Jump to content

Talk:King Kong (1933 film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

One more possible scene missing from original King Kong movie

I somehow remember a scene where Kong was on his way to America. It was a very short scene where Kong was laying on his back on a raft (deduced reasoning here), being towed by the ship, the Venture. This scene was viewed from a long distance away, perhaps several miles. The ship was on the left with the raft on the right. Zookeeper53 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In all that I've read and watched about this film, no such scene has ever been described. In fact, Denham's speech on the beach by the unconscious Kong was often reported to have been created as a means of completely skipping over the trip back to New York. Maybe you're thinking about the Saturday morning cartoon series of the 1960s, which frequently depicted Kong so travelling. Or maybe there was such a scene in one (or even both) of his two Japanese/Toho films that same decade, especially given the degree of influence the cartoons had on the second one, King Kong Escapes.. But here? I'd have to say never. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

  • ‹The template AllMovie title is being considered for deletion.› King Kong at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's Willis?

So little is Willis O'Brien mentioned in this article, even though he was the main force responsible for the success of the film. This should be rectified. O'Brien pioneered dozens of techniques in this film that would not be bested for thirty years or more. Here he is treated almost as an incidental contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.189.193 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent script rewrites

SoniaSyle has recently vastly rewritten the section about the writing of this film, replacing the version found in the 1975 book, The Making of King Kong by Orville Goldner (who actually worked on the picture) and George Turner (a highly regarded film historian), Ballantine Books, with a fundamentally different one sourced to a much more recent tome (2005) by one Ray Morton, King Kong: the history of a movie icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson (lack of caps sic). Goldner, as I said, was a member of the 1933 original's crew while Turner had access to several other then-surviving participants; indeed, the original film is the entire subject of their book (admittedly, other more-or-less directly related films are discussed). Morton, on the other hand, seems to have written about the property as a whole. See also this description of Edgar Wallace's contributions, or more accurately, the lack thereof. As indicated there, no less than Merian C. Cooper has stated flatly that Wallace actually wrote nothing of Kong. Note that the article still retains the dates of when he arrived in Hollywood and "began" to work on Kong and his death, little more than one month apart. Given little dispute of the cause (pneumonia, some say complicated by diabetes, which Goldner/Turner described as rendering him an invalid, and certainly took some significant amount of time to kill him), Cooper's denial that Wallace wrote so much as "one bloody word" seems plausible, to say the least, and I submit for discussion that the previous version should be restored. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Restorations

The section ":Re-releases" includes this: "In 1956, censorship rules were relaxed (movies were then competing with television) and all the film's cut scenes were restored except that of Kong removing Ann's dress. The scene could not be found. After the 1956 re-release, the film was sold to television and played successfully to huge audiences. In 1969, a print of the "Ann's dress" scene was found in Philadelphia, restored to the film, and released to art houses by Janus Films in 1971." It has long been consistently reported that the exised scenes were all considered lost, then found and restored at the same time, and certainly none of them were seen on US television until the 1980s. Only the last sentence bears a cite, and it is to a work on "Pre-code Hollywood" not specifically about this film; I strongly suspect it does not support anything but that last sentence itself. Can someone find one (or more) of those other sources that give the other version? I'll be looking myself, but I don't have access to much to check, hence this request. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The 16mm print that Films Incorporated in Hollywood was renting in spring 1969 already had the finger-sniffing and native-mangling scenes restored. I know because I was the projectionist for several screenings of it and remember those scenes vividly—I wondered at the time why I didn't seem to recall them from several viewings of the film on TV. This testimony is, of course, not WP-citable, but it seems potentially constructive to assure any interested editors that the chronology of the restoration which has now become entrenched is, to use a 1930s euphemism, baloney. 66.249.175.70 (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. This 1958 Films Incorporated rental catalog lists a running time of 111 minutes, surely either a typo or an OCR error, but perhaps really 100 or 101 minutes and meaning that their print was complete even then. The libraries of 16mm prints syndicated to TV stations in the 1950s were thoroughly censored to satisfy the very strict moral guardians of contemporary broadcasting; were sometimes taken from source materials of mediocre quality; and typically had replaced opening logos. The lovely prints rented for serious money by Films Incorporated did not have to meet the same censorship requirements and were usually made with care from the best available elements in the studio vaults. In some cases the result was two very different creatures, something which may be news to film lovers who came of age after the advent of home video rentals and the consequent decline of the 16mm art house and institutional rental market. 66.249.173.133 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Overture

Does anyone know definitively if the four-minute overture that is on the DCP currently circulated by Warners is original to the show? It sounds crudely cobbled together from a few cues from the movie to me. Recorded overtures, entr'actes and walkout music on prints really began with the widescreen roadshow movies of the 1950s, by which time stereo sound had arrived and most movie theaters no longer did any sort of live performance as part of the show. Therefore I'm very skeptical as to whether this overture was present in 1933 release prints, and suspect that it was added to this DCP to provide an element of showmanship for modern audiences. With the one exception of The Jazz Singer, I've never come across any other pre-1950s film with an overture, and that was also a Warners restoration. LDGE (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot too short?

I know that here on wiki we try and prevent plots being too long and complex but it strikes me that this one is currently too short by Good+ quality standards that we want to achieve. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The plot section was eviscerated by a since-(re)banned editor, who also decided (unilaterally) that anything "old" as a source for the rest of the article, and their contents, is b-a-a-a-a-d. As to the plot section, it is not only too short, it reads like a second-grade primer. I lol every time I see the current travesty, since all those terrible details were deleted but "a police lieutenant" left standing!--Reedmalloy (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

When does the copyright expire in the US?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, there were remakes in 1977 and 2005, which were under the production and/or permission of RKO's successor companies. Both remakes probably constituted renewals of the copyright by default. So, it'll be a really long time. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Apeman Creature?"

I never thought of Kong as an "apeman creature." I've always thought of him as an impossibly-sized gorilla. Where's the source for this assertion? Jfulbright (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Compare the 1933 Kong to the meticuluous gorilloid recreation in the circa 2005 remake. You'll see that the earlier version is more like a "missing link" than a true gorilla. WHPratt (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So you are saying because O'Brein's model of Kong was not a perfect recreation of a gorilla gives you the right to call it an "apeman creature" without any facts from production of the movie in 1933 to say that this was the makers intention, it is mearly your view? is that correct???86.11.32.155 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

All mention of Ingagi deleted

The following section about Ingagi and other influences was deleted from the article. I'll be re-adding it in some form. Here is the original text. Green Cardamom (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

==Influences== ''King Kong'' was influenced by the "[[Lost World (genre)|Lost World]]" literary genre, in particular [[Arthur Conan Doyle]]'s ''[[The Lost World (Arthur Conan Doyle)|The Lost World]]'' (1912) and [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]]' ''[[The Land That Time Forgot (novel)|The Land That Time Forgot]]'' (1918), which depicted remote and isolated jungles teeming with dinosaur life. Furthermore, the Doyle novel was [[The Lost World (1925 film)|filmed]] in [[1925 in film|1925]], with special effects by ''Kong'' 's Willis O'Brien and most of the same crew. In the early 20th century, few zoos had monkey exhibits so there was popular demand to see them on film. [[William S. Campbell]] specialized in monkey-themed films with ''Monkey Stuff'' and ''Jazz Monkey'' in 1919, and ''Prohibition Monkey'' in 1920. Kong producer Schoedsack had earlier monkey experience directing ''Chang'' in [[1927 in film|1927]] (with Cooper) and ''Rango'' in [[1931 in film|1931]], both of which prominently featured monkeys in real jungle settings. Capitalizing on this trend, "Congo Pictures" released the hoax documentary ''[[Ingagi]]'' in [[1930 in film|1930]], advertising the film as "an authentic incontestable celluloid document showing the sacrifice of a living woman to mammoth gorillas!". ''Ingagi'' was an unabashed black [[exploitation film]], immediately running afoul of the Hollywood code of ethics, as it implicitly depicted black women having sex with gorillas, and baby offspring that looked more ape than human.<ref>Gerald Peary, [http://www.geraldpeary.com/essays/jkl/kingkong-1.html 'Missing Links: The Jungle Origins of King Kong' (1976)], repr. ''Gerald Peary: Film Reviews, Interviews, Essays and Sundry Miscellany'', 2004</ref> The film was an immediate hit, and by some estimates it was one of the highest grossing movies of the 1930s at over $4 million. Although producer Merian C. Cooper never listed ''Ingagi'' among his influences for ''King Kong,'' it's long been held that RKO green-lighted ''Kong'' because of the bottom-line example of ''Ingagi'' and the formula that "gorillas plus sexy women in peril equals enormous profits". <ref>{{cite news | first=Andrew | last=Erish | title=Illegitimate Dad of King Kong | date=January 8, 2006| publisher=Los Angeles Times | url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/959395991.html?dids=959395991:959395991&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+8%2C+2006&author=Andrew+Erish&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=E.6&desc=Movies }}</ref> Both directors, including [[Merian C. Cooper]], author of the original idea, fought in [[World War I]], and were probably influenced by WWI propaganda posters. One poster in particular showed Germany like a bloodthirsty giant ape seizing a helpless girl in its hand.<ref>Ruiz, Jesús. [http://aitri.blogspot.com/2007/03/el-padre-de-king-kong.html “El padre de King Kong”], Ciencia para Impacientes (Spanish blog), March 15, 2007</ref>. [[Paul du Chaillu]]'s travel narrative ''Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa'' (1861) was a favorite of [[Merian C. Cooper]] when he was a child. The gorilla chase scene in the book was likely an inspiration for King Kong. The biggest influence on ''Kong'' was, in a sense, the [[shelved|unfinished]] 1931 film ''[[Creation (1931 film)|Creation]]''. Until Cooper, in his capacity as an RKO executive, screened this footage, he had great doubts that he could make his "gorilla" picture. [[Willis O'Brien]]'s techniques were the answer.

OGG video is inappropriate

I'm here writing this, creating a new section in wikipedia instead of doing what i was doing because hte gorilla video won't play. Who the f_u_c_k uses ogg video? NO ONE. Please change to a proper format like MP4 or even MOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.67.152 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You should probrably go fuck yourself then. OGG (actually Theora but your an idiot so Ill just call it OGG) video works in any sensible browser including Firefox, Google Chrome, Chromium, Opera, and Safari. It also works on many mobile phones. If you are a technical idiot that is still on IE6. It's your fault not designers of the open web. Ogg is also used because it is royalty-free and wikipedia is a non-profit, thusly moving to MP4 or MOV (which are other containers, btw you idiot) coudl possibly cost such an organization (like Archives) money at this point in time (coincidentally Cisco is in the process of opening it's H264. I pray that you become less of an idiot though as VP9 and H265 are up-coming next gens. Anyway kill yourself, idiot. 69.140.192.106 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Somebody's Rambling

The article refers to Kong as a giant gorilla when in fact no mention of his being a gorilla can be found in the original film or its sequel (Son Of Kong). I think it would be more accurate to describe Kong as a giant ape rather than a gorilla. King Kong isn't in this respect much like the Big Bug cycle of science fiction films of the 50s which featured enlarged ants, tarantulas and preying mantises. Kong is an aberration of the ape family. As to how and why he got this tall, the subject never comes up in the first two films featuring Kong. He just is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegonus (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Man who claimed to have played Kong?

In the 1970's a man named Carmen Nigro (1905-1990) came forward with a widely-publicised story that he had been a professional "ape-suit" actor in Hollywood in the 1930s-50s, and that he had actually played Kong in certain scenes where stop-motion models weren't used. He was denounced as an attention-seeking fraud by the surviving cast/crew of King Kong. Perhaps this is worth a mention in the article. Muzilon (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible prequel section messy

The "possible prequel" section features a few lines that are repeated multiple times with only minor changes each time. Shouldn't somebody clean this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.68.196 (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed earlier announcement. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Kong (1933 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Introducing the Queen Mary University of London editing team

Hello all! We are 6 students who will be working on this page for the next few weeks as part of an education project. We're hoping to make some changes and improvements to the scholarly quality of this article.

Proposed rephrasing of the 'Background' section.

It seems to me that this sections contains a fair amount of irrelevant and un-cited information. I'm suggesting that we re-work this section to something along the lines of:

The early 20th century saw a demand by westerners for an increase in exposure to tropical or rain-forest locations and animals, causing a growth in the quantity of films produced around these subject-matters at the time. The most notable success of these films in the United States was the 1913 Beasts in the Jungle, the popularity of which spawned films such as the 1918 Tarzan of the Apes and the 1925 The Lost World. Along with these were the 1927 Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness and the 1931 Rango, both of which prominently featured monkeys in authentic jungle settings and were directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack, King Kong’s eventual director and producer.
The increasing marketability of these subject-matters saw Congo Pictures capitalise on this trend with the release of the hoax documentary film Ingagi in 1930. Advertised as "an authentic incontestable celluloid document showing the sacrifice of a living woman to mammoth gorillas", the film grossed over $4 million and, while the film is now widely recognised as a racial exploitation film, it has long been held that RKO green-lit King Kong because of the bottom-line example of Ingagi and the formula that "gorillas plus sexy women in peril equals enormous profits"

Here I've removed a lot of information about unrelated context of the era and examples of other films. Thoughts?

I have revised this and have come up with a proposal for a re-work that I believe preserves a little more of the original Wikipedian's contribution. I'm posting the new proposal below:
The early 20th century saw a demand by westerners for an increased exposure to tropical or rainforest locations and animals, causing a growth in the quantity of films produced around these subject matters at the time. Jungle films were launched in the United States with in 1913 with Beasts in the Jungle, the popularity of which spawned films such as the Tarzan of the Apes (1918) and The Lost World (1925). Along with these were Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927) and Rango (1931), both of which prominently featured monkeys in authentic jungle settings and were directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack, King Kong’s eventual director.
The increasing marketability of these subject-matters saw Congo Pictures capitalise on this trend with the release of the hoax documentary film Ingagi in 1930, advertising the film as "an authentic incontestable celluloid document showing the sacrifice of a living woman to mammoth gorillas". The film was an immediate hit, and by some estimates it was one of the highest-grossing movies of the 1930s at over $4 million. The film is now widely recognised as a racial exploitation film, but, although Cooper never listed Ingagi among his influences for King Kong, it has long been held that RKO green-lit Kong because of the bottom-line example of Ingagi and the formula that "gorillas plus sexy women in peril equals enormous profits"
As always, suggestions welcome.
I have made some minor changes to this section now, which I think aids the relevance and coherence.

Issues with the first paragraph of 'Post-production'.

The first paragraph of the 'Post-poduction' section is all cited from a website called 'retrocrush.com' which doesn't seem extremely reliable. Do we think that we can afford to remove this paragraph completely (it focuses on a deleted scene) or should we attempt to find a scholarly source for this information?

As we have been unable to find a scholarly source for this information we have decided to remove this paragraph and it's source. I am posting the original paragraph below to give other users the chance to still fact-check the information.
  • King Kong was settled upon as the title, and the film cut from 125 to 100 minutes, with scenes that slowed the pace or diverted attention from Kong deleted. Infamously, the deleted scene was what later became known as the "Spider Pit Sequence", where a number of sailors from the Venture survived a fall into a ravine, only to be eaten alive by various large spiders, insects and other creatures. In a studio memo, Merian C. Cooper said that he cut the scene out himself because it "stopped the story". Aside from some still photographs and pre-production artwork, no trace of it has ever been found. Decades later, Peter Jackson would incorporate a re-imagining of this sequence for his 2005 King Kong remake, and he also shot another version of the scene for fun using stop-motion animation, which was included among the bonus features of the two-disc DVD of the 1933 original.
  • Amelia Smith-Gibbs (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Potential bias?

Is there some potentially biased language in the article? A sentence in the 'development' section reads:

  • In 1931, David O. Selznick brought Cooper to RKO as his executive assistant, and, to sweeten the deal, promised him he could make his own films.

'To sweeten the deal' to me sounds suggestive and it's also not referenced. What does everyone think?

Along with this, in the 're-releases, censorship and restorations' section there is the sentence:

  • King Kong was also, somewhat controversially, colorized in the late 1980s for television.

Could ‘somewhat controversially’ be read as biased? And even if it did cause controversy, I believe there’s no real need to mention it here if we're not going to expand on it. Rephrasing or removing these phrases would solidify the neutrality in my opinion.

As regards the colorization controversy, there is some interesting material here from a 1986 edition of At the Movies (U.S. TV series), a bit before the colorized version of KK which came out in 1989, see VHS Collector Leutha (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this information! In that case, I will refrain from removing the information about the colourisation. I'll also attempt to find some information regarding the controversy of colourising King Kong specifically to strengthen this paragraph. Do any other users know of some sources that might be useful here?
I have removed 'to sweeten the deal' as I do think it sounds suggestive and therefore potentially biased.

Questionable relevance of some sections.

I've found the relevance of some of the information in the article questionable. Here's what I've picked out:

  • I don't think the picture in the 'background' section relates to that section specifically.
  • The whole first paragraph of the 'background' section.
  • The information about Fay Wray's pre-King Kong career in the casting section, and the information about the scream-alike contest.
  • The picture in the 'models' section is just an example and not actually something used in the making of the film.
  • The paragraph in the 'awards and honors' section about awards that the film wasn't even nominated for.

What do you think, is any of this important? Has anyone else found anything like this that they think we could potentially remove?


Hyperlinking in the "Home Media" section

There are films and companies referenced to in the "home media" section of the article that could be hyperlinked to their own Wikipedia article in order to clarify information for readers. This includes the film "It was Beauty Killed the Beast (1992)", and "Warner Bros. collection". Katie-keith (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rephrasing the Plot section

I think the plot summary can be condensed, especially with wording and grammar, below is my proposed edit.

In New York Harbor, filmmaker Carl Denham charters Captain Englehorn's ship, the Venture, for his new project. However, he is unable to secure an actress for a role he is reluctant to disclose. Searching in the streets of New York, he finds Ann Darrow and promises her an adventure of a lifetime. The crew boards the Venture and sets off, during which, Jack Driscoll falls in love with Ann.

Denham reveals to the crew that their destination is Skull Island, an uncharted territory. He alludes to a monstrous creature named "Kong", rumoured to dwell on the island. The crew arrives and anchors offshore. They encounter a native village, separated from the rest of the island by an ancient stone wall. They witness natives preparing to sacrifice a young woman termed “the Bride of Kong”. When the native’s Chief spots the intruders, he offers them six of his tribal woman for Ann, a coveted “golden woman.” They refuse the deal and return to the ship.

That night, natives kidnap Ann and take her to their alter, where she is offered to Kong, an enormous gorilla-like ape. Kong carries Ann into the wilderness as Denham, Driscoll and some volunteers enter the jungle in hopes of recusing her. They are ambushed by another giant creature, a Stegosaurus, which they manage to defeat. After facing a Brontosaurus and Kong himself, Driscoll and Denham are the only survivors.

A Tyrannosaurus attacks Ann and Kong, but he kills it in battle. Meanwhile, Driscoll continues to follow them, while Denham returns to the village for more men. Upon arriving in Kong’s lair, Ann is menaced by a snake-like Elasmosaurus, which Kong kills. While Kong is distracted killing a Pteranodon that tried to fly away with Ann, Driscoll reaches her and they climb down a vine dangling from a cliff ledge. Kong notices and starts pulling them back up, the two fall unharmed. They run through the jungle and back to the village, where Denham, Englehorn, and the surviving crewmen are waiting. Kong, following, relentlessly rampages through the village. Onshore, Denham, now determined to bring Kong back alive, knocks him unconscious with a gas bomb.

Shackled in chains, Kong is taken to New York City and presented to a Broadway theatre audience as "Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the World". Ann and Jack are brought on stage to join him, surrounded by a group of photographers. Kong breaks loose as the audience scrambles in horror. Ann is whisked away to a hotel room on a high floor, and Kong, scaling the building, soon finds her. His hand smashes through the hotel room window, which immobilizes Jack. Kong abducts Ann again. Kong rampages through the city. He wrecks a crowded elevated train and then climbs the Empire State Building. At its top, he is attacked by four aeroplanes. Kong destroys one but is finally succumbs to the remaining gunfire. and falls to his death. He ensures Ann’s safety before falling to his death. Ann and Jack are reunited. Denham arrives and pushes through a crowd surrounding Kong's corpse in the street. When a policeman remarks that the planes got him, Denham tells him, "It was Beauty who killed the Beast."

Please feel free to suggest any improvements for this section!

Hon Lee Poon (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

QMUL Team's chosen sources.

Hi everyone, we're compiling a list of the sources that we're planning on using to improve this article.

  • David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson, and Jeff Smith, Film Art: An Introduction, McGraw-Hill Education, 2017
  • Pam Cook, The Cinema Book, British Film Institute, 2007
  • Timothy Corrigan and Patricia White, The Film Experience, Bedford/St Martin’s, 2015
  • Jeremy Dyson, Bright Darkness; The Lost Art of the Supernatural Horror Film, Cassell, 1997
  • Elizabeth Grant, 'Here Comes the Bride', in Barry Keith Grant, The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film, University of Texas Press, 1996
  • Ray Harryhausen, 'Animating the Ape', in Ann Lloyd, Movies of the Thirties, Orbis Publishing Ltd., 1983
  • Peter Hutchings, The Horror Film, Pearson Education Ltd., 2004
  • Steve Neale, The Classical Hollywood Reader, Routledge, 2012
  • Janet Wasko, How Hollywood Works, SAGE Publications Ltd., 2003
  • Daniel Eagan, America’s Film Legacy: The Authoritative Guide to the Landmark Movies in the National Film Registry, The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, New York, NY, 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Frederick (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to double check the scholarly quality of these sources and make any suggestions.

Jacob Frederick (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Hon Lee Poon (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary sentences

After various readings of the article, I found many sentences that can be removed to make the page more concise. I propose deleting the sentences that I have put in brackets.

-Before King Kong entered production, a long tradition of jungle films existed, and, whether drama or documentary, such films generally adhered to a narrative pattern that followed an explorer or scientist into the jungle to test a theory only to discover some monstrous aberration in the undergrowth (see Stark Mad).( In such films, scientific knowledge could be turned topsy-turvy at any time, and it was this that provided the genre with its vitality, appeal, and endurance.) The reasoning behind deletion: The first sentence more than accurately summarizes the jungle film genre. The second sentence explains the appeal of the genre, but there is no kind evidence support such statement. And the inclusion of terms such as topsy-turvy, makes the paragraph rather informal.

-Fay Wray played bit parts in Hollywood until (cast as the lead in Erich von Stroheim's 1928 silent film, The Wedding March) She met Kong co-directors Cooper and Schoedsack when cast as Ethne Eustace in The Four Feathers in 1929. Cooper cast her in 1932 as Eve Trowbridge in The Most Dangerous Game.[20] The reasoning behind deletion: While Wikipedia excels at providing in-depth information, the page itself should stay focused on the film. Fay Wray's debut in the Wedding March is not relevant to her encounter with the film's directors. It is, however, relevant to Fay Wray's own Wikipedia page.

-King Kong was filmed in several stages over an eight-month period. Some actors (had so much time between their Kong periods that they) were able to fully complete work on other films. Cabot completed Road House and Wray appeared in the horror films Dr. X and Mystery of the Wax Museum. She estimated she worked for ten weeks on Kong over its eight-month production.[citation needed] The reasoning behind deletion: the phrase had so much time between their Kong periods that they is rather informal writing. Wikipedia should ideally provide factual information, and not be influenced by any degree of personal opinion.

-Receipts fell by up to 50% in the second week of the film's release because of the national "bank holiday" called in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first days in office;[58]( the film still did nicely.) The reasoning behind deletion: Again, the phrase the film still did nicely is relatively informal. Wikipedia should ideally provide factual and straightforward information.

-(Kong did not receive any Academy Awards nominations. Selznick wanted to nominate O'Brien and his crew for a special award in visual effects but the Academy declined. Such a category did not exist at the time and would not exist until 1938. ) Sidney Saunders and Fred Jackman received a special achievement award for the development of the translucent acetate/cellulose rear screen – the only Kong-related award.[60] The reasoning behind deletion: Users from all around the world visit Wikipedia to absorb information in a fast-paced and informed manner. The inclusion that the film did not receive any Academy Awards nominations, under the headline of Awards and honours, seems rather unnecessary. If a user wants to know whether the film won any awards, the awards section should only include what titles the film actually won.

As always, I am open to any kind of feedback. Feel free to leave a comment if you disagree with any of my suggestions.

Hon Lee Poon (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree, a lot of this seems like it would be more suited to other Wikipedia pages, especially the stuff about Fay Wray's other jobs and the information about the Academy Awards that the film wasn't even nominated for! I think for the sake of concision you can remove the selected information, especially as most of the information isn't cited anyway.
I removed the words "the film still did nicely"; apart from that, you should just concentrate on adding material. None of these deletions improve the article at all, and some even introduce errors or are misleading. zzz (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are editing as part of a university project and so we cannot add much material as that is not in our assignment specifications. We would argue that the removal of information not directly relevant to the topic, especially un-cited information, does improve the article as it ensures that all facts are scholarly and necessary. Please can you let us know why you would argue for the information remaining and which of our edits introduced errors or were misleading? This will help us greatly with future edits. Thank you!
For example, "Fay Wray played bit parts in Hollywood until cast as the lead in Erich von Stroheim's 1928 silent film, The Wedding March. She met Kong co-directors Cooper and Schoedsack when cast as Ethne Eustace in The Four Feathers in 1929." This was replaced with "Fay Wray played bit parts in Hollywood until she met Kong co-directors Cooper and Schoedsack when cast as Ethne Eustace in The Four Feathers in 1929." There is no uncited information that I am aware of, by the way (outside of the tagged section). What is your university project? zzz (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Special Effects section

Hi everyone, I've added 8 new citations to the special effects section. These are:

  • Wasko, Janet. (2003). How Hollywood Works. California: SAGE Publications Ltd. p.53.
  • Bordwell, David, Thompson, Kristin, Smith, Jeff. (2017). Film Art: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill. p.388.
  • Harryhausen, Ray. (1983). ‘Animating the Ape’. In: Lloyd, Ann. (ed.) Movies of the Thirties. UK: Orbis Publishing Ltd. p.172-173. (I've added this source 4 times, citing it as 'Harryhausen 172-173' for the last 3.)
  • Corrigan, Timothy, White, Patricia. (2015). The Film Experience. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp.120-121.
  • Dyson, Jeremy. (1997). Bright Darkness: The Lost Art of the Supernatural Horror Film. London: Cassell. p.38.

I haven't removed the 'this section needs citations' template so please let me know if you think we could remove this or if we should still keep it up.

I've added the Ann Lloyd source, the most useful source that we found in my opinion, to the Bibliography section.

Citation for National Film Registry

It is stated that the film was added to the national film registry list by the librarian of congress twice in the article, in the opening section and in the awards and honors section. I attached the following source to this information:

·Eagan, D. (2010). America’s Film Legacy: The Authoritative Guide to the Landmark Movies in the National Film Registry. The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc, New York, NY

Jacob Frederick (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing unecessary sentences

Under the production section, under development- concept, I felt like a lot of the text was very longwinded and the plot synopsis for The Most Dangerous Game doesn't really need to be there. The paragraph also mentions the film Creation and although that also has a synopsis, it proves itself relevant to the actual article of King Kong because it explains Willis O'Brien's employment in the film. Therefore, I felt like this should be removed as it breaks the flow of text. The text I removed is "a story about a big game hunter". Catheathcote (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Rewording of sentence

The sentence reading "Cooper began immediately developing The Most Dangerous Game, and hired his friend and former film partner, Ernest B. Schoedsack, to direct" under the concept section feels like it's over-worded and could just as easily be more concise and to the point, which is why I propose changing it to "Cooper began immediately developing The Most Dangerous Game and hired Ernest B. Schoedsack to direct." because it's more to the point and it makes the article flow better. Catheathcote (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation and Willis O'Brien sentence reword

I want to reword the synopsis of Creation, which is under the 'concept' section. This is because it's clumsily worded reading "Once the film was underway, Cooper turned his attention to the studio's big-budget-out-of-control fantasy, Creation, a story about a group of travelers shipwrecked on an island of dinosaurs. The film employed special effects wizard Willis O'Brien." As the inclusion of Willis O'Brien in the article as already been noted as something that needs to be discussed in more depth, I also feel like the information about him shouldn't just be put in a throwaway sentence at the end of the paragraph and instead be worded into a more coherent sentence. I therefore propose changing this to "Once the film was underway, Cooper turned his attention to the studio's big-budget-out-of-control fantasy, Creation, a project with stop motion animator Willis O’Brien about a group of travelers shipwrecked on an island of dinosaurs.” because it keeps what’s already there, and the information on Willis seems better included. Also, I didn't want to remove the synopsis completely like I did with The Most Dangerous Game because the plot information is relevant to the article as Willis' animation of the dinosaurs lead to him being employed to work on King Kong. Catheathcote (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catheathcote (talk • contribs)


Adding a reference to the 'Re-relseases, Censorship and Restorations' section, and re-wording the section

In this section, its first sentence states that "King Kong was re-released in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1952 and 1956, to great box office success.", without a citation to understand where this claim came from. Because of this, we felt that a citation would improve the credibility of the claim. This citation would be as follows; ·Neale, Steve. (2012). The Classical Hollywood Reader. London: Routledge. P.351.

I also felt that the wording of this section seemed clumsy and difficult to understand at a glance. I propose that it would read better if it was reworded to be - King Kong was re-released in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1952 and 1956; each time to great box office success. (citation stated above) Stricter decency rules had been put into effect in Hollywood in the years following its 1933 premiere and each time it was censored further, with several scenes being either trimmed or excised altogether.

Please let me know if these proposed changes seem unnecessary, or if the rewording doesn't make sense. Katie-keith (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Cleaning up the appearance of the 'pre-production' section of the article

This section is confusing in its layout for readers of the article as casting appears to be a section that stands alone that is then followed by a brief description of the actors. This could be simplified by rearranging the article so that the word 'casting' becomes the main header of the section, followed by the actors names and descriptions. I also propose that Robert Armstrong and Bruce Cabot have their own independent paragraphs, rather than combining them as it becomes easier to read. This edit would hopefully clarify the information that is provided in this section and help readers. Katie-keith (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

In addition to this, upon further research I feel that adding a section for Carmen Nigro AKA Ken Roady is important as he had a main part in the film. Katie-keith (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
When looking at "A grade" articles, it seems that their "casting" section is easier to understand because it is layout better through bullet points. Therefore, I propose rearranging the layout by adding in bullet points and possibly moving pictures in order to better understand the information present in this section. Katie-keith (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
After beginning to format the section differently, it occurred to me that each of the individual actors needed listing in bullet points. Therefore there is a longer list of names under this section as I broke down the paragraph that was previously there. I feel that this makes it easier to see who acted as what in the film. I also changed the picture of Fay Wray to an image of her face as the previous image made it difficult to understand what she looked like. Katie-keith (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Rearranging the headers of the article

I propose that a re-organisation of the page may be best to help readers understand what occurs at what point during production. Though this seems trivial, I feel that it would read better if headings were made clearer and not just all appear under the single heading of "Production". I feel it would be easier to understand if it was split as follows;

· Development as heading - concept, script and casting as subheadings

· Production as heading - models, special effects, and live-action scenes as subheadings

· Post production remaining the same.

If this seems as though this would be more confusing, I'd be happy to take on board anyones concerns. Katie-keith (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Including information and picture of Carmen Nigro aka Ken Roady

When conducting research, I discovered that in some shots that included Kong's full body, Ken Roady was brought in dressed as Kong to achieve the shots needed. His part in King Kong started his career. As the article is currently lacking in information about Roady, I feel that it is important to provide some information about him for future editors to expand on. Below is a citation to the picture I found on Wikimedia Commons of Roady dressed as Kong. [1] Katie-keith (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Through further research, I discovered that this claim is argued. Therefore, I will add his name but state that it is a claim that is still under discussion. I have included a reference to an article featuring an interview with information about the dispute. Katie-keith (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I also decided that adding the photo would imply that this was a fact as the photo is signed "the original King Kong". Therefore, I felt it would be best to exclude the image from the article at this point. Below, I have also included the reference to the article with the interview to which I was referring earlier.

[2]

I added a further reference to display either side of the argument regarding the claim. Katie-keith (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[3]

References

  1. ^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carmen_Nigro_Aka_Ken_Roady.jpg
  2. ^ https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=F3AQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6747%2C311727
  3. ^ Glut, Donald F. (2001). Jurassic Classics: A Collection of Saurian Essays and Mesozoic Musings. McFarland. p. 192. ISBN 0786462469.

Including additional references in racist allegory section

There is another source that the sentenceWhile King Kong is often compared to the story of Beauty and the Beast, many film scholars have argued that the film was a racist cautionary tale about interracial romance, in which the film's "carrier of blackness is not a human being, but an ape. has drawn from. That being Annette Kuhn's 2007 book 'King Kong'. However, there might still be additional sources as the author stated that many film scholars have analyzed King Kong's racist allegories.

Hon Lee Poon (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Several sentences are still missing citations

  • In the article that are still several sentences that are missing citations, mainly in the Production and Live actions scenes section.
  • After the RKO board approved the production of a test reel, Marcel Delgado constructed Kong (or the "Giant Terror Gorilla" as he was then known) per designs and directions from Cooper and O'Brien on a one-inch-equals-one-foot scale to simulate a gorilla 18 feet tall
  • Four models were built: two jointed 18-inch aluminum, foam rubber, latex, and rabbit fur models (to be rotated during filming), one jointed 24-inch model of the same materials for the New York scenes, and a small model of lead and fur for the plummeting-down-the-Empire-State-Building scene
  • A huge bust of Kong's head, neck, and upper chest was made of wood, cloth, rubber, and bearskin by Delgado, E. B. Gibson, and Fred Reefe
  • Two versions of Kong's right hand and arm were constructed of steel, sponge rubber, rubber, and bearskin
  • All the armatures were manufactured in the RKO machine shop. Materials used were cotton, foam rubber, latex sheeting, and liquid latex. Football bladders were placed inside some models to simulate breathing
  • She estimated she worked for ten weeks on Kong over its eight-month production
  • The jungle set was scheduled to be struck after Game was completed, so Cooper filmed all of the other jungle scenes at this time. The last scene shot was that of Driscoll and Ann racing through the jungle to safety following their escape from Kong's lair
  • In December 1932 – January 1933, the actors were called back to film a number of optical effects shots which were mostly rear-screen projections
  • She was sore for days after. Many of the scenes featuring Wray in the articulated hand were filmed at this time
  • The final scene was originally staged on the top of the Empire State Building, but Cooper was dissatisfied and re shot the scene with Kong lying dead in the street with the crowd gathered about him
  • Upon some research, most of these sentences have information that is drawn from the book Focus On: 100 Most Popular United States National Film Registry, however, it is written by Wikipedia contributors. Unfortunately, I am unsure whether the book has taken information directly from the article, or vice versa. The original author of the article will need to clarify these sources.

Hon Lee Poon (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

'Chang' Producers Reunited For 'Most Dangerous Game' By LOUELLA O. PARSONS

  • https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/11801012/
  • "Ernest Schoedsack and Meriam Cooper, travelers, film experts and producers of the never-to-berforgotten "Chang," are together again. Their reunion takes place at Radio studios, where the combine to produce "The Most Dangerous Game," famous short story. Perhaps you've read "The Most Dangerous Game," voted the ninth best story in the entire world by one of the magazines, and included in every anthology of best short stories."
  • 'Chang' Producers Reunited For 'Most Dangerous Game' By LOUELLA O. PARSONS Motion Picture Editor. Universal Service. Copyright, 1932, by Universal Service. Inc.
  • continues with discussion of film financing. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_Kong_(1933_film)/Archive_2&oldid=1262716803"