Safe to say I was deeply, deeply disappointed back in the Seventies with the decision to go with Rick Baker in a monkey suit and the giant animatronic ape, which was even worse. De Laurentiis made a big mistake in not using the stop-motion technology of the day. Veteran technical wizards like Ray Harryhausen would have turned this version into a far superior product.
shareI'm not old enough to have seen this movie when it came out in the 1970s (by the time I had started watching monster movies, "Jurassic Park" had already come out and set my expectations for special effects realism), but I regard live-action methods of creating creatures (suits, puppets, animatronics, etc.) as preferable to stop-motion. And this is especially true when it comes to primates, because a jerky miniature model just doesn't seem as "alive" to me. Stop-motion is fine for dinosaurs, though (again, in the pre-CGI era...nowadays, I'll take "Jurassic Park" dinosaurs over any of Harryhausen's).
Dino De Laurentiis may have been an egomanaical, loud-mouthed idiot, but he was at least right that Kong is more sympathetic and also scarier when he's anthropomorphic. Having him played by Rick Baker in a suit, and also having him walk upright, was a good idea even though Baker himself protested. This is something that I wish Peter Jackson had considered for his Kong when he decided that he wanted his ape to be a giant silverback gorilla.
No doubt that CGI is technically superior to stop-motion, but watching Rick Baker lumbering among the model buildings in his monkey suit left me feeling sad. Please check out some of the work of Harryhausen and other early technicians patiently working with stop-motion and you'll find examples of how they succeeded in evoking all the feelings that an angry, lost or wounded giant creature would feel while terrified people were screaming and yelling and getting underfoot. I had read that De Laurentiis rejected the stop-motion technique because Kong's fur bristled from the handling when he would be repeatedly repositioned. That could easily be explained away that he was getting pissed off at the other creatures and those irritating tiny people.
shareNo doubt that CGI is technically superior to stop-motion, but watching Rick Baker lumbering among the model buildings in his monkey suit left me feeling sad.
Please check out some of the work of Harryhausen and other early technicians patiently working with stop-motion and you'll find examples of how they succeeded in evoking all the feelings that an angry, lost or wounded giant creature would feel while terrified people were screaming and yelling and getting underfoot.
I had read that De Laurentiis rejected the stop-motion technique because Kong's fur bristled from the handling when he would be repeatedly repositioned. That could easily be explained away that he was getting pissed off at the other creatures and those irritating tiny people.
It may have been a fun fact which I had forgotten over the years, so I probably wouldn't have been so harsh on the decision to use Rick Baker instead of 70's stop motion if I had known that Dino insisted on an anthropomorphic look. I might have appreciated Rick Baker's efforts if he had been allowed to go the silverback gorilla route because I know he studied the appearance and behavior of gorillas and I acknowledge he is a skilled artist. I understand the full-scale mechanical monstrosity of kong ate up the money budgeted for special effects, hence not a dinosaur in sight, which put me in a still deeper funk. Perhaps you're already familiar with the excellent book "the Making Of King Kong" by Orville Goldner and George E. Turner which details the history of the original film and Bruce Bahrenburg's "The Creation Of Dino De Laurentiis' King Kong". I hope my comments on Dino's dislike of Kong's bristling fur is accurate. I'll have to dig up my copy of Bahrenburg's book from the basement to check that fact. These old brain cells of mine could stand some lubricating...
sharePerhaps you're already familiar with the excellent book "the Making Of King Kong" by Orville Goldner and George E. Turner which details the history of the original film and Bruce Bahrenburg's "The Creation Of Dino De Laurentiis' King Kong".
It may have been a fun fact which I had forgotten over the years, so I probably wouldn't have been so harsh on the decision to use Rick Baker instead of 70's stop motion if I had known that Dino insisted on an anthropomorphic look.
I might have appreciated Rick Baker's efforts if he had been allowed to go the silverback gorilla route because I know he studied the appearance and behavior of gorillas and I acknowledge he is a skilled artist.
I understand the full-scale mechanical monstrosity of kong ate up the money budgeted for special effects, hence not a dinosaur in sight, which put me in a still deeper funk.
I hope my comments on Dino's dislike of Kong's bristling fur is accurate. I'll have to dig up my copy of Bahrenburg's book from the basement to check that fact. These old brain cells of mine could stand some lubricating...
Now I'm going to think outside the box a bit and imagine a computer-controlled Kong figure which would be pre-programmed and linked up directly to the cameras for precision stop-motion imaging which would smooth out the jerky motion since there would be no handling of the figure or require the patience of a saint. Not claiming that it would be practical but it would be a cool experiment.
shareSafe to say I was deeply, deeply disappointed back in the Seventies with the decision to go with Rick Baker in a monkey suit and the giant animatronic ape, which was even worse. De Laurentiis made a big mistake in not using the stop-motion technology of the day. Veteran technical wizards like Ray Harryhausen would have turned this version into a far superior product.
I think that Stop-Mo animation had become fairly outdated by the mid 70's. Especially when DeLaurentiis was trying to compete with "Jaws" which resorted to using the real thing instead of animation.
shareAgreed.
Sto mo would have been a backward step. As you say, Dino was trying to compete with Jaws. Jaws didn't use stop mo or miniatures.
Like I said, the stop mo films of the 1970s certainly don't look any more convincing than King Kong.
And Harryhausen was past his prime. The last consistently satisfying movie he made was THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD.
shareWell I liked both Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger and Clash of the Titans more than Golden Voyage. His stop mo in them was just as good. But it was still outdated by the 1970s.
shareThe costume feels like a backwards step to me. They could have done a guy in a costume in the original King Kong. Stop motion might look quaint by modern standards, but it was cutting edge special effects in the thirties. There was nothing particularly innovative about that gorilla suit.
shareThere was nothing particularly innovative about that gorilla suit.
Okay, I will grant that they couldn't have achieved those facial expressions on the suit in 33, but my point remains that the suit doesn't look great by 76 standards whereas the stop motion does look good for 1933. Unfortunately, until CGI came along, I suppose the only two ways of doing it were stop motion or a guy in a costume.
shareIt's better than any other ape suit of the 1970s. They were all pretty unimpressive back then.
Oh yes the stop motion was great in 1933. Unfortunately by 1976 it wouldn't have cut the mustard any better than a guy in a suit and that was the problem. At least there ARE some moments in Kong 1976 where it looks great.
https://mossfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/king-kong-1976.jpg
Well, I was born in '75 so most of the treasured movies of my childhood were people in suits, miniatures, paintings, etc so I have no issue with it and I think it looks great. I also like stop motion, don't get me wrong, but as others have said it looks better in black and white or when used very briefly if it's color.
"Clash of the Titans" to me was one of the last films to really use Stop Motion for a significant portion of the film effectively and even with that there are some scenes where the effect is pretty bad.
[deleted]
I still holding out hope somebody will try out the modified stop motion technique I suggested in my response to MTBan717 in this posting.
shareI think that the actors did a fabulous job. I think the special effects were wonderful, considering it was made 40 years ago. What really sucked for me was the horrible screenplay. "He's bigger than the both of us". I mean really. And why was Jeff wanting to keep him alive? What was he planning on doing with him if he was alive? Take him home to his apartment? And why was Jessica so in love with Kong? Doesn't she realize she is not as large as his weiner?
shareI'll stick with my original assessment, especially about that disappointing full scale Kong model that turned in a money pit, the big rubber snake instead of T-Rex and Rick Baker lumbering among the model buildings. Compare that to what RKO accomplished in the 1930's.
shareWhat really sucked for me was the horrible screenplay. "He's bigger than the both of us".
And why was Jeff wanting to keep him alive? What was he planning on doing with him if he was alive? Take him home to his apartment?
And why was Jessica so in love with Kong? Doesn't she realize she is not as large as his weiner?
Thank you I haven't had a good belly laugh in a long time..school girl on her prom date...ha.ha...Jack Black with an expression on his face like someone just blew wind....the 2005 version is my least favorite King Kong ever even with the millions of dollars of special effects. Kong sliding across the ice like a kid who got out of school early because of snow. Cheesy is the word..and there is a lot of it...
shareHehe no worries. Yeah Kong 2005 goes way over the top with the schmaltz and cheese. And Jack Black was simply the wrong casting choice for Denham.
shareThe movie was sold mostly on the idea of the mechanical ape. When they knew it was limited in what it could do they implemented more with the costume. You don't get much better than Rick Baker when it comes to ape costumes/makeup.
When theres no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.share
No doubt Rick Baker put a lot of effort into designing his King kong costume, but the set design and camera work are also factors that can affect how well it all comes across onscreen.
share[deleted]
I admire Rick Baker for his artistic enthusiasm. I believe he was just getting started when the 70's King Kong was produced. Safe to say any gorilla costume I designed would be unrecognizable.
shareWhat they most needed to do was shoot in slight slow motion, overcrank the camera just enough to give the Baker-in-a-suit scenes more presence. They seem to have shot them at normal 24fps, which is too realistic, pointing out his being in a suit.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
That sounds about right. I'm assuming this method would have required a bigger budget.
shareIt would've taken more film, but that's about it.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
Thanks for that technical information. Do you know if that method was in use prior to KK '76?
shareOh yeah! Overcranking is a common technique, and has been for many decades. Still just so strange that they didn't use such a simple method here.
I'm watching it again, and still just plain do not get it.
I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood
[deleted]
Perhaps if they had used the overcranking technique that jmillerdp had described along with some other cinematic techniques it would have been more tolerable for me.
share