Theres to TOHO KING KONG MOVIES that could be called son of KONG and anthor one
called KINKEY KONG about a diepper warnin sex craze king kong,theres king kong
vs godzilla and king kong escapes about a eveil group of people who makes a
robot king kong both of these TOHO films are on DVD I got both of them as a
double featurer for $14.95 at BEST BUY 4 years ago.


Richard
mcclure1257702@yahoo,com
Rapid City,SD

--- On Wed, 3/11/09, ripjagger <ripjagger@...> wrote:


From: ripjagger <ripjagger@...>
Subject: [Sons of Kong] Fellow Sons Of Kong!
To: sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 2:52 AM






There are many sons of Kong. If you're a fan of any of them, don't hesitate to
drop by and share.

Dean
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are many sons of Kong. If you're a fan of any of them, don't hesitate to
drop by and share.

Dean

If by chance you stop by here, enjoy the links. This group is dormant,
but I keep it around for the links and the images. Thanks and enjoy.

Dean

I've just recently had the opportunity to see Gojira in the original
form. I have to say that with a second viewing just this past weekend,
Gojira has moved to near the top of my all-time favorite monster
movies. The somber tone, the totally adult handling of the material,
the deftness of the direction, all add up to a compelling movie
experience.

King Kong is more romantic and kinetic, but Gojira is more reflective
and impressive in the last analysis. The creature is a horror, and the
original communicates that fantastically. I've long been a fan of
Godzilla King of Monsters, and I still am, but Gojira is a simply
outstanding cinema experience.

Dean

I concur that Peter Jackson's remake has a lot of wonderful imagery,
but ultimately fails as storytelling because of a near complete
collapse of pacing. And the pit scene is a great example of a sequence
that is visually arresting but keeps me from learning what I need to
keep me involved with the overall tale.

And it's nice to come across some love for the 70's remake. I have to
defend this thing all the time. It's become standard to dismiss as
junk, but despite some pretty odd bits (the full-size Kong is a mistake
for sure) it offers a pretty engaging telling of the saga. And as I've
grown older I've come to appreciate Dwan's addled notions more and
more. She's a ditz, but that's why she and Jack cannot connect. It's
certainly a movie of its time just as is the original.

Dean

Welcome to our little corner of monster-based cyberspace!

We are a very spurt-ish group here for the most part.  No activity for
lengths of time, then a flurry for a short bit, then back to flatline
for days (usually weeks)... but that's okay.  This is, after all, a
hobby, not an obsession or way of life.  At least for me.  The other
regulars here can (and do!) speak up for themselves.

I liked the recent PJ film, but felt it was WAY over-hyped.  In many
ways, it has as many flaws as the '76 version.  What it lacks in some
areas, it makes up for with the over-the-top CGI battles and a
truer-to-the-'33 original plotline.  But then even that isn't all it's
cracked up to be.

The decision to adapt the story to fit the times in the DeLaurentis
version was well done - in its way.  It turned off and just plain
outraged a LOT of die-hards of the '33 film, simply because they felt
it was sacreligious to muck with (and steer so far from) the original.
  Perhaps, but PJ took many liberties of his own.  Several of which I
would have steered clear of.  For instance, the pit sequence was
simply Jackson's hard-on "dream" sequence that he and other
Kong-crazed fanboys had openly pined for ad nauseum in the '33
version.  Jackson was so obsessed with the 'lost' spider pit sequence
in the original that he and his posse at WETA painstakingly re-created
the entire thing from scratch in old-skool stop-motion! Now that's
obsessed!  But what the hey, if you have the time, talent, and
money... why not?? Then he re-did and over-the-top filmed a new
variation for his remake and got to keep it in, (and even expand on it
in the
"Director's Cut" version of the DVD). He got to finally have his cake
and eat it, too.

But you know what?  I honestly think the original editors/censors were
right: The sequence IS an un-necessary show-stopper.  It does
absolutely nothing to advance the main narrative.  It's just there
because PJ insisted on it and the studio had given him carte blanche
with his remake.  Moreover, it's just plain gross.

I honestly like the '76 Kong.  Sure, its got plenty of faults.  But it
never claimed to be perfect.  Actually, if Dino had released the film
without all of his typical assinine overblown showmanship b.s.
tactics, it might have been far more well-recieved.  Or maybe not.
We'll never know.  Certainly would've been more fun if he'd just
thrown in some dinosaurs.  The T-Rex suit used in Richard Boone's "The
Last Dinosaur" would've been a good match, if it just had a few tweaks
and additional musculature padding here and there.  Not convincing
really, but then neither was that goofy giant rattlesnake. ;)

Now if someone would get on the ball and get a remake of King
Kong vs. Godzilla going!

-JN

Hello,

Just thought I'd say hi as a new member and contribute to the recent
2 threads!

I must admit hadn't seen any of the Kong movies until the release of
Jackson's 2005 remake provoked the showing of the '33 and'76
versions... I decided to watch the original, well simply because it
is seen as a classic, 'top 100 films yo watch before you die'
material. Despite being born in the high sfx generation I thought
Kong and the monsters were great! Scarily believable!

I didn't watch the '76 version, didnt seem to have decent reviews -
anyone think it's any good?

Due to the '33 enlightenment I watched the 2005 contribution and I
must admit it was a good film, but not as neatly packaged as the '33
version. I agree with the drawn out scenes and scuppering other good
ones.

The connection between Darrow and Kong seems to be over-justified in
teh 2005 remake to show companionship... would that be due to teh
sexual undercurrent ur mentioning Dean? Like I say, I havn't seen
the '76 version!

In regard to male dominance - the crisis of masculinity in recent yrs
has been echoed in many films. I think the idea of Kong represented
as the dominant male not fitting into NYC parallels with the idea of
the feminist view that the idea of the dominant male should indeed
stay in the jungle or will die in the modern world.

In all honesty I'm getting tired of the masculinity crisis
Leave guys alone!

Abz





--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <sue_0770@...> wrote:
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "ripjagger" <ripjagger@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really taken with the current thread about Kong's portraying
a
> > man's desire to control a woman. I think it's in there myself.
Just
> > look at the role of Ann Darrow on the ship, she's a singular
> creature,
> > a woman who Driscoll firsts dismisses then seeks to win over as
his
> > attitudes are transformed. Likewise Ann "wins" over Kong, but to
> much
> > less success for obvious reasons. One place the DeLaurentis
remake
> > gets clunky is in playing a bit too openly with the sexual
> > undercurrent between Dwan and Kong, it's not a theme that needs
> much
> > comment, but doubtless is there. Kong is an aspect of man, not
all
> of
> > him, and that's why he's unable to fit in the NYC setting. Don't
> > forget that "Beauty killed the Beast" after all.
> >
> > Dean:)
>
> I wasn't thinking that my question would be taken quite so
literally,
> I meant it more of a size fetish fun idea.
> And yes, beauty unwittingly plays a part in killing the beast and I
> wouldn't want that to happen to you guys.
>

Hiya,
I only got a real taste of King Kong from the hype of the most recent
offering! Though due to that I watched the original, which was on the
TV pre-opening wkend and thought it was great! Though the TV times
said the 76 version wasn't so endearing...is it really that bad?

Couple of weeks later I watched the new one and was also
impressed...maybe I'm just fickle...or maybe I'm simple? I must admit
there appears to be a trend towards longer films atm - Lord of the
Rings being one...do for example kids have the stamina to watch 3hr
films these days... evidently so!

I agree that some scenes were drawn out, they should have
concentrated on the simple things, but I guess they can't rely on the
original too much! Most remakes can never outdo the original,
sometimes simply because it's first!

Though I didn't have any nostalgia for the original, but still
thought it was great! Saw past the baby sfx, though impressed by much
of it! The new one is definitely aesthetically amazing! I think to
make up for the beastliness of the original, he was certainly
softened up and the emotional link between woman and beast possible
overjustified? Quite amusing seeing her juggle in front of a huge
ape...when apes can be a the circus animal...dont u think?

Does it play into the recent masculinity crisis? Showing the ape as
testosterone filled, but still sensitive, that he has no place in the
modern world? Then I guess remakes, just as sequels need to move with
the times?

What do you guys think?

Abz (a pondering young lady)

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <sue_0770@...> wrote:
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "ripjagger" <ripjagger@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm really taken with the current thread about Kong's portraying
a
> > man's desire to control a woman. I think it's in there myself.
Just
> > look at the role of Ann Darrow on the ship, she's a singular
> creature,
> > a woman who Driscoll firsts dismisses then seeks to win over as
his
> > attitudes are transformed. Likewise Ann "wins" over Kong, but to
> much
> > less success for obvious reasons. One place the DeLaurentis
remake
> > gets clunky is in playing a bit too openly with the sexual
> > undercurrent between Dwan and Kong, it's not a theme that needs
> much
> > comment, but doubtless is there. Kong is an aspect of man, not
all
> of
> > him, and that's why he's unable to fit in the NYC setting. Don't
> > forget that "Beauty killed the Beast" after all.
> >
> > Dean:)
>
> I wasn't thinking that my question would be taken quite so
literally,
> I meant it more of a size fetish fun idea.
> And yes, beauty unwittingly plays a part in killing the beast and I
> wouldn't want that to happen to you guys.
>

Hello,

Just thought I'd say hi as a new member and contribute to the recent
2 threads!

I must admit hadn't seen any of the Kong movies until the release of
Jackson's 2005 remake provoked the showing of the '33 and'76
versions... I decided to watch the original, well simply because it
is seen as a classic, 'top 100 films yo watch before you die'
material. Despite being born in the high sfx generation I thought
Kong and the monsters were great! Scarily believable!

I didn't watch the '76 version, didnt seem to have decent reviews -
anyone think it's any good?

Due to the '33 enlightenment I watched the 2005 contribution and I
must admit it was a good film, but not as neatly packaged as the '33
version. I agree with the drawn out scenes and scuppering other good
ones.

The connection between Darrow and Kong seems to be over-justified in
teh 2005 remake to show companionship... would that be due to teh
sexual undercurrent ur mentioning Dean? Like I say, I havn't seen
the '76 version!

In regard to male dominance - the crisis of masculinity in recent yrs
has been echoed in many films. I think the idea of Kong represented
as the dominant male not fitting into NYC parallels with the idea of
the feminist view that the idea of the dominant male should indeed
stay in the jungle or will die in the modern world.

In all honesty I'm getting tired of the masculinity crisis
Leave guys alone!

Abz

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "ripjagger" <ripjagger@...> wrote:
>
> I'm really taken with the current thread about Kong's portraying a
> man's desire to control a woman. I think it's in there myself. Just
> look at the role of Ann Darrow on the ship, she's a singular
creature,
> a woman who Driscoll firsts dismisses then seeks to win over as his
> attitudes are transformed. Likewise Ann "wins" over Kong, but to
much
> less success for obvious reasons. One place the DeLaurentis remake
> gets clunky is in playing a bit too openly with the sexual
> undercurrent between Dwan and Kong, it's not a theme that needs
much
> comment, but doubtless is there. Kong is an aspect of man, not all
of
> him, and that's why he's unable to fit in the NYC setting. Don't
> forget that "Beauty killed the Beast" after all.
>
> Dean:)

I wasn't thinking that my question would be taken quite so literally,
I meant it more of a size fetish fun idea.
And yes, beauty unwittingly plays a part in killing the beast and I
wouldn't want that to happen to you guys.

I'm really taken with the current thread about Kong's portraying a
man's desire to control a woman. I think it's in there myself. Just
look at the role of Ann Darrow on the ship, she's a singular creature,
a woman who Driscoll firsts dismisses then seeks to win over as his
attitudes are transformed. Likewise Ann "wins" over Kong, but to much
less success for obvious reasons. One place the DeLaurentis remake
gets clunky is in playing a bit too openly with the sexual
undercurrent between Dwan and Kong, it's not a theme that needs much
comment, but doubtless is there. Kong is an aspect of man, not all of
him, and that's why he's unable to fit in the NYC setting. Don't
forget that "Beauty killed the Beast" after all.

Dean:)

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@...>
wrote:
>
> Wow, I guess I'd never seen Kong as such an extention of a male's
> desire to "control" a female, but now that you mention it, I can
see
> a new aspect to the story.  But who is truly "in control" -- the
one
> who appears to be phyiscally dominant (within reason) or
the "prized
> one" "in the palm of the hand"?
>
> Agent 005
>
>
>
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sally" <risk_girl75@> wrote:
> >
> > I think (ok I'm guessing) what Sue meant in her question was that
> do
> > some men think it is cool to be really in physical control of a
> woman
> > the way that King obviously was in the film, ie, to literally
have
> a
> > woman in the palm of their hand (in the non sexual sense of
> course).
> > It's a bit of a no no for the modern male to admit that these
days
> I
> > suppose but there are those who might think it without
> > saying I'll bet.
> >
> > We all have fantasies and one like that is perfectly
> understandable
> > and harmless to me.



A very good point Agent!

I was trying to be a little mischievious in what I said to open up
the debate a little, but it was worth it I hope.
Personally I think it is still a male trait to be the dominant sex,
and the
need to take a mate and protect, provide, and defend her from other
rivals plays a large part in the concept of the Kong scenario.
I'm not suggesting all men want to be a domineering bully in their
relationships with women (as a worst case thing), but I think it is
in the male gene to want to be in charge of proceedings.
Maybe King Kong would eventually have done alright with Ann whilst in
his own environment, but when he was 'Kongnapped' ..well we know what
happened then!

Just out of interest, how does the reverse concept work for men.
I suppose the nearest comparison in cinema is that old movie 'The
Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman'.
I know it's different storyline but it's big gall/little guy as
opposed to the Kong idea.

You hit on the key dichotomy in the film. Kong is a beast, a killer, a
monster in every real sense of the word. But he's also possessed of
something that appears to be an affinity for one woman. It's difficult
to process what that last thing is, save perhaps curiosity, but
nonetheless it motivates him to not only seek her out when she's
taken, but to put himself at considerable risk to do it. I agree that
often folks minimize or forget the NYC and Skull Island rampages, but
doubtless dozens if not scores of people are injured and/or killed as
Kong heads eventually to the Empire State Building. I don't personally
have the same overwhelming sympathy for Kong that I hear many do, but
I do feel sorry or him in the same way I pity any animal that has to
be put down when either it's ill or injured or has injured some
person. It's not pleasant but it's a normal part of life. Kong is just
a gigantic example.

Dean:)

Wow, I guess I'd never seen Kong as such an extention of a male's
desire to "control" a female, but now that you mention it, I can see
a new aspect to the story.  But who is truly "in control" -- the one
who appears to be phyiscally dominant (within reason) or the "prized
one" "in the palm of the hand"?

Agent 005




--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sally" <risk_girl75@...> wrote:
>
> I think (ok I'm guessing) what Sue meant in her question was that
do
> some men think it is cool to be really in physical control of a
woman
> the way that King obviously was in the film, ie, to literally have
a
> woman in the palm of their hand (in the non sexual sense of
course).
> It's a bit of a no no for the modern male to admit that these days
I
> suppose but there are those who might who might think it without
> saying I'll bet.
>
> We all have fantasies and one like that is perfectly
understandable
> and harmless to me.
>
>
>

> >
>

I think (ok I'm guessing) what Sue meant in her question was that do
some men think it is cool to be really in physical control of a woman
the way that King obviously was in the film, ie, to literally have a
woman in the palm of their hand (in the non sexual sense of course).
It's a bit of a no no for the modern male to admit that these days I
suppose but there are those who might who might think it without
saying I'll bet.

We all have fantasies and one like that is perfectly understandable
and harmless to me.



-- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, jfglade <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > ... it always seemed grossly unfair to
> > > me that they enslave Kong for profit and no one really suffers
> for
> > > it except the "big ape" and a few pilots...
> >
> > Am I the only one who remembers the scene in the original film
> where
> > Kong climbs a building, reaches in through a window, grabs a
woman
> > who bears a slight resemblence to Ann, discovers it isn't her,
and
> > lets her fall to the pavement below? He also wrecks an elevated
> train
> > and had to have killed scores of innocent people. How do you
> > figure "no one really suffers... except the 'big ape' and a few
> > pilots?" His rampage in the city wouldn't had happened had he not
> > been imported, and the additional deaths I mention wouldn't have
> > happened.
> >
> > I maintain that King Kong is a monster, both by the definition of
> > monster as it appears in any dictionary, and also because of his
> > rampages against humanity. He kills natives on Skull Island,
> before
> > he is gassed, and I would assume it wasn't the first time he had
> gone
> > on such rampages. The enormous wall and gate weren't there just
> for
> > show, they were there to contain a dangerous beast. Kong is
> naturally
> > inclined to kill, being a primordal beast, and it is rather
> > remarkable that we tend to forget, or at least minimize that
fact,
> > because of the film's ending.
> >
>    Point well made and taken.  Kong is not "cuddly", but I still
> feel sympathy for "him", as opposed to viewing Kong as an "it".  We
> all bring our own life experience and views to films, so we
probably
> won't agree, but that's okay.
>
> Agent 005
>

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, jfglade <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@>
> wrote:
> >
> ... it always seemed grossly unfair to
> > me that they enslave Kong for profit and no one really suffers
for
> > it except the "big ape" and a few pilots...
>
> Am I the only one who remembers the scene in the original film
where
> Kong climbs a building, reaches in through a window, grabs a woman
> who bears a slight resemblence to Ann, discovers it isn't her, and
> lets her fall to the pavement below? He also wrecks an elevated
train
> and had to have killed scores of innocent people. How do you
> figure "no one really suffers... except the 'big ape' and a few
> pilots?" His rampage in the city wouldn't had happened had he not
> been imported, and the additional deaths I mention wouldn't have
> happened.
>
> I maintain that King Kong is a monster, both by the definition of
> monster as it appears in any dictionary, and also because of his
> rampages against humanity. He kills natives on Skull Island,
before
> he is gassed, and I would assume it wasn't the first time he had
gone
> on such rampages. The enormous wall and gate weren't there just
for
> show, they were there to contain a dangerous beast. Kong is
naturally
> inclined to kill, being a primordal beast, and it is rather
> remarkable that we tend to forget, or at least minimize that fact,
> because of the film's ending.
>
    Point well made and taken.  Kong is not "cuddly", but I still
feel sympathy for "him", as opposed to viewing Kong as an "it".  We
all bring our own life experience and views to films, so we probably
won't agree, but that's okay.

Agent 005

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@...>
wrote:
>
... it always seemed grossly unfair to
> me that they enslave Kong for profit and no one really suffers for
> it except the "big ape" and a few pilots...

Am I the only one who remembers the scene in the original film where
Kong climbs a building, reaches in through a window, grabs a woman
who bears a slight resemblence to Ann, discovers it isn't her, and
lets her fall to the pavement below? He also wrecks an elevated train
and had to have killed scores of innocent people. How do you
figure "no one really suffers... except the 'big ape' and a few
pilots?" His rampage in the city wouldn't had happened had he not
been imported, and the additional deaths I mention wouldn't have
happened.

I maintain that King Kong is a monster, both by the definition of
monster as it appears in any dictionary, and also because of his
rampages against humanity. He kills natives on Skull Island, before
he is gassed, and I would assume it wasn't the first time he had gone
on such rampages. The enormous wall and gate weren't there just for
show, they were there to contain a dangerous beast. Kong is naturally
inclined to kill, being a primordal beast, and it is rather
remarkable that we tend to forget, or at least minimize that fact,
because of the film's ending.

Over the course of my life, I'd have to say I have identified
with Kong, Godzilla and nearly every other "monster" to some
degree.  Seeing the orginal Kong, it always seemed grossly unfair to
me that they enslave Kong for profit and no one really suffers for
it except the "big ape" and a few pilots.  I've only been able to
watch Son of Kong once, due to the ending.
    As a little kid, watching giant monsters gives our dreams (of
being something other than small and fairly powerless) an outlet.
Probably the only two "monsters" I haven't had sympathy for were the
off-worlders (Alien and Predator).  I'm not sure that any of us men
want to "be" Kong, but many of us have lived through "twas beauty
killed the beast" moments in our romantic lives that felt like we'd
died.

Agent 005














--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, jfglade <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <sue_0770@> wrote:
> >
> > I've sometimes wondered if men secretly fantasise about being
King
> > Kong! ..well he does get the girl! :-)
> >
> He also gets killed.
>
> I tend to think that Kong represents a number of things, but there
are
> very few points in the film where anyone identifies with Kong (and
I
> mean the original film, as I think the 70s version is botched, and
I
> haven't seen the most recent version and probably won't unless it
turns
> up at the local drive-in theater as part of a double bill this
summer,
> and I doubt it would since it is now yesterday's news).
>
> I don't tend to identify with other monsters either (and Kong is a
> monster, although he isn't always presented as monsterous), except
for
> a few moments in 'Frankenstine' (30s Universal version), and for a
good
> deal of 'Young Frankenstine' (where the monster also gets the
girl,
> only to discover that he doesn't want her).
>

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <sue_0770@...> wrote:
>
> I've sometimes wondered if men secretly fantasise about being King
> Kong! ..well he does get the girl! :-)
>
He also gets killed.

I tend to think that Kong represents a number of things, but there are
very few points in the film where anyone identifies with Kong (and I
mean the original film, as I think the 70s version is botched, and I
haven't seen the most recent version and probably won't unless it turns
up at the local drive-in theater as part of a double bill this summer,
and I doubt it would since it is now yesterday's news).

I don't tend to identify with other monsters either (and Kong is a
monster, although he isn't always presented as monsterous), except for
a few moments in 'Frankenstine' (30s Universal version), and for a good
deal of 'Young Frankenstine' (where the monster also gets the girl,
only to discover that he doesn't want her).

I really liked the '76 version too.
It was a slightly different take on the Kong story that worked well
enough for me, and I think Jessica Lange's heroine definitely 'has
it'! IMO of course.
But yes, what a pity there wasn't more monsters for Kong to fight
(and protect her from).
The pterodactyl scene in the original is one of my favourites!

ps I have to agree with you JN about Ray Harryhausen, he was just
brilliant!



--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, jinzo_ningen <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi gang!
>
> I haven't been here in a while, and saw the most recent few posts.
> Good question Sue.
>
> My first exposure to Kong was the '76 remake.  My late father took
me
> to see it for my 10th birthday, so it has a very special place in my
> heart.  Also, not seeing the original until afterwards, I was not
> immediately biased.  I thought it was quite good.  As a huge fan of
> Godzilla films for about four or five years prior to seeing Dino's
> "Kong" I had grown to completely accept 'suitmation' as a way of
> portraying giant beasts, and had no problem with Kong being done
that
> way.  I actually thought Rick Baker did a fantastic job,
considering.
>
> Around that same time, several TV stations began airing the
original.
>  I think I must have seen it five or six times in less than a
month.
> I loved all of the cool monsters and battles.  Seeing several Ray
> Harryhausen films on weekend Creature Feature shows (and all of the
> Sinbad films on the big screen!!!) had me primed for stop-motion
> beasties.  I just wished the then-new Kong had gotten to fight a few
> dinos like the original did, instead just that one, lame snake.
>
> The recent PJ version is pretty cool, but kinda overblown - and at
> least an hour too long.  The DVD hits shelves next Tuesday.  I will
be
> picking it up, and with the miricale of the chapter skip button, I
can
> make it run along where it suits me.  I want it mainly for the
> Kong/T-Rex battle.
>
> I never fantasized about being King Kong.  He got killed way too
easy.
>  Now Godzilla on the other hand...
>
> Cheers all!
> -JN
>

Hi gang!

I haven't been here in a while, and saw the most recent few posts.
Good question Sue.

My first exposure to Kong was the '76 remake.  My late father took me
to see it for my 10th birthday, so it has a very special place in my
heart.  Also, not seeing the original until afterwards, I was not
immediately biased.  I thought it was quite good.  As a huge fan of
Godzilla films for about four or five years prior to seeing Dino's
"Kong" I had grown to completely accept 'suitmation' as a way of
portraying giant beasts, and had no problem with Kong being done that
way.  I actually thought Rick Baker did a fantastic job, considering.

Around that same time, several TV stations began airing the original.
  I think I must have seen it five or six times in less than a month.
I loved all of the cool monsters and battles.  Seeing several Ray
Harryhausen films on weekend Creature Feature shows (and all of the
Sinbad films on the big screen!!!) had me primed for stop-motion
beasties.  I just wished the then-new Kong had gotten to fight a few
dinos like the original did, instead just that one, lame snake.

The recent PJ version is pretty cool, but kinda overblown - and at
least an hour too long.  The DVD hits shelves next Tuesday.  I will be
picking it up, and with the miricale of the chapter skip button, I can
make it run along where it suits me.  I want it mainly for the
Kong/T-Rex battle.

I never fantasized about being King Kong.  He got killed way too easy.
  Now Godzilla on the other hand...

Cheers all!
-JN

I don't think guys fantasize about being Kong, but I do think Kong
represents for Ann the ultimate "badboy", the guy who doesn't comply
with the decourm of society but literally takes what he wants. Compare
Kong's behavior with Driscoll's hemming and hawing and it's pretty
stark. While Jack does get her in the end, a brave thing to do indeed,
he's only able to do it because Kong couldn't survive.

Dean :)

Hi Dean. My first encounter with Kong was seeing the '33 original on
TV when I was in my early teens.
I remember thinking it was quite scary in parts, but oh so sad that
he had to be killed when he was just trying to protect his friend Ann.
It's a story that has stood the test of time and thanks to Peter
Jackson will have an even bigger following of younger fans now.

I think people can enjoy the story/movie on many levels.
There's plenty of monsters to fascinate the younger fan, plus there's
romance! albeit with very contrasting leading men.
I've always enjoyed fantasing about the heroines role.
The Skull Island sequences with Ann and Kong are I suppose every
womans worst nightmare in the early scenes, just imagining being held
in that huge hand is mind blowing enough. When she finally comes to
realise she can trust him the mood shifts, it becomes if anything
slightly erotic in nature (well to me anyway lol!).

I've sometimes wondered if men secretly fantasise about being King
Kong! ..well he does get the girl! :-)

--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "ripjagger" <ripjagger@...> wrote:
>
> Things get quiet in all the Yahoo groups from time to time. This
group
> in particular has a spotty history of activity.
>
> To answer your excellent question, I first fell in love with King
Kong
> not through the movie but through the Gold Key comic book
adaptation
> in 1968. Alberto Giolitti's artwork on that excellent retelling
drew
> me in, and I've been a Kong fan since. In those ancient years
before
> VHS or DVD, seeing Kong was problematic but I eventually saw it,
and
> then the 1976 remake (which I like despite its general
unpopularity).
> Eventually I picked up the original and the sequel on VHS and I now
> own a bunch of King Kong stuff. I just picked up the DVD and I'm
now
> going through the documentary stuff. I've learned a lot I didn't
know
> already. Good stuff.
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> Dean:)
>

Things get quiet in all the Yahoo groups from time to time. This group
in particular has a spotty history of activity.

To answer your excellent question, I first fell in love with King Kong
not through the movie but through the Gold Key comic book adaptation
in 1968. Alberto Giolitti's artwork on that excellent retelling drew
me in, and I've been a Kong fan since. In those ancient years before
VHS or DVD, seeing Kong was problematic but I eventually saw it, and
then the 1976 remake (which I like despite its general unpopularity).
Eventually I picked up the original and the sequel on VHS and I now
own a bunch of King Kong stuff. I just picked up the DVD and I'm now
going through the documentary stuff. I've learned a lot I didn't know
already. Good stuff.

Thanks for asking.

Dean:)

I felt I should post again on this group as the activity seems to
have slowed for some reason, and what members require from a group is
always of interest isn't it so why aren't there more postings I
wonder?

Ok, to hopefully stimulate interest, a question for all members.

What first turned you on to the King Kong thing?

You tell me, and I'll tell you!

Sue.


--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sue" <sue_0770@...> wrote:
>
> I took the liberty of posting a link to a new group which would be
> grateful for support and input.
> So come on you sons of Kong ..help yourself to the brides lol!
>
> Naturally I will repay the courtesy by plugging this fine group in
> the 'Brides' links section.
>
> Sue.
>

I took the liberty of posting a link to a new group which would be
grateful for support and input.
So come on you sons of Kong ..help yourself to the brides lol!

Naturally I will repay the courtesy by plugging this fine group in
the 'Brides' links section.

Sue.

Check out the link below to get a look at some 70's Mego toys tied
into the King Kong flick of the time.

They're a load of fun.

http://www.youtube.com/w/Mego-King-Kong-70%27s-Toy-Commercials?
v=BaTixA8UfJ0&search=mego

Dean:)

The new Kong film could've easily lost an hour and still been a fine
film.  Half hour in the first third, about 10-15 minutes on Skull
Island, and 20 or so minutes in the last act.  Certain scenes just go
on forever!  Enough already.  You can definitely see the studio
letting P.J. do pretty much whatever he wants in a lot of this
picture.  He spent too much time patting himself on the back.  The
Bronto stampede is twice as long as it needed to be, and the camera in
this and many other SPFX shots is just way too close to the action to
really see just what the hell is going on.  Back it up a bit guys!  I
realize that by keeping the camera moving it allows many of the CGI
shots to fool the eye easier, but c'mon!  I felt like I needed
Dramamine in some sequences.

What worked worked well.  What sucked, really sucked.  Sorry for all
you Jack Black fans out there. I've never liked the man, and his
unfocused/confused take on Denham confirms my feelings that he is a
no-talent that for reasons I can't fathom, has garnered acclaim that
is totally undeserved. (I'd rather have seen Bruce Campbell do the
part.) I was left missing good old Robert Armstrong in the worst way.
  The new Driscoll was decent, and Ms. Watts was strong as Ann Darrow,
but they all seemed rather disconnected through much of the show.  The
strongest performances were from the crew of the Venture.  I loved the
black guy (1st mate?) and the young boy, and thought it both a shame
and a waste that more wasn't done there to develop their characters
and relationship.  When the black guy died, I didn't feel bad, just
bummed that there went one of the more interesting characters in the film.

Kong was good, but didn't really have much character.  He was, to me,
too natural.  It was too much like watching a real gorilla in a
National Geographic special.  By making him less anthropomorphic, I
didn't really feel for him.  There were moments (the play scene with
Ann early on), but not enough to sell me completely.  I may be in the
vast minority here, but I was far, far more moved when the '76 Kong
died.  I cried then, but I didn't shed any tears for this CGI monkey.
  I must say though, that he looked pretty real in most of the scenes
he was in.  (And hey! that T-Rex fight was way-cool, but too short,
especially the final confrontation.)

Overall, a solid 'B' from me.

What may be the best thing about this new Kong, for me, is the hope
that it will spawn a new wave of giant monster movies in the next few
years, as other studios rush to cash in and ride the wave.

My $.02 (FWIW)
-JN

lol! well all I can say is you look much friendlier than said mythical
flying beast!
I did a quick google and found a little site with Rodan featured, plus
many more ..fascinating!

http://kaiju.boomcoach.com/gallery/index.html





--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Roadann" <bloodswife@y...> wrote:
>
> How many can say that they are named after "Rodan"?????
> LOL  I can, hello my name is Roadann.  My momma loved the old
monster,
> so she named her little monster after it. :)
>

How many can say that they are named after "Rodan"?????
LOL  I can, hello my name is Roadann.  My momma loved the old monster,
so she named her little monster after it. :)