So is King Kong....

[kyaa the catlord]

...racist?

We have a big black hairy ape who falls in love with a white woman and is hunted down and killed for doing so after climbing a pretty damn big phallic symbol.

A number of websites claim that it is an allusion to a black man falling for the forbidden white woman. I think its a stretch, a pretty big one.

What say you?

[karob]

I say King Kong should know his place. Oh shit I said it!

Really though think of the way society perceived inter racial dating back then(1932 book, 1933 movie). Sure it's a stretch, but not that big.

[misterb]

.... OR it's just a fiction inspired by the era's multitude of gigantic monster movies.

Who knows..

Anyway, I dun think so. Nor would I interpret it as such, hence, even if it was intended as such, it fails miserably in it's message.

The message delivered implies none of it to me.

[Kass]

I think you're reading waaaayyyy too much into a monster movie that was created in a cinematic era characterized by monster movies.

[drdan]

That's just stupid. Wouldn't people have thought better of black people because of the movie. Everyone feels sorry for King Kong by the end of the movie. Maybe it's racist for white people to marry other white people...because it could make black people feel opressed.

[NERD]

If it is Naomi Watts, hell no it's not a race thing.

[Bob]

Zomg! Everythings racist! Michael jackson is innocent! Ice-t invented the internet! Cream cheese!

[mangamuscle]

So what is next, Godzilla is gay because he never goes for the girl? Let me think about this deep philosophycal questions while playing Midway's Rampage in MAME :p

[mugen]

We have a big black hairy ape who falls in love with a white woman and is hunted down and killed for doing so after climbing a pretty damn big phallic symbol.


I only know of one white gorilla and he recently died. I don't see the point.

[eyez0nme]

Close/Delete/Ban

[Jay]

Hypocrite.

[Dresh]

I thought the deep metaphor behind King Kong was man's ability to kill mother nature?

[Henjin]

There's more to it, and you can't totally rule out the idea that the source material was affected by the relatively racist climate of the era in which it was written. (30's)
Still, I don't see any need to get up in arms over it. Even if there is some questionable allegory in the original material, there's obviously none intentionally carried over to the newest incarnation. Enjoy it for what it is, a monster movie.

[eyez0nme]

Man, King Kong was whack. It's just like Hulk. Even the action where the t-Rex comes out (E) I couldn't believe it. Scene by scene, it was so similar to Hulk, it was eerie. The Rock scene. Jaw Breaker scene. scene with Nioami Watts looking intently, Kongs hand enwrapping her, the scene on top of the Empire State Building. God. Wtf? The whole damn movie had this Hulk feel to it--and you will understand what I mean once you watch it. The only difference is that with Hulk you can watch it three times four times and still find new and interesting things, whereas Kong you can only watch it once; noone will watch it twice. Another scene is straight from two Disney films: one--The Lion King, the other--Bambi. And the Lion King one really pissed me off. Wtf was wrong with the Long Necks. It's as if Peter Jackson wanted to symbolize their stupidity, by a mush pile, to represent his sucess over wieght problems. This movie, like any other of his films, is lacking in all areas pertaining to character, dialouge, and plot--but exonerated because of action, and it's wide panaromic vision. Nothing more.

I wonder how the hell BrokeBack Mountain got 7 Oscars, and Kong got none.

You see that's the funny thing: even though people hated Hulk, because it progessed slow, or the CGI looked like Jelly Bunny--it was unique, whether or not the general audience liked it or not. It was unique.

Whereas Kong, not only had crappy dialouge and flimsy plot, but also, it had no substance. Nothing for repeat viewing. All it was, was visuals. Even the ending for Kong had no message or symbolization, unlike the Hulk, even if people hated the father son relationship.

The best review, I feel.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=11177

[mugen]

Close/Delete/Ban

bitch please

Man, King Kong was whack. It's just like Hulk. Even the action where the t-Rex comes out (E) I couldn't believe it. Scene by scene, it was so similar to Hulk, it was eerie. The Rock scene. Jaw Breaker scene. scene with Nioami Watts looking intently, Kongs hand enwrapping her, the scene on top of the Empire State Building. God. Wtf? The whole damn movie had this Hulk feel to it--and you will understand what I mean once you watch it. The only difference is that with Hulk you can watch it three times four times and still find new and interesting things, whereas Kong you can only watch it once; noone will watch it twice. Another scene is straight from two Disney films: one--The Lion King, the other--Bambi. And the Lion King one really pissed me off. Wtf was wrong with the Long Necks. It's as if Peter Jackson wanted to symbolize their stupidity, by a mush pile, to represent his sucess over wieght problems. This movie, like any other of his films, is lacking in all areas pertaining to character, dialouge, and plot--but exonerated because of action, and it's wide panaromic vision. Nothing more.

I wonder how the hell BrokeBack Mountain got 7 Oscars, and Kong got none.

You see that's the funny thing: even though people hated Hulk, because it progessed slow, or the CGI looked like Jelly Bunny--it was unique, whether or not the general audience liked it or not. It was unique.

Whereas Kong, not only had crappy dialouge and flimsy plot, but also, it had no substance. Nothing for repeat viewing. All it was, was visuals. Even the ending for Kong had no message or symbolization, unlike the Hulk, even if people hated the father son relationship.

The best review, I feel.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=11177

you win the off-topic award

[NERD]

With the track record of eyez0nme, especially since he mentioned that he copied/pasted different threads from different messageboards, I'm wondering how much of his posts are actually original- included his review of King Kong above. I'm not trying to diss the guy, but he provided every answer to doubt his entire behavior.

Why am I saying this? Because I happened to like King Kong. I don't think it deserves any Oscars, though Oscars themselves are overrated, it was a damn fine piece of entertainment, even if it was three hours long.

The original King Kong was, pure and simple, a monster flick with crappy animated big ape. It was meant to be an entertainment, and the new one follows it in the tradition. I'm not saying King Kong is the perfect/best/great movie, though it is probably one of the most entertaining films I saw this year. I expected as much, and was happy to see that it delivered.

[Komachi Angel]

Yeah, it's true. After all, we all know LotR was an allegory for WWII (denied by the author, but we all know he implanted it subliminaly as a political comment). Jurrasic Park was actually about the dangers of foreign immigration policy, and the Matrix was a cunning stab at the world media.

Or it could be a movie about a really big monkey...

Slightly off-topic, but serious, what happened to when you could enjoy a story for it being exactly that - a story? These days, you have to pack all kinds of hidden messages or some kind of lesson on morality. If there isn't one, people seem desperate to stuff one in there, and that's what seems to be happening now.

[eyez0nme]

Same with War of the Worlds. That was a book written by a man who was afraid England was going to spread all over the world.

So what's better in your opinion--King Kong or War of the Worlds.

[mugen]

seriously, take this test and post the results http://www.iqtest.com/

[Komachi Angel]

Was my sarcasm evident?

[mugen]

it was dripping in sarcasm. but we are getting to offtopic

[p1c4z0]

George Bush does not care about King Kong

[godmode]

...racist?

We have a big black hairy ape who falls in love with a white woman and is hunted down and killed for doing so after climbing a pretty damn big phallic symbol.

A number of websites claim that it is an allusion to a black man falling for the forbidden white woman. I think its a stretch, a pretty big one.

What say you?

You know, as someone who hasnt seen any of the 3 films (and I'm neither black nor white :p ), it seemed like that to me. It may be a stretch, but I just thought it was kind of funny. I didnt think it was racist though(as having been raised in country where everyone is the same race :))

p.s. i wasnt thinking of the phallic thing.

[Jai]

What say you?

I say "what a crock of crap"

I bought a black door handle once. I am so racist because obviously I was implying that blacks are dumb as door handles. Obviously I should have bought a bleeding heart whinger coloured door handle instead :rolleyes:

clicky link some of these stupid websites?

[Kass]

seriously, take this test and post the results http://www.iqtest.com/


topic people. topic.

[Kustom]

What is it with the constant need to find hidden messages in movies???
They made a monster movie, where the monster was supposed to fall in love with a woman. So they picked a creature reasonably close to humans to do the job: an ape. It's kind of hard for Godzilla to look tender or caring, not to mention climbing on the Empire state buildings wih his tiny arms, is it not? Now what color could possibly an ape have? In a black and white movie, no less? I bet you anything that if they had picked an albino gorilla, the PC gestapo would be screaming about how racist they were, picking a white hero and stuff...

When we came out of the theater yesterday, my girlfriend was complaining about how the bad guys didn't get retribution (and how the girl should have commited suicide on the spot but, you know, she's Japanese)... I hate that, why should there be always a clean morale to every movie? Does the real world works like that? In spite of King Kong being plain blockbuster entertainement, I kinda enjoyed the moral ambiguity of its characters and plot.

[Phyphor]

...racist?

We have a big black hairy ape who falls in love with a white woman and is hunted down and killed for doing so after climbing a pretty damn big phallic symbol.

A number of websites claim that it is an allusion to a black man falling for the forbidden white woman. I think its a stretch, a pretty big one.

What say you?

The recent remake of Planet of the Apes had more racial imagery than King Kong ever even thought of having.

I just wish these stupid blissninnies that come up with this crap would figure out that sometimes a movie is just a movie. It's meant to be entertaining, not usually a commentary on things happening. Hell, as has been mentioned, they made tons of movie monsters after King Kong.

Yea, it's a pretty big stretch. Just another case of PC being taken to an extreme.

[Phyphor]

Close/Delete/Ban

Oh, the irony.

[eyez0nme]

Ok since you want to be an ass and think this movie is an intelligent movie, let me expand on my dislikes.

1. T-Rex. Kong holding a mountain of muscle off with one arm, an animal that should be equal to hi in strength or close to it. The T-Rex biting on Kong's arm, Kong doing a spin move ripping his arms from the mouths of the dino's with NO damage to himself. Kong throwing Jabs and right hooks. APES DO NOT PUNCH like that. Only a 5 year old would not realize that.

2. Bronto Stampede. Ummm, yeah, those guys could run through and in the middle f a bronto stampede in such close quarters and only lose 4 people. Ummm ok, yeah I am dumb enough to buy that happening let alone by the horrible special effects. That has to be the worst visual effects sequence all year. Toss in the abrupt stop and bronto's tumbling head over feet and of course the main characters bouncing off and around them with no ill effect upon themselves. Also the guy running, leaping over the Dino and kicking it in the head knocking it down.

3. bugs. yeah ok, let this kid who has NEVER shot a gun before that afternoon taking a tommy gun and systematically picking off these bugs from the body of the "hero" yeah ok, for one those guns are not accurate enough for someone with experience to risk doing that, let alone a kid who never shot before. anyone who buys that probably enjoyed Charlies Angels.

4. Bats. Yeah, did not see that one coming, lets grab one of these big wild vampire bats and have it fly us to the ground or better yet, the river. Oooooooooooook.

5. Here Anne, I am 140 pound guy why don't you climb on my back and me, man among men, will descend the 750 feet or more to the ground below using nothing but my manly strength and this vine the size of my forearm. Yeah ok, that works for me.

The capture scene. 25 foot gorilla, handful of men with ropes and hooks. Hooks in gorillas arms and these men are ale t hold him in place. Yeah, ok whatever.

7. 1 dimensional characters with crappy lines, didn't care if they lived or die

8. Insects and Mammals grows to gigantic proportions in Skull Island, but Dinosaurs do not.

9. Naomi Watts suddenly feels like she has to protect this animal who only abused her the better half of the movie and not to mention how she didn't have a concussion after being treated like a rag doll up and down the Island is anyone's guess.

10. And Most of All--The captain of the ship, who's supposed to be a lowlife, trading defenceless animals from various parts of the world has a large crew of loving pirates! goes to save our protagonists not once, but twice in the movie when he had absolutely NO motivation to do so. His ship was destroyed, half (if not all) of his supplies were thrown overboard by the storm and with most of his crew gone so why the hell would he want to save some dumb blonde who risks her own life, and the life of others, to stay with some hairy gorilla. And there's not one scene where the sailors bicker or protest that they might die.

11. "Chrome steel chains"

12. What the hell happen to the Islanders. One minute they're there--shouting and hollering like banshees--the next, gone like a puff of wind. Where'd they dissappear to? Or were they all killed by the sailors; and if they weren't, why wasn't it made clear?

13. Jack Black Crap Performance. To be honest, everyone was horrible. Except Kong. That was the funny thing. At times Kong felt too human and not like an animal, whereas people acted like animals, soulless, lifeless, and did not feel human.

Kong. While looking great most of the time he had his moments of oddness about him. Notice at some moments he had a beer belly and at others he did not? The scene with Kong and Anne were good, they did a great job showing the ape moving and got the mannerisms down (except punching, apes do not throw punches) his noises and blustering were all very good. Some scenes with Anne the F/X were not quite right but overall I enjoyed those scenes pretty much.

Like I said, take about 30 minutes in the beginning, 30 minutes in the middle, 30 minutes near the end, editing it together, and the movie is not bad.

Of PJ's mainstream movies (LOTR movies and Frighteners) this is his low point. He has at some points in this flick crossed into bull**** Stephen Sommers and McG land. He showed flashes of the brilliance he has given us during the 2nd LOTR movie and parts of the third let alone the GREAT flick The Frighteners (his best work which btw had better F/X than half of Kong)

PJ's Kong may be the best Kong yet but it is a gigantic letdown compared to what this man seems capable of. WETA did an admirable job on Kong himself for the most part, but they really dropped the ball with the rest of the creatures. PJ really should have given the work to proven companies that he did not have his hooks into. I reallyw ish I could overlook the faults listed above and watch the movie with the mind of a child like yourself, however I am way to anal and too much of a perfectionist. Shame as this has ruined many a movie for myself, that others have enjoyed.

[Kustom]

Have you noticed that none of the T-Rex had a dick? I'm sorry, but for an animal that size, he should have a penis the size of a tomahawk missile. :rolleyes:

Man, lay off. This is an adventure movie, no need to complain that it's unrealistic. Did you hate indiana jones and the temple of doom because it is not clinically possible to take the heart out of a live person? Peter Jackson was both paying a tribute to the original movie and having fun with the genre. Having Kong fight three tyranosaurs instead of one or giant insects was ludicrous in a way but it did surprise you if you were used to the old films. It was not meant to be believable (how on earth did you come to expect that from a movie with a 30 foot ape in it???). It does capture well the vintage feel of that movie and similar pulp novels or comics. Remember the first tarzan comics? You said it was obvious that over movies or even the lion king had been imitated. Of course it was, it's voluntary. This is part of what I expect from a genre movie.

The few complaints you make that do not focuss on believability are about special effects and acting. I personally don't care for special effects, give me animatronics any time. Any movie's special effects will be outdated in 5 years, kong's animation was good enought for me.

Acting was uneven, but it didn't suck as much as you think because those are supposed to be pulp characters with a specific role, not "real" people. This is not a Ken Loach flick damnit. How about acting in Star Wars, uh? That was something, right?

You have every right to hate this movie but I think you do for the wrong reasons. If lack of realism is enought to make you hate it that much, there are not many movie genres that can suit you. Write off adventure, action, SF or animation for starters.

[eyez0nme]

No--the first thing I expect from a film is a story with heart and soul. Characters is what I first look for in a film. Characters, though they may be fiction, who I can relate to, because I know what's he/she's going through; someone I can relate. Character, plot, story, and most of all, message. It needs substance, so I'm not tired of repeat viewing. Films like Frailty, Signs, and the Woodsman.

Star Wars? Don't even open your mouth about Star Wars. That is worst filmmaking I've ever seen--that's not even film making--and I can't believe Lucas was allowed to make the prequels. What a shit fest.

[Jai]

Bags starwars, liked signs.

You really have a very unique taste in movies :rolleyes:

[eyez0nme]

Of for the love of all that is...it's comedy, people. It's not about the director losing his head to his ego and going over the top because he could, it's about he and his writers writing sequences that are clearly comical and "B-movie" in nature on a huge scale, and letting Kong and Anne and Jack handle the dramatic aspects.

The brontosaur stampede? You guessed it. Comedy. It begins with a comedic set up ("I have to have you in the shot of people will say they're fake!") and a comedic moment ("Run Jack!"), and everything that happens afterward is pretty much played for laughs (the men somehow outrunning or keeping pace with those dinos and not getting squashed underfoot despite being right underfoot, the brontos falling off the cliff, their hilarious noises of distress, etc. There was a lot of comedy in KONG.

What did some of you think a dozen brontosaurases tripping over each other and getting tangled up in each other making hilarious noises, and the whole "two massive dinosaurs get caught in vines and can't quite reach Anne" was supposed to be?

Excessive action? Hell no. The writers clearly wrote many aspects of this movie as a comedy. Hence the "comedic" reactions to half the things that happen, the fact that so many aspects (even the bugs) are played for comedy in the midst of drama and horror.

[Ichisan]

King Kong never represented black men, he represents the primitive beast within all men. Corny but true.

[Kass]

Ok since you want to be an ass and think this movie is an intelligent movie, let me expand on my dislikes.


Exactly what part of the "no flaming" rule and knock it off don't you understand? Really? If I knew, I'd be happy to be more clear.

[Poole]

.... OR it's just a fiction inspired by the era's multitude of gigantic monster movies.


I was under the impression that Kong was the first of those movies, that's why its so famous.

"Oh my God! Those are the best... what is that? We'll have to make a name for that.. Special Effects.. yes, those are the best special effects I've ever seen! That's a dinosaur!"

..or something to that effect, I would imagine.