Talk:King Kong

message: Under "Appearance and Abilities," I expected to see that electricity, on the scale of lightning bolts, seems to enhance Kong's strength. It also seems to enhance his healing abilities. He was pummeled into unconsciousness by Godzilla's tail, but after being struck by lightning, he recovered quickly and proved to be more than a match for Godzilla. 35.137.128.114 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its listed under the King Kong (Toho) section. The Japanese version of King Kong is in a seperate section from the Hollywood one.24.50.181.111 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Electricity

message: Isn't it weird how similar that World War I poster is to King Kong, which supposedly wasn't dreamed up until 1929? If we're gonna include that photo in the article, shouldn't something be said about it? Was it used as inspiration? Just a crazy coincidence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KannD86 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WWI poster

message: I archived the page, mainly because it was getting quite long and it was taking me forever just to scroll down the page (I have dail-up). I think I did it right, but if I made a mistake, can a more experienced editor make the necessary corrections? Thanks.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I can see that is the least bit worth mentioning is that I usually find links to archives in prominent boxes (and I don't know how to do that, either). Other than that, you've got it. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: There is a sentence in the section "Character rights" which reads, in part: "In 1990 they [i.e., the Cooper estate] licensed a six issue comic book adaptation of the story to Monster Comics...." However, the article King Kong (comics) says of this publication, "It is not, in fact, based on the 1933 film, but instead on the 1932 novelization by Delos W. Lovelace, and thus differs from the movie in numerous places." The text continues on to detail these differences and how they do indeed match the novel. It was Giantdevilfish's recent changing of "novel" to "story" in the passage from this article that caught my eye, as I remembered the other quite clearly and thought his edit ill-advised. Before I could change it to "novelization," the full context registered. The problem is that, as the "...rights" section with which I began states, Lovelace's work had been in the public domain for at least two decades as of 1990, and no license (and therefore no fee) would have been needed for the comic described, and consequently there probably wasn't one. Shouldn't all mention of the comic be removed from this passage? --Ted Watson (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All clear. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I believe that you are understanding this correctly and have requested verification below. Trademark has been explicitly declined by the courts, and the original text is public domain. Elements in copyrightable sequels may be protected, but derivative works based on the original can't be, certainly not under any ordinary process of copyright. I so far haven't found a legal ruling to indicate otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster Comics adaptation: licensed or not? 

message: I cannot Find anywhere on the internet that it says that this exists, Really! Show me where it says that! Where does It exists on This DVD and when did this air on the Sci Fi Channel? Where And When Show Me That This Exists, Otherwise This Should Be Deleted!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this thing aired on the Sci-Fi channel or not but there is a "documentary" about Skull Island as an extra on the first DVD release of this film called Skull Island: A Natural History
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/696/696168p1.htmlGiantdevilfish (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mockumentary On Skull Island Shown On The DVD Of The Remake But Originally Shown On The Sci Fi Channel? 

message: Should we list ripoffs of this movie, as The Mighty Gorga is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.155.176 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mighty Gorga? 

message: Have any films critics ever pointed out, that all 3 Kong movies failed to show how an unconcious Kong was transferred off Skull Island & onto the waiting boat? If so, could we add it? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film critics 

message: Is the Toho version really notable enough to warrant a whole dedicated section in the main article? This stuff could well be covered in the Appearances and Abilities section or the Filmography section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.254.30 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toho 

message: How can it be a prequel when it takes place in 1971?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:201:9C70:D5A:28B4:716C:235E (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull Island a prequel? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on King Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090322172154/http://altlaw.org:80/v1/cases/552835 to http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/552835
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the widely-publicised story of Carmen Nigro (who claimed, probably falsely, to have acted as Kong in the 1933 film while wearing a gorilla suit), is a notable episode in the history of King Kong. His story received worldwide attention and is mentioned in a number of reliable sources. I would suggest it has a place somewhere in this article, even if not in the "legal disputes" section. Muzilon (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be put in the King Kong (1933) page because it pertains to that film in particular.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Carmen Nigro affair 

message: I haven't seen the film in about 15 years, but is this description of the image in the lead accurate? I had seen the image before the film, and it always confused me how he could tower above what looks like the Empire State Building and also climb it in the film. Isn't it just a promotional image rather than a still from the film? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King Kong featured in the original 1933 film" 

message: Kong appears to be modeled after a picture of a "bull gorilla" seen in a museum picture (which is helpfully linked). It's not entirely clear from the reference what a bull gorilla is (to me). Is that a species of gorilla or the gender of gorilla. Was it intended to refer to a Silverback? A little clearer reference and possibly a link would - I think - be helpful. I'd like to be able to know more about this particular kind of gorilla that formed the basis for the original Kong. Thanks! Mikehospitalchaplain (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Gender. In the book Living Dangerously its stated (Page 208) that Cooper sent a telegram to Harry Raven at the American Museum of Natural History for the physical dimension of a large male gorilla.Giantdevilfish (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to bull gorilla 

message: We say it was zero, on Merian Cooper's testimony.  But read this, particularly:
* After his death, there was an attempt to minimise Wallace's contribution to King Kong, with the film's director Merian C. Cooper, claiming that not one single scene or line of dialogue was contributed by him.
* But, fortunately, a copy of Wallace's scenario exists that gives lie to that assertion. The first half of Wallace's script does differ from the film, but the second half, which has Kong being captured, taken to America and ending up on the Empire State Building is all in Wallace's script. And it's Wallace who develops the beauty-and-the-beast theme that gives the film such pathos.
Time for a correction of the record?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well basically Wallace's only contributions was to adapt Coopers story idea into screenplay form. He doesn't really deserve any other credit other than that. Selznick brought him in so he can have a popular writer write out Cooper's story. He wrote the first draft of his story, but Cooper wasn't satisfied and wanted him to rewrite it by modifying certain plot points and Kong's personality (which he didn't feel was vicious enough). Wallace never had a chance to since he fell ill, so it was ultimately rewritten by Creelman and then finally Rose. When Cooper says Wallace didn't write "one bloody word" he was referring to the final draft of the script that was ultimately filmed (it was Rose' version), and when he said "not one single scene was contributed by him" he was right since it was Cooper who came up those plot points. Douglas Burden's trip to Komodo, capturing 2 Komodo Dragons and bringing them to America was the inspiration for Cooper to have Kong being captured and brought to America, and Kong climbing the tallest building in the world was an idea Cooper had gotten even before he came to RKO to make the picture. So those plot points  were not Wallace's idea. In the book "The Making of King Kong" there are snippets from Wallace's journal where even he admits it was more of Coopers creation then his. Merian Cooper called and we talked over the big animal play we are going to write, or rather I am writing and he is directing. An announcement has been made in the local press that I am doing a super horror story with Merian Cooper, but the truth is it is much more his story than mine...I shall get much more credit out of the picture than I deserve if it is a success, but I shall be blamed by the public if it is a failure which seems fair.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edgar Wallace's contribution

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on King Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302124248/http://www.scifidimensions.com/Dec04/joedevito.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/Dec04/joedevito.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218100701/http://www.altuspress.com/2013/01/press-release-doc-savage-and-king-kong-coming-in-march/ to http://www.altuspress.com/2013/01/press-release-doc-savage-and-king-kong-coming-in-march/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is incomplete, undersourced, needs to be rewritten and reorganized. There is a lot of information missing on the character's concept/creation that needs to be added to the article in a Concept/creation section, which would need to have sub-sections on the character's development and design. Some of this information is already present in the article and should be moved to the previously mention sections and sub-sections. All new information should be added with proper citations from reliable sources. Each of the character's official appearances (not cameo/parody appearances) will need to be added into an appearances section with a brief description of the character/film's storyline (citations should be given for this information), and the appearances section split into the character's official appearances in literature, film, and television. Rewriting and reorganizing this article is crucial as a lot of information needs to be reorganized and rewritten to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. There should also be a characterization section that talks about how the character has been portrayed as in terms of personality. Also the legacy/impact section will need to be completely rewritten and reformatted so that it's not in the current bullet point listing but rather a more in depth and encyclopedic structure that details the character's legacy and impact in popular culture. Any other appearances in popular culture should be placed in a popular culture section which again will need to be structured in a paragraph format rather than a bullet point listing. This article has potential to easily become FA status if enough attention is given to it. Hopefully someone comes along and gives it and other articles on Kaiju the attention they deserve.--Paleface Jack 17:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking here. The article has more than enough reliable citations and sources with 125 (That's actually more than the Godzilla page). What kind of information is missing on the conception and creation page? That section contains enough details that covers the creation of the character and is more than adequately sourced. Each paragraph covers different aspects of his creation. The first paragraph covers Coopers influences. The second is his idea for creating the character and the third covers how the character was actually conceived. Since each paragraph covers a different aspect of his creation it would seem pointless to have "subsections". You can write articles without having to separate paragraphs into separate subsections. His official appearances are already listed in the filmography section (although I agree a simple plot synopsis for each film should be there). The characters appearances and abilities section covers his personality and characterizations. The information on the article is split up accordingly covering his different media incarnations into the characters literature appearances, filmography, cameos, legal rights, and legacy subsections. King Kong has appeared in so much media and had so many authors and production companies that listing each one separately into subsections would get confusing. The sections that are written as is covers all the bases in his respective media appearances.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

text: What exactly do you want expanded into detail? I think the "Conception and Creation" section is pretty thorough and well cited and his character development is more than covered accordingly in the "Appearances and Abilities" section even containing quotes from the various people involved with those productions explaining why they did what they did with the character for those particular films (Merian C Cooper, Peter Jackson, Jordan Voght Roberts). Unlike Godzilla there has been so many different interpretations of Kong from so many different parties that I think the subsections you are asking for would just over clutter the article. Consolidating it into separate general sections (Literature, video games, etc) unifies everything more coherently.Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and Expansion 

message: Why is Edgar Wallace credited for creating King Kong.
I thought Merian C. Cooper created King Kong outright, first and foremost
I just don't get it! Why is Edgar Wallace credited? Please explain, thank-you. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.97.145 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: the explanation is in the Edgar Wallace and the King Kong (film) articles. Probably something belongs here Alaney2k (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King Kong(Novel). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#King Kong(Novel) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TheAwesomeHwyh 18:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King Kong(Novel)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King Kong(novel). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#King Kong(novel) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  TheAwesomeHwyh 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King Kong(novel)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This article has been constantly vandalized and I can't keep up with it. I tried to protect the page but for some reason someone removed it and now the article is constantly vandalized again. So can we all agree on putting protection for this article to refrain more potential vadalism. GeekFreak98 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to protect this page 

message: Hello! Just out of curiosity, since there is a separate article for the Godzilla featured in the MonsterVerse (i.e., Godzilla), I was wondering if there has ever been a discussion or an attempt to create a separate article for the King Kong prominently featured in the MonsterVerse. I believe, since there are movies that center around that particular incarnation of the character, as well as other tie-in merchandise such as comics and a show (i.e., Skull Island), that said iteration should have a separate article and since there is an article for the MonsterVerse version of Godzilla why shouldn't King Kong? Fox Guardian (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mothra and Rodan Ghidorah MechaGoji should also Have their MV incarnation as a page Monster 1954 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate King Kong article for MonsterVerse incarnation 

message: First Toho Got the rights to USE kong  and Kong only appear in two  Godzilla films and plus Kong is not a TOHO kaiju Monster 1954 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Kong is not a toho kaiju he was a toho kaiju but not now so I may ask why is he here with the other Toho kaijus and so as Rhedosaurus and yet rhedo and Kong are not toho kaijus Monster 1954 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kong should not be with the Toho kaijus 

message: So it not cool how kong wiki page states that Kong first appernece was King kong Yeah there nothing wrong with that but where the latest apperence  Monster 1954 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh why