Ok King Kong Lives is supposed to be a direct sequel to "King Kong 1976" but did anybody notice that Kong's face, especially his eyes look distinctly different than they did in 1976? Does anybody know a backstory on why they made him look differently?
To hear Carlo Rambaldi tell it, they didn't look different at all, since the moulds used to create "sequel KONG" were crafted from the same ones designed for the '76 film. Carlo may not have noticed the difference in appearance, but Peter Elliot's KONG looks and moves nothing like Rick Baker's KONG. Hard to believe, but KING KONG LIVES actually had a $30 million-dollar budget, making it more expensive than the '76 version. Despite the extra money, the gorilla in KING KONG LIVES pales in comparison to what Baker achieved with the remake; everything from the sound of KONG's footsteps to his roar seem strangely muted in the sequel, and as a result, KONG seems much less real.
"From thy wedding with the creature who touches Heaven, lady God preserve thee..." - KING KONG
Thanks for the the information. So King Kong Lives had a higher budget? Wow, it makes you wonder where that extra money went. Your right about Kong's roar, it sounds nothing at all like the roar from '76.
I too, noticed some small differences including his facial features and low sounding roar. I also noticed that kong seemed actually a bit larger in "KKL" than he did in the '76 "KK". Did anyone else notice this? I based this observation on a scene in the film where he's walking down a street and he tramples a car--and his feet, though obviously huge, seem to completely dwarf the car! I mean, in the '76 version, he's around 50-60 feet, yet in the KKL sequal, he looks nearly double this; Well, okay, perhaps 2/3 bigger. Just my opinion. He also seemed more vicious in KKL.