Aaarrrgh! That damn monkey suit!
-
MTBan717 — 11 years ago(August 26, 2014 02:14 PM)
Perhaps you're already familiar with the excellent book "the Making Of King Kong" by Orville Goldner and George E. Turner which details the history of the original film and Bruce Bahrenburg's "The Creation Of Dino De Laurentiis' King Kong".
Yep, I loved "The Making of King Kong" by Goldner and Turner, and I wish I owned a copy of it. I came upon it in my public library nearly 20 years ago (which is roughly when I first saw the 1933 Kong and the 1976 Kong), and it was one of the books that got me interested in special effects and behind-the-scenes information on movies. I have never read the book by Bahrenburg, though. The only book I ever owned/read on the 1976 Kong was the screenplay, and I have no idea what ever happened to it.
A lot of the information I am reciting now comes from my reading of Ray Morton's book "King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon", as well as whatever else I've been able to Google.
It may have been a fun fact which I had forgotten over the years, so I probably wouldn't have been so harsh on the decision to use Rick Baker instead of 70's stop motion if I had known that Dino insisted on an anthropomorphic look.
Well, that is what the IMDB FAQ says, but it sounds roughly like what I recall reading in Morton's book. Dino De Laurentiis believed that Kong would be more sympathetic by appearing more anthropomorphic.
I recall reading that another reason that Dino told Rick Baker to walk upright is that the mechanical Kong was built as an upright ape, and Dino didn't want Baker to look too different from the big robot (which was a futile hope anyway, given that the robot was already stiffer and had a very different face than any of the masks made for the suit).
I might have appreciated Rick Baker's efforts if he had been allowed to go the silverback gorilla route because I know he studied the appearance and behavior of gorillas and I acknowledge he is a skilled artist.
I appreciate that Baker must have been frustrated that he did all that research and wasn't allowed to use it, but as I think Peter Jackson's Kong demonstrated, it's not necessarily better to portray Kong as a silverback gorilla rather than a distinct species of giant ape. By making his Kong a big gorilla, Jackson's Kong felt too much like "Mighty Joe Young" (again, great movie, but not what Kong should aspire to be): A big animal rather than a character whose human-like qualities transcend his animal qualities.
Both Kong and Lady Kong were also portrayed as more gorilla-like in this film's sequel "King Kong Lives" (which had a different suit designer and suit performers), and I don't think it worked nearly as well as the anthropomorphic portrayal of Kong in the 1976 film.
I understand the full-scale mechanical monstrosity of kong ate up the money budgeted for special effects, hence not a dinosaur in sight, which put me in a still deeper funk.
In another topic, I expressed skepticism that the exclusion of dinosaurs had anything to do with the budget, mostly based on my reading of the screenplay. A quick review of the Morton book (don't have my copy, but found it using Google previews) claims that Semple dropped the dinosaurs because Dino De Laurentiis had already told him no stop-motion, which was the only way to create realistic dinosaurs at the time, and because he thought it would interfere with the focus on the love story between Dwan and Kong.
I hope my comments on Dino's dislike of Kong's bristling fur is accurate. I'll have to dig up my copy of Bahrenburg's book from the basement to check that fact. These old brain cells of mine could stand some lubricating
Would be interesting to hear. Morton's book does not mention it. It does mention that Dino was just not a fan of stop-motion animation in general. -
magickbox — 11 years ago(August 29, 2014 06:22 AM)
Now I'm going to think outside the box a bit and imagine a computer-controlled Kong figure which would be pre-programmed and linked up directly to the cameras for precision stop-motion imaging which would smooth out the jerky motion since there would be no handling of the figure or require the patience of a saint. Not claiming that it would be practical but it would be a cool experiment.
-
BuddyLove63 — 11 years ago(August 29, 2014 01:14 AM)
Safe to say I was deeply, deeply disappointed back in the Seventies with the decision to go with Rick Baker in a monkey suit and the giant animatronic ape, which was even worse. De Laurentiis made a big mistake in not using the stop-motion technology of the day.
Veteran technical wizards like Ray Harryhausen would have turned this version into a far superior product.
I'll have to really disagree here. Ray Harryhausen's baboon and his Troglodyte ape-man creature in 1977's Sinbad And The Eye Of The Tiger look far less convincing and far less real than Kong in King Kong 1976. I saw both films at the cinema and even at age 6 and 7 I knew that the effects in Kong '76 looked better (except those bad sets).
Stop mo always looked better in black and white to me. In colour there was always a very jarring colour tone/shine difference between the live action and stop mo. Black and white hid this jarring difference much better.
Stop mo for King Kong 1976 would definitely not have made Kong 1976 superior. Dino was trying for a more real grounded in reality look, which stop mo would have totally juxtaposed with. Even more damaging, the stop mo would have been totally at odds with the facial close up mask worn by Baker, which was actually brilliant for the time and state of the art. Unless you would have wanted a stop mo face for the close ups too? Then it would have been way too 'old school' and not really much different from the original King Kong so what would have been the point? The whole point of Dino re-making King Kong was to get away from the stop mo and do something much more modern with the (then) technology available. -
-
BuddyLove63 — 11 years ago(October 19, 2014 09:06 AM)
Agreed.
Sto mo would have been a backward step. As you say, Dino was trying to compete with Jaws. Jaws didn't use stop mo or miniatures.
Like I said, the stop mo films of the 1970s certainly don't look any more convincing than King Kong. -
rocketXpert — 11 years ago(January 03, 2015 12:24 AM)
The costume feels like a backwards step to me. They could have done a guy in a costume in the original King Kong. Stop motion might look quaint by modern standards, but it was cutting edge special effects in the thirties. There was nothing particularly innovative about that gorilla suit.
-
rocketXpert — 11 years ago(January 07, 2015 12:06 PM)
Okay, I will grant that they couldn't have achieved those facial expressions on the suit in 33, but my point remains that the suit doesn't look great by 76 standards whereas the stop motion does look good for 1933. Unfortunately, until CGI came along, I suppose the only two ways of doing it were stop motion or a guy in a costume.
-
Buddy-Love63 — 11 years ago(January 12, 2015 11:25 AM)
It's better than any other ape suit of the 1970s. They were all pretty unimpressive back then.
Oh yes the stop motion was great in 1933. Unfortunately by 1976 it wouldn't have cut the mustard any better than a guy in a suit and that was the problem. At least there ARE some moments in Kong 1976 where it looks great.
https://mossfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/king-kong-1976.jpg -
motter25420-153-699254 — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 12:51 PM)
Well, I was born in '75 so most of the treasured movies of my childhood were people in suits, miniatures, paintings, etc so I have no issue with it and I think it looks great. I also like stop motion, don't get me wrong, but as others have said it looks better in black and white or when used very briefly if it's color.
"Clash of the Titans" to me was one of the last films to really use Stop Motion for a significant portion of the film effectively and even with that there are some scenes where the effect is pretty bad. -
seilerbird — 10 years ago(June 19, 2015 08:48 AM)
I think that the actors did a fabulous job. I think the special effects were wonderful, considering it was made 40 years ago. What really sucked for me was the horrible screenplay. "He's bigger than the both of us". I mean really. And why was Jeff wanting to keep him alive? What was he planning on doing with him if he was alive? Take him home to his apartment? And why was Jessica so in love with Kong? Doesn't she realize she is not as large as his weiner?
-
magickbox — 10 years ago(June 19, 2015 04:33 PM)
I'll stick with my original assessment, especially about that disappointing full scale Kong model that turned in a money pit, the big rubber snake instead of T-Rex and Rick Baker lumbering among the model buildings. Compare that to what RKO accomplished in the 1930's.
-
Buddy-Love63 — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 08:16 AM)
What really sucked for me was the horrible screenplay. "He's bigger than the both of us".
The script was ok, even good in places. That line you cited was supposed to be a groan. Even Jack himself knows its a groan moment.
And why was Jeff wanting to keep him alive? What was he planning on doing with him if he was alive? Take him home to his apartment?
Kong is a unique new species. He already contributed to a petition to send Kong home. It's there in the movie.
And why was Jessica so in love with Kong? Doesn't she realize she is not as large as his weiner?
She wasn't in love with Kong. She was scared of him and tried to get away from him until right at the end when the helicopters came. Only then does she go to him to stop them shooting him. You are thinking of Naomi Watts in Kong 2005. Watts gazes lovingly into Kong's eyes and giggles like a schoolgirl on her prom date. -
eddie_brown147 — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 07:47 AM)
Thank you I haven't had a good belly laugh in a long time..school girl on her prom dateha.haJack Black with an expression on his face like someone just blew wind.the 2005 version is my least favorite King Kong ever even with the millions of dollars of special effects. Kong sliding across the ice like a kid who got out of school early because of snow. Cheesy is the word..and there is a lot of it
-
ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 07:23 PM)
The movie was sold mostly on the idea of the mechanical ape. When they knew it was limited in what it could do they implemented more with the costume. You don't get much better than Rick Baker when it comes to ape costumes/makeup.
When theres no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.
