It was fun that I could watch the movie King Kong both in the original version and in recent one, comparing them. First, the status of the woman in the beginning is different: as a bride and sacrifice. In the recent version of King Kong, there is the change of the relationship between the Kong and woman, from the sacrifice to a special existence to Kong. So, this change overally makes the plot dramatic. Second, the distance from the tribe’s area to the jungle where the Kong lives is farther in the recent version than in the original one. The farther distance provides the feeling of severance between the two worlds, and there is a deep ravine. So, this setting makes the status of the woman’s safety more dangerous. Also, the close-up of the Kong’s face helps the situation horrifying. Actually, the recent version takes the extreme close-up of the Kong’s eyes which look vivid, while the original one takes close-up which is somewhat unrealistic. Finally, the mise-en-scene of the original version is fabulous. For example, the camera shots the sceneries in the city with neon signs, the ship on the ocean, and the tribe’s clothing, its patterns, and face painting, and they offers justification and aesthetics to the film. Especially, the fog on the ocean provides tension and the mysterious feeling. To sum up, the original version of King Kong can be behind in the technical way, but its mise-en-scene and plot are the fantastic hetitage, like its other version makes a great hit up to present day.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Eva Hoch
Student’s email: eva.hoch@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I actually liked the ending of the 1933 King Kong much more than the ending of the 2005 King Kong. I liked it more because I feel like the original made me think and actually made me feel bad for the ape. In the new movie it was obvious that the audience was supposed to feel bad for King Kong and this made it less realistic and less sentimental. I did, however, think that the new version was much more detailed, but this is expected in a newer movie. The newer version was much longer and I think that the ending seen was dragged out to much and almost lost its mean, I felt that the 1933 version was much more powerful. I did not think that the mickey mousing in the older version was always necessary, but the older version seemed more realistic. I felt that the contrast of the orange and blue was beautiful in the newer version, but it was not as believable, which I liked about the old one. I feel that, even now, I am impressed with what they did with the original King Kong at that time.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Alex Naumann
Student’s email: alexnaumann@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time watching a King Kong movie, and in my opinion, this one does not hold up at all. It seemed like the vast majority of the movie was spent watching two puppets ‘fighting’ each other through the magic of stop-motion photography.
Even though I did not like the movie, I did enjoy the use of rear screen projection. For the amount of technology they had in 1933, the rear screen projection effect was pretty convincing. I believe it is the precursor to the green screen effect that is used in nearly every movie being made right now. Many of the scenes when Ann was in frame with Kong appeared to use rear-screen projection.
The music was also notable because this was the first time a film had one hour of original music written for it. Even though some people may think it is lame, I liked it when the notes or beats of the song synced up with King Kong’s footsteps. I also enjoyed the ‘doom’ score that played when the tribal people were tying up Ann.
Photography was a super important aspect to this film, more specifically stop-motion photography because this is how the monsters came to life. To modern eyes, this looked insanely fake and unrealistic, but I was still impressed because I know how much work stop motion photography is. I believe that if there were less monster fight scenes the film would have been more enjoyable, but the seemingly non-stop fight scenes got old really fast.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Savannah Jossart
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
1933 King Kong was really fun to watch. I could tell for its time it was groundbreaking in special effects. The use of stop motion, in my option was way better then having a man in a monkey suit. The stop motion made it that much more impressive and even though at some points it looked kinda cheesy it made the Kong seem like he had less of a soul then in the 2005 one, which i believe is the point. I feel like the Peter Jackson version is too long for what it is, in my option Jackson is great at condensing but not so great at dragging a story out. The original version didn’t do much for character development but i feel that jackson did too much for character development. He made the kong more of a romantic then he is suppose to be, and he made Ann actually care for kong which is weird to me. Overall i feel like both are good films the first one is good as classic piece of cinema and Peter Jackson’s version is good as a modern popcorn flick.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Edwardo Vasquez
Student’s email: edwardov18@gmail.com
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
Watching the 1933 original version of King Kong open my eyes to the intensity and the time that it took to make films. I also realized the amount of change that has happen in the film industry in the past 75 years. Hollywood has come a long way creating films. The old version gives you a sense of understanding about the beast but doesn’t make you feel bad. The second version you begin to feel remorse over the people and have compassion for the beast. The two versions are very good but the first one is a classical and everyone should see it before watching the Peter Jackson’s version.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Natalie De La Mora
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The main question that was presented in class regarding King Kong was whether it succumbed to “Mickey Mousing” through Max Steiner’s musically composed score for the film. I felt that the score worked effectively to convey the urgency and danger in the fight sequences between Kong and the dinosaurs. However, when accompanied with the actions of the actors or as a punctuation to the dialogue it seemed unnecessary and led the scene to be unintentionally comical. This was witnessed with the crew walking the length of one of the dinosaurs and the music matching their movements. Comparatively to the clips we watched of the remake of King Kong I felt that the music was better suited for the film. The score in the remake seemed to complement the varying emotion of the scene as opposed to attempting to follow the movements of the actors with the music. This made it easier as an audience member to be less distracted by the music and it even assisted in conveying the emotional transition of the scene. For instance, the compassionate stares Ann exhibited when she was watching the sunset with Kong had soft, serene music playing whereas the scene with the fighter jets attacking had rapid, imperative music playing.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Karla Argumoza
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The first time I ever watched King Kong was the 2005 version, so watching the modern version made me see the original in a different way. There were several things I did not enjoy about the original. I know that at this time film was becoming the new sensation for the nation and technology was just beginning. First, I did not like the rear-screen projection because it frustrated me seeing different animals that looked like toys interacting with humans. The characters in the movie did not interact well specially in the part where they were walking around an animal on the floor to see if it was dead. In a way, I would consider this mickey mousing because the characters were not looking at the animal, but they were talking about it. Second, I thought that the music was a little exaggerated in some parts of the movie. Although the music was great, I felt that some parts of the movie did not need to go with what they characters were doing all the time. Like in the part where the Leader of the Island was walking down the steps, the music was going along with each step. This to me was another form of mickey mousing. Lastly, I did not enjoy that Anne was not communicating with Kong. I felt that her character just screamed the whole time but did not say anything to the ape. I would have a least expected her to say “Stop!”, or “Let me go.” Something that I enjoyed from the 2005 version was that Kong and Anne had a connection. That made me feel sympathy for the ape because of how everything turns out. In the original version I did not feel pity for the ape because Anne did not make me feel anything for it. The 2005 version was better for me than the original.
Quiz Name: Looking at Movies, 4e
chapter number: 10
Student’s Name: Ryan Hrabak
Student’s Email: Ryanhrabak@yahoo.com
number of questions:15
percent correct:100%
I enjoyed both versions of kong. i do wish that the 2005 version was shorter. the 33 version is very outdated but it is still very entertaining. the close ups of kong’s face smiling in the 33 version are very creepy. i do like the cinematography in the 05 version, a lot of the scenes are beautifully lit (especially the scenes on the island).
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: James Vaughn
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Personally I think the 2005 version of King Kong was better than the 1933 version. The story of the 33 version seemed condensed and didn’t flow well to me. Also as we discussed in class, the “Mickey Mousing” is kind of annoying, however I probably wouldn’t have even noticed if it wasn’t pointed out. The 2005 version gives a much more emotional story. Kong and Anne had a better connection in that film allowing me to feel more involved with the story.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Mollie Meyer
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I enjoyed the 1933 version of King Kong more than I thought I would. Although I didn’t like the way the character Ann Darrow was portrayed; I felt she was shown as a dumb blonde who needed saving – although anyone would have needed to be saved from King Kong, I could have done with a little less fainting and kicking and this “oh dear” attitude.
I did think the acting, especially Fay Wray as Ann Darrow and Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham, was exaggerated. Their body language and arm movements just seemed to be over the top for me. Also, when someone had the idea to get planes, the others were “Yeah!!! Let’s do it” (or something along those lines) – they reacted more like they were going to get beers after the game. It was just odd.
A difference I noticed between the 1933 & 2005 versions, which is solely due to technology advancements, was the camera angles. The ’33 version, the camera seemed to be close to the actors and always at their level. But the 2005 version had a lot more range; we saw both high & low angle shots and perspectives that were not human (like seeing the airplanes coming for King Kong).
I really enjoyed the 1933 King Kong but I was expecting a little more from the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow like what was in the 2005 version. The relationship in the 1933 version was a little one sided with Kong clearly being more infatuated with Ann and Ann just seeing him as a monster which fits the description of the film as a creature feature. The 2005 version was much longer and wanted to add something different so it wasn’t a shot for shot remake and was able to add a kinda love story between Ann and Kong.
The 2005 version did have the advantage of having more advanced technology than the 1933 but they did well for what they had. Kong’s facial expressions and eyes were done well for being a doll and if they had better technology they could have utilized the low camera angle to drive the point home that Kong is superior to the humans and to be feared and used the high angle on Ann as she was trying to escape to show that she is weak. The 2005 version from what we saw utilized many different camera angles to give perspective between the human characters and Kong while the 1933 version kept the camera at one angle for most of the movie.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Rachel Wager-Smith
Student’s email: rachelw_s@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I actually really enjoyed the original King Kong. While the effects are certainly outdated, I found the stop-motion and rear screen projections pretty impressive for the time and I think it still holds a certain kind of charm — it appeals to the imagination in ways that I don’t think newer films can. In the remake of King Kong, for example, everything was spelled out so precisely and we saw every little detail of every event, which is why it’s a three hour long film. In the original, however, it was more of an adventure. It was just these guys (and one girl) out in the wilderness trying to make a movie and then things get out of hand. It was well written and well paced through the editing and I think it still “works” even though the special effects used are so outdated. This isn’t to say that the new film doesn’t have it’s merits — I think it does — I just don’t think it achieves the same kind of wonder and adventure that the first one does and part of the reason why is because you simply can’t with modern visual effects. That said, I did appreciate the fact that the newer version spent more time developing the characters, not just of the humans but of Kong as well. This was done not only through the writing but in more subtle ways, like getting to see Kong’s eyes and facial expressions in far more detail than would ever have been possible in 1933.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Joseph LeClaire
Student’s email: leclairejoe@comcast.net
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Growing up I saw quite a few stop motion animation movies. Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans and so on. Kong was very well done as far the stop motion and the rear screen projection are concerned. For its time I’m sure it would have been quite the entertaining movie. However the mickey mousing and the characters drove me nuts. I couldn’t stand them. And as far as the remake is concerned I think that remakes are never given enough if any credit by critics at all. I think the remake was very well done by Jackson. It had relationship between Kong and Ann as well as good character development. I heard some people trash talk the depiction of the natives but after doing some research it seems that quite of few island tribes were cannibalistic and lets not forget that many ancient cultures were in to human sacrifice. With that in mind I think that Jackson did a fair representation of a island tribe that lives on rocks with nothing to eat but fish and probably anyone who comes on shore. And don’t forget they sacrifice women to Kong. It is only natural that Jackson would want you to be afraid of these people.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Taylor Lee
Student’s email: taylorlee2@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
At the time, this version of King Kong (1933) was amazing. Films like the first version of King Kong, introduced special effects to the world of film and we can see how these effects evolved over the years to be more believable and more entertaining. While watching this film I enjoyed the side projections to make it look like two images were put together and this was the only way to do this back in the day. The effects are so fake and obvious, but in movies like these it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the effects are as long as it is a good story and the rest of the film is carried by the actors and story telling. Despite the screaming scenes I did enjoy the acting and the location/props. The story is a classic where these group of explorers go to an island to find out what this great beast is and getting into trouble and than surviving in the end. The 2005 version of King Kong is obviously more aesthetically beautiful with lighting and colors, but the new King Kong is very stretched out. The original King Kong is straight to the point and the story remains to be around the giant gorilla unlike the newer version which seems to be evolved around a love interest between the main actress (the girl who is taken) and the giant gorilla. This makes a much better story, but is longer because the director of the new King Kong made most of the movie between the girl and the gorilla, so they can connect and get to know each other (Animal to human relationship).
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Andres Mendez
Student’s email: amendezconsulting@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time seeing the original King Kong, and although the animation of the movie was outdated, obviously, I still found it interesting to watch. It is amazing how much the crew was able to execute using stop motion animation. Not only that, but given the time they were pushing the envelope of visual effects in cinema. I did get the sense of “Mickey Mousing”, however I feel that this was common during this time because most of the movies that I’ve seen from this era had this commonality. This might have to do with the lack of close ups and ability to capture emotions with the camera during that time, therefore resulting in the actors having to really exaggerate their emotions to make sure the audience “really” knows what is going on. Once we switched to the King Kong from 2000’s it was clear how much cinematic technology has advanced. The effects were clearly more detailed and went more unnoticed because the image of the scenery was just painted better. There were also more cuts that highlighted different details from the setting to better to tell the story. Both are great movies that I had never seen before and were my first time being exposed to the films. However, I believe by watching both of these films back to back you really get a sense of how advanced certain filmmakers of the past were, and how far film as a whole has evolved.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Zara Dawson
Student’s email: zaradawson@csus.edu
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
It’s hard for someone watching this film from a modern perspective not to be critical of the film for its outdated effects and the campy style of acting. Nowadays, we are used to realistic-looking CGI effects. When watching this, I tried to keep an open mind and keep it in perspective and imagine myself watching it in the time period it was released and I would certainly look at it differently. It is a classic and one that many directors of future generations have paid homage to. It is pretty surprising the fast pace of the film. However, the development of characters and relationships seems to be lacking. I fall in line in agreement with others who felt there should have been more of a relationship between Kong and Anne. The scenes that we viewed from the 2005 version seemed much better visually and character-wise. You could really see the thought and emotion behind Kong’s eyes. There was a definite romantic connection between Kong and Anne that was severely lacking in the 1933 version. The 1933 version is all around cheesy and completely unrealistic-looking with the stop-motion animation and the rear-screen projection that just seems off-putting, although for the time period it was probably pretty state-of-the-art.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Zara Dawson
Student’s email: zaradawson@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Kathleen Crouter
Student’s email: kathleencrouter@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I really enjoyed watching King Kong (1933), but for the silliness of it. I think the King Kong of 2005 is more convincing for this day and age. Of course I can understand how people from 1933 could be scared of a big clay ape with a toothy grin. The use of rear projections made the actors look like they were interacting with the monsters, but the camera was always at a great distance. There were no medium shots of Anne and Kong together in the same shot like there is in the 2005 version. The distance away from the characters felt like 25th row and I couldn’t connect with the character Anne when she was “in danger.” She also screamed a great deal. That was her only interaction with Kong in the film and there was hardly any dialogue between the human characters. The music seemed to be the only real continuous “dialogue.” It controlled the mood of the scenes, but sometimes it seemed to be mickey moussing. Kong’s fingers wiggle stripping off pieces of Anne’s dress and the music wiggles too, making it seem very silly. The 2005 King Kong has a beautifully epic music score. It also controls the mood and works with the characters. An example of the music working with the characters would be when the tribal chief is stepping down the stairs and the music hits a beat every time his foot steps. The 2005 version had characters with more emotion. Anne is able to sympathize with Kong. Jack is not a muscle man type of guy, but he loves Anne and wants to save her. There are more characters who have background stories as well. The 2005 version does a better job at developing it’s characters a little more than the 1933 version. The bad things about the 2005 version were the creepy non-human like tribe people and the length.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Dana Johnson
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
While the 2005 version is what contemporary audiences are use to, I think the original 1933 King Kong shows much more ingenuity in story telling technique. Ideas such as the use of an original soundtrack were pioneered by this film. This contribution alone is enough to mark it as a watershed event in cinema history even if they indulged in some mickey mousing. Today its impact is universally felt as original scores are ubiquitous to film and make up more than a few awards categories. More recognized, King Kong is known for its groundbreaking use of special effects. The introduction of stop motion, matte painting, rear projection, and miniatures would go on to inspire many productions after it and surviving well into the digital age. Peter Jackson himself has received many accolades for his integration of these techniques in his work on the Lord of the Ring’s trilogies resulting in a more textually rich aesthetic. It’s ironic then that a man who has built his reputation on 1933 King Kongs innovations blew off its contributions and instead made a bloated, self indulgent CGI mess of a film. Indeed he even managed to deepen the the racist undertones of the film. True, the 2005 version has an improved use of cinematography but this is more due to advances in the film medium over the last 70 years than anything specific to Jackson’s work. Any talented director would have improved that particular aspect. All in all the story of King Kong belongs to the past and should be appreciated for what it is but not repeated.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Sabrina Dunkl
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
King Kong was very entertaining and was glad to watch the older version and the new and improved version just to see the growth of sound effects and visual images. Bringing up the subject about slavery and white people coming onto thier land I would have to agree with dana that the newer version of king kong definitly potrayed the black people as more demon like and possessed in the scene when the girl was about to be taken away by the gorilla. On another note, the score was thought out very well and I feel as if it wasn’t mickey moused. The timing of the footsteps was perfect and wasn’t too overdramatic. Honestly, if you didnt point that out I wouldn’t have noticed that the music was going along with the footsteps. If the music was more dramatic and louder then it would be considered to be mickey moused. Also, Most of the scenes in the older version doesn’t have a lot of dialogue compared to the newer version there is much more dialogue. Lastly, the girl is afraid of the gorilla in the older version of king kong and in the newer version the girl seems to create a relationship with the gorilla and she doesn’t want him to die.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jonathan Patton
Student’s email: JonathanPatton@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
(Took quiz last week by mistake, so I’m posting the results this week)
King Kong (1933) is a story of civilized man vs a primal beast told on an epic scale. Use of projection screen technology allowed for grander spectacles that what was the norm in 33′. What interesting to note is the closest framing we see of Ann is a MS, wherein we see her famous scream. In the entire scene, the only CU we see is a dolly-in of Kong’s face. This has the audience focus in on how Kong is feeling about the scene. Kong is the main character of this scene. The rest of the scene are framed in either a LS of MS of the Tribesmen, the wall, or Ann on the sacrificial pedestal. While the technology allowed for greater spectacle; ie Kong on screen in stop motion animation, the way it’s edited seems more a “forced perspective” stage play where you don’t get to see how “man” (Ann) is feeling in this situation. Which is interesting if we compare it to the 05′ Version of King Kong, in which we see a higher contrast of framing. In the first shot of the sacrifice scene, we get an XLS of the giant wall, cut to a CU of Ann being dragged thru a procession of tribesmen. This continues throughout the scene, where we see a XLS or LS of the wall, then cut to a MS or CU of the action that is taken place in the scene and back and forth. In the 05′ version we see CU of the tribes-people, adding another layer of tension and creepiness to the scene that is missing in the 33′ version where the tribes people’s feelings and goals are translated and communicated via these CU. In the 33′ version the tribesmen are simply a set piece in the background of stage play.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Blia
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I found the 1933 version of King Kong to be fascinating. I can appreciate the stop-motion animation. Though, I believe because I am biased to my age and contemporary films, I like the 2005 version more. I found the model of King Kong in the 1933 version to be hilarious in a child’s toy like way. But, despite that, King Kong himself looks horrendous and I can understand Ann’s screaming, similar to a reaction to an abominable creature such as Frankenstein’s monster. Though, I also thought much of the acting was over exaggerated, not just Ann’s. But, the over exaggeration is fitting with the terseness of the film and the get-the-point-across attitude of the film—beauty can kill beasts.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Daniell Reeser
Student’s email: daniellreeser@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Comparing the 1933 and 2005 versions of King Kong in a critical fashion brought out some interesting points. With our focus on the power of cinematography, editing, and directing, I found more flaws in the 2005 version than I had when I saw it for the first time. I find the dichromatic lighting tendencies of posters to be annoying and cliche within the “serious fiction action/adventure” film, since, after you notice it, it draws a terrible amount of attention to itself. However, the newer film has the resources to capture many more angles and offer the audience a greater number of close-up shots, which are pivotal to building an attachment to the characters if the cuts are fast-paced. We sympathize more with emotions we can see and can dwell on for a moment with the character, than with people held at a constant medium-shot. I discovered an interesting phenomenon while watching the 2005 version that when I was purposefully watching for the editing, it seemed clunky, sudden, or unjustified. I believe this is a case-in-point that editing is meant to be invisible, and especially in fast-paced modern films, we are not meant to pay attention to it, or the pace will seem a bit jittery. Combined with the sheer length of the scenes overall, the action seems to take place in a semi-grounded, extended montage. The notion of music being too leading or not, I believe, is also due to whether we are paying attention or not. If we viewers listen for the music specifically, I think we would find all music to be somewhat leading and cheesy. How intensely we are invested in the action onscreen masks the soundtrack into a complementary background. Like editing, if the music can manage a subtle-enough approach, audiences and filmmakers seem to accept and expect some level of leading music to enhance the action.
I would also like to throw in that actors in suits playing King Kong and the dinosaurs would have likely just looked like bouncy, rubbery costumes, artificially scaled by the rear-screen projections. At least the stop-motion animation stood true to the theme of non-human strangeness the “monsters” were meant to possess.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Travis Bishop
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
Took the ch 10 quiz last week by accident, re-pasted the results.
This was my first time watching the 1933 King Kong all the way through. Growing up my dad and i watched a lot of old b movies together, mainly sci-fi movies from the 50’s and 60’s. I think watching those movies as a kid gives me a greater appreciation for these outdated kind of effects like stop motion and projection. I personally like the short and to the point story of the original movie over the long drawn out scenes in the remake. The remake might have added more intensity with the use of CG and other special effects but i think the original was great for its age. The projection in the original is sort of cheesy but they found a way to make their ideas come to life for the film and i can admire that.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Ana Carla Teixeira Praciano Santos
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
It is impossible to talk about the original King Kong and not paying attention to the stop motion technique of animation used to bring the gorilla to life. The usage of it shows how the filmmaker was concerned with the means to make it happen and I personally think it was a successful try. Furthermore, comparing to the 2005 version, it is clear that the lack of close ups damaged the emotions of the audience regarding to feel what the actors where feeling. I also think that the sound has an important role in both versions, but in the 1933 one, the focus is on the mickey mousing. It is interesting to see how, even though the editing do not affect the audience as much as it could, the sound, because of mickey mousing, does it, leading the audience in many moments.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Joao Vitor Mascarenhas
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This interesting exercise of analyse the two versions of King Kong makes me think about how the development of the Cinema and its techniques helps the filmmaker achieve its goals. For example, these techniques allowed the new version of the movie to convey more emotions of the characters through close ups, as we can see on the scene where Dwan is being offered to Kong. In the old version, utilising Rear Projection, the director didn’t show the panic at Dwan’s face while Kong got closer to her, but in the new one, with a close up in Dwan, we can have a better idea of her state of mind, of her panic. In the new version, the sound matching with the cuts and the camera work brings more emotion to the audience. For example in scene where Kog and Dwan are on the top of the Empire, the camera surrounding the top of the building with the classic song helps to pass the feeling of appreciation of the landscape of the characters.
This was the first time i saw the 33 version of King Kong and i thought it was alright. obviously it is outdated and cheezy but they had limitations. there are some scenes where the stop motion didn’t look all that bad and flowed naturally. I could appreciate that they used stop motion, its difficult, takes finesse, and patience. The up close shots of King Kong in the older version really didn’t do much he doesn’t have much expression. In the 05 version the relationship between the woman and ape are much more developed. I don’t know if i would say the new version is far better, when i first saw it i wasn’t that impressed and it was way too long.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: barron perez
Student’s email: barronsperez@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The double creature feature of the King Kong films were great to see. I have never seen the old King Kong before, although the rear projection technique is hilarious, but It gets the job done. The timing was the most important aspect, when the actor throws thing on, and the creature throws stuff off screen. it was done right and that’s what made the film believable. The acting was one of the weak aspect of the older King Kong film partially because of the sets and obviously fake backgrounds. In the newer film, the acting is a great aspect of the movie, and the sets were more elaborate and believable. The CGI in the newer film allows for better camera angles and bigger landscapes for establishing shots. But what was really cool was the two dramatic changes in both films, when they see the Skull island. In the older film, they use music to introduce the dramatic entrance of the island. In the newer version, the film goes from Black n white to color, when they see the island. Over all it was a great double feature.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Hillary Folsom
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I personally loved the original King Kong! It’s always a trip to see how a film like that was so entertaining back in the day. The stop motion action was of course cheesy to us but I really thought it had some sense of originality. When comparing this film to the 2005 version (and putting the more advanced graphics aside), I’d have to say the biggest improvement was allowing the camera to move around and capture emotions and reactions instead of keeping it in one place. The drawn out scenes in the 1930’s version took a little bit of time to get use to because we’re so use to having so much action being thrown at us. Although in the 2005 version, making the film 3 hours long may or may not have been necessary as well…but I guess that’s what you get with Peter Jackson. The more old fashioned films I get to watch, the more I appreciate them as a whole.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Brandon Stomsvik
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Letting the class compare a classic telling of King Kong to the newest remake helped us get a better understanding of where the directors wanted to improve or change things in either movie. Peter Jackson wanted to make this remake with a taste of his own personal touches. In the narration, Jackson seems to highlight more about a love interest than what was described as in the original 1933 version. Though to be fair, Jackson’s film was almost twice as long so he tried to explore all the possibilities that weren’t addressed in the first film. Jackson’s film seemed to play up the musical score a bit too much throughout the film. In one particular scene, where we get a first glimpse of the airplanes as they pass by King Kong’s head while he’s on a Empire State. This seemed like a great scene to focus on the little details, but all I could really hear was the loud score playing in the background. In the original, right before the planes first dived in, the music stops and all we hear is the planes engines roaring. Then suddenly we start hearing the machine guns spitting out bullets. This is where I realized the power of original seemed to be superior compared to the remake.
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Geovanie Brooks
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 73%
The original King Kong was entertaining for the most part but it’s a movie that I probably won’t see again for awhile. The film’s editing was pretty cool especially how the actions of a scene was sync with the projected screen. Although it was high advanced at it time and made a lot of the creature elements of the film come to life, it can be slightly off putting but it still fairly entertaining. The camera did seem quite static in the film and the edit was straight-forward with not too many cuts, the film made it difficult to feel anything for Kong. It seemed like the director wanted to make Kong nothing more than a monster but with the 2005 remake, we have some empathy for Kong and the cuts are used to make the scenes more intense and realistic. Another thing that bother me about the 1930’s King Kong is the casting. If anything screamed WASP based casting anymore, then it’s was King Kong. Driscoll was the hero “blonde hair blue eyed” type, Ann did nothing more but scream in the film rather than act and Jimmy was an Asian cook who spoke broken english and was used for comic relief. The casting in the 2005 version was more practical and realistic. Jack Driscoll in this version is a regular guy who is down on his luck and needs a job. He’s very plain looking. Jimmy is the youngest member on the crew and he’s given reason for always being put in the rear, told to stay out of the action. And Ann Darrow was woman who realize the creature was more than a monster.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Samuel Acosta
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time watching the original King Kong. Initially, I was surprised by the vast use of effects such as rear screen projection and stop-motion animation. Effects like these were very time consuming and tedious but the way that the effects crew executed them deserve praise. Although they look comical now, they seemed to have stood the test of time quite a bit and I see how audiences could have really seen this film as a spectacle. Of course, the 2005 version had all the bells and whistles of a modern day blockbuster. The thing that stuck out to me both when comparing the two films was the differences in editing styles. The 1993 King Kong had longer individual shots compared to the 2005 version. The duration of the clips definitely created stark differences between the two. The 2005 versions had many more shots in a single sequence, and that is reflective of the advancements in the techniques of editing. The detail found in the 2005 version is due largely in part to the selection of shots. Because there were so many more in the sequence, the audience can see close-ups of the tribe as well as Ann. Something that doesn’t occur in the 1933 version..The sound was also something that marked differences. I heard the mickey mousing of the 1933 Kong. I much prefer the sound of the 2005 version. Changes were subtle, yet played into the dynamics of the film very well. For example, intimate moments between Kong and Ann were marked by the dominance of the score, while moments of action and suspense were marked by diegetic sounds interrupting the score track.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Marty Manseau
Student’s email: mmanseau0821@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I think the original, 1933 version of King Kong is an important film for a few reasons. First, I think that it broke strides in the world of cinematic special effects. The use of stop-motion animation all of the scenes with Kong or Dinosaurs were, for the time, technologically shocking. I even noticed stop-motion when the film crew first arrived at the island and birds flew by. The film also employed a technique called rear-screen projection. The rear-screen projection made the monsters look larger than life and threatening. In class, we talked a lot about Max Steiner and Mickey Mousing. While there was a lot of Mickey Mousing, there was one scene that broke this norm. The fight between Kong and the T-Rex was eerily silent. Max Steiner lured the audience into a feeling of security with the silly, over-the-top music and then used silence to create a feeling of terrifying intensity. Surprisingly, Steiner knew when it was best to hold back and let the scene play out with no musical additions.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jeremy Santos
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I really enjoyed the 1933 version of King Kong with its use of rear screen projection and the fact they they were able to create such a iconic monster with the special effects they had at the time. I did however prefer the final scene of the 2005 version over 1933 version. The close ups and battle scene (2005 Version) over the Empire State Building were visually appealing even if I did know the ending. It was an emotional scene with Kong and his mistress Ann Darrow through intense conversation looking into each others eyes. As well as the music and sound going silent as Kong falls to his death.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Catherine Cooke
Student’s email: slysnide@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The original “King Kong” didn’t seem to have too many bold ideas behind it. There was no connection between Kong and Ann Darrow, and most of Kong’s scenes featured him destroying or killing things. Ray Harryhausen and company certainly had their hands full with the special effects which were stunning for the time, and the diligence and patience required to pull it off perfectly is still mesmerizing today. However, it doesn’t really aesthetically take advantage of its setting. Take the 2005 remake, they milk it for everything it’s worth, but also display much character development in Kong and even Ann’s relationship with Kong as the film progresses. I think I’m the only one who didn’t have a problem with the film’s bloated 3hr runtime. Granted Peter Jackson makes some missteps as well with how he chose to portray the natives, but it’s pretty clear that he too like Merian Cooper was out to make an adventure film, without much social commentary beyond characterizing Kong as someone to pity and emphasize with. But for a 3hr movie, I agree there could’ve been more. The original however still stands on its own as the ultimate creature feature, even if it’s a bit more comical than thrilling.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Evan G
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I have not seen the 2005 version of King Kong. It’s not a movie I would normally sit down to watch on my own. The ending sequence that we watched last week in class was interesting. Especially to see the contrast with the 1933 version. I have much respect for the 1933 version. It was my first time seeing it and I was impressed by the visual special effects used in the film. Although, they may look cheesy (non-sophisticated) today, I can imagine they would look pretty awesome 82 years ago. There were 72 years between the two films and I’m sure in 2077, the 2005 version will look antiquated.
I don’t like comparing these two films at all but here goes. The camera moves more in the 2005 version. In the 1933 version the camera was still for the most part.
The editing in the 2005 version was faster showing there were many more shots in the scene.
The acting between the female lead/love interest in both versions of the film were different in the sense that the relationship with Kong and Ann Darrow in the 2005 version is much more intimate. In the 1933 version, King Kong was presented as a scary beast who kidnapped Ann and acted possessively towards her. She was like a rag doll to him. In the 2005 version, Kong gently picked her up and put her down in the scenes showed in class. His eyes were large and reflective with intelligence and emotion. I think this is where the special effects of today and what we know of primates comes into play. The sound used in both versions of the film were different in the sense that in the 2005 version things sounded more loud. I don’t know how to explain it.
The sound came from the direction of the object on camera and worked with the camera movement I am think ing specifically about the scenes where Kong is on top of the building and he roars while the camera swoops by as the planes are circling. The planes engines and the the sound of the shooting bullets are heard as if we art the camera. Like as the planes whoosh by it’s in relation to where the camera is. Like if the plane moved from screen right to screen left we hear the sound from right to left.
p.s.
I am pasting the copy of the quiz results for the last chapter, Chapter 11. I was looking ahead on the syllabus and there’s no blog post that week so I thought I’d just do it today. I have all the emailed results from the quizzes confirming that I scored 100% on each of them.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Evan G
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Caleb B.
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
For some reason, I prefer the 1970’s version of King Kong over the other two. The film directed by Peter Jackson looks too much like a video game to me. The color saturation is boosted in every shot and it seems like too much. I wondered what a movie would look like if it broke the 180 degree rule, and the ending plane scene seems to consistently alienate the viewer. The black and white King Kong is riddled with issues from the era, but from a filmmaking point of view it is a classic. I remember seeing the original as a kid and I knew the stop motion looked fake, but I was still entertained.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jeremy Clark
Student’s email: jeremyclark@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I was very impressed with the 1933 version of King Kong especially in comparison with the new (2005) one. I thought that the film stood up especially well in comparison to the king kong vs. T-Rex showdown. While obviously the new film employed much better special effects, the level of suspense was still comparable. The stop-motion was very well done and they managed to create a fight that looked sufficiently real in the movement of the t-rex and king kong himself. I can not imagine the viewers reaction in that time when two gigantic monsters dueled it out before their eyes. I thought it was especially well done as they could not utilize the same level of closeups as they can nowadays. Whereas today we could see a closeup of Ann swinging through the air in king kong’s arms they obviously could not do the same back then. They were limited to the techniques of their time and managed impressively.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Stephanie Castillo
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was the first time that I saw the original 1933 version of King Kong. I did think there was a bit of mickeymousing going on in the film, especially in the scene where the indigenous people were walking towards the film crew. I did like the new version because they don’t show King Kong right away which adds more mystery to the character. I also really like that they added more of a relationship between him and Ann, which made his character more three-dimensional. The scenes were also a little more intense because of the quick shots instead of just having long takes throughout the film.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Patricia Brill
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I loved both version of King Kong and surprisingly havent seen the original until we watched it in class. The 2 movies are most different in their editing styles, I think. In the original, the cuts were longer, there werent as many reaction shots, and everything was more straightforward but in the remake, the cuts were quicker, making us have a shorter attention span, it also showed more emotion with all the characters by having those reaction shots and not revealing all of Kong at first. At the end of the remake though, I think that Peter Jackson spent a lot more time on reaction shots than necessary as it got meaningless the more he kept cutting between Kong and Ann. All in all, I do think I like the remake a little bit more than the original just because it shows more character devleopment and emotions throughout.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jess Gemignani-Olmo
Student’s email: jlgolmo@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I enjoyed King Kong (1933) for its rear projection and stop motion. Namely, I love the fight scene between Kong and the T-Rex. I really appreciate stop motion in general but the attention to detail that went into that fight scene really paid off in my opinion. Though the movement isn’t what we would consider smooth today, it was definitely choreographed in a realistic fashion and seemed to flow well enough. I love the final moment when Kong smashes the mouth of the T-Rex because the blood gushing down the dinosaur’s jaw plus the crunching sound that accompanies the fatal blow is way gorier than I would expect from the 30s. It’s especially admirable when considering how long of a scene that was—which I believe was roughly 3 minutes.
What I didn’t like was how Ann barely had any personality, and that she didn’t empathize or really even feel anything throughout the movie (other than the mandatory attraction between her and Jack Driscoll). She never underwent any sort of character development which was disappointing. The fact that she never realized that Kong was trying to protect her and valued her was frustrating too. She just screamed—incessantly. This almost makes her look callous (or stupid) which I think helped to aid the theme for the movie, which was a rather misogynistic one. At the beginning Driscoll is getting reprimanded for having feelings for Ann because “women make men soft” and for some reason love is frowned upon because it’s a feeling and men can’t have feelings, obviously. Plus they are comparing the two lovebirds to beauty and the beast, which draws a strong comparison between men and Kong and therefore signifies that King Kong represents masculinity. This theme is reinforced at the end when Kong dies and Carl Denham announces that “it was beauty killed the beast”. By drawing likeness between men and beast early on in the film, the movie successfully constructs an analogy wherein this giant ape is meant to represent masculinity (fierce, intimidating, strong, etc) who then becomes weak because of Ann (women, love, etc) and loses his life because of it. In other words, the movie’s implicit meaning is that falling in love or getting married will cause a man to lose his vigor and become less of a man in the eyes of other men. I personally saw it commentating on marriage as well, not just falling in love. Even today, men often make jokes about how a man signs away his masculinity to his wife when he enters into “holy matrimony”.
On the contrary, I think Ann was too overdone in the remake of King Kong (2005). While they did succeed in evoking more emotion than the 1933 version, it was beyond excessive and I found myself almost laughing during the ending scene. Also, I really don’t understand how anyone thought it would work to try to end a serious movie with a cheeseball line like that. It worked in the ’33 version because of the “mickey-mousing” and the humorous undertones but it was extremely out of place and embarrassing in the newer version.
Oh, and one last thing– woman didn’t really kill the beast. Men saved the helpless woman, men escaped, profit of having an over-sized monkey was too alluring, capitalism killed the beast, men placed the blame on the woman. Nice.
introductiontocinema 
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jina Park
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The movie King Kong
LikeLike
It was fun that I could watch the movie King Kong both in the original version and in recent one, comparing them. First, the status of the woman in the beginning is different: as a bride and sacrifice. In the recent version of King Kong, there is the change of the relationship between the Kong and woman, from the sacrifice to a special existence to Kong. So, this change overally makes the plot dramatic. Second, the distance from the tribe’s area to the jungle where the Kong lives is farther in the recent version than in the original one. The farther distance provides the feeling of severance between the two worlds, and there is a deep ravine. So, this setting makes the status of the woman’s safety more dangerous. Also, the close-up of the Kong’s face helps the situation horrifying. Actually, the recent version takes the extreme close-up of the Kong’s eyes which look vivid, while the original one takes close-up which is somewhat unrealistic. Finally, the mise-en-scene of the original version is fabulous. For example, the camera shots the sceneries in the city with neon signs, the ship on the ocean, and the tribe’s clothing, its patterns, and face painting, and they offers justification and aesthetics to the film. Especially, the fog on the ocean provides tension and the mysterious feeling. To sum up, the original version of King Kong can be behind in the technical way, but its mise-en-scene and plot are the fantastic hetitage, like its other version makes a great hit up to present day.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Eva Hoch
Student’s email: eva.hoch@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I actually liked the ending of the 1933 King Kong much more than the ending of the 2005 King Kong. I liked it more because I feel like the original made me think and actually made me feel bad for the ape. In the new movie it was obvious that the audience was supposed to feel bad for King Kong and this made it less realistic and less sentimental. I did, however, think that the new version was much more detailed, but this is expected in a newer movie. The newer version was much longer and I think that the ending seen was dragged out to much and almost lost its mean, I felt that the 1933 version was much more powerful. I did not think that the mickey mousing in the older version was always necessary, but the older version seemed more realistic. I felt that the contrast of the orange and blue was beautiful in the newer version, but it was not as believable, which I liked about the old one. I feel that, even now, I am impressed with what they did with the original King Kong at that time.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Alex Naumann
Student’s email: alexnaumann@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time watching a King Kong movie, and in my opinion, this one does not hold up at all. It seemed like the vast majority of the movie was spent watching two puppets ‘fighting’ each other through the magic of stop-motion photography.
Even though I did not like the movie, I did enjoy the use of rear screen projection. For the amount of technology they had in 1933, the rear screen projection effect was pretty convincing. I believe it is the precursor to the green screen effect that is used in nearly every movie being made right now. Many of the scenes when Ann was in frame with Kong appeared to use rear-screen projection.
The music was also notable because this was the first time a film had one hour of original music written for it. Even though some people may think it is lame, I liked it when the notes or beats of the song synced up with King Kong’s footsteps. I also enjoyed the ‘doom’ score that played when the tribal people were tying up Ann.
Photography was a super important aspect to this film, more specifically stop-motion photography because this is how the monsters came to life. To modern eyes, this looked insanely fake and unrealistic, but I was still impressed because I know how much work stop motion photography is. I believe that if there were less monster fight scenes the film would have been more enjoyable, but the seemingly non-stop fight scenes got old really fast.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Savannah Jossart
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
1933 King Kong was really fun to watch. I could tell for its time it was groundbreaking in special effects. The use of stop motion, in my option was way better then having a man in a monkey suit. The stop motion made it that much more impressive and even though at some points it looked kinda cheesy it made the Kong seem like he had less of a soul then in the 2005 one, which i believe is the point. I feel like the Peter Jackson version is too long for what it is, in my option Jackson is great at condensing but not so great at dragging a story out. The original version didn’t do much for character development but i feel that jackson did too much for character development. He made the kong more of a romantic then he is suppose to be, and he made Ann actually care for kong which is weird to me. Overall i feel like both are good films the first one is good as classic piece of cinema and Peter Jackson’s version is good as a modern popcorn flick.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Edwardo Vasquez
Student’s email: edwardov18@gmail.com
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
Watching the 1933 original version of King Kong open my eyes to the intensity and the time that it took to make films. I also realized the amount of change that has happen in the film industry in the past 75 years. Hollywood has come a long way creating films. The old version gives you a sense of understanding about the beast but doesn’t make you feel bad. The second version you begin to feel remorse over the people and have compassion for the beast. The two versions are very good but the first one is a classical and everyone should see it before watching the Peter Jackson’s version.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Natalie De La Mora
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The main question that was presented in class regarding King Kong was whether it succumbed to “Mickey Mousing” through Max Steiner’s musically composed score for the film. I felt that the score worked effectively to convey the urgency and danger in the fight sequences between Kong and the dinosaurs. However, when accompanied with the actions of the actors or as a punctuation to the dialogue it seemed unnecessary and led the scene to be unintentionally comical. This was witnessed with the crew walking the length of one of the dinosaurs and the music matching their movements. Comparatively to the clips we watched of the remake of King Kong I felt that the music was better suited for the film. The score in the remake seemed to complement the varying emotion of the scene as opposed to attempting to follow the movements of the actors with the music. This made it easier as an audience member to be less distracted by the music and it even assisted in conveying the emotional transition of the scene. For instance, the compassionate stares Ann exhibited when she was watching the sunset with Kong had soft, serene music playing whereas the scene with the fighter jets attacking had rapid, imperative music playing.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Karla Argumoza
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The first time I ever watched King Kong was the 2005 version, so watching the modern version made me see the original in a different way. There were several things I did not enjoy about the original. I know that at this time film was becoming the new sensation for the nation and technology was just beginning. First, I did not like the rear-screen projection because it frustrated me seeing different animals that looked like toys interacting with humans. The characters in the movie did not interact well specially in the part where they were walking around an animal on the floor to see if it was dead. In a way, I would consider this mickey mousing because the characters were not looking at the animal, but they were talking about it. Second, I thought that the music was a little exaggerated in some parts of the movie. Although the music was great, I felt that some parts of the movie did not need to go with what they characters were doing all the time. Like in the part where the Leader of the Island was walking down the steps, the music was going along with each step. This to me was another form of mickey mousing. Lastly, I did not enjoy that Anne was not communicating with Kong. I felt that her character just screamed the whole time but did not say anything to the ape. I would have a least expected her to say “Stop!”, or “Let me go.” Something that I enjoyed from the 2005 version was that Kong and Anne had a connection. That made me feel sympathy for the ape because of how everything turns out. In the original version I did not feel pity for the ape because Anne did not make me feel anything for it. The 2005 version was better for me than the original.
LikeLike
Quiz Name: Looking at Movies, 4e
chapter number: 10
Student’s Name: Ryan Hrabak
Student’s Email: Ryanhrabak@yahoo.com
number of questions:15
percent correct:100%
I enjoyed both versions of kong. i do wish that the 2005 version was shorter. the 33 version is very outdated but it is still very entertaining. the close ups of kong’s face smiling in the 33 version are very creepy. i do like the cinematography in the 05 version, a lot of the scenes are beautifully lit (especially the scenes on the island).
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: James Vaughn
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Personally I think the 2005 version of King Kong was better than the 1933 version. The story of the 33 version seemed condensed and didn’t flow well to me. Also as we discussed in class, the “Mickey Mousing” is kind of annoying, however I probably wouldn’t have even noticed if it wasn’t pointed out. The 2005 version gives a much more emotional story. Kong and Anne had a better connection in that film allowing me to feel more involved with the story.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Mollie Meyer
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I enjoyed the 1933 version of King Kong more than I thought I would. Although I didn’t like the way the character Ann Darrow was portrayed; I felt she was shown as a dumb blonde who needed saving – although anyone would have needed to be saved from King Kong, I could have done with a little less fainting and kicking and this “oh dear” attitude.
I did think the acting, especially Fay Wray as Ann Darrow and Robert Armstrong as Carl Denham, was exaggerated. Their body language and arm movements just seemed to be over the top for me. Also, when someone had the idea to get planes, the others were “Yeah!!! Let’s do it” (or something along those lines) – they reacted more like they were going to get beers after the game. It was just odd.
A difference I noticed between the 1933 & 2005 versions, which is solely due to technology advancements, was the camera angles. The ’33 version, the camera seemed to be close to the actors and always at their level. But the 2005 version had a lot more range; we saw both high & low angle shots and perspectives that were not human (like seeing the airplanes coming for King Kong).
LikeLike
I really enjoyed the 1933 King Kong but I was expecting a little more from the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow like what was in the 2005 version. The relationship in the 1933 version was a little one sided with Kong clearly being more infatuated with Ann and Ann just seeing him as a monster which fits the description of the film as a creature feature. The 2005 version was much longer and wanted to add something different so it wasn’t a shot for shot remake and was able to add a kinda love story between Ann and Kong.
The 2005 version did have the advantage of having more advanced technology than the 1933 but they did well for what they had. Kong’s facial expressions and eyes were done well for being a doll and if they had better technology they could have utilized the low camera angle to drive the point home that Kong is superior to the humans and to be feared and used the high angle on Ann as she was trying to escape to show that she is weak. The 2005 version from what we saw utilized many different camera angles to give perspective between the human characters and Kong while the 1933 version kept the camera at one angle for most of the movie.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Rachel Wager-Smith
Student’s email: rachelw_s@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I actually really enjoyed the original King Kong. While the effects are certainly outdated, I found the stop-motion and rear screen projections pretty impressive for the time and I think it still holds a certain kind of charm — it appeals to the imagination in ways that I don’t think newer films can. In the remake of King Kong, for example, everything was spelled out so precisely and we saw every little detail of every event, which is why it’s a three hour long film. In the original, however, it was more of an adventure. It was just these guys (and one girl) out in the wilderness trying to make a movie and then things get out of hand. It was well written and well paced through the editing and I think it still “works” even though the special effects used are so outdated. This isn’t to say that the new film doesn’t have it’s merits — I think it does — I just don’t think it achieves the same kind of wonder and adventure that the first one does and part of the reason why is because you simply can’t with modern visual effects. That said, I did appreciate the fact that the newer version spent more time developing the characters, not just of the humans but of Kong as well. This was done not only through the writing but in more subtle ways, like getting to see Kong’s eyes and facial expressions in far more detail than would ever have been possible in 1933.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Joseph LeClaire
Student’s email: leclairejoe@comcast.net
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Growing up I saw quite a few stop motion animation movies. Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans and so on. Kong was very well done as far the stop motion and the rear screen projection are concerned. For its time I’m sure it would have been quite the entertaining movie. However the mickey mousing and the characters drove me nuts. I couldn’t stand them. And as far as the remake is concerned I think that remakes are never given enough if any credit by critics at all. I think the remake was very well done by Jackson. It had relationship between Kong and Ann as well as good character development. I heard some people trash talk the depiction of the natives but after doing some research it seems that quite of few island tribes were cannibalistic and lets not forget that many ancient cultures were in to human sacrifice. With that in mind I think that Jackson did a fair representation of a island tribe that lives on rocks with nothing to eat but fish and probably anyone who comes on shore. And don’t forget they sacrifice women to Kong. It is only natural that Jackson would want you to be afraid of these people.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Molly Greco
Student’s email: molly_greco@comcast.net
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Taylor Lee
Student’s email: taylorlee2@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
At the time, this version of King Kong (1933) was amazing. Films like the first version of King Kong, introduced special effects to the world of film and we can see how these effects evolved over the years to be more believable and more entertaining. While watching this film I enjoyed the side projections to make it look like two images were put together and this was the only way to do this back in the day. The effects are so fake and obvious, but in movies like these it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the effects are as long as it is a good story and the rest of the film is carried by the actors and story telling. Despite the screaming scenes I did enjoy the acting and the location/props. The story is a classic where these group of explorers go to an island to find out what this great beast is and getting into trouble and than surviving in the end. The 2005 version of King Kong is obviously more aesthetically beautiful with lighting and colors, but the new King Kong is very stretched out. The original King Kong is straight to the point and the story remains to be around the giant gorilla unlike the newer version which seems to be evolved around a love interest between the main actress (the girl who is taken) and the giant gorilla. This makes a much better story, but is longer because the director of the new King Kong made most of the movie between the girl and the gorilla, so they can connect and get to know each other (Animal to human relationship).
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Andres Mendez
Student’s email: amendezconsulting@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time seeing the original King Kong, and although the animation of the movie was outdated, obviously, I still found it interesting to watch. It is amazing how much the crew was able to execute using stop motion animation. Not only that, but given the time they were pushing the envelope of visual effects in cinema. I did get the sense of “Mickey Mousing”, however I feel that this was common during this time because most of the movies that I’ve seen from this era had this commonality. This might have to do with the lack of close ups and ability to capture emotions with the camera during that time, therefore resulting in the actors having to really exaggerate their emotions to make sure the audience “really” knows what is going on. Once we switched to the King Kong from 2000’s it was clear how much cinematic technology has advanced. The effects were clearly more detailed and went more unnoticed because the image of the scenery was just painted better. There were also more cuts that highlighted different details from the setting to better to tell the story. Both are great movies that I had never seen before and were my first time being exposed to the films. However, I believe by watching both of these films back to back you really get a sense of how advanced certain filmmakers of the past were, and how far film as a whole has evolved.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Madeleine Hedenland
Student’s email: hedenland@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Zara Dawson
Student’s email: zaradawson@csus.edu
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
It’s hard for someone watching this film from a modern perspective not to be critical of the film for its outdated effects and the campy style of acting. Nowadays, we are used to realistic-looking CGI effects. When watching this, I tried to keep an open mind and keep it in perspective and imagine myself watching it in the time period it was released and I would certainly look at it differently. It is a classic and one that many directors of future generations have paid homage to. It is pretty surprising the fast pace of the film. However, the development of characters and relationships seems to be lacking. I fall in line in agreement with others who felt there should have been more of a relationship between Kong and Anne. The scenes that we viewed from the 2005 version seemed much better visually and character-wise. You could really see the thought and emotion behind Kong’s eyes. There was a definite romantic connection between Kong and Anne that was severely lacking in the 1933 version. The 1933 version is all around cheesy and completely unrealistic-looking with the stop-motion animation and the rear-screen projection that just seems off-putting, although for the time period it was probably pretty state-of-the-art.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Zara Dawson
Student’s email: zaradawson@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Kathleen Crouter
Student’s email: kathleencrouter@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I really enjoyed watching King Kong (1933), but for the silliness of it. I think the King Kong of 2005 is more convincing for this day and age. Of course I can understand how people from 1933 could be scared of a big clay ape with a toothy grin. The use of rear projections made the actors look like they were interacting with the monsters, but the camera was always at a great distance. There were no medium shots of Anne and Kong together in the same shot like there is in the 2005 version. The distance away from the characters felt like 25th row and I couldn’t connect with the character Anne when she was “in danger.” She also screamed a great deal. That was her only interaction with Kong in the film and there was hardly any dialogue between the human characters. The music seemed to be the only real continuous “dialogue.” It controlled the mood of the scenes, but sometimes it seemed to be mickey moussing. Kong’s fingers wiggle stripping off pieces of Anne’s dress and the music wiggles too, making it seem very silly. The 2005 King Kong has a beautifully epic music score. It also controls the mood and works with the characters. An example of the music working with the characters would be when the tribal chief is stepping down the stairs and the music hits a beat every time his foot steps. The 2005 version had characters with more emotion. Anne is able to sympathize with Kong. Jack is not a muscle man type of guy, but he loves Anne and wants to save her. There are more characters who have background stories as well. The 2005 version does a better job at developing it’s characters a little more than the 1933 version. The bad things about the 2005 version were the creepy non-human like tribe people and the length.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Dana Johnson
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
While the 2005 version is what contemporary audiences are use to, I think the original 1933 King Kong shows much more ingenuity in story telling technique. Ideas such as the use of an original soundtrack were pioneered by this film. This contribution alone is enough to mark it as a watershed event in cinema history even if they indulged in some mickey mousing. Today its impact is universally felt as original scores are ubiquitous to film and make up more than a few awards categories. More recognized, King Kong is known for its groundbreaking use of special effects. The introduction of stop motion, matte painting, rear projection, and miniatures would go on to inspire many productions after it and surviving well into the digital age. Peter Jackson himself has received many accolades for his integration of these techniques in his work on the Lord of the Ring’s trilogies resulting in a more textually rich aesthetic. It’s ironic then that a man who has built his reputation on 1933 King Kongs innovations blew off its contributions and instead made a bloated, self indulgent CGI mess of a film. Indeed he even managed to deepen the the racist undertones of the film. True, the 2005 version has an improved use of cinematography but this is more due to advances in the film medium over the last 70 years than anything specific to Jackson’s work. Any talented director would have improved that particular aspect. All in all the story of King Kong belongs to the past and should be appreciated for what it is but not repeated.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Sabrina Dunkl
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
King Kong was very entertaining and was glad to watch the older version and the new and improved version just to see the growth of sound effects and visual images. Bringing up the subject about slavery and white people coming onto thier land I would have to agree with dana that the newer version of king kong definitly potrayed the black people as more demon like and possessed in the scene when the girl was about to be taken away by the gorilla. On another note, the score was thought out very well and I feel as if it wasn’t mickey moused. The timing of the footsteps was perfect and wasn’t too overdramatic. Honestly, if you didnt point that out I wouldn’t have noticed that the music was going along with the footsteps. If the music was more dramatic and louder then it would be considered to be mickey moused. Also, Most of the scenes in the older version doesn’t have a lot of dialogue compared to the newer version there is much more dialogue. Lastly, the girl is afraid of the gorilla in the older version of king kong and in the newer version the girl seems to create a relationship with the gorilla and she doesn’t want him to die.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jonathan Patton
Student’s email: JonathanPatton@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
(Took quiz last week by mistake, so I’m posting the results this week)
King Kong (1933) is a story of civilized man vs a primal beast told on an epic scale. Use of projection screen technology allowed for grander spectacles that what was the norm in 33′. What interesting to note is the closest framing we see of Ann is a MS, wherein we see her famous scream. In the entire scene, the only CU we see is a dolly-in of Kong’s face. This has the audience focus in on how Kong is feeling about the scene. Kong is the main character of this scene. The rest of the scene are framed in either a LS of MS of the Tribesmen, the wall, or Ann on the sacrificial pedestal. While the technology allowed for greater spectacle; ie Kong on screen in stop motion animation, the way it’s edited seems more a “forced perspective” stage play where you don’t get to see how “man” (Ann) is feeling in this situation. Which is interesting if we compare it to the 05′ Version of King Kong, in which we see a higher contrast of framing. In the first shot of the sacrifice scene, we get an XLS of the giant wall, cut to a CU of Ann being dragged thru a procession of tribesmen. This continues throughout the scene, where we see a XLS or LS of the wall, then cut to a MS or CU of the action that is taken place in the scene and back and forth. In the 05′ version we see CU of the tribes-people, adding another layer of tension and creepiness to the scene that is missing in the 33′ version where the tribes people’s feelings and goals are translated and communicated via these CU. In the 33′ version the tribesmen are simply a set piece in the background of stage play.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Blia
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I found the 1933 version of King Kong to be fascinating. I can appreciate the stop-motion animation. Though, I believe because I am biased to my age and contemporary films, I like the 2005 version more. I found the model of King Kong in the 1933 version to be hilarious in a child’s toy like way. But, despite that, King Kong himself looks horrendous and I can understand Ann’s screaming, similar to a reaction to an abominable creature such as Frankenstein’s monster. Though, I also thought much of the acting was over exaggerated, not just Ann’s. But, the over exaggeration is fitting with the terseness of the film and the get-the-point-across attitude of the film—beauty can kill beasts.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Daniell Reeser
Student’s email: daniellreeser@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Comparing the 1933 and 2005 versions of King Kong in a critical fashion brought out some interesting points. With our focus on the power of cinematography, editing, and directing, I found more flaws in the 2005 version than I had when I saw it for the first time. I find the dichromatic lighting tendencies of posters to be annoying and cliche within the “serious fiction action/adventure” film, since, after you notice it, it draws a terrible amount of attention to itself. However, the newer film has the resources to capture many more angles and offer the audience a greater number of close-up shots, which are pivotal to building an attachment to the characters if the cuts are fast-paced. We sympathize more with emotions we can see and can dwell on for a moment with the character, than with people held at a constant medium-shot. I discovered an interesting phenomenon while watching the 2005 version that when I was purposefully watching for the editing, it seemed clunky, sudden, or unjustified. I believe this is a case-in-point that editing is meant to be invisible, and especially in fast-paced modern films, we are not meant to pay attention to it, or the pace will seem a bit jittery. Combined with the sheer length of the scenes overall, the action seems to take place in a semi-grounded, extended montage. The notion of music being too leading or not, I believe, is also due to whether we are paying attention or not. If we viewers listen for the music specifically, I think we would find all music to be somewhat leading and cheesy. How intensely we are invested in the action onscreen masks the soundtrack into a complementary background. Like editing, if the music can manage a subtle-enough approach, audiences and filmmakers seem to accept and expect some level of leading music to enhance the action.
I would also like to throw in that actors in suits playing King Kong and the dinosaurs would have likely just looked like bouncy, rubbery costumes, artificially scaled by the rear-screen projections. At least the stop-motion animation stood true to the theme of non-human strangeness the “monsters” were meant to possess.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Travis Bishop
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
Took the ch 10 quiz last week by accident, re-pasted the results.
This was my first time watching the 1933 King Kong all the way through. Growing up my dad and i watched a lot of old b movies together, mainly sci-fi movies from the 50’s and 60’s. I think watching those movies as a kid gives me a greater appreciation for these outdated kind of effects like stop motion and projection. I personally like the short and to the point story of the original movie over the long drawn out scenes in the remake. The remake might have added more intensity with the use of CG and other special effects but i think the original was great for its age. The projection in the original is sort of cheesy but they found a way to make their ideas come to life for the film and i can admire that.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Ana Carla Teixeira Praciano Santos
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
It is impossible to talk about the original King Kong and not paying attention to the stop motion technique of animation used to bring the gorilla to life. The usage of it shows how the filmmaker was concerned with the means to make it happen and I personally think it was a successful try. Furthermore, comparing to the 2005 version, it is clear that the lack of close ups damaged the emotions of the audience regarding to feel what the actors where feeling. I also think that the sound has an important role in both versions, but in the 1933 one, the focus is on the mickey mousing. It is interesting to see how, even though the editing do not affect the audience as much as it could, the sound, because of mickey mousing, does it, leading the audience in many moments.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Joao Vitor Mascarenhas
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This interesting exercise of analyse the two versions of King Kong makes me think about how the development of the Cinema and its techniques helps the filmmaker achieve its goals. For example, these techniques allowed the new version of the movie to convey more emotions of the characters through close ups, as we can see on the scene where Dwan is being offered to Kong. In the old version, utilising Rear Projection, the director didn’t show the panic at Dwan’s face while Kong got closer to her, but in the new one, with a close up in Dwan, we can have a better idea of her state of mind, of her panic. In the new version, the sound matching with the cuts and the camera work brings more emotion to the audience. For example in scene where Kog and Dwan are on the top of the Empire, the camera surrounding the top of the building with the classic song helps to pass the feeling of appreciation of the landscape of the characters.
LikeLike
This was the first time i saw the 33 version of King Kong and i thought it was alright. obviously it is outdated and cheezy but they had limitations. there are some scenes where the stop motion didn’t look all that bad and flowed naturally. I could appreciate that they used stop motion, its difficult, takes finesse, and patience. The up close shots of King Kong in the older version really didn’t do much he doesn’t have much expression. In the 05 version the relationship between the woman and ape are much more developed. I don’t know if i would say the new version is far better, when i first saw it i wasn’t that impressed and it was way too long.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: barron perez
Student’s email: barronsperez@yahoo.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The double creature feature of the King Kong films were great to see. I have never seen the old King Kong before, although the rear projection technique is hilarious, but It gets the job done. The timing was the most important aspect, when the actor throws thing on, and the creature throws stuff off screen. it was done right and that’s what made the film believable. The acting was one of the weak aspect of the older King Kong film partially because of the sets and obviously fake backgrounds. In the newer film, the acting is a great aspect of the movie, and the sets were more elaborate and believable. The CGI in the newer film allows for better camera angles and bigger landscapes for establishing shots. But what was really cool was the two dramatic changes in both films, when they see the Skull island. In the older film, they use music to introduce the dramatic entrance of the island. In the newer version, the film goes from Black n white to color, when they see the island. Over all it was a great double feature.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Hillary Folsom
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I personally loved the original King Kong! It’s always a trip to see how a film like that was so entertaining back in the day. The stop motion action was of course cheesy to us but I really thought it had some sense of originality. When comparing this film to the 2005 version (and putting the more advanced graphics aside), I’d have to say the biggest improvement was allowing the camera to move around and capture emotions and reactions instead of keeping it in one place. The drawn out scenes in the 1930’s version took a little bit of time to get use to because we’re so use to having so much action being thrown at us. Although in the 2005 version, making the film 3 hours long may or may not have been necessary as well…but I guess that’s what you get with Peter Jackson. The more old fashioned films I get to watch, the more I appreciate them as a whole.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Brandon Stomsvik
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
Letting the class compare a classic telling of King Kong to the newest remake helped us get a better understanding of where the directors wanted to improve or change things in either movie. Peter Jackson wanted to make this remake with a taste of his own personal touches. In the narration, Jackson seems to highlight more about a love interest than what was described as in the original 1933 version. Though to be fair, Jackson’s film was almost twice as long so he tried to explore all the possibilities that weren’t addressed in the first film. Jackson’s film seemed to play up the musical score a bit too much throughout the film. In one particular scene, where we get a first glimpse of the airplanes as they pass by King Kong’s head while he’s on a Empire State. This seemed like a great scene to focus on the little details, but all I could really hear was the loud score playing in the background. In the original, right before the planes first dived in, the music stops and all we hear is the planes engines roaring. Then suddenly we start hearing the machine guns spitting out bullets. This is where I realized the power of original seemed to be superior compared to the remake.
LikeLike
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Geovanie Brooks
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 73%
The original King Kong was entertaining for the most part but it’s a movie that I probably won’t see again for awhile. The film’s editing was pretty cool especially how the actions of a scene was sync with the projected screen. Although it was high advanced at it time and made a lot of the creature elements of the film come to life, it can be slightly off putting but it still fairly entertaining. The camera did seem quite static in the film and the edit was straight-forward with not too many cuts, the film made it difficult to feel anything for Kong. It seemed like the director wanted to make Kong nothing more than a monster but with the 2005 remake, we have some empathy for Kong and the cuts are used to make the scenes more intense and realistic. Another thing that bother me about the 1930’s King Kong is the casting. If anything screamed WASP based casting anymore, then it’s was King Kong. Driscoll was the hero “blonde hair blue eyed” type, Ann did nothing more but scream in the film rather than act and Jimmy was an Asian cook who spoke broken english and was used for comic relief. The casting in the 2005 version was more practical and realistic. Jack Driscoll in this version is a regular guy who is down on his luck and needs a job. He’s very plain looking. Jimmy is the youngest member on the crew and he’s given reason for always being put in the rear, told to stay out of the action. And Ann Darrow was woman who realize the creature was more than a monster.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Samuel Acosta
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
This was my first time watching the original King Kong. Initially, I was surprised by the vast use of effects such as rear screen projection and stop-motion animation. Effects like these were very time consuming and tedious but the way that the effects crew executed them deserve praise. Although they look comical now, they seemed to have stood the test of time quite a bit and I see how audiences could have really seen this film as a spectacle. Of course, the 2005 version had all the bells and whistles of a modern day blockbuster. The thing that stuck out to me both when comparing the two films was the differences in editing styles. The 1993 King Kong had longer individual shots compared to the 2005 version. The duration of the clips definitely created stark differences between the two. The 2005 versions had many more shots in a single sequence, and that is reflective of the advancements in the techniques of editing. The detail found in the 2005 version is due largely in part to the selection of shots. Because there were so many more in the sequence, the audience can see close-ups of the tribe as well as Ann. Something that doesn’t occur in the 1933 version..The sound was also something that marked differences. I heard the mickey mousing of the 1933 Kong. I much prefer the sound of the 2005 version. Changes were subtle, yet played into the dynamics of the film very well. For example, intimate moments between Kong and Ann were marked by the dominance of the score, while moments of action and suspense were marked by diegetic sounds interrupting the score track.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Marty Manseau
Student’s email: mmanseau0821@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I think the original, 1933 version of King Kong is an important film for a few reasons. First, I think that it broke strides in the world of cinematic special effects. The use of stop-motion animation all of the scenes with Kong or Dinosaurs were, for the time, technologically shocking. I even noticed stop-motion when the film crew first arrived at the island and birds flew by. The film also employed a technique called rear-screen projection. The rear-screen projection made the monsters look larger than life and threatening. In class, we talked a lot about Max Steiner and Mickey Mousing. While there was a lot of Mickey Mousing, there was one scene that broke this norm. The fight between Kong and the T-Rex was eerily silent. Max Steiner lured the audience into a feeling of security with the silly, over-the-top music and then used silence to create a feeling of terrifying intensity. Surprisingly, Steiner knew when it was best to hold back and let the scene play out with no musical additions.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jeremy Santos
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I really enjoyed the 1933 version of King Kong with its use of rear screen projection and the fact they they were able to create such a iconic monster with the special effects they had at the time. I did however prefer the final scene of the 2005 version over 1933 version. The close ups and battle scene (2005 Version) over the Empire State Building were visually appealing even if I did know the ending. It was an emotional scene with Kong and his mistress Ann Darrow through intense conversation looking into each others eyes. As well as the music and sound going silent as Kong falls to his death.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Catherine Cooke
Student’s email: slysnide@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
The original “King Kong” didn’t seem to have too many bold ideas behind it. There was no connection between Kong and Ann Darrow, and most of Kong’s scenes featured him destroying or killing things. Ray Harryhausen and company certainly had their hands full with the special effects which were stunning for the time, and the diligence and patience required to pull it off perfectly is still mesmerizing today. However, it doesn’t really aesthetically take advantage of its setting. Take the 2005 remake, they milk it for everything it’s worth, but also display much character development in Kong and even Ann’s relationship with Kong as the film progresses. I think I’m the only one who didn’t have a problem with the film’s bloated 3hr runtime. Granted Peter Jackson makes some missteps as well with how he chose to portray the natives, but it’s pretty clear that he too like Merian Cooper was out to make an adventure film, without much social commentary beyond characterizing Kong as someone to pity and emphasize with. But for a 3hr movie, I agree there could’ve been more. The original however still stands on its own as the ultimate creature feature, even if it’s a bit more comical than thrilling.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Evan G
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I have not seen the 2005 version of King Kong. It’s not a movie I would normally sit down to watch on my own. The ending sequence that we watched last week in class was interesting. Especially to see the contrast with the 1933 version. I have much respect for the 1933 version. It was my first time seeing it and I was impressed by the visual special effects used in the film. Although, they may look cheesy (non-sophisticated) today, I can imagine they would look pretty awesome 82 years ago. There were 72 years between the two films and I’m sure in 2077, the 2005 version will look antiquated.
I don’t like comparing these two films at all but here goes. The camera moves more in the 2005 version. In the 1933 version the camera was still for the most part.
The editing in the 2005 version was faster showing there were many more shots in the scene.
The acting between the female lead/love interest in both versions of the film were different in the sense that the relationship with Kong and Ann Darrow in the 2005 version is much more intimate. In the 1933 version, King Kong was presented as a scary beast who kidnapped Ann and acted possessively towards her. She was like a rag doll to him. In the 2005 version, Kong gently picked her up and put her down in the scenes showed in class. His eyes were large and reflective with intelligence and emotion. I think this is where the special effects of today and what we know of primates comes into play. The sound used in both versions of the film were different in the sense that in the 2005 version things sounded more loud. I don’t know how to explain it.
The sound came from the direction of the object on camera and worked with the camera movement I am think ing specifically about the scenes where Kong is on top of the building and he roars while the camera swoops by as the planes are circling. The planes engines and the the sound of the shooting bullets are heard as if we art the camera. Like as the planes whoosh by it’s in relation to where the camera is. Like if the plane moved from screen right to screen left we hear the sound from right to left.
p.s.
I am pasting the copy of the quiz results for the last chapter, Chapter 11. I was looking ahead on the syllabus and there’s no blog post that week so I thought I’d just do it today. I have all the emailed results from the quizzes confirming that I scored 100% on each of them.
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 11
Student’s name: Evan G
Student’s email:
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Caleb B.
Number of questions: 10
Percent correct: 100%
For some reason, I prefer the 1970’s version of King Kong over the other two. The film directed by Peter Jackson looks too much like a video game to me. The color saturation is boosted in every shot and it seems like too much. I wondered what a movie would look like if it broke the 180 degree rule, and the ending plane scene seems to consistently alienate the viewer. The black and white King Kong is riddled with issues from the era, but from a filmmaking point of view it is a classic. I remember seeing the original as a kid and I knew the stop motion looked fake, but I was still entertained.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jeremy Clark
Student’s email: jeremyclark@csus.edu
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I was very impressed with the 1933 version of King Kong especially in comparison with the new (2005) one. I thought that the film stood up especially well in comparison to the king kong vs. T-Rex showdown. While obviously the new film employed much better special effects, the level of suspense was still comparable. The stop-motion was very well done and they managed to create a fight that looked sufficiently real in the movement of the t-rex and king kong himself. I can not imagine the viewers reaction in that time when two gigantic monsters dueled it out before their eyes. I thought it was especially well done as they could not utilize the same level of closeups as they can nowadays. Whereas today we could see a closeup of Ann swinging through the air in king kong’s arms they obviously could not do the same back then. They were limited to the techniques of their time and managed impressively.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Stephanie Castillo
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
This was the first time that I saw the original 1933 version of King Kong. I did think there was a bit of mickeymousing going on in the film, especially in the scene where the indigenous people were walking towards the film crew. I did like the new version because they don’t show King Kong right away which adds more mystery to the character. I also really like that they added more of a relationship between him and Ann, which made his character more three-dimensional. The scenes were also a little more intense because of the quick shots instead of just having long takes throughout the film.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Caleb B.
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
(Wrong number of questions in first post)
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Patricia Brill
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I loved both version of King Kong and surprisingly havent seen the original until we watched it in class. The 2 movies are most different in their editing styles, I think. In the original, the cuts were longer, there werent as many reaction shots, and everything was more straightforward but in the remake, the cuts were quicker, making us have a shorter attention span, it also showed more emotion with all the characters by having those reaction shots and not revealing all of Kong at first. At the end of the remake though, I think that Peter Jackson spent a lot more time on reaction shots than necessary as it got meaningless the more he kept cutting between Kong and Ann. All in all, I do think I like the remake a little bit more than the original just because it shows more character devleopment and emotions throughout.
LikeLike
Quiz name: Looking at Movies, 4e
Chapter Number: 10
Student’s name: Jess Gemignani-Olmo
Student’s email: jlgolmo@gmail.com
Number of questions: 15
Percent correct: 100%
I enjoyed King Kong (1933) for its rear projection and stop motion. Namely, I love the fight scene between Kong and the T-Rex. I really appreciate stop motion in general but the attention to detail that went into that fight scene really paid off in my opinion. Though the movement isn’t what we would consider smooth today, it was definitely choreographed in a realistic fashion and seemed to flow well enough. I love the final moment when Kong smashes the mouth of the T-Rex because the blood gushing down the dinosaur’s jaw plus the crunching sound that accompanies the fatal blow is way gorier than I would expect from the 30s. It’s especially admirable when considering how long of a scene that was—which I believe was roughly 3 minutes.
What I didn’t like was how Ann barely had any personality, and that she didn’t empathize or really even feel anything throughout the movie (other than the mandatory attraction between her and Jack Driscoll). She never underwent any sort of character development which was disappointing. The fact that she never realized that Kong was trying to protect her and valued her was frustrating too. She just screamed—incessantly. This almost makes her look callous (or stupid) which I think helped to aid the theme for the movie, which was a rather misogynistic one. At the beginning Driscoll is getting reprimanded for having feelings for Ann because “women make men soft” and for some reason love is frowned upon because it’s a feeling and men can’t have feelings, obviously. Plus they are comparing the two lovebirds to beauty and the beast, which draws a strong comparison between men and Kong and therefore signifies that King Kong represents masculinity. This theme is reinforced at the end when Kong dies and Carl Denham announces that “it was beauty killed the beast”. By drawing likeness between men and beast early on in the film, the movie successfully constructs an analogy wherein this giant ape is meant to represent masculinity (fierce, intimidating, strong, etc) who then becomes weak because of Ann (women, love, etc) and loses his life because of it. In other words, the movie’s implicit meaning is that falling in love or getting married will cause a man to lose his vigor and become less of a man in the eyes of other men. I personally saw it commentating on marriage as well, not just falling in love. Even today, men often make jokes about how a man signs away his masculinity to his wife when he enters into “holy matrimony”.
On the contrary, I think Ann was too overdone in the remake of King Kong (2005). While they did succeed in evoking more emotion than the 1933 version, it was beyond excessive and I found myself almost laughing during the ending scene. Also, I really don’t understand how anyone thought it would work to try to end a serious movie with a cheeseball line like that. It worked in the ’33 version because of the “mickey-mousing” and the humorous undertones but it was extremely out of place and embarrassing in the newer version.
Oh, and one last thing– woman didn’t really kill the beast. Men saved the helpless woman, men escaped, profit of having an over-sized monkey was too alluring, capitalism killed the beast, men placed the blame on the woman. Nice.
LikeLike