The Eight Wonder of Cinema is King Kong 1933
👁 10
https://blenderdumbass.org/do_edit : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
by Troler
Free Software fundamentally misses the point. It fails on a practical, ideological, economic, and political level. Let’s examine precisely how (in a slightly different order for the purposes of presentation).
There is no such monster of cinema as iconic as King Kong. The giant gorilla has crossed over into various other worlds, be it that of Godzilla or Steven Spielberg fanfiction. I do not exactly know what captivates people so much? The sight of a giant creature, one so familiar but alien, is so human. Is it why the Cthulhu myth still lives on. There are still movies being made about that monster of the deep. In a way, I'm reminded by the idea of monumentality. ↩ Reply
The 1933 film itself is not too special. For its time, there's a lot to laud. Comparing what Peter Jackson would do later, there's night and day. I do not mean the special effects, which are exceptional. What else could be expected from Peter Jackson, the founder of Wētā digital? The problem lies within the quite limited character development in the 1933 original. Which didn't really matter since it drew in audiences by promising stunning special effects. An adaptation that continues the lineage of leading forward the special effects is to be expected. ↩ Reply
Peter Jackson used the extra hour of runtime to fill in the gaps of the character and world-building. For him it was not enough to just portray the great ape as an animal obsessed with the kindred-souled Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). There is this intimacy and sense of understanding between each, while in the original there isn't that much of that. That's not to say King Kong is shown as a baddie terrorizing the jungle. c:0 ↩ Reply
The amount of terror is debatable. Comparing the original to the 2005 remake once again, 'tis hard to express how much more emotional vigour there is in the Peter Jackson version. In the original the men fall into a ravine. There is King Kong putting his hand into it and searching for a person like a bear getting honey from a beehive. Peter Jackson had giant bugs storming the people. It was an actual horror inducing scene. ↩ Reply
The lighter tone does not make the movie less enjoyable. Well, it does, but watching it with the mentality that this isn't some enormous Hollywood picture is going to ensure most enjoyment. Nor is it worthwhile to expect a tear squeezing plot. c:1 ↩ Reply
The biggest pitfall is that there isn't any corruption of the audience. Walking out of the cinema in 1930s would not really thinking something else about the world, let alone be convinced to think otherwise. Same cannot be said about 1931 Frankenstein and especially not about the 2005 remake. c:2 ↩ Reply
In a way, the dichotomy between the original and remake teaches that great cinemaking is not just about the spectacle, there's a necessity for tension. ↩ Reply
Fin. ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
Blender Dumbass
c:0 June 03, 2026 kindred-souled Ann Darrow
⤴ ViewIn 1933 the ape is just a perv. But that might be true about the Peter Jackson version.
Blender Dumbass
c:1 June 03, 2026 The lighter tone
⤴ ViewEverything is relative. Think about it. "Psycho" by Hitchcock ( in the 50s ) shocked the audiences by simply showing them a closeup of a toilet. How dared he? TOILET!!! Today it looks boring in comparison to the kind of stuff you can see in cinema.
Blender Dumbass
c:2 June 03, 2026 there isn't any corruption of the audience.
⤴ ViewLet's think.
Peter Jackson made the ape, a misunderstood good guy. So corruption is self-evident.
The original? The original had the ape catchers the good guys. They captured this poor animal and tortured him, and later killed him, and they are still heroes. Corruption!?!?!?!
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Mandy_%282018_film%29.png)