One of the biggest criticisms of the 76 King Kong is the complete removal of dinosaurs/prehistoric life from the gorilla's island;save for a giant snake.
I would like to get any information on why the makers of Kong 76 made such a decision,although I speculate much of it may have been based on the production being spent on the giant sized Carlo Rambaldi robot that only appeared for a scant brief second.
The filmmakers were relying on the expensive 40-ft tall animatronic Kong made for the film, but when it turned out to be almost unusable, they were forced to scrap it and create the film's special effects using what little was left of the budget. They were able to create the Kong suit, miniature sets, and rubber snake, but there was not sufficient money to create dinosaurs or other creatures. ---FAQ
Which scant second was the robot used in? I haven't seen this in a while.
The Giant robot Kong which was hyped beyond belief was only featured during the gorilla's opening in New York as the Petrox mascot.The concept of the ape's island being a "lost world" comes off as hokey in the 76 version, if they incorporated a giant snake why not another creature?
shareThanks for pointing out the robot. Got to agree, the "Lost World" isn't as believable in the 70's, the world was much more traveled than in `33. The snake must have been easier to manage, even if they had the dinosaurs, they'd probably be at the quality level of the dinosaurs in The Land That Time Forgot.
shareAs I understand it, they just didn't have the money. The robot didn't work anywhere nearly as well as they hoped, so they had to create suits, miniatures, and sets to pull off most of kong's interractions on film. By the time this was done, they had no money to dinosaurs.
Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.
Once it was established what kind of Kong film he was going for, Dino De Laurentiis didn't want dinosaurs in his movie. He wanted a modern re-'telling' and for Kong to be the focus of attention. He also wanted the film to be more grounded in reality than the 1933 film. It's hard enough to accept a giant ape creature. Even harder to accept lots of dinosaurs. I guess the giant snake was figured to be island gigantisism of the same sort that spawned Kong.
Now I love King Kong 1933, but to be honest all those Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs living side by side with the mammalian Kong seems out of place and Kong gets kind of forgotten during the dinosaur segments. Besides, the dinosaurs were only really in King Kong 1933 because the were left over from the abandoned Creation.'Dinosaurs' were never part of Cooper's original King Kong story vision.
It is interesting to note that the dinosaurs in the 33 Kong were almost excluded, I'm glad Merian C. Cooper added them because Skull island is supposed to be like no other isle on the face of the Earth; inhabited by prehistoric & long forgotten beast.
I've read on other forums from different sites that the writer Lorenzo Semple Jr. toyed around with the idea of another monster besides the giant serpent.
It is interesting to note that the dinosaurs in the 33 Kong were almost excluded, I'm glad Merian C. Cooper added them because Skull island is supposed to be like no other isle on the face of the Earth; inhabited by prehistoric & long forgotten beast.
The inclusion of dinosaurs in the Kong Story only enrichen the fantasy aspect, as King Kong could never happen in reality,just imagine though if the 33 Kong didn't have any dinosaurs beyond the great wall in the jungle.
They provide obstacles for Denham and the search party to encounter on their trek to get Ann Darrow back,Peter Jackson did overkill for his over praised redo in this regard.
The inclusion of dinosaurs in the Kong Story only enrichen the fantasy aspect,
just imagine though if the 33 Kong didn't have any dinosaurs beyond the great wall in the jungle.
They provide obstacles for Denham and the search party to encounter on their trek to get Ann Darrow back,
Peter Jackson did overkill for his over praised redo in this regard.
Yes it always seemed as if the dinosaurs Denham and the sailors encountered became
nonexistent once Denham made his way back to the wall,Jack & Ann never mention the beast they saw as well, definitely a plot hole or simply lazy writing.
Kong's jungle following his abduction of Ann was teeming with dinosaurs,even when Jack rescues Ann while the ape is occupied with the Pterodactyl they make it safely back to the wall without harm.
^
What I can add is that we know most of the human scenes (non monster) for Kong 1933 were filmed long before the dinosaur/Kong animation were completed so the only thing I can think of is that the scene when Denham is back at the wall was probably filmed before they knew what exact dinosaur scenes they would be doing?? But that's just a guess. So when Denham and Engelhorn have that dialogue about Kong and no dinosaurs, the dino action scenes weren't settled on???
Still that doesn't explain why nobody was molested while on their way back to the wall. It's the same with Kong 2005. Nobody in that film ever gets harassed or attacked by dinosaurs while journeying back towards the direction of the wall either.
Another question I've always had as well is I wonder if any of the dinosaurs ever wandered up to the wall;and if so did the natives from atop it possibly fling spears, sorry if I've drug this out,I'm a huge fan of the Kong films.
share^
That is a question that was not raised in Kong '33. I theorise the natives had to go out into the jungle from time to time for food. I don't think the natives would have speared any dinosaurs just wandering by the wall, unless for food, because a wounded or dead dinosaur would only attract even more dinosaurs to scavenge on the carcass.
As I understand it, they just didn't have the money. The robot didn't work anywhere nearly as well as they hoped, so they had to create suits, miniatures, and sets to pull off most of kong's interractions on film. By the time this was done, they had no money to dinosaurs.
Once it was established what kind of Kong film he was going for, Dino De Laurentiis didn't want dinosaurs in his movie. He wanted a modern re-'telling' and for Kong to be the focus of attention. He also wanted the film to be more grounded in reality than the 1933 film. It's hard enough to accept a giant ape creature. Even harder to accept lots of dinosaurs. I guess the giant snake was figured to be island gigantisism of the same sort that spawned Kong.
Now I love King Kong 1933, but to be honest all those Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs living side by side with the mammalian Kong seems out of place and Kong gets kind of forgotten during the dinosaur segments. Besides, the dinosaurs were only really in King Kong 1933 because the were left over from the abandoned Creation.'Dinosaurs' were never part of Cooper's original King Kong story vision.
Another question I've always had as well is I wonder if any of the dinosaurs ever wandered up to the wall;and if so did the natives from atop it possibly fling spears, sorry if I've drug this out,I'm a huge fan of the Kong films.
The story of King Kong is a work of fiction. Nothing was ever filmed or discussed about
dinosaurs wandering around the wall and or what the natives did. Your question is very silly considering this story is just a fantasy
I think getting rid of dinosaurs killed the suspension of disbelief.
shareI'll echo another post here... at the time I never heard any stories one way or the other that there were going to be dinosaurs in the movie.
I think a lot of people -- myself included -- were most disappointed at this aspect of the movie.
Just guessing, but it was probably a practical decision to exclude them, not a creative one.
How would they be rendered?
Kong was going to be 'real' -- either a guy in monkey suit or a giant animatronic. There wouldn't be enough money to do animatronic dinosaurs not to mention the logistics of staging fights.
Guys in rubber suits a al Godzilla? Kong looked cheesy enough, a movie full of guys in goofy suits duking it out would have turned it into a complete joke.
That would leave stop-motion as the only alternative and the juxtaposition and technical difficulties of merging two different technologies seamlessly would have been near impossible I would think.
So, my guess is that the decision to omit dinosaurs was made very early, probably during pre-production.
You have this aspect doing Kong in a gorilla suit, you somewhere about the way 1933 Kong was made where stop motion enhanced everything it was going for especially with the dinosaurs, the fact Kong and the dinosaurs were stop motion made them feel terrifying and effective, when you see Kong as a man in a gorilla suit it feels off especially against miniature buildings, he looks like Planet Of The Apes, so there's weird things about the movie being a man in an ape suit that doesn't 100% work with an ape suit.
shareIt's particularly amusing that Carlo Rambaldi had been doing "dragons" for Italian Pepla films since the early '60s, and some of them were really pretty good.
shareSounds like a plot hole to me
shareWell the 2005 more than made up for that. Seemed like 20 minutes of dinos crashing and rolling down a ravine.
share