Talk:King Kong (1933 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Kong (1933 film) article.
Good articles King Kong (1933 film) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines
More information about this article...
 This article was the Cinema Collaboration of the Week (14 October 2005).
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 1976 Remake Success?

"In 1976, King Kong was remade by Dino De Laurentiis. Jessica Lange and Jeff Bridges starred. The film was generally panned by critics and was a commercial flop" Yet the page for the 1976 movie (and IMDB.com) says it was a commercial success. Kinda wonder where that assumption's from.... [unsigned]

[edit] Allegory

I've heard this movie represented the story of black people in America, or something like that. If that were true, I think it would be interesting to add it to the article... [unsigned]

i dont remember black people being 80 ft tall apes...but thats just me. [unsigned]
Where do you get 80 foot? Kong is usually portrayed as 20-50 feet tall as the article mentions. But either way, "it's meant as a allegory, Jack". CFLeon 01:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong remakes moved

Moved info on other films about Kong to the King Kong page. They, with the exception of one, have no direct connection to the 1933 film. [unsigned]

[edit] censorship

I added the Censorship catagory. Robert Osborne's introduction to the film on TCM and IMDB Alternative versions where my sources. Add anything if you can. Collingsworth 22:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Video releases

I expanded the info about the new DVD release, and I added the notes about the colorized version being highly prized among Kong collectors. (Ibaranoff24 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] spider pit scene secrets?

Stop motion animator has a lot of willis O`Brien armatures such as the cow boy armature from Mighty Joe young, and the scorpien tail armature from the black scorpien. Jim has an intresting spider armature that looks like an obie creation! (Interestingly, Obie reused the spider puppet for black scorpien!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.158.68.67 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Spoiler warning

I've reinstated the spoiler warning. I agree with User:Cyde's comment that because it's a 1933 movie many people probably know how it ends, but I disagree with the assumption that everyone does. The point of the spoiler isn't just to "protect" some big revelation but to isolate details of the plot that might otherwise spoil someone's enjoyment of the film. Some people like to see a film without knowing how it ends, or what happens as the story unfolds and the warning gives them a chance to stop reading and "avert their eyes". More importantly it's the convention on Wikipedia to use "spoiler warnings", so therefore to change the policy requires discussion on the appropriate policy pages not an arbitrary decision applied to suit an individual opinion about a particular article. I also think it's better to have one consistent policy. It makes no sense to say "this one needs a spoiler warning" and "this one doesn't" because then we'll be debating which ones should have the warning and which ones shouldn't and then who will decide? Will it then be the person who protests the most that gets their way? It's an established procedure here, and it needs to be maintained and applied consistently, even in cases (like this) where it might not seem necessary. Rossrs 14:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there some reason the section title Memorable scenes is not warning enough, without an obstrusive, somewhat insulting to the intelligence, asthetically unpleasing and slang terminology template? It doesnt improve the article. --Stbalbach 14:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As I said "spoiler" (rightly or wrongly) is the convention here. There are thousands of articles using the term "spoiler" and the template, so if it's a problem, it needs to be taken to a wider forum. It may be an "obstrusive, somewhat insulting to the intelligence, asthetically unpleasing and slang terminology template" but as long as it's in the other numerous articles it needs to be here also, because that is what people would be expecting to see. By all means, discuss this in the relevant policy pages if you think it should be changed across Wikipedia, but it's not right to change it only in this article. I would have thought "memorable scenes" is a warning enough, but my point is that the same rule should be applied to all articles. At the moment "memorable scenes" is not the standard approach and "spoiler" is. Rossrs 21:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tanystropheus?!

I'm calling into question the classification of the serpentine creature as "Tanystropheus" in the cave scene. The creature has clearly defined fins and is more likely a primitive snake/snake ancestor (such as Pachyrachis) or an advanced Nothosaur. Where did the Tanystropheus clasification come from? Is that from production notes or something? It seems very off. Majin Gojira 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comtemporary information identified the cave creature as a plesiosaur, usually Elasmosaurus. The Tanystropheus identification is comparable modern, but I don't know the original source. 'Tany' was not very well known in the '30s, and would not have been a creature that sprang easily to either O'Brien's or the public's minds. Realize that it was a small critter (the largest fossils at the time were restored as a 6-foot animal), not a dinosaur, and lived much earlier than them (although that didn't stop Dimetrodon from catching on, but Dimtetrodon was large, strange-looking and a carnivore). It wasn't until the '60s that 'Tany' started appeared in books meant for the lay public. CFLeon 01:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur names

I've been watching this article for a while and about once a month (often more) a new or different editor will change the name of the dinosaurs. It's happened probably at least 7 times now, so we have had at least 7 different versions of what the dinosaurs are called. I'd really like to see sources of where people come up with this stuff, because it sure seems like people are just making it up. user:stbalbach -- 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's that bad, eh? I had no Idea! (Misread the edits, so I edit this part now). We can dig out but [http://www.whiskeyloosetongue.com/scripts/kong1933.html| This link to a copy of the script may help, but it doesn't give specific names and I have no idea of the veracity, it does mach up to the final film pretty well as well as the format of the time. It may need secondary sources (interviews and the like) to confirm the species. Majin Gojira 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like everyone has an opinion on what kind of dinosaur it is. I'm not sure the script will say? But there must be an opinion from an expert somewhere. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I just went through it and it says nothing specific--which sucks.As for authorities we can cite: the DVD featureetes feturing the notes from Creation and the comentary tracks from Ray Harryhausen are about as close to an authority as we can. Majin Gojira 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Anything that's been published, thus which can be cited, would be great. Stbalbach 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
An early issue of Famous Monsters of Filmland (c 1965) ran a reprint of a contemporary ('30s) interview with O'Brien, including a full-page picture of the various creatures identified. This would be as authorative as possible to get. It was before the Brontosaurus-Apatosaurus controversy flared up, so it uses Brontosaurus. The snake-like creature in the cave is identified as a pleisiosaur (as I recall, they don't actually use the name Elasmosaurus, but other sources do), and the lizard-like armored critter climbing the vine is a Desmatosuchus (an aetosaur). CFLeon 01:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the dinosaur section a bit, put them in order of appearance, rather than a random order; and cleaned it up a bit. [Reasons for some of the changes: although it's popular now, in the '30s Tyrannosaurus was relatively unknown to the public- only two partial specimens had been found. Also, I didn't like how the original version made several unwarrented assumptions. I'm still not comfortable with the section; ALL the dinosaurs are incorrect compared to the modern view in some way or another. Also, all of the creatures are much too large, sometimes by a factor of 3 or more (the Stegosaurus seems to be about 80 feet long & the tyrannosaur is as tall as Kong, about 30-50 feet.) Finally, singling out Tyrannosaurus for the use of a species name ("T rex") is actually improper when you're not talking about Apatosaurus ajax, or Stegosaurus ungulatus also (and you don't capitalize species names except in rare circumstances!). CFLeon 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the comment against Brontosaurus being 'amphibious': although they certainly weren't aquatic in the sense that contemporary (1930s) authorities thought, there's no evidence that the sauropods WEREN'T somewhat amphibious, as much as, for instance, rhinoceros, tigers, or some populations of modern elephant which may spend a sizable ammount of time in the water. (And boy, is THAT sentence going to difficult to diagram!) CFLeon 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, even with the {fact} template, editors are still changing the dinosaur names, plus removing the {fact} template(!). I've left a comment in the article. It seems to be a free for all. -- Stbalbach 05:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why you didn't put a template on the Tyrannosaurus. It's not identified as such in the film, so why the exception? CFLeon 21:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It's the only one that hasn't been controversial, and it sure looks like one, what else could it be. -- Stbalbach 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Back at you for the Stegosaurus and the Pteranodon. What else could they be? The 'Brontosaurus' could be a generalized sauropod, and the plesiosaur IS a generalization. But both Stegosaurus and Pteranodon are distintive enough that even in the '30s they couldn't be mistaken for anything else. Where's the controversy on them? The only other creature seen close-up is the critter climbing the vine, and even as a kid I recognized it as a Desmatosuchus from my dinosaur books. The problem here is that it's unfamilar to most of the public nowadays. However, back to the Tyrannosaurus- keeping it to forms known in the early '30s, the animal isn't distinctive enough to identify even to genus. It could easily be a Gorgosaurus or Albertosaurus- both of which were better known by fossils than Tyrannosaurus at the time. Actually, with the 3-fingered hands it's more likely to be an allosaur, and I even can offer a precise identification: Saurophagus (now considered a synomyn of Allosaurus, but in the '30s it was thought to be distinct). Fossils had been found in the early 1900s in Oklahoma that were Tyrannosaur-sized. The animal in the film just gets called Tyrannosaurus for the same reason people call the sauropod Brontosaurus- Tyrannosaurus was more familar largely due it being the largest known at the time and to Charles Knight's paintings at large museums. But there's nothing diagnostic about it.CFLeon 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Well, another solution is, list all the possible species for each dinosaur. The problem has been, as soon as someone declares it to be X species, someone else changes it to Y species, and there is no verifiable source that can resolve it one way or another. So if we say "it could be an X, Y or Z dinosaur" it might be more valuable and accurate. -- Stbalbach 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a recent change of the Desmatosuchus. The animal is NOT 2-legged, the lower half just gets clipped badly on televised prints. (Haven't seen the DVD print yet to know if its clipped this way, also.) Photos of the actual model show back legs. Again, my identifiaction is from an article with O'Brien himself. Also rephrased the Stegosaurus; ALL of the dinosaurs appearing are single individuals (except the Pteranodon, we see at least two of them in a long shot) and get killed, except the sauropod and the Desmatosuchus (it falls when Jack cuts the vine; we don't see what happens to it). [To Stbalbach: I actually am not doubting most of the identifications; as I said, I've seen an identification by O'Brien. But Obie was not a paleontologist and to insist on proof of precise identifications on some of the critters and not others is a double standard. Same treatment for all. Only the Stegosaur, the Pteranodon and the Desmatosuchus are precise enough to identify and ALL are incorrect compared to modern views. The best way is probably ignore modern views and use Obie's identifications. CFLeon 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok - we need to write this into the article somehow, to clarify. I'll give it a shot, but please edit/revise since you know more about it; i'm just going by what you've said and may have misunderstood. -- Stbalbach 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded your caveat, and think that that's a good idea. I do think that your "x-like creature" is rather too wordy for constant repetition, but I'm stumped on how to rephrase. Ultimately, I still believe the best way is to use O'Brien's identifications and BRIEFLY (a sentence or two AT MOST) mention how the models in the film differ from current understanding. Once again, Obie was not a paleontologist and was basing his identifications on paintings in books (probably mostly encyclopedias) and museums. To insist on a PRECISE identification and then complain that it's not accurate compared to the modern view is obsessing too much. I'm going to have to find a copy of that interview with O'Brien; my collection of Famous Monsters was stolen years ago. I think the picture was reprinted in the book about the film that came out in the late '70s. CFLeon 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

1. the "T-rex" is an allosaurus! in an interview Cooper reveled. (Explanation for three clawed hands.) 2. the one creature was a stegosaurus. they were the biggest stegosaurs growing to over 30 feet. (as shown in film) 3. the pleisiasaur is tanystroupes not elasmosaur (The neck is too long) 4. Desmatosuchus is the vine-climbing creature, with 4 legs!!!!!!!! You can see the back legs if you look carefully! 5. The Brontosaurus (Now called apatosaurus) is the sauropod. They MIGHT of swam in water; who doesn`t lke baths?, but they DID NOT eat idiots who like to climb short trees, so it might be a further evolved apatosaurus that eats meat. 6. petredon is the windged creature 7. Kong is a fictonal creature (though he does resamble gigantapithasis) 8. who noticed there was a lot of birds? By MAX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.158.68.67 (talk • contribs) .

Replies to MAX: 1. Cooper claimed several things at different times; in one interview he said it was a 'mix' between Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. (Realize that in the '30s, the hands of Tyrannosaurus were not known.) The models were patterned mainly after paintings by Charles Knight, and it's pretty obvious even which painting in particular the carnosaur model is based on (in all the arguments about the hands, the fact the eyes are off is missed, and THAT's the telling factor). 2. No one's saying it's NOT Stegosaurus. 3. If you are so insistant about Cooper's identifiaction of the 'Allosaurus', why do you ignore his comment about the pleisosaur? O'Brien also identified it as such. Neither one would have known what a Tanystropheus was, for reasons I gave above. 4. See your own answer to your #7. It's Fictional! 6. I don't know what a 'petrodon' is. 7. No one's doubting that Kong's fictional (except some people trying to make quick bucks in the Kong merchandizing business). Gigantopithecus was not known until 1935. In General: just as you said, King Kong is FICTIONAL, not a documentary about prehistoric life. Enjoy the story, and don't obcess over things that its creators didn't care about. CFLeon 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is no one citing their sources?! For the "Desmatosuchus" identification, I present this clip (the Expanded Spider Pit Sequence from the DVD) -- Both Original and new footage show that it only has 2 Limbs and NO HORNS and heavy armor. I'll post more actual evidence in the future. -- Majin Gojira 11:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingagi

I deleted the following:

Capitalizing on this trend "Congo Pictures" released Ingagi in 1930, advertising the film as "an authentic incontestable celluloid document showing the sacrifice of a living woman to mammoth gorillas!". Ingagi was an unabashed black exploitation film, immediately running afoul of the Hollywood code of ethics - it depicted black women having sex with monkeys and baby off-spring that looked more monkey than human, some of the most despicable scenes in American movie history. The movie was an immediate hit, and by some estimates it was one of the highest grossing movies of the 1930s at over $4 million. Although producer Merian C. Cooper never listed Ingagi among his influences for King Kong, it's long been held that RKO green-lighted Kong because of the bottom-line example of Ingagi and the formula that Gorillas plus sexy women in peril equals enormous profits.[1]

This is obvious vandalism. I can't believe no one picked up on this. The url given as a source goes to a blank page reading "Sorry, the page you requested is not available." (Ibaranoff24 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

I wrote it, it's not "vandalism". The URL is no longer active, but a google search of "ingagi king kong" provides verification. [2] [3] [4] -- Stbalbach 16:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears the LA Times has archived the story and is now charging $4 for it, but a free abstract is available online for verification purposes. In Good Faith, thank you Ibaranoff24 for bringing to attention that the previous URL was no longer working. -- Stbalbach 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination On hold

I have decided to place this article on hold for its GA nomination because although I don't think as of now it is up to the Good article standards, it is close enough that it does not need to be failed. Here is the one thing that needs to be changed:

  • All quotes should have inline citations. (The article has them for most quotes, but using the <ref> syntax would make them look much better. At the bare minimum they should be referenced in proper citation form.) If you do that then this should have more than enough references.

--SomeStranger(t) 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. I will get to work on this immediately. I have fixed two already. Aguerriero (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has passed

Congratulations! The Good article nomination for King Kong (1933 film) has passed. Many thanks to all who were involved in the creation of this article. You might want to add a few more references here and there, but other than that this is a well written article.--SomeStranger(t) 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *some* of the most despicable scenes in American movie history

Regarding this description:

some of the most despicable scenes in American movie history

of this sentence:

black women having sex with monkeys and baby off-spring that looked more monkey than human

..could someone explain what is wrong with characterizing it as among some of the most despicable scenes in American movie history, in particular when that description has been sourced and has a link to the source? -- Stbalbach 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to something as "despicable", and stating it as if it were a fact, is by no means neutral. If you feel it necessary, you could say "such and such called these some of the most despicable", etc., but that seems simply excessive to me — the description speaks for itself.--SB | T 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
People are quite capable of noticing that something is despicable without the need for higher mortals to instruct them that it is so. The Singing Badger 12:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
IOW, boring prose. -- Stbalbach 13:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedic prose :) . By the way, the sentence currently says the movie "depicts" sex with monkeys. This seems unlikely in a 1930s movie. Presumably the sex is only implied by the plot, not actually shown? (I'm not saying that's any less despicable). The Singing Badger 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not seen the movie but that is what the source said. -- Stbalbach 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't read the source listed in the present article since it's a subscription-only website but this source refers to "the perverse implied union of woman and jungle animal" (it says the details were obscured by strategically placed bushes). The Singing Badger 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, the Gerald Peary article is a pretty good survey. -- Stbalbach 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler building

Regarding this from the article:

In the original script Kong was going to climb the Chrysler Building. The Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building were both being built at the very same time and the Chrysler Building was supposed to be the taller of the two. There was a competition who could build the tallest building in the world, so the Empire State Building creators added an observation deck and mooring mast at the last minute, making it the world's tallest building. The script was changed and Kong climbed the Empire State Building, looking down on the spire of the Chrysler building.[5]

An non deleted it with a comment "removed falsehood", however it is supported by at least two independent web sites (although they are weak sources). Does anyone have any information about this, is it urban myth? Since it's sourced and the anon did not provide any information I have restored it for now. -- Stbalbach 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


I can't judge the accuracy of the first sentence of the paragraph, but I'd be inclined to disbelieve it because most of what follows is false. The Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building were hardly being built "at the very same time", construction on the latter having begun on March 17, 1930, while the tower atop the Chrysler Building had already been hoisted into place on October 23, 1929. There was no direct rivalry between these two buildings during their construction. The famous rivalry of the era was between the Chrysler Building and the building that later became known as 40 Wall Street, and the story is recounted in the Wikipedia entries for both buildings.
If there is any truth to the claim that in the original script Kong was supposed to climb the Chrysler Building, then there must have been some other reason for the switch than the one purported. The Chrysler Building was opened on May 27, 1930, and the Empire State almost a year later, on May 1, 1931. Thus both buildings were opened in plenty of time for the early stages of production on the movie. -- Whyaduck 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok that's enough evidence to remove it without stronger sources to say otherwise. -- Stbalbach 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/Talk%7EKing_Kong_%281933_film%29_bfe5.html"