Talk:King Kong/Archive 1

OFFICIAL filmography

...is for official films only. There are only SEVEN authorized Kong films.

I just deleted Ebirah, Horror of the Deep as this is the one that isn't a Kong film. --Indie.Bones 20:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Indie.Bones

Should we also delete Kong Island? I don't believe this is an authorized Kong film170.76.21.31 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add an explanation in the article as to what "official" means in the phrase "official filmography"? Is there some licensing arrangement, or what? Cheers, Doctormatt 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess someone removed the "official". Clears that up, though there are still a number of instances of "official" on the page. Should they all be removed? Doctormatt 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pratchett Movie?

I'm unable to find any trace of this Japanese movie based on Pratchett's Moving Pictures; it's not on the wiki and unmentioned on the relevant page for the novel, which also suggests there's no Japanese translation for the novel. While I doubt it's fabricated, I'm interested in any case. Seems pretty obscure. Could a link or something be provided? --70.144.59.178 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Needless disambig parenthesis. Apostrophe 04:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Weak support. This disambiguation page is good and it help people to search the right Kong. (I don't think a lot of people search the original film). Cate 13:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm unclear on why this page is "needless." While it goes above and beyond what most disabiguation pages do, in the end all the content here is in the form of a disabiguation page, and not an article. Article content is already covered in each film's respective page. ~CS 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What? I want this page moved to King Kong, as that page simply redirects here. By 'disambig', I mean the parenthesis, not the page itself. --Apostrophe 00:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. The "meta" Kong content currently at King Kong (disambiguation) is far beyond a simple disambiguation page, and deserves to have primary disambiguation, as it does now via the redirect from King Kong, but passing primary disambiguation thru a redir is pointless and wasteful, both of Wikipedia servers, and the reader's time. Put another way, even if you do consider the content a "disambiguation page", it still should be at King Kong, not King Kong (disambiguation). To quote the Manual of Style, only disambiguate "when necessary". Waterguy 03:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a disambiguation page; it's the primary article on the topic. -Sean Curtin 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose.Indeed, this page is not needless.SonnyDay 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can we please grow up and put an end to the distinction between the "US" and "Japanese" Kong films? Sounds like racism to me, folks. Both of the Toho Studios films are just as official as the 1976 version, which also happened to feature a guy running around in a suit. Face it. As of the time when Jackson's film is released, there will be seven official King Kong movies.

• Good point, though I wonder how the two 1930s Japanese knockoffs should be classified. RKO was not involved in their production at all, and as far as I know never gave them the license either.--Ryoske 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RKO? The story is by Lovelace, so isn't the issue (if any) if Lovelace was involved? Then again, the article says the novel was a novelisation of the film, but how can that be if it was published beore the film? The article should be a bit clearer on that.

Racism? What has race got to do with this? I don't see why the country of origin should not be mentioned. Although that is a bit difficult for the 2005 movie. It's a Universal Pictures movie, and that's a US company. But the director is from New Zealand (already included that). I'm not sure, but I believe this just means that UP fifnanced the film, so it can't realy be classified as a US movie, even though the ownership lies in the US. Ironically. DirkvdM 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the story was very much the work of C. Meriam Cooper. Cooper concieved of the story and wrote the first treatment. He passed that on to Edgar Wallace, who wrote the first draft of the screenplay shortly befre his death. The final script was written by Ruth Rose, the wife of Ernest Shoedesack, Cooper's co-director.

Lovelace's novel was a work commissioned by Cooper as part of the film's premarketing. Lovelace was a friend of Cooper's. To this day, it's still common practice for novelizations to come out months in advance of the film. Alan Dean Foster's novelization of the original Star Wars came out some 6 months before the film's May 1977 release. All this info is taken from the Introduction to the recently released Modern Classics Library edition of the novel (Which is in the public domain, btw.)

If anything, this article, as it's currently written, makes too much of the novel. Make no mistake, King Kong was created by Cooper for the screen. The novel is the derivative work, _not_ the source.--oknazevad 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

King Kong Ride?

I know this issue may become moot if the article is removed but I was sent to this article by a link that mentioned the King Kong ride at Universal Studios Florida (a ride that has now been replaced) - information or a seperate page for that would be greatly appreciated. MagicBez 06:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(*slaps forehead*) Can the spoiler be moved?

Can someone change this so that it doesn't give away the ending in the first paragraph? The current situation of putting "Spoiler Warning" at the very top causes two problems. (1) The entire article is off-limits to people who don't want to spoil seeing the film, and (2) some people (yes, I did this) will assume that the warning at the very top is generic rather than specific, and will not think that the author would really put the spoiler in the first paragraph, and will read it and then slap their forehead. Gronky 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How is knowing that King Kong dies a spoiler? The story has been around for seven decades now. I thought everyone would know by now that King Kong dies in the end. It's significant that King Kong dies and it should probably be mentioned in the first paragraph. Hell, the spoiler warning is there. If the user ignores it and reads on anyway that's a PEBKAC error, not a spoiler warning error. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I often say this. Don't assume too much knowledge. There may be many kids, for example, or people from 'distant lands' (meaning not Europe or North America) who may have heard of the story but know little about it. Actually, while I was watching it last night I only remembered the Empire State building and the airplanes only when the stroy started getting there. And that's one of the most famous scenes. DirkvdM 08:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a PEBKAC error, I've explained why in my comment (the "two problems", which I numbered). Knowing that he dies is a spoiler because it spoils the ending for anyone who doesn't know that he dies. It's significant that he dies, and so it should be in the article, but there are places in the article that this can be done without causing the two problems I mentioned. (I'm in my mid-20s and live in Europe.) Gronky 18:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That DeVito 2-paragraph quote is boring

Can someone summarise this:

The main differences are that in the novel, Englehorn’s ship is called the Wanderer, as opposed to the Venture; the famous spider scene that was cut out of the movie remains in the novel, as well as the appearance of one or two triceratops that chase the men onto to log. If you notice in the film, all the men are running like crazy onto the log and are frantically looking behind them (now you know why). There is a promotion still from the original movie that shows a ceratopsian on the right side chasing the men as they crowd onto the log, but I’m not sure it was actually a full sequence that was edited out. Also, in the book Kong is chained in a steel cage when in NYC as opposed to standing atop a steel scaffold.

The main thing missing in the novel that was in the movie is that Kong does not destroy a subway train. This was added to the screen version because the initial filming of the movie ended with thirteen reels and Cooper didn’t want to jinx himself, so they shot a fourteenth reel, which was Kong clobbering the subway car. Even so, I think the final version seen by the public had only twelve reels.

It's very boring and long winded. Gronky 10:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought it was interesting and wouldn't have read it if it was an external link. If all the information can be retained then go ahead and summarize it, but I'm afraid that by that point, it would be close enough to the length of the quote that it would be just as "boring" and less effective. Renesis13 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is boring. I just read it and ahve already forgotten what it says. Something about the reason why peoplea are scared when they run onto a log. Well, yes, they were running from a big beast, so that figures. And there was something about the name of the boat. That's for 'trekkies' (what should those be called here - kongies? :) ). The introductory line says enough, the quote doesn;t add anything. So I've taken the liberty to remove it. DirkvdM 19:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote compairs the novel to the first film adaptation; it is important for that purpose.

The novelization, _not_ the film, was the adaptation. The character and story were created for the screen. I've moved mention of the novel to below the official films, as placing it before the films gives it undue importance to the overall origins of the story. I've also edited down the DeVito paragraphs to mention the reason for the differences, moreso than what they are. --oknazevad 00:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edgar Wallace diary

How did Edgar Wallace make an entry in his diary on December 29, 1932, if he died February 10, 1932? TacoDeposit 14:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Descriptions of 1933 & 2005 films

It hardly seems fair that the 1933 film is described as "criticized for its depiction of the Skull Island tribespeople--not to mention gorillas--as savages", while the 2005 film is characterized as "critically acclaimed, and regarded as one of the best films of 2005." The 1933 film is regarded as one of the best films of all time, and the 2005 film suffers from the same problem as the original with regard to the characterization of the tribespeople. TacoDeposit 14:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Potemkin, King Kong, Lord of the Rings and beyond

After having seen King Kong (the first one) and The Battleship Potemkin, two films that are given the title 'best film of all times' because they were so innovative (the first for introducing camera movement (among other things and the second mainly for the animation) I now wonder how the Lord of the Rings movies will be regarded 70 or 80 years from now. Will people then have as much of a laugh as I did over the King Kong movie? Because, let's face it, the films may have been revolutionary for their time but by today's standards they're complete crap. Only Potemkin has the advantage of depicting an historic event shortly after it happened (so the old looks fit in with the story). But what would have to happen to the movie industry to make the LOTR films look as dated as these two films do? 3D? Not watching a movie but being in it? Or even actual physical sensation and being a character in it that influences the development of the story? It would have to be something spectacular like that to make the LOTR films look as outdated as these films do now. DirkvdM 17:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I was just thinking about the same thing a few hours ago. LOL. Off-topic though... 219.77.152.163 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Because, let's face it, the films may have been revolutionary for their time but by today's standards they're complete crap." Yeah, ok. That's why we're still discussing them 70 years later. Callum J. Stewart

Kiwi Kong !

I knew it! Just saw the 2005 movie (in Tuschinsky, which is the perfect setting for it with its exuberant art nouveau interior) and it's another example of how things progress. When I saw the Jurassic Park movies I thought it would be only a matter of time until the spectacular effects of those few scenes would become commonplace. Then came the tv series Walking with Dinosaurs, which left Jurassic Park way behind with better visuals and much more of them. A tv series! (by the BBC, but still.) And now there's another stage with the Kiwi Kong movie. It all looks perfectly natural and it's all over the place. Not just a few scenes but all the time. And not just one or two central special effects. Most of the time my eyes were flying all over the screen, looking at the spectacular backgrounds. And the story and acting and such are good too, which can't be said of the Jurassic Park movies (to put it mildly). I went to see those movies twice, just for those few scenes. And the LOTR movies I saw only twice (in the cinema, that is) because I happened to be travelling around that time (in New Zealand, ironically). This movie I'll probably go and see at least four times, to get a better look at all those background fill-ins and such. Marvellous! DirkvdM 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Snakes?

The intro speaks of "over-sized animals such as snakes, pterosaurs and dinosaurs" but I haven't seen any snakes, so I removed that. There was an animal in the cave that acted a bit strangling-snake-like, but it had legs, so it wasn't a snake. DirkvdM 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Which version of the movie are you talking about? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1933 one. But I now realise that this article is not about specific films but about the story. So that would then have to be the novel, but this info is not under the novel section. Or is it that the 1933 movie is regarded as the original story? That is still unclear. DirkvdM 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Financial disappointment

I removed this about the 2005 film: Despite generally postive reviews, the film has been a financial disappointment. The film has only just been released, so how can any conclusions about the success (financial or otherwise) be drawn? DirkvdM 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Komodo?

I heard something on the radio about this being inspired by some Komodo dragons being brought to New York for a zoo... only to die within a year. Anyone know anything more about this? DS 18:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This film is not really about monsters, love or giant apes, but rather it's a story about the Great Depression and the havoc it wrought. Ann was desperate to survive, so she was co-opted by the greedy Denham, and later, Kong's ripping up the old Second Avenue Elevated as an expression of rage and frustration. Somewhere, I've read that the film was always hugely popular in the all-black movie houses of the South in the pre-civil rights era.

"the Wanderer" or "the Venture"?

The plot outline says it covers the 1933 film, and also says the ship is called Venture. However the King_Kong_(2005_film) article says 'The name of the boat Denham and his crew take to Skull Island is changed from "the Wanderer" to "the Venture".' Ner102 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Public Domain"

If Kong is public domain, like the Nintendo bit mentions, then why does Toho always get hung up on rights issues whenever they try and remake Kong vs. Godzilla? Thanos6 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Because godzilla is not in public domain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.48.10.20 (talk) 15:51:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation

I see that King Kong (disambiguation) redirects here; an unusual move for a disambiguation page. I was looking for the band King Kong (band), but had to scroll down hundreds of lines to get to the "Other namesakes" section. What about taking that section, and a few other obvious links, out and moving them back to a proper disambig page? I'll do it if there are no objections, but perhaps there's a good reason it's set up this way? bikeable (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the disambiguation page. Originally the King Kong article featured a "Namesake" heading that acted as a list of links to the other, non-giant cinematic ape related articles, but as this appears to have been deleted I've populated the page and put a link to it at the top of this one.Misterkillboy 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

King Kong and the "myth of the black man"

there is a critical study looking at how comparisons between the black man and King Kong are shown in the film - conveying the phobia white america had about black men stealing white women in the early 1900's. Can anyone dig up something on this? here is a good start: http://stangoff.com/?p=181 Sfacets 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am currently working on this section... it ties in with cartoon made by Larry Flynt's Hustler magazine... which instigated the "myth". Does anyone know if the images found on http://hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/dines.html can be distributed (as is watermarked on the images) for fair use on wikipedia?

Alot of this content also belongs in the Larry Flynt article... hmmm. Sfacets 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC) that atcually makes sense he is brought back by greedy white men to make money and they justify it by thinking he is just a savage and he will love it in america than he breakes his chains and runs free where he is shot down after trying to take a white women or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.133.15 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird War Tales#122

Weird War Tales#122 features an amazing case of plagiarism. The story "The Hand of Glory" features pilot Roger Baker, bitter and awaiting his chance to shine. One day, he and his men are called to fly to New York in 1933 (it is explicity stated to be that city and year), where he has an encounter with a certain plane swatting resident of Skull Mountain. This issue features no copyright acknowledgement to the owners of King Kong anywhere.

Idiot in the hat?

Someone has just added a section under this title, but there is no way of confirming whether the information is true, or if by bizarre coincidence one man has these various roles, or all the men playing these different roles look similar. What should be done, if anything? ViceroyInterus 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Themes

How about a section detailing the themes behind the King Kong story-concept? For example, it's a stark attack on "black and white" morality, giving the beast both the power to protect and destroy, but refusing to judge it by either human or it's own values. It can also be interpreted in the modern era as a strong environmentalist story, where Kong represents Earth, possesing the power to both provide for life/humanity and harm it, seeking not confrontation or "impieralist" ambitions such as the human movie studio - in the end the story is almost a parable: some things must not be tamed, but lived with, worked with, even if that means refraining from interferance.

There's also the concept of empathy for a non-human, which really is one of the most moving, inspiring, mystifying themes in all of human art.

Hitlers favorite movie

This movie is said to be one of hitlers favorite movies shoudl this be added to the artical?

Probably not, it's trivia at best and suggestive at worse - this has been many peoples favorite movie. Unless you can say something meaningful about it in relation to the movie. Otherwise it belongs in the biography of Hitler, as supporting evidence for some character trait or whatever. -- Stbalbach 13:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Status

Is the 1933 version of King Kong in the public domain? -Bootstrap Bill

No, it's not in the public domain? Why would you even ask? The film is copyrighted, however, the story itself has been proved to be in the public domain.

Name

The first sentance states that "King Kong is the name of the fictional giant ape, from the fictional Skull Island." Well, not really. "King Kong" is the name given to him by Carl Denham when he brings the ape to NYC. Otherwise, the ape's name is "Kong." "King Kong" doesn't sound as grand or regal as "Kong" which sounds godlike. Surley the opening sentance should read more along the lines of "King Kong is the name of three movies about a fictional giant ape called Kong." Or am I just being pedantic? (Callum J. Stewart 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, I think you're being a little pedantic here. I mean, I could take it one step further and say that Kong is the name he is called by several people, but in his own gorilla language he could call himself something entire different. King Kong is the name that he is known by the world over, I don't think we need to obsess over such details too much.Largo1965 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

This section is extremely long and is filled with every little reference to Kong from every TV show, movie, etc. that anyone can think of. Is this really necessary? I mean I realize that King Kong has influenced a lot of people over the years, but is it really important that Denzel Washington says "King Kong ain't got shit on me" in Training Day? I think this whole section should be removed.Largo1965 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Someone just plonked this in without regard to the flow of text around it: The term "written by" Lovelace is misleading. She was not an author but the wife of Merian Cooper. What she in fact did was assemble and transcribe what Edgar Wallace had earlier written. Wallace, a prolific novelist who wrote a novel a week, had spent two months writing the screenplay for King Kong in 1932 before his death. Wallace was known for his J. G. Reeder detective mysteries and as the creator of the Green Archer. He had written 175 novels before he died. Wallace was the actual writer of the story. Lovelace was merely a stenographer or secretary who took down the notes. Cooper himself was also not a writer. Wallace was brought in because he was a writer.. this may or may not be true - there's no reference given - but it's not in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. It needs re-writing and a citation before (or if) it goes back in. Totnesmartin 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More than that, it is in contradiction to virtually all other authoritative accounts, that Wallace died before he could contribute much if anything at all to the original plot, which doesn't leave any potential for having composed the subsequent novelization. Many of these sources are cited in this general Kong article and/or the one on the 1933 film itself. Also, while many discussions have noted that Ruth Rose was the wife of Cooper's partner, Ernest Schoedsack, this is the first I've heard that Delos Lovelace was Mrs. Cooper. Indeed, the Wiki article on her identifies her husband as somebody else, although it is possible that was the first of two marriages. On the other hand, as I recall TCM's documentary on Cooper that they aired just before the recent remake was released and then included in the first DVD release of the original, some other name was given for his wife, so it's not likely at all. I just checked the IMDb, and they list only one wife, Dorothy Jordan, the one mentioned in that doc. However, the wedding date is May 1933, after Kong was in theaters, so she might be his second wife, after he was Lovelace's second husband, theoretically speaking. One last thing: is it an absolute, documented fact that Lovelace's name wasn't on the first edition at all? In my 1960s Bantam paperback, Wallace and Cooper are in big letters--actually a logo-like design--while Lovelace is in small print low on the title page (not on the cover at all, as I recall). It's easy to miss her byline, but it is there. If she and Cooper were husband and wife, but the marriage was then on the rocks, he might want to downplay (or deny her) her credit line. There are so many things widely believed about 30s pop culture that are in direct contradiction to the actual material under discussion (Kato never having been flatly described as Japanese on radio's Green Hornet show being one such piece of garbage), that I just have to ask about this. Honest, I am wide open to confirmation that her name isn't there. Bottom line, I am taking Wallace out of the line in the text, as I don't believe confirmation of that is possible. Ted Watson 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Noticed a posting above pointing out that the date given for an excerpt from Wallace's diary was later than his given death day. Went to check that out, and found that the diary entry was no longer specifically dated. However, I also realized that the presentation implies that this comes from the Goldner/Turner book, which it does not. As the quote does not prove anything whatsoever but the two things that nobody disputes, i.e., that Wallace came to Hollywood with the express intent of working with Cooper on the Kong story, and that the idea was Cooper's creation (but not so much of a suggestion as to the quantity of work Wallace did before he became ill, beyond the very vaguest implication that he had actually started, which is still not necessarily what Wallace meant, especially given Cooper's flat denial that he did), I'm going to remove it. Ted Watson 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE again: I just took a second look at Delos W. Lovelace's article (correcting a link in the KK/pop culture article) and that of the spouse, and, according to them, Delos is a MAN, the spouse a woman, totally invalidating the claim that Lovelace was Cooper's wife. Ted Watson 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this

Just checked some WWI articles I found this US 1917 propaganda poster featuring a King Kong-like gorilla wearing a German pikelhaube and carrying a white woman in long dress. Was this image popular in early 20th century America, well before the movie released? Did images like this influence the movie plot? I know that the image of a gorilla kidnapping a white woman is a common cliche but I had assumed it was derived from the King Kong 1933 film, not previous to it.--Menah the Great 11:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Orangutan

Many people say kong's a giant gorilla, but if he's an evolved form of Gigantopithecus blacki, should he be caled a giant orangutan, then a gorilla because Gigantopithecus blacki is really a giant organutan. From User:4444hhhh--4444hhhh 00:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

King Kong is often depicted as a gorilla. And in the 2005 Peter Jackson remake, he seems to be modeled after a silverback mountain gorilla.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beau-ti-ful.jpg

Image:Beau-ti-ful.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) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't just remove the deletion tag, put in the fair use rationale template if you want to keep the images. Look at what I did with the first image on the page. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of King Kong Appears in Edo dispute

I deleted the portion of the section on the film King Kong Appears in Edo that claimed the film was probably never made, first and foremost because it appears to be original research. There is more, however. The passage claims "There is no evidence that this film ever existed," and "there are no known stills," but then admits to one, which is reproduced alongside the text. There is also a poster on view at the Wiki article on this film, with so much text--in Japanese--that a simple translation should verify or refute its claim to being about this movie (admittedly, the caption does include a "cite needed" tag, and the poster might well turn out to be for the other 1930s Japanese Kong film listed here). Finally, the external link at the end of this passage leads to the IMDb page for this film, which contains no questioning of the film's existence whatsoever (neither, for that matter, does the linked-in Wiki article on it). Ted Watson (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

I saw this in the "King Kong" article:

The King Kong charagbjjvhdiuhfhshfgjeudhfhfuhyuubvb7v7yyuguighuvhnjkgvhhihvgjhvfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuewhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Island]] that discovers Kong's son.

I don't think that its supposed to be there, so I deleted it. Should I have notified someone first, as I am not a member?

71.43.143.22 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Emily C

Not really, but you didn't revert it properly. If you were a registered editor, you would have seen the clickable word, "Undo" at the end of that mess's edit history entry, and that would have made it easy for you. It is fixed now. Still, feel free to sign up. Ted Watson (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The redundant King Kong (franchise) article

I noticed an editor has recently created King Kong (franchise) which is essentially a poor copy of this article. All it does is list the films again, plus a few characters, one book, and an exact copy of the King Kong in popular culture article. There is nothing important in that article that isn't already covered (better) in this article (apart from the characters, and they could be listed in their own List of King Kong characters which seems to be the conventional way).

The editor who created King Kong (franchise) has also been turning existing King Kong-related articles into redirects, without any discussion. The films in particular are notable in their own right and deserve individual articles.

I can find nothing in Wikipedia policy that says individual, unrelated film articles should be merged and redirected to another article, regardless of the article size.

Possibly an editor more familiar with policies can look at what's happening to these articles?

Specifically the film articles are Queen Kong and The Mighty Kong, but also Kong: King of Skull Island‎, Captain Englehorn‎, and a few others. 92.0.85.215 (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Racial overtones

I'm surprised this hasn't come up, as there is a lot of literature about racial overtones in King Kong. Would anyone more familiar with the topic want to look into including this in the article? --68.56.17.70 (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial?

After reading the "Skull Island" entry in Dictionary of Imaginary Places, I noticed Skull Island first appeared in Boy's Magazine as a King Kong serial story. I have found other websites that claim this, but I'd have to dig them up. Does any one know if this is true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.229.35 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Skull Island first appeared in the film King Kong 33'. While not actually called Skull Island (on film or even the screenplay, Only Skull Mountain was named) it was referred to as "Skull Island" in RKO's publicity materials in the Spring of 33'. The Boys Magazine adaptation of the film (which was published in the Fall of 33') was the first non-publicty materials source to actually describe the island as "Skull island" in the context of the story. (The original Lovelace novelization and the film adaptation in Mystery magazine only referred to it as "Skull Mountain Island".Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'Kay. Thanks for clearing that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.229.35 (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rights?

The article suggests the rights belonw to Universal Studio. However from Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. it appears that the story and King Kong name don't actually belong to Universal Studio. Obviously the copyright to the movies do as perhaps do some other rights but as it stands the phrase is potentially misleading so I added a fact tag. We can't cite the case directly, that would definitely be OR but if there is any reliable secondary source which discusses which rights Universal do and don't own, we could cite them to help clarify the situation Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That Nintendo trial is ancient history (1984). In the late 90's/early 2000's Richard M. Cooper went to court to try to get the rights to the character back (his father Merian C Cooper had limited rights up until 1960, when the original novelization elapsed into the public domain). At this point Time/Warner had the major rights to the character (after obtaining them from Turner Enterprises in 1995, who obtained them from RKO in 1986). During the court case a deal was reached where Time/Warner would retain the rights to the original film, while Cooper's estate would get all the other rights associated with the character (licensing rights, sequel rights etc.). Richard Cooper then sold the majority of these rights to Universal (including the original story which Cooper still contolled. Universal's King Kong film is actually based loosely on the original story rather than being a remake, since Time/Warner owns the rights to the original film). So as it stands today Universal has the majority of the character rights, while the Cooper estate retained limited rights (they commissioned a new novel called Merian C Cooper's King Kong to replace the Lovelace version who's publishing rights are in the Public Domain as well as a sequel story called Kong:King of Skull Island.). This is all chronicled in detail in the book Living Dangerously: The Adventures of Merian C Cooper that was written in 2005.Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet, as the works were already in PD before the TimeWarner/Universal/Cooper-agreement, they would have traded something intradeable (or rather something they no participant party owned in the first place) making this deal void - unless of course something that is PD can be de-PD'ed again. This seems fishy (no pun intended). 83.191.169.209 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The only King Kong thing reported to be in the public domain is the novelization which, given that the storyline was created for the film, logically should mean nothing more than: anyone can put out an edition of the book, that the text per se is all that is PD. Obviously, that's not the way it is working. As for something being "de-PD'ed" apparently not. Frank Capra commented when his It's a Wonderful Life was being seen everywhere every Christmas season that having failed to renew the copyright when it was due, there was nothing he could do then. Yet, suddenly, Republic had the movie locked up, telecast limited to NBC. It eventually came out that they had purchased the copyright to some piece of music heard in the film, which had been properly renewed, and that put it out of reach of the PD outfits. Joe Kane, aka "The Phantom of the Movies" had reported in the first edition of his movie guide that George A. Romero had obtained a court ruling taking his original Night of the Living Dead out of the PD and that at Kane's press time was trying to have it made retroactive (exactly what that meant was not explained). However, in Kane's hugely revised and retitled second edition he not only did not update this report, but removed it. Perhaps Romero lost on appeal, or maybe Kane had completely misunderstood Romero's legal battle with Night... co-writer John Russo over his The Return of the Living Dead films (that does seem a stretch). --Ted Watson (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kong vs. Godzilla no alternate ending?

Somebody just put in a passage describing the alleged alternate/original Japanese ending to King Kong vs. Godzilla wherein Godzilla wins, then Giantdevilfish promptly removed it. I know that there have been several statements in recent years that it never existed, but in the early 1990s, bootleg video dealer Stephen Russo had it in his catalog! Explain that! --Ted Watson (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The two endings was a popular myth that has persisted for years. It originated in FMOF magazine back in the 1960's. There never was an alternate ending. If Steve Russo claimed that there was an alternate ending then he was lying. It's that simple. I have the Japanese version on VHS that I purchased in the late 1980's and the endings are identical. Japanese publications never mentioned an "alternate" ending (in fact in Toho's catalouge book Toho Films Vol 8, that was published in 1963 they state that Kong was the victor in the plot synopsis,) and you can ask people who saw reissues of the film (like August Ragone) in the 1970's. The endings have always been the same. Always have, always will. Steve Ryfle goes into detail about this in his book Japan's Favourite Mon-Star, and you can ask anyone even remotely knowledgable in the genre.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If Steve Russo claimed that there was an alternate ending then he was lying. It's that simple. Unfortunately, it is not that simple: He did not merely claim the other existed, he listed it in his catalog of videos available for purchase from him. And for several years, too; I did not buy it because I was not interested, it not being translated by any method. Such a lie would be absolutely guaranteed to backfire on him badly. So it just is not "that simple." --Ted Watson (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ted it baffles me that you are listing a guy who deals with "bootlegs" as a reputable source. What exactly did he list in his catalog? Did he say "See the original Japanese ending"? Because if he did then where do you get a duel ending existing out of that? The original Japanese ending is identical to the American ending. If he specifically stated that there is an ending that Godzilla wins then HE IS LYING. And he was ripping people off. Its that simple. There are no Japanese books that claim there was another ending, and these include actual Toho publications. The original 1962 theatrical print was used for TOHO's DVD transfers and you can see that the endings are the same. Toho first issued this movie on video in 1985. I purchased a copy in 1988. This was the first time I ever saw the Japanese version. The endings are the same. I purchased a bootleg tape from Club DaiKaiju in the 90's. (The bootlegs have English subtitles which the Toho releases do not have). The endings are the same. Toho then reissued the film on VHS and Laserdisc in 1995 which was a newly mastered print. The endings are the same. Toho then issued the film again on DVD in Japan in the early 2000's. The endings are the same. etc. etc. There never was another ending to this film. You can buy your own copy of the Japanese version of this film off of Ebay and see for yourself. It was a bogus story.Giantdevilfish (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, such a lie (even if it were your suggestion that technically was not a lie but would still have been so misleading that he would lose many customers and more long-term revenue than short-term profits from that one title could possibly offset) would backfire and boomerang on him big time and very quickly. Yet he is still in business with a website, so it cannot be so simply dismissed. I bought several vids from him in the early to mid-90s. This stopped only because of my financial difficulties, and I continued to receive catalogs in the mail from him until about 2000. He just did not suffer from this. Could he have possibly faked such an ending. in the early 1990s? I doubt it. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I already asked, how did he describe the entry in the catalouge? Did he mention an alternate ending where Godzilla wins? Because if he did then he's wrong. And I find it hard to believe that it didn't bring outrage from customers. And does he still list this movie in his catalouge advertising an alternate ending? If he listed it as being the original Japanese ending, then there is nothing wrong with that, because he is not claiming that the endings are different. He basically saying you can see the original ending of the film, and when you do you will see its no different then the American one. So please tell me how he wrote up the description in that "early 1990's" catalouge? And just a thought here. If this footage existed don't you think by now in todays day and age of Youtube's and Ebays we would have seen it? Don't you think there would be copies galore for sale on Ebay? Don't you think you would see the clip on Youtube? Don't you think fandom would be talking about it adnausem. None of this is happening. Why. Because there is no alternate ending. Here is a copy of the Japanese version for sale on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/KING-KONG-vs-GODZILLA-Japan-BEST-VERSION-W-S-Stereo-DVD_W0QQitemZ220323286305QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray?hash=item220323286305&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50. Buy it (its resonably priced) and see for yourself how the original Japanese ending plays out.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Megaprimatus edit summary

As the system suddenly saved while I stopped to adjust my mouse pad and left my edit summary barely started, I'll finish it here: De-Wikilinking Megaprimatus as it redirects to this very article. This sort of thing happens to me—and judging from many similar talk page postings, quite a few other editors—often enough that something needs to be done about it. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)