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

[Sentinel X]

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.

As you can see in my previous post, I agree. It has a lot of charm since it is literally a piece of cinematic history. However, if I have to judge the film on objective standards it is in no way a great movie.

It is a technical spectacle...and THATS ALL (I dare someone to prove otherwise). There is nothing really going by for it besides its stop motion animation which was groundbreaking at the time. But by the same token, Jackson's Kong ALSO had groundbreaking technical achievements for it's time as well as better developed characters that ultimately enriched the story. I have my qualms about Jackson's Kong too, its by no means perfect but its a pretty decent film. I'm not processing how anyone can say the 1933 version is better without letting go of the nostalgia or saying so because its the "popular" opinion and critics say so. Idk...that's just me though.

 

[Rez]

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.

This and your other remarks are beyond rediculous. You can't pretend to put the 05 Kong on a pedestal for it's artistic merits and then slam the other for being horribly dated. Art is viewed in the context of it's time and just because art has progressed and evolved since then doesn't devalue the originals.

Is the Mona Lisa a piece of crap now because every major mall in America has a store with someone painting portraits of movie stars and patrons that are more technically proficient? Here's a hint, the paintings of Al Pacino as Scarface and Justin Bieber aren't going to go down in history books.