This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King Kong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The poster apparently dates from 1917. It does look like there must be a link? Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Unless you can find some solid sources proving there is a link between this poster and Kong, this would be considered original research. Wubbox ( talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
During the RKO/Universal court case, the judge (on Decemeber 6, 1976) gave control of the King Kong plot/story to Cooper's Estate (as covered in Mark Cotta Vaz's book this was the main reason Ricahrd Cooper got involved in the court battles). The novel's publishing rights remained and still are in the public domain. If someone want's to do an print adaptation of the King Kong story outside of a word for word reprint of the novel, they must go through Richard Cooper. Anyone can publish the original novel as long as it is a word for word reprint because of its public domain status. But if someone wants to do an adapatation of it (illustrated novel, comic book adapatation etc.) they must go through Cooper. The Monster Comics series was commisioned by Cooper's estate (Richard Cooper is credited in the comic's fineprint) because Monster Comics had to acquire premission from him to do this series). That's the reason I changed it from novel to story since Cooper doesn't have full control over the original novel anymore (in terms of its publishing status). Giantdevilfish ( talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how something can both be in the public domain and also have restrictions on creating derivative works -- other than the provisions of laws relating to trademarks. "Public domain" means a lot more than having the right to reprint original novels. Trademark law should, at best, allow Cooper to prevent others from marketing material, other than the original novel itself, with the title "King Kong." However, anyone should be free to have a character derived from the King Kong of the novel appear in a derivative form in... say, "Amazing Monster Tales." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.235.109 ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am restoring the cite tag to the statement in the intro claiming that Kong has sometimes been depicted as a "mindless monster." I'm not aware of any, not even in the Japanese movies where one might expect it. Admittedly, that the person who put that up in the first place simultaneously sabotaged (or just botched something intended in good faith?) a number of reference citations does his credibility no good, but I see this point as valid. -- Ted Watson ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. Kong was never mindless. The only movie where he was portrayed as outright vicious was the original film, but he never came off as "mindless". I think "rampaging" monster would be a better fit. Cooper intended for Kong to be a scary, vicious monster, as quoted in the book The Making of King Kong, "I want Kong to be the most vicious, the most brutal, the most damned thing the screen has ever seen". He wanted Kong to be fearsome, something that changed as the films progressed. Look how sympathetic they made him in the two remakes (waterfall bath for Jessica Lange, ice skating in Central Park and watching sunsets with Naomi Watts etc.), and even in the Japanese films he comes off heroic. So I think changing it to rampaging would be a better fit then mindless. And besides, if Kong was mindless would he know how to undo the ropes holding Fay Wray into place on the alter? Remember when Kong gets Fay Wray from the sacrificial alter? He's actually undoing the crank with his fingers to loosen the ropes binding Fay Wray Giantdevilfish ( talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
note - i've changed the "monster" to "fictional animal" - refering to e.g. Godzilla page, i think it a) has to be mentioned that it's fictional, b) in most of the movies it's an actual animal (gigantic gorilla, not an ordinary monster), that's only perceived as monstrosity due to its size and apish behaviour. so IMO it's not a 'monster' per se, in the most commonly used sense. edited to reflect that. Vaxquis ( talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
A monster is any fictional dangerous or hideous creature, usually in legend or horror fiction.
so it's a quite wide definition, and anyway not too descriptive, even if it seem nice&triggers some memories - and i'd put a stress on ANY, OR and USALLY there. describing something as a monster may seem acurate, but why the hell shouldn't we describe the dog as just 'an animal' there, why struggle for the fancy 'domesticated form of the wolf' thingy?
so yeah, it's semantic. but ANYway i've changed the change to reflect your POV. change it yourself if you ever understand why i've corrected it in the first place. Vaxquis ( talk) 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be indicating some findings of law that I cannot verify at [1]. Please locate, either in that court document or another, a specific quote to support the contention that "Universal thus owns only those rights in the King Kong name and character that RKO, Cooper, or DDL do not own" and that "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights." I have not read Vaz's book to see what his interpretation of the court case may be, but I have at least read that judgment, and I don't see it there. If it is located in another judgment, please provide a link for verifiability. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court document from Vaz's book is cited on the page. The actual quote was from a court summary taken from this document in the footnotes. It's described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. This is what is written in the footnotes section of his book
"The narrative of King Kong litigation in the 1970's is based on information set forth in the factual summaries contained in two court opinions from federal court in New York, Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 578 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y 1984) and Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 615 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985). Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent tals with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. The copyright action could not be brought in the state court because the federal court has jurisdiction over claims brought under the federal copyright act."
Then another footnote states.
"The narrative that follows is drawn from factual descriptions set forth in the legal opinions in both the district court in New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd., 578 F. Supp 911 (S.D.N.Y 1983); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 615 F. Supp 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 797 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.1986)
And then listed is quotes from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd 578 F. Supp at 923. and as stated above the quote that is written in bold on the page is described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924 Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't read the court documents, I'm going by what is written in the book. He's citing an actual court document including a word for word quote from it, so I can't imagine him lying since he seems to be a very reputable author. And I think its a legitimate cite. If he was summarizing himself then its valid that its simply the opinion of the author, or his interpretation, but that particular word for word quote is specfically cited via that particular document that I listed courtesy of his footnote citation (citation 9 on page 458). It seems that not every document from the trial is listed on the link you provided, so it's possible that it was a latter document from the trial. Bare in mind that the litigation lasted from 1982 through 1986. Either or, because of its specificness I don't think it should easily be brushed aside, because that particular quote isn't listed on a website Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court incorporated its previous findings from the interlocutory judgment and concluded that, as between RKO and Cooper, Cooper possessed all rights in the name, character and story of King Kong other than the rights in the 1933 movie and the sequel "Son of Kong." The court also found that RKO's license with DDL for the remake of King Kong, and its licenses with certain toy manufacturers, had breached RKO's original limited assignment from Merian Cooper. Therefore, RKO owed Richard Cooper the profits accrued from these breaches. The court consistently noted, however, that its determination of Richard Cooper's cross-claim did not affect any other person and did not affect its finding that the King Kong story was in the public domain.
It is clear from the above that Cooper did not hold any trademark rights against the world in King Kong. Any such rights that might exist would be solely against RKO.
It's stated in his book, that Cooper had recieved control over the King Kong plot and story as well as all the rights associated with the name and character of King Kong from judge Real, that he specifcally went to court to get control over the story that his father previously had copyright of (which is why he got involved in the RKO/Universal case in the first place). Everytime an adaptation of the story had been done outisde of a reprint of the Lovelace novel, Richard Cooper (and the estate) are always credited in the fine print. Cooper not only has control over the story but any published adaptations associated with it. This included the comic book (which Richard Cooper is credited), and the illustrated novel adaptation (which Richard Cooper is credited). A new novelization of the story was written with Cooper being credited and a tie in story (a prequel/sequel to the King Kong story) was written called Kong:King of Skull Island, where the estate is credited. So I believe the rights in terms of the publishing rights are rights associated with adaptations of the King Kong story which Cooper has control of. Furthermore a King Kong play is being planned by the crew responsible for the Walking with Dinosaurs production based on the King Kong story and they are working with Cooper's estate [4]. So it seems that Cooper has control over the aspect of the story outside of the publishing rights to the Lovelace novel, since all of these adaptations are going through his estate. As for Vaz, I don't know how to get a hold of him or how he gained access to that particular court document which contains the quote in question. I do know that he interviewed Cooper (Richard) as well as the estate's lawyer (Randy Merritt) for his book. It would be nice to ask him, but I don't think he has a website. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Walking with Dinosaurs thing is based on the story. Remember, Cooper doesn't have any rights related to the films. The original 1933 film is copyrighted by Time/Warner, the 76' version is copyrighted by Studio Canal and the 05' version is copyrighted by Universal. Every adaptation of the basic King Kong story that has been done in the last 20+ odd years (outside of word for word reprints of the Lovelace novelization) has been through Cooper's estate. Each and every one of them has Richard Cooper being credited. Wether it was the comic book series from 1990, the illustrated novel done by Anthony Browne, the new novelization and prequel/sequel (Kong:King of Skull Island) and this upcoming play. None have any acknowledgments of the films copyright holders only the rights holder of the story which is Cooper's estate. Perhaps some more info has come to light since the 1980's. If you read the very first paragraph I posted (from Vaz's footnotes section), it states Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent talks with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. Now this was done in 2005 which is pretty recent. Anyway as far as the quote from the document, how about instead of cite 25 going to the court document in question and cite 26 going to the page numbers from Vaz's book, maybe cite 25 can go to "According to Vaz's book on Pg. 389 and citation 9 on Pg. 458, this quote is taken from a court summary from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. ". This will then let the readers know that Vaz got the info from a court document through his research but not actually using that document as a straight-up cite? Giantdevilfish ( talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I did it, how does it look? And you're right there is alot of confusion here. You have so many rights holders to different aspects of the character. You know Dark Horse comics wanted to do a comic book adaptation of the 1933 film back in the 1990's, but as lamented by Arthur Adams in the book Comics Gone Ape by Michael Eury (page 39). "Well we talked about that. The rights were a horrible mess. Dark Horse couldn't find a way to do it. Someone held rights for the music, someone for the movie, someone for the story, and were ready to sue each other whenever anyone wanted to do anything with it." This seems to gel with Cooper having rights to the story. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the section character rights, we find the following:
The problem here is that RKO isn't known to have had any access to Tarzan until about 1942, at which time MGM sold their rights (including the contracts of series stars Johnny Weissmuller and Johnny Sheffield) to them. Admittedly, the rights were a bit splintered in the mid-30s, with two independent serials and one independent feature being produced between MGM pictures around that time, but I've never understood how that could happen, although there is no question it did, of course. Nevertheless, given the fact that RKO's only known possession of rights to the apeman did not begin until several years later (to say nothing of the in-universe facts that Kong was dead and Skull Island was destroyed, making such a cross-over unfeasible anyway), this story reeks of being something that somebody made up long after the "fact." Note that it is not truly elaborated upon and is immediately followed by discussion of the licensing of Kong rights to Toho in the early 1960s, a jump of more than 25 years. Furthermore, The Making of King Kong, by Willis O'Brien crew member Orville Goldner & film historian George Turner (Ballantine Books, 1975), reported that Cooper tried to make a movie relating events during the trip taking Kong from the island to New York, which was completely skipped in the original film, and does not give a good reason as to why it was never made. Maybe questions arising over the rights for this Kong picture was what "gave Cooper pause." Even if the Tarzan project is reported in Vaz's book as flat fact, we really shouldn't report such a dubious claim as flat fact here, unless Vaz has more (and convincing) details about it. Understand that I am not saying we should add a note that Vaz's claim of a Tarzan/Kong film is dubious, or replace that with a mention of the "insertive semi-prequel" (I made that term up, as I couldn't find one for this sort of situation already existing). I merely suggest that we remove the mention of it. Anybody else? -- Ted Watson ( talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Show Me The Link To This Proposed Tarzan Vs King Kong Project? 24.7.204.215 ( talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Its mentioned on page 277 of the book Living Dangerously The Adventures of Merian C Cooper written by Cooper biographer and historian Mark Cotta Vaz. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/696/696168p1.html Giantdevilfish ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
King Kong. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Giantdevilfish: 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)
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)
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)
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)
Fascinating. Thanks for them clarification! Mikehospitalchaplain ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
We say it was zero, on Merian Cooper's testimony. But read this, particularly:
Time for a correction of the record? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
It's not about the amount of information or sources that bothered me when I wrote this. Its some of the organization being almost scattershot and some of the information being unsourced or needing to be expanded in more detail. Reorganization into the sections and sub sections I listed above was what I had in mind. The development of the character in the remakes and Toho's series could be mentioned a bit more. As for sources, there are some pieces of information that are not sourced. I'm one of those people that hates bullet points in sections like popular culture and other appearances sections. I'm thinking they should be rewritten and restructured into well written paragraph formats instead. Again it's not the amount of information or sources but organization, formatting, and the fact that some pieces of information lack sources.--Paleface Jack 18:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
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. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
King Kong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
The poster apparently dates from 1917. It does look like there must be a link? Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 03:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Unless you can find some solid sources proving there is a link between this poster and Kong, this would be considered original research. Wubbox ( talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
During the RKO/Universal court case, the judge (on Decemeber 6, 1976) gave control of the King Kong plot/story to Cooper's Estate (as covered in Mark Cotta Vaz's book this was the main reason Ricahrd Cooper got involved in the court battles). The novel's publishing rights remained and still are in the public domain. If someone want's to do an print adaptation of the King Kong story outside of a word for word reprint of the novel, they must go through Richard Cooper. Anyone can publish the original novel as long as it is a word for word reprint because of its public domain status. But if someone wants to do an adapatation of it (illustrated novel, comic book adapatation etc.) they must go through Cooper. The Monster Comics series was commisioned by Cooper's estate (Richard Cooper is credited in the comic's fineprint) because Monster Comics had to acquire premission from him to do this series). That's the reason I changed it from novel to story since Cooper doesn't have full control over the original novel anymore (in terms of its publishing status). Giantdevilfish ( talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how something can both be in the public domain and also have restrictions on creating derivative works -- other than the provisions of laws relating to trademarks. "Public domain" means a lot more than having the right to reprint original novels. Trademark law should, at best, allow Cooper to prevent others from marketing material, other than the original novel itself, with the title "King Kong." However, anyone should be free to have a character derived from the King Kong of the novel appear in a derivative form in... say, "Amazing Monster Tales." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.235.109 ( talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am restoring the cite tag to the statement in the intro claiming that Kong has sometimes been depicted as a "mindless monster." I'm not aware of any, not even in the Japanese movies where one might expect it. Admittedly, that the person who put that up in the first place simultaneously sabotaged (or just botched something intended in good faith?) a number of reference citations does his credibility no good, but I see this point as valid. -- Ted Watson ( talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. Kong was never mindless. The only movie where he was portrayed as outright vicious was the original film, but he never came off as "mindless". I think "rampaging" monster would be a better fit. Cooper intended for Kong to be a scary, vicious monster, as quoted in the book The Making of King Kong, "I want Kong to be the most vicious, the most brutal, the most damned thing the screen has ever seen". He wanted Kong to be fearsome, something that changed as the films progressed. Look how sympathetic they made him in the two remakes (waterfall bath for Jessica Lange, ice skating in Central Park and watching sunsets with Naomi Watts etc.), and even in the Japanese films he comes off heroic. So I think changing it to rampaging would be a better fit then mindless. And besides, if Kong was mindless would he know how to undo the ropes holding Fay Wray into place on the alter? Remember when Kong gets Fay Wray from the sacrificial alter? He's actually undoing the crank with his fingers to loosen the ropes binding Fay Wray Giantdevilfish ( talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
note - i've changed the "monster" to "fictional animal" - refering to e.g. Godzilla page, i think it a) has to be mentioned that it's fictional, b) in most of the movies it's an actual animal (gigantic gorilla, not an ordinary monster), that's only perceived as monstrosity due to its size and apish behaviour. so IMO it's not a 'monster' per se, in the most commonly used sense. edited to reflect that. Vaxquis ( talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
A monster is any fictional dangerous or hideous creature, usually in legend or horror fiction.
so it's a quite wide definition, and anyway not too descriptive, even if it seem nice&triggers some memories - and i'd put a stress on ANY, OR and USALLY there. describing something as a monster may seem acurate, but why the hell shouldn't we describe the dog as just 'an animal' there, why struggle for the fancy 'domesticated form of the wolf' thingy?
so yeah, it's semantic. but ANYway i've changed the change to reflect your POV. change it yourself if you ever understand why i've corrected it in the first place. Vaxquis ( talk) 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be indicating some findings of law that I cannot verify at [1]. Please locate, either in that court document or another, a specific quote to support the contention that "Universal thus owns only those rights in the King Kong name and character that RKO, Cooper, or DDL do not own" and that "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights." I have not read Vaz's book to see what his interpretation of the court case may be, but I have at least read that judgment, and I don't see it there. If it is located in another judgment, please provide a link for verifiability. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court document from Vaz's book is cited on the page. The actual quote was from a court summary taken from this document in the footnotes. It's described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. This is what is written in the footnotes section of his book
"The narrative of King Kong litigation in the 1970's is based on information set forth in the factual summaries contained in two court opinions from federal court in New York, Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 578 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y 1984) and Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 615 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985). Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent tals with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. The copyright action could not be brought in the state court because the federal court has jurisdiction over claims brought under the federal copyright act."
Then another footnote states.
"The narrative that follows is drawn from factual descriptions set forth in the legal opinions in both the district court in New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd., 578 F. Supp 911 (S.D.N.Y 1983); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 615 F. Supp 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 797 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.1986)
And then listed is quotes from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd 578 F. Supp at 923. and as stated above the quote that is written in bold on the page is described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924 Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't read the court documents, I'm going by what is written in the book. He's citing an actual court document including a word for word quote from it, so I can't imagine him lying since he seems to be a very reputable author. And I think its a legitimate cite. If he was summarizing himself then its valid that its simply the opinion of the author, or his interpretation, but that particular word for word quote is specfically cited via that particular document that I listed courtesy of his footnote citation (citation 9 on page 458). It seems that not every document from the trial is listed on the link you provided, so it's possible that it was a latter document from the trial. Bare in mind that the litigation lasted from 1982 through 1986. Either or, because of its specificness I don't think it should easily be brushed aside, because that particular quote isn't listed on a website Giantdevilfish ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court incorporated its previous findings from the interlocutory judgment and concluded that, as between RKO and Cooper, Cooper possessed all rights in the name, character and story of King Kong other than the rights in the 1933 movie and the sequel "Son of Kong." The court also found that RKO's license with DDL for the remake of King Kong, and its licenses with certain toy manufacturers, had breached RKO's original limited assignment from Merian Cooper. Therefore, RKO owed Richard Cooper the profits accrued from these breaches. The court consistently noted, however, that its determination of Richard Cooper's cross-claim did not affect any other person and did not affect its finding that the King Kong story was in the public domain.
It is clear from the above that Cooper did not hold any trademark rights against the world in King Kong. Any such rights that might exist would be solely against RKO.
It's stated in his book, that Cooper had recieved control over the King Kong plot and story as well as all the rights associated with the name and character of King Kong from judge Real, that he specifcally went to court to get control over the story that his father previously had copyright of (which is why he got involved in the RKO/Universal case in the first place). Everytime an adaptation of the story had been done outisde of a reprint of the Lovelace novel, Richard Cooper (and the estate) are always credited in the fine print. Cooper not only has control over the story but any published adaptations associated with it. This included the comic book (which Richard Cooper is credited), and the illustrated novel adaptation (which Richard Cooper is credited). A new novelization of the story was written with Cooper being credited and a tie in story (a prequel/sequel to the King Kong story) was written called Kong:King of Skull Island, where the estate is credited. So I believe the rights in terms of the publishing rights are rights associated with adaptations of the King Kong story which Cooper has control of. Furthermore a King Kong play is being planned by the crew responsible for the Walking with Dinosaurs production based on the King Kong story and they are working with Cooper's estate [4]. So it seems that Cooper has control over the aspect of the story outside of the publishing rights to the Lovelace novel, since all of these adaptations are going through his estate. As for Vaz, I don't know how to get a hold of him or how he gained access to that particular court document which contains the quote in question. I do know that he interviewed Cooper (Richard) as well as the estate's lawyer (Randy Merritt) for his book. It would be nice to ask him, but I don't think he has a website. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Walking with Dinosaurs thing is based on the story. Remember, Cooper doesn't have any rights related to the films. The original 1933 film is copyrighted by Time/Warner, the 76' version is copyrighted by Studio Canal and the 05' version is copyrighted by Universal. Every adaptation of the basic King Kong story that has been done in the last 20+ odd years (outside of word for word reprints of the Lovelace novelization) has been through Cooper's estate. Each and every one of them has Richard Cooper being credited. Wether it was the comic book series from 1990, the illustrated novel done by Anthony Browne, the new novelization and prequel/sequel (Kong:King of Skull Island) and this upcoming play. None have any acknowledgments of the films copyright holders only the rights holder of the story which is Cooper's estate. Perhaps some more info has come to light since the 1980's. If you read the very first paragraph I posted (from Vaz's footnotes section), it states Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent talks with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. Now this was done in 2005 which is pretty recent. Anyway as far as the quote from the document, how about instead of cite 25 going to the court document in question and cite 26 going to the page numbers from Vaz's book, maybe cite 25 can go to "According to Vaz's book on Pg. 389 and citation 9 on Pg. 458, this quote is taken from a court summary from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. ". This will then let the readers know that Vaz got the info from a court document through his research but not actually using that document as a straight-up cite? Giantdevilfish ( talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I did it, how does it look? And you're right there is alot of confusion here. You have so many rights holders to different aspects of the character. You know Dark Horse comics wanted to do a comic book adaptation of the 1933 film back in the 1990's, but as lamented by Arthur Adams in the book Comics Gone Ape by Michael Eury (page 39). "Well we talked about that. The rights were a horrible mess. Dark Horse couldn't find a way to do it. Someone held rights for the music, someone for the movie, someone for the story, and were ready to sue each other whenever anyone wanted to do anything with it." This seems to gel with Cooper having rights to the story. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In the section character rights, we find the following:
The problem here is that RKO isn't known to have had any access to Tarzan until about 1942, at which time MGM sold their rights (including the contracts of series stars Johnny Weissmuller and Johnny Sheffield) to them. Admittedly, the rights were a bit splintered in the mid-30s, with two independent serials and one independent feature being produced between MGM pictures around that time, but I've never understood how that could happen, although there is no question it did, of course. Nevertheless, given the fact that RKO's only known possession of rights to the apeman did not begin until several years later (to say nothing of the in-universe facts that Kong was dead and Skull Island was destroyed, making such a cross-over unfeasible anyway), this story reeks of being something that somebody made up long after the "fact." Note that it is not truly elaborated upon and is immediately followed by discussion of the licensing of Kong rights to Toho in the early 1960s, a jump of more than 25 years. Furthermore, The Making of King Kong, by Willis O'Brien crew member Orville Goldner & film historian George Turner (Ballantine Books, 1975), reported that Cooper tried to make a movie relating events during the trip taking Kong from the island to New York, which was completely skipped in the original film, and does not give a good reason as to why it was never made. Maybe questions arising over the rights for this Kong picture was what "gave Cooper pause." Even if the Tarzan project is reported in Vaz's book as flat fact, we really shouldn't report such a dubious claim as flat fact here, unless Vaz has more (and convincing) details about it. Understand that I am not saying we should add a note that Vaz's claim of a Tarzan/Kong film is dubious, or replace that with a mention of the "insertive semi-prequel" (I made that term up, as I couldn't find one for this sort of situation already existing). I merely suggest that we remove the mention of it. Anybody else? -- Ted Watson ( talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Show Me The Link To This Proposed Tarzan Vs King Kong Project? 24.7.204.215 ( talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Its mentioned on page 277 of the book Living Dangerously The Adventures of Merian C Cooper written by Cooper biographer and historian Mark Cotta Vaz. Giantdevilfish ( talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/696/696168p1.html Giantdevilfish ( talk) 16:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
King Kong. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Giantdevilfish: 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)
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)
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)
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)
Fascinating. Thanks for them clarification! Mikehospitalchaplain ( talk) 02:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
We say it was zero, on Merian Cooper's testimony. But read this, particularly:
Time for a correction of the record? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
It's not about the amount of information or sources that bothered me when I wrote this. Its some of the organization being almost scattershot and some of the information being unsourced or needing to be expanded in more detail. Reorganization into the sections and sub sections I listed above was what I had in mind. The development of the character in the remakes and Toho's series could be mentioned a bit more. As for sources, there are some pieces of information that are not sourced. I'm one of those people that hates bullet points in sections like popular culture and other appearances sections. I'm thinking they should be rewritten and restructured into well written paragraph formats instead. Again it's not the amount of information or sources but organization, formatting, and the fact that some pieces of information lack sources.--Paleface Jack 18:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
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. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)