Scream Factory Press Release: King Kong Collector's Edition (1976) (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Lord Dalek]

Great news! Surprised Paramount is not handling this themselves

Yeah I don't think they own the rights anymore.

 

[Dick]

Most people who write here about loving this film seem to have been children when they saw it, so it is a cherished childhood memory. I was 25 when it came out and sorry but I thought the “man in a gorilla suit” special effects were deplorable. It reminds you of Godzilla stomping through miniature versions of Tokyo. Of the 3 versions of this story, I’d put it in 10th place.

I'm with you on this. A poster above mentioned that this version had "monsters" as did the 1933 film, but in fact there was only one -- a poorly-presented giant snake fighting with Kong. Baker's facial expressions on the suit are good, but the overall gorilla looks cheap, and the corpse that lays at the foot of the twin towers doesn't even remotely resemble the Kong we have been watching for two hours. For all the widescreen pomp and noise, it doesn't hold a candle to the original, even though the latter, in retrospect, has stop-motion creatures that are jerky by today's standards, or even those of Ray Harryhausen a few years hence.

Yes, John Barry's score is typically lush and even memorable. The cinematography is above-average. But the script is frequently infantile ("You God damn chauvinist pig ape!") -- an inauspicious debut for Jessica Lange, who fortunately survived to become a very fine actress. Yet, for all I find fault with it, I do own a Blu-ray copy (imported) and will watch it on rare occasions.

 

[Dick]

I love Peter Jackson's version but I have to admit that I may buy this one just out of a love of 70's movies and to see if this is as bad as I remember it being.

Hint: It is.

 

[TonyD]

Well so many of you guys are dumping all over this move.
It really is a product of the middle 70’s.
As I mentioned earlier it is on HBO so go over there and watch it if you can.

If you like period movies and are a fan of 70’s it’s really worth a watch and not as bad as the comments in this topic.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases

 

[Dick]

Well so many of you guys are dumping all over this move.
It really is a product of the middle 70’s.
As I mentioned earlier it is on HBO so go over there and watch it if you can.

If you like period movies and are a fan of 70’s it’s really worth a watch and not as bad as the comments in this topic.

Yes, but I saw this in the mid-70's in a theater. My reaction to it was then what it is now.

 

[Malcolm R]

Funny, I'd always thought of this as a flop, but find it was actually pretty successful at the box office.

The domestic gross of $52M in 1977 dollars adjusted for inflation would be almost $225M today. Not a blockbuster, but definitely a good size hit (nearly $390M worldwide, adjusted, vs. budget of about $95M, adjusted).

Then there would be all the TV/cable rights, home video sales, etc, over the past 40+ years.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Funny, I'd always thought of this as a flop, but find it was actually pretty successful at the box office.

The domestic gross of $52M in 1977 dollars adjusted for inflation would be almost $225M today. Not a blockbuster, but definitely a good size hit (nearly $390M worldwide, adjusted, vs. budget of about $95M, adjusted).

Then there would be all the TV/cable rights, home video sales, etc, over the past 40+ years.

I think it's like "Waterworld": a movie that actually did pretty decently at the box office but that came with so much hype that it seemed like a bomb - or at least a disappointment.

For God's sake, the posters called it the "most exciting original motion picture event of all time"!

(Still can't figure out what the "original" part means since it was a remake. Also, does this imply an unoriginal movie was more exciting?)

"Waterworld" also had an absurd budget, which didn't help its cause...

 

[Tino]

Hint: It is.

Hint Hint. It’s not.

 

[Jack P]

I still enjoy Kong '76. Jackson's is a boring snoozefest for me. I'd only sit through that one again if my other choice was "King Kong Lives" (the only good part of that film was the opening recap from Kong '76!)

 

[darkrock17]

I still enjoy Kong '76. Jackson's is a boring snoozefest for me. I'd only sit through that one again if my other choice was "King Kong Lives" (the only good part of that film was the opening recap from Kong '76!)

Nothing beats the original from 1933, but of the two other remakes 76 is better than PJ's 2005 version. I saw it in IMAX when it came out and my mind wondered off half through it, I was just about ready to leave by the time Kong makes it to NYC.

Why does PJ like to make all of his films so damn long?

 

[LouA]

There are so many places where you can run into a giant ape, it can get confusing.

Yep , coast to coast !

 

[dana martin]

I was in the outdoor crowd scene when they unveiled Kong. You could see the horse hair blowing lightly in the breeze. I remember when the camera tracked in front of where I sitting. Couldn't make out my face on the DVD, maybe now I might have a chance.

Buying this day one for sure!

John are you talking about this scene?

 

[dpippel]

Nothing beats the original from 1933, but of the two other remakes 76 is better than PJ's 2005 version. I saw it in IMAX when it came out and my mind wondered off half through it, I was just about ready to leave by the time Kong makes it to NYC.

Why does PJ like to make all of his films so damn long?

I find Jackson's Kong so self-indulgent, so over-the-top, so miscast, and so overly long that I simply don't enjoy it that much. It's a ridiculous film that had way too much money thrown at it. All IMO of course. I sometimes wonder what he would have done with Kong if he hadn't had all of that LOTR weight to throw around and had to work with a much smaller budget.

I'll gladly watch the '76 version or, even better, the original, any day.

 

[darkrock17]

I find Jackson's Kong so self-indulgent, so over-the-top, so miscast, and so overly long that I simply don't enjoy it that much. It's a ridiculous film that had way too much money thrown at it. All IMO of course. I sometimes wonder what he would have done with Kong if he hadn't had all of that LOTR weight to throw around and had to work with a much smaller budget.

I'll gladly watch the '76 version or, even better, the original, any day.

PJ started out as gross-out Horror director until he did LOTR and then he became the next Kubrick.

The film could have used a much smaller budget from the 207 million it had and drastically edit sown the 187 minute theatrical cut. There's only a few films I will watch that are over 160 minutes and this isn't one of them.

 

[TravisR]

Why does PJ like to make all of his films so damn long?

Personally, I think he falls in love with his movies and he wants to spend as much time there as possible. I think his King Kong is crazy long but I love the world he recreated so I'm cool with it being crazy long.

 

[darkrock17]

Personally, I think he falls in love with his movies and he wants to spend as much time there as possible. I think his King Kong is crazy long but I love the world he recreated so I'm cool with it being crazy long.

Everything since LOTR has been CGI heavy with him, his Kong had very few actual sets.

 

[TravisR]

Everything since LOTR has been CGI heavy with him, his Kong had very few actual sets.

Alot of King Kong was sets but I don't mean physically being there. Even if he's just visualizing it in his mind or on a computer monitor, he's still created a whole world in LOTR, KK, The Hobbit, and even The Lovely Bones.

 

[John Sparks]

John are you talking about this scene?

View attachment 88887

Dana, I think that scene is of Rick Baker. Either it was just before or right after. It looked like a giant mock-up dummy...it didn't look real.

I arrived there just before dusk, and they filmed all through the night. And I don't know how many nights they were there.

 

[dana martin]

Dana, I think that scene is of Rick Baker. Either it was just before or right after. It looked like a giant mock-up dummy...it didn't look real.

I arrived there just before dusk, and they filmed all through the night. And I don't know how many nights they were there.

oh the chance to be a background extra, had one guy I was stationed with about 35 years ago, he has the briefest moment is a small film " The Final Conflict" as the are going through the berthing on the carrier. , we must have ran that VHS tape so much it broke just to find that moment.