Kong.
 
I don't understand the hate the length of the 2005 film recieves. Bunch of ADD ridden people out there I guess. I have no problem with a three hour film as long as it can fill the three hours with meaningful material and KK2K5 did just that.

The last part is where you and I disagree. I have no problem with long films. My favourite film of all time is Lawrence of Arabia which is 30 minutes longer than Kong 2005 and I also love Gettysburg which is a whole 90 minutes longer. I watched Amadeus last night, which is almost as long as Kong 2005, and it kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Kong 2005 didn't do that. I just don't think that Kong 2005 had enough meaningful material to justify the length, especially when they had multiple scenes building up crew members that we don't care about and play no actual role in the story.

But like I said, there are a couple of other problems aside from pacing that I dislike in comparison to Kong 1933. I do actually like Kong 2005, but the question asks whether it is better than Kong 1933 which is one of the greatest films ever made and the answer is easily 'no'.
 
I like the 1933 King Kong, I have the soundtrack! But the 2005 one is a marvel by WETA. Ever since I saw Naomi as Ann Darrow I've been in love with her! I like the historical contribution of the original. But the acting and dialogue are terrible. The acting in the cafe with Naomi Watts and Jack Black was way over the top and them trying to be humorous is terrible, but I think that it was intentional.
 
Last edited:
Classic Hollywood: 80th birthday toast to 'King Kong'
The RKO classic, with the memorable scene atop the Empire State Building, gets a special screening March 24 at the Pomona Fox.
Susan King said:
It's been 80 years since a giant ape climbed to the top of the Empire State Building and held on to a tiny actress while planes flew over trying to shoot him down.

That scene in the original 1933 "King Kong" is one of the most memorable in cinema history.

"I don't care how old you are, you feel for the poor gorilla and what happened to him," said "Kong" historian John Michlig, who has written for the "Kong Is King" website.

Though there have been sequels and remakes — including Peter Jackson's CGI-driven 2005 hit — none have matched the magic and romance of RKO's original, produced and directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack.

"King Kong" stars Robert Armstrong as Cooper's alter-ego Carl Denham, a brash filmmaker who takes an expedition to the mysterious Skull Island. They find a giant ape there and bring him back to New York in shackles to exploit him as the "Eighth Wonder of the World."

Though Kong can be savage — he's not above chewing the head off a native — the giant gorilla has a soul and is capable of real tenderness when he falls in love with Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), the beautiful blond actress in Denham's film.

"I think people connect to the character for the same reason we go to the zoo to watch the orangutans and chimps — because they're humanoid," said film historian Scott Essman, hosting an 80th-anniversary screening of "King Kong" on March 24 at the Pomona Fox, where the film played in May 1933. "He is not human, but he's human in many ways. He likes the girl. People relate to him."

Thank goodness producer-director-writer Cooper didn't follow through on his initial concept for "King Kong." "His plan was get a gorilla and a bunch of Komodo dragons and just roll the film," said Michlig.

But the master showman changed his plans when he met stop-motion special-effects wizard Willis O'Brien, who created the dinosaurs for 1925's "The Lost World." O'Brien was working at RKO on his project called "Creation," said "Kong" historian Doug Turner, whose late father, George, cowrote the book "The Making of King Kong."

"['Creation'] was a dinosaur epic kind of like 'The Lost World,'" said Turner. "He assembled a crew of effects people for the film and shot a short test reel."

Cooper had been brought to RKO to evaluate projects at the studio because it was spending too much, said Turner. One project Cooper canceled was "Creation."

"But what he found when he looked at Willis O'Brien's work was a way to make a gorilla epic in the studio," he said.

"King Kong," which opened in March 1933 at Radio City Music Hall and the Roxy in New York City, didn't seem destined to be a hit. It was released at the height of the Great Depression, around the time that newly inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt had declared a "bank holiday" and closed the banks.

"So the banks are closed and you are telling people to come out to a movie," said Michlig. "It should have failed, but it set records."

It proved so popular that the sequel "Son of Kong" was released in theaters by year's end.

What makes O'Brien's effects even more remarkable and influential is that the mighty ape was just an 18-inch model made by sculptor Marcel Delgado, who began working with O'Brien on "The Lost World."

Besides the model, said Michlig, "they built a full-sized hand and a full-sized head and shoulders." Michlig noted that Cooper never actually revealed how big Kong was supposed to be. "Merian C. Cooper said, 'King Kong is as big as he's got to be."'

"King Kong" also broke new ground with its use of miniature rear projection, as well as using Linwood Dunn's new optical printer that matted together shots of the models with the actors.

Max Steiner's pulsating score also changed the musical landscape of motion pictures. "Before Max Steiner, music was sort of incidental," said Michlig. "You could pick up music from other sources and drop it in. Sound wasn't that old."

But Steiner's score "was almost Wagnerian," said stop-motion historian and character animator Chris Endicott. "There were motifs that would be repeated. It was quite an achievement."
 
Even though I'd say Jessica Lange in the 1970's version is easily the hottest of the damsels that Kong takes a shine to, I'll have to go with the 1933 original.
 
The original was amazing for its time, and its still somewhat great to watch now, what they achieved was amazing, and the original will always have a place in my heart as I watched it endlessly as a kid and loved it.

However, if I am to watch a King Kong movie now, it is the 2005 version, which I love, hell I watched the extended edition as well which I love. People say its too long, and it is, though not by much, I love watching it all the way through, and the fact that PJ gave Kong emotions and most importantly, soul and heart is what makes the movie amazing for me, that and Watts superb acting as well, you would think Kong was there with Watts acting it out most of the time instead of being CGI, superb stuff. I think KK 2005 is VERY under-rated, possibly the most under-rated movie of the last decade, so, the 2005 movie for me all the way.
 
B&W stop motion dinosaurs ? Yep, I gotta go with 1933 's Kong. Everything about that film was epic, and classic Americana. I also liked Son of Kong, and the original Mighty Joe Young.
 
This is going to be a bit controversial....but although the 1933 definitely has a well deserved place in cinematic history due to its impressive technical achievements (at the time) I think in retrospect it isn't that great of a film. The characters are so poorly developed and hollow that I wonder (aside from the technical aspects) why Kong is actually so venerated as a classic. To me King Kong is the Avatar of 1933; AMAZING visuals for its time but very thin character and plot development. Back in 1933 it might have been amazing, but now? I don't know.

Conversely, King Kong 2005 is actually a pretty solid film. It did the one thing that 1933 King Kong missed: it developed its characters. Each character feels real rather than a caricature, even the big guy himself. Hell, I can even say that King Kong 2005 even went a little overboard with the character development (remember the pointless story with the boy and the black captain? who cared?) however it still makes a better film than King Kong 1933 because of this.
 
The original was amazing for its time, and its still somewhat great to watch now, what they achieved was amazing, and the original will always have a place in my heart as I watched it endlessly as a kid and loved it.

However, if I am to watch a King Kong movie now, it is the 2005 version, which I love, hell I watched the extended edition as well which I love. People say its too long, and it is, though not by much, I love watching it all the way through, and the fact that PJ gave Kong emotions and most importantly, soul and heart is what makes the movie amazing for me, that and Watts superb acting as well, you would think Kong was there with Watts acting it out most of the time instead of being CGI, superb stuff. I think KK 2005 is VERY under-rated, possibly the most under-rated movie of the last decade, so, the 2005 movie for me all the way.
Essentially my opinion as well.
 
Man, you can't compare.

'33 is a film classic. '05 was the most spectacular film ever made, effects wise, until Avatar (and arguably the Transformers movies..).
 
I remember having to study both versions of the movie for a race and representation class and the lecturer was getting a massive hard on about how superior the '33 version was.
 
Gotta be a tie. both films are incredible works of art.
 
Can't say,it's been a while since I saw the original, but I jut watched the pj version last month for the first time in years and loved it. I'll have to check them both out again.
 
I know that an extended cut of the 2005 version was released on video. Too bad that it does not seem to be available here in Australia anymore. I would just like to have it in my collection as a record.
 
The original is a laughably piece of filmmaking with some of the worst acting humanly possible and a bunch of ridiculous toys for effects that gets a bypass for how terrible it is because it was considered good by the very low standards of 70 or so years ago.
It's a truly terrible film good for nothing but being a pathetic laughing stock.

Jackson's Kong is one of my favorite movies. Naomi Watts gives probably the best lead actress performance I've ever seen in it, it's visually stunning, fun, adrenaline-pumping, emotionally gripping, amazing score...
Whatever flaws it has are minor inconveniences.

Kong 33 is nothing but one big giant collection of flaws. Ann didn't give a damn about anything but cashing in on Kong when they got him to NY, and all she did every single time she was onscreen with him was give her ridiculously bad, fake looking screams. There wasn't a single ounce of emotional resonance between them.

Kong 33's status amongst cinema buffs is a true testament to just how far many are willing to go to cling to nostalgia.

I respect the originals impact on cinema and inspiring many other (drastically better) movies, but it's a terrible film and doesn't hold up today at all.
 
Last edited:
I like the heroes and pacing in the original Kong; I like the Skull Island (including the tribe and creatures) in 2005 Kong.
 
The original is a laughably piece of filmmaking with some of the worst acting humanly possible and a bunch of ridiculous toys for effects that gets a bypass for how terrible it is because it was considered good by the very low standards of 70 or so years ago.
It's a truly terrible film good for nothing but being a pathetic laughing stock.

Jackson's Kong is one of my favorite movies. Naomi Watts gives probably the best lead actress performance I've ever seen in it, it's visually stunning, fun, adrenaline-pumping, emotionally gripping, amazing score...
Whatever flaws it has are minor inconveniences.

Kong 33 is nothing but one big giant collection of flaws. Ann didn't give a damn about anything but cashing in on Kong when got him to NY, and all she did every single time she was onscreen with him was give her ridiculously bad, fake looking screams. There wasn't a single ouce of emotional resonance between them.

Kong 33's status amongst cinema buffs is a true testament to just how far many are willing to go to cling to nostalgia.

I respect the originals impact on cinema and inspiring many other (drastically better) movies, but it's a terrible film and doesn't hold up today at all.

This hurt to read.
 
The original is a laughably piece of filmmaking with some of the worst acting humanly possible and a bunch of ridiculous toys for effects that gets a bypass for how terrible it is because it was considered good by the very low standards of 70 or so years ago.
It's a truly terrible film good for nothing but being a pathetic laughing stock.

Jackson's Kong is one of my favorite movies. Naomi Watts gives probably the best lead actress performance I've ever seen in it, it's visually stunning, fun, adrenaline-pumping, emotionally gripping, amazing score...
Whatever flaws it has are minor inconveniences.

Kong 33 is nothing but one big giant collection of flaws. Ann didn't give a damn about anything but cashing in on Kong when got him to NY, and all she did every single time she was onscreen with him was give her ridiculously bad, fake looking screams. There wasn't a single ouce of emotional resonance between them.

Kong 33's status amongst cinema buffs is a true testament to just how far many are willing to go to cling to nostalgia.

I respect the originals impact on cinema and inspiring many other (drastically better) movies, but it's a terrible film and doesn't hold up today at all.
tumblr_mba9f2ZjlC1ru00bs.gif
 
This hurt to read.


That's my reaction when people make the ridiculous claim that Kong 33 still holds up as a masterpiece.

Kong 33 is one of those awful, dated pieces of crap that people are supposed to feel obligated to say is great because it was seen as great by very dated standards.
Filmmaking that bad on every level would be laughed off the screen in this day and age.

People act shocked whenever someone is willing to simply state the blatantly obvious about it.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"