If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact


  • 17-05-2022 10:54pm
    Registered Users Posts: 12,115 ✭✭✭✭

    So you youngsters?

    I'm of a generation that loved the original 1933 version on TV after I had seen the 1976 remake in the Cinema That remake had so much epicness to it from it's director, cinematographer and special effects people like Rambaldi to a young Rick Baker. The cast only got respected by me many years later after further films. I've just rewatched the 76 version and it still blows me away. It had its problems back then and they can still be seen in this CGI age, but feckin hell folks, its a beautiful movie. The Jackson remake of the 1933 version was enjoyable on the basis of being a complete reboot of the original, but I thought it was dragged out a bit. Skull Island was diabolical.

    Anyone care to comment on this troubled 1976 version of King Kong? I still love it. Loads hate it. But can it still be classed as a classic despite being a 70s disaster type style movie. I felt that the combo of man in suit, blue screen and animatronics worked really well compared to all out CGI. A pity that the 40 foot mechanical version didnt work and was only seen briefly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,969 ✭✭✭Hangdogroad

    Saw it on RTE mid 80s, dont think I've seen it since. Entertaining enough from what I remember.

    On a related note I remember someone in primary school circa early 80s had a King Kong flask, he seemed to be swatting jet fighters on it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭conorhal

    I have a deep and abiding love for the 76 version, I watched it a lot as a kid on a video taped off the TV. It's great and actually feels like a propper modern update to the 33 original. They made the wise decision to change the stoies protagonists from film makers to an oil exploration company and all the characters motivations and actions feel natural. It's just a shame that young Rick Baker never got the time or budget to deliver a better 'man in a suit' because all the money went into Carlo Rambaldi's disaster of a full size animatronic that barely worked and only appears in a handfull of shots. I'm glad Baker got another chance at delivering an awsome 'kong(ish)' in '98 with the 'Mighty Joe Young' remake. Now that was a suit/ animatronic combination that really delivered because he got a full year and a ton of Disney money to work on it.

    Jackson's version was OK but it's so bloated and over the top that rewatching it feels like a bit of a chore.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭sam t smith

    I’ve seen the 1976 version a couple of times on TV and much prefer it to the 2005 version.