Comparing and Contrasting the Original King Kong and Peter Jackson's Version

I enjoyed both versions. Jackson seemed to complement the original in 'original' ways, such as the homage to the original natives and their stereotypes on the stage in New York. The natives were... alot different in this new version. I found that a neat way to poke fun at the stereotypes often used at that time.

I also liked how after Kong kills the t-rex, he plays with its broken jaw, just like he did in the original film. There's also a shot that's identical to the original, in which Driscoll and Ann run through the forest, the camera tracking them, the front of their heads to the camera. It's little things like this that made me appreciate Jackson's version, despite its odd moments.

 

There were a few instances in the film that were a tip of the hat to the original movie.

-When they are all on the boat and Carl is filming Ann and the male lead in his "movie", they recite dialogue from the first King Kong movie that was spoken when they were all heading off to the island.

-This quote really made me laugh at just how clever it was:

Carl: Fay! Fay! What about Fay? She would be perfect!
Preston: She's already filming something for RKO.

HILARIOUS! If you don't know your film history, then you probably don't understand this. Fay Wray was the leading lady in the first King Kong movie, which I mentioned above. And King Kong was under RKO pictures. What a great line.

-The hat that Ann wears in the diner is the same hat that Fay Wray wore in the original movie.

-Ann steals an apple from a vendor, just like in the original film.

-The people dressed up as natives when they put Kong on display in New York had the same costumes as the natives in the original film had, and the tribal music was the same tribal music as in the first movie.

-The new Kong kills the T-Rex just like the old Kong killed him in the first movie; breaks his jaw. Then, he even moves the broken jaw around, just like Kong did in the '33 version. Awesome.


Took this from my review I wrote over at LJ.

 

I noticed that. I also noticed that they're also in the same position. It looks like the same shots, only with much better quality and color. I loved that part.

I don't remember that part. That is hilarious.

That's weird... what I really loved about the original was the acting and dialogue. I'm weird, I guess... I do agree that Kong was creepier in stop motion. It was the eyes that freaked me out.

 

I thought Jackson was right to take what he loved from the original and give it his own treatment, it's just a shame his treatment was so long winded and messy. Looking at the original film, it looks dated, it looked false and fake on many occasions, but the key events still come across as nicely dramatic and involving. Simple sometimes saves... and I think Jackson forgot that.

 

just occurred to me that while i have never seen the old kong i absolutely loved the new one.. and apparently all the additions PJ made to the ann/kong 'ship worked. they worked so well i completely wanted her to stay on the island.

weird.

 

I liked this version better then the original but the original was better then the 70s remake.

-The Scummy-

 

I definately agree with Scummy. The 70's remake was stupid.

 

Hi everyone *waves*

I made sure to rent the 1933 Kong before going to see the new one, because I knew I'd be missing out on stuff if I didn't. Loved the nods to Fay Wray, the original movie dialogue, and the use of the original music as they presented Kong on stage. Not to mention the lovely Art Deco credits.

The relationship between Ann and Kong was much better presented in the new one, I think - it really was a relationship, and as strange as the whole thing was, Jackson somehow made it work. And I liked most of the modern characters more than the original ones, because they were much more accessible emotionally. The one exception was the subplot with the greenhorn kid and the Black army veteran. This seemed like such a disaster movie cliche, especially because as always, the Black guy gets offed.

The old Kong, on the other hand, was way cooler. I know nobody would have accepted anything but pristine digital perfection from the new film, but I loved the old one's cartoony white eyes and funny expressions. He was scary at the same time, but he just seemed to be one big bundle of id. For me, that made him more lovable and sympathetic than frightening. You get to like the new Kong through his actions, but the old one just immediately demanded your attention and affection.

Other than that, isn't it interesting how filmmakers make films about their own profession? The new Kong especially seemed to comment on that to me. There's the isolated writer in his cage below deck. And how about the ultimate "sorry if it's a bad remake" line about Carl's (the director's) unfailing tendency to destroy the things he loves?

 

I've seen the new Kong twice, and I found it to be very entertaining. The 3 hours didn't bother me at all.

 

I guess I will re-post here then

I had the chance to see King Kong 2005 today and I was blown away! It was really good. I felt that Peter Jackson really did an outstanding job. I felt alot of emotions while watching this film.

As a side note, My mom wanted to visit me and wanted to see a movie seeing as my dad hates the cineplex. She knows the original quite well.

I have seen the original and I thought it was cool. It was like the "star wars" of that era in cinema. It had never been seen before. Funny to look back on nowdays if you have not seen it.

As the verdict of original vs. remake,

I love them both for what they are. This latest one by Peter Jackson just pwned. I so loved this flick. You got alot of eye-candy with the effects but the story of Kong was just so cool. I cannot wait for DVD. Jack Black was great in that role as Carl Denham. Incredible.

Not appropriate.

Jack1138.

 

-This quote really made me laugh at just how clever it was:

Carl: Fay! Fay! What about Fay? She would be perfect!
Preston: She's already filming something for RKO.

There was also some music from the original during this scene, plus, Denham also mentioned, I think, Merian C. Cooper, the writer/director of the original during this scene.

I think that there was a nod to the 1933 version in the scene where Kong finally falls asleep when they are trying to capture him. The pose he ends up in as he falls asleep as shown from at least one angle is very simular (I think) to the pose and an/the angle the original Kong was in when he was dead at the end of the original.

the black and white stop motion Kong was creepier in overall feel.

You might be right.

I liked this version better then the original but the original was better then the 70s remake.

Actually, the 1976 version of KING KONG is my favorite version. I was really into dinosaurs, Godzilla, King Kong, JAWS and other large monsters/large creatures growing up before STAR WARS. I know, looking at it today, the 1976 version of KING KONG is probably the least imaginative of the three and probably has the least action and definitely has the least large creatures/large monsters and has no dinosaurs, but I really like the cast and their chemistry, the music, the idea that they actually made a full scale Kong, the way Jessica Lange and the full size hands of Kong worked together, the way Kong looked (accept, especially now, that Kong wasn't proportioned like a real gorilla and didn't move like a real gorilla), Kong's roar and that it was set in modern times (at the time).

There are nods to the 1933 version in the 2005 version and it seems there are also nods to the 1976 version.

And I've seen the 2005 version of KING KONG five times, so far.

 

You all are wrong. The best version of King Kong is King Kong Lives, followed closely by King Kong vs. Godzilla.