Talk:King Kong (1976 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Response Section

I've recently been deleting some negative comments regarding the film that have been inserted at the bottom of the "Response" section. The only reason I've removed them is because the comments are unsourced and, therefore, simply sound like the opinion of the editor who made the additions. It should be pretty easy to find citations for the claim that most people feel the film is "vastly inferior" to the original, or that it allegedly received "mostly hostile" reviews at the time of its initial release. I think both of these views are already addressed in the article, but from a more reality-based perspective, in the line indicating "While the film received mostly mixed responses from critics, especially from fans of the original King Kong, it did receive extremely positive reviews from several prominent mainstream critics." This clearly shows that the film was judged unfavorably by some critics in comparison to the original. Also, I don't believe the film received any "hostile" reviews outside of the small fantasy film fan magazines (such as Cinefantastique); most of the major reviewers had genuinely mixed reactions to the film. Note Vincent Canby's review in the New York Times[1] that found much to praise and pan in the movie. I think that particular review was very typical of most of the critical responses to the movie.Hal Raglan 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course however despite some of its success, its worth noting that this film wasn't a "grand hit" as the section implies since multiple review sites and users at IMDB aren't as forgiving. The term mixed is good enough. Stabby Joe 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Since many of the obscure, amateur "critics" on the "multiple review sites" you mention erroneously believe the film's initial critical reaction was overwhelmingly negative, I believe its important to mention in the article that the major, notable reviewers at the time either actually gave the film a mixed review, or, as noted in the article, responded favorably.-Hal Raglan 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do know that we are talking about it for its time and the the section is presented implies great success even tough if anything its regarded inferior to the original and 2005 remake and that the reviews enjoyed the film but didn't take it seriously, word like "joke" and "comic". Stabby Joe 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:King kong 1976 movie poster.jpg

Image:King kong 1976 movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kong76.jpg

Image:Kong76.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)