I see plenty of brown faces in his movies- all of them are the villians.

http://straightbangin.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-king-kong-racist-movie.html

Agreed.

I don't know, man. Like you didn't feel at all that it was too long? that certain animal-attack scenes were too fake looking and borrowed too much from Jurassic Park? or that the ending was too much like Titanic? or that there were too many long lingering shots on ape face then her face then ape face then her face? please tell more of why you liked it alot or i will be forced to assume that you're losing brain cells in your old age :)

I thought it could have been shorter, maybe cut some of the 2nd act on the island.. dunno about the jurassic park thing beyond the inevitable similarity of any movies with dinosaurs, just like any shark movie will have some similarities with jaws.. I thought a few shots looked cgi-fakey, but overall the dinosaur action scenes were great, and specifically noticed how he managed not to just rehash jurassic scenes and come up with novel ideas, visually, like the masses of bodies falling over each other at the end of the chase..

Don't see the titanic thing at all.. I thought all the stuff with naomi and kong was great.. i didn't think it was quite the grand slam that LOTR was, and showed that he's not one to look too deep at the themes and subtexts in his films, but when it comes to drawing us into the story and the characters, and delivering that spectacle and big-movie magic that you want from a film like this, he proved again that he's got that touch, which is pretty rare.. I especially appreciated it after seeing other ones like Harry Potter that fell flat for me, and showed me how hard it is to get it right and create that magic..

Jurassic Park: Jackson took some shots almost verbatim from the film...from the way the T-Rex first appeared, to the behavior and sounds of the velociraptors, to the movement of the long-necked dinosaurs...like he didn't have to come up with anything on his own. Steven did all the work for him. I guess i was just looking for a little more originality. Now i will give him points for the falling down parts...that was pretty good.

*minor Kong spoilers after this point*

Titanic: at the very end, Jack dies while still clinging to the piece of whatever they were clinging to in the ocean. Then Rose cries for him and his body then slowly slips off the piece of whatever into the water and he's gone. Jackson duplicated this almost exactly in the way Kong dies. I haven't watched Titanic in over 6 years but i instantly recognized the similarity.

I didn't hate the movie tho..i just wouldn't see it again or get the DVD..but it had its moments...for example, I enjoyed all the scenes with Ann and Kong but i felt the movie should have just focused more on that and less on trying to make us care about some animal/boy who we never even find out how or why he ended up on that ship. And Jack Black is the man which is the main reason why i went in the first place. Every time he'd nearly die then sneak off to film some more, i howled.

But hey, i respect your reasons for liking it. You're off the hook :)

Well yeah I thought that was what you meant about titanic, I just didn't see that as so much of a meaningful similarity.. given how we know King Kong has to end, and the relationship they set up between those characters, how else would it end but with her crying as he falls off the building? I don't see that as derivative of Titanic at all..

The "Kong is racist" angle is so overblown as to be pitiful. There is no actual race to speak of. Skull Island doesn't exist. Nor do dinosaurs or giant bats.

If we want to enforce our own reality upon the fantasy, I suppose we can deduce a few things:

One, as revealed in the original '33 Kong and Son of Kong, Skull Island is West of Sumatra (and 1753 miles from the Chinese port of Dakang!), and thereby the most probable racial clues to it's natives will most likely be South East Asian or Micronesian or possibly Melanesian. Regardless, we can in most probability deduce that they wouldn't look like Vikings or Newfoundlanders.

Two: These natives have never had contact with the outside world. Hell, even civilized Europeans acted with undue savagery only a couple hundred years ago and believed it normal, natural and Christian. And we know for a fact that native civilizations in the past have worshipped animal gods and made human sacrifices. Let's be real. Why pretend otherwise?

Three: These isolated natives have to "share" their small accomodations with dinosaurs, giant bats, giant flesh-eating insects, and the ultimate angry 25-ft primate alpha-male.

Jackson has suggested that a tribal society that lives under this sort of stress and fear and danger and hysteria might actually become dangerous paranoid zombies. And why not? A much lesser menace did the same thing to ordinary literate Americans who were ready to bomb and bayonet anything that moved after airplanes hit the Trade Towers.

The racism angle on this movie is a bogus non-story.

Now, to my mini-review. The film was simply stunning. Sure, there were a few moments of ridiculousness, like the Abbot & Costello dinosaur stampede. And while there was the occasional dodgy green-screen wince, everytime you saw Kong the CGI was amazing, by the end of the film you have forgotten that you are looking at an effect, and you simply believe. That effect alone is astonishing. Some say the film is too long, especially the beginning. Not true, the opening character intros in Manhattan were glorious, and pay-off huge later. The film has an enormous heart, it has some great comedy, and I can't think of a more loving film homage that's ever been made. It's not so much as a re-make as it is a valentine card to the original and a rip-roaring ole-fashioned great time at the cinema. In that respect, it reminds me much more of movies like Jason & the Argonauts and Raiders of the Lost Ark than it did Titanic. And IMO it is better than those movies.

Your smugly dismissive posturing is unfortunate, as it is obviously not informed by any understanding of the reasoning and context behind the criticisms.. so much so that I'm not sure it's worth the effort of trying to explain things to you.. but maybe I'll come back to this if i have time..

Who is being smug, dismissive or posturing? That was a completely reasonable post. Geeze, the skin is thin. If something isn't worth the effort of explaining, then perhaps the original scream of "racism" isn't worth discussing -- let alone being thrown like a handgrenade. It makes the person screaming it look foolish. Sorry Jay, it does.

Stagger Lee:

Err, you don't consider it smug or dismissive to categorize someone's opinion as "pitiful"? Or to announce that "I'm wiping my arse with this pathetic "Kong is racist" toilet paper" as this same gentleman did in Joey's blog?

If so, you and I certainly disagree.

I think anyone who reads this site regularly will know that I am more than willing to explore differences of opinion on any topic. But it is always possible, and preferable, to seek out such a debate without being obnoxious or disrespectful. When someone fails to meet that standard here I will generally call them out on it, and may be less inclined to engage the debate since the initial tone indicates there is less chance it will be constructive.

But like I said, I'll get back to this if I have time. There might be other ways I'd prefer to spend my birthday than trying to reason with someone who calls my opinion "pitiful toilet paper" ..and if that makes me "thin-skinned" I can live with that :)

I haven't seen the movie, but from the comments, it seems to me like the darkness of the natives' skin certainly could have been exaggerated to make them scarier. I'd consider this a pretty effective method to make your villains scarier to the viewer. So it would seem, that if there's a case that their skin has been deliberately made darker to make them scarier, the film is definitely playing off of racist images. It's not something to denounce an entire film over, but it's interesting to realize.

The entire King Kong theme is something I don't know enough to write about.

Yeah, I see you Jay, that explaination was way too technical, on a non-technical issue, context is everything. Here's the math, I spent $25.00 dollars as a black man to see a three hour long movie with no positive images of people of colour, and many negative ones, that's real. I don't know where the savages and shit were supposed to be from, but that kept me from getting into the movie,and I am far from racially sensitive. Alienating your audience for something that is a cliche depiction in a weak point of your storyline is not good film making.

Man, if the people who have already made comments on this post had used a fraction of the energy they expended on trying to get Bush impeached, the world would be a much better place right now.

'King Kong' is racist? How? Because it centers around a giant gorilla? Pray tell, what races were the dinosaurs and bats supposed to represent? And the savages on Skull Island-- Scary, yes, but hardly offensive.

'King Kong' rips off 'Jurassic Park' and 'Titanic'? I guess no one has ever heard of a little story called 'Beauty and the Beast', a story so old that no one knows who first penned it. It transcends the written word and dates to oral traditions.

Jackson did a great job of remaking a classic movie. What's even more fascinating is that the 1933 version still has an effect: my 3 year-old niece watched it from beginning to end one night on cable. You'd have thought she was watching Spongebob.

One resolution people might wanna make for the '06: Don't take things so seriously. 'King Kong' is not 'The Birth Of A nation' by any means. Call out racist movies when it applies, not when you feel like it.

Actually I think putting our effort into getting Bush impeached, specifically, would probably be Quixotic. It's a nice idea but highly unlikely to occur, and there's gotta be more constructive ways to work towards counteracting the administration (and their prospective heirs). I also wouldn't make any assumptions about whether folks in this conversation are making those efforts..

'King Kong' is racist? How? Because it centers around a giant gorilla? Pray tell, what races were the dinosaurs and bats supposed to represent?

There is a simple answer to this, which is that the image of a gorilla has a very strong racial connotations attached to it, which dinosaurs and bats do not. And the way Kong's story plays out lends itself to being interpreted as racial allegory for reasons that go far deeper than just the fact that he is a gorilla. Even Jackson himself (vaguely/clumsily) acknowledges Kong's evocation of white imperialism/colonialism, with his Heart of Darkness namedrops.

Or take Pauline Kael's claim that all the Black men she know loved Kong because "...It was their own special urban gorilla-guerrilla fantasy: to be a king in your own country, to be brought here in chains, to be so strong that you could roar your defiance at the top of the big city and go down in a burst of glory." And of course I could go on for pages and pages, there's been endless analysis of this stuff.. and I wouldn't peg any of them as the "correct" theory.. but to claim that there's simply nothing there worth analyzing, and any critique is simply imagining things, is not a theory I find persuasive.

The natives are "hardly offensive" to you, but offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be offended by how Jackson portrayed the natives, in fact I thought that was the most obvious reaction. For me personally, it was not a big enough deal to override my overall enjoyment of the film. But I certainly noticed it.

And no, I don't think it is anywhere near comparable to "Birth of a Nation".

But I also think it's reasonable to set a higher standard for the movies you watch than asking "is it as bad as Birth of a Nation?" That would be setting the bar mighty low. :)

I come to this debate late. But I will certainly say that calling this movie racist trivializes real racism and makes it look frivolous.

I have seen Kong, and it is not racist. The one black man in the movie was noble and intelligent, he cared for others, and he died needlessly and carelessly at the hands of a power-mad whitey.

Whereas the nasty character in the movie is a leader of an old-style colonial expedition that wants to steal nature under chains and introduce it to "civilization" to make a million dollars. You guessed it, he's a slithery white guy. In the 1933 original, he was a hero. In the new remake, he's a menace to society and the people around him.

Do the math. Black character is good; white character who was formerly heroic is now portrayed as vile. Racist?

Then we have the island natives. The story of the entire King Kong mythology, which the director honored here, is that the island natives are supposed to be a tribe of people in the south Pacific or nearby Asia that make human sacrifice rituals to giant gorilla. Ridiculous premise, yes? Unsurprisingly, the natives are brown men of undetermined race, maybe Samoan, maybe New Guinean, maybe white men wearing prosthetics or African men wearing some pancake mix to make them look brown ... I don't know, and neither do you, because it appears to be a mix and a combination and an obvious guise to blur the lines. If you can't even identify the race, Earth-to-Houston, you have a problem. (Besides, neither the island nor the natives nor the dinosaurs actually exist.)

When well-meaning people see Kong and imagine racism and nod their head, this isn't pointing out racism; this is reckless gun-slinging. It is also ignorant. Worse, and I repeat, it trivializes real racism, and that's the bigger danger. Please try to keep it responsible.

Thank you for allowing me to comment, C.M.

Calling King Kong racist does not trivialize racism--it's an honest, and easily-made, conclusion based on the native scenes. The "savage native" island scene was based on many common stereotypes: cannibalism, human sacrifice, and people of color killing white people. The fact that this island was supposedly mythical makes no difference--the inhabitants were obviously supposed to be people. Perhaps you can't identify the exact group of people they are supposed to represent, but you can identify that they are people of color, which apparently Jackson thought he could lump together. For those of you who think that this was in some way a decent portrayal of people who lived in the South Pacific (or wherever the island was supposed to be), I suggest you read up on the history of the people who actually inhabited those islands during the early 20th century.

Jackson does add one black man to the boat crew in a failed and transparent effort to overshadow the racist images. It wouldn't really matter if the entire crew was black--one non-racist image does not "balance out" another racist image. It just doesn't work that way, and I'm surprised that people feel they can explain away the racism of the film this way.

Very simply, this movie blatantly recycled racist images of �savages,� images that deserve to be criticized. Jackson might have been honoring the original King Kong myth, but if so, that original myth was racist, and I'm not sure why he wasted his time re-making it.

Re: "The "savage native" island scene was based on many common stereotypes: cannibalism, human sacrifice, and people of color killing white people."

This is absurd.

Cannibalism and human sacrifices are not stereotypes. Different races and civilizations have performed these for millenia. Multiple races throughout Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia and South East Asia engaged in cannibalism. But that is beside the point, because there isn't any cannibalism depicted in the movie.

Human sacrifices have also been performed in many races. And there is no indication that the fictitious Skull Island natives restricted their human sacrifices to killing white people, in fact the showing of multiple skeletons from prior sacrifices indicates otherwise.

Continuing: "Perhaps you can't identify the exact group of people they are supposed to represent, but you can identify that they are people of color, which apparently Jackson thought he could lump together."

This argument is a canard. As the earlier poster said, you cannot reasonably expect people from the region around Sumatra to look like Vikings or Celts. This is frivolous and illogical political bomb throwing.

More headscratching: "For those of you who think that this was in some way a decent portrayal of people who lived in the South Pacific (or wherever the island was supposed to be), I suggest you read up on the history of the people who actually inhabited those islands during the early 20th century."

This one is another strawman. The movie presumes that neither the natives of Skull Island nor "civilized" European man had ever been in contact with one another. It is a fantastical "Lost World." Whereas the "real" islands of Indonesia had been inhabited by Dutchmen since the mid-17th century, and the islands of the south Pacific had already been "discovered" by Europeans in the mid-18th century. By the time Cook came into contact with Polynesians in 1769, cannibalism wasn't a ritual from the distant past, it was in-fact prevalent throughout the south Pacific. That is not myth. That is not a slur. That is reality. By the time of the early 20th century, Polynesians were mostly practising Christians, and cannibalism had been made illegal for over a century. Comparing fantastical savage 1933 Skull Islanders to early literate 20th century Polynesia is preposterous -- one could even make the argument that is racist. 200 years ago Maoris were'nt worshipping Jesus Christ, many were warriors engaged in tribal wars and cannibalism. 18th century Whitey was worse -- he was putting bounties on tattooed Maori chiefs heads for sale in England. All that had well changed by the 1930s, but the point stands, that Skull Islanders had never been in contact with the outside world before, how can you presume that they would act like dignified noblemen? Indeed, how can you presume *anybody* -- literate or otherwise -- that lives with lethal wild giant prehistoric animals in their backyard would behave like dignified noblemen?

More..."Jackson does add one black man to the boat crew in a failed and transparent effort to overshadow the racist images."

O-kay, so Jackson makes a sop. He casts one single African and makes the character intelligent and dignified. And this makes you upset? Hoo-boy.

Absurdity concludes: "I'm not sure why he wasted his time re-making it."

If you'd seen the movie, the answer would be fairly obvious. The original Kong was a monster that man misunderstood and feared, and may have very well been a racial stereotype. Whereas in Jackson's version, the racial connotations are removed and Kong's character as a giant GORILLA is emphasized, as is the Ann Darrow character's love for "the Beast." The new Kong is not a monster, he is not a symbol for colonialism nor slavery nor sexuality; in the 2005 remake the context is removed and King is instead presented as no more than what he is -- a giant primate with appropriate emotions and behavior. Jackson also provides a deeper and two-sided bond between animal and human that was noticeably absent in the original.

It mystifies me that people can see racism where none exists, and yet fail to recognize obvious character and plot differences.

Once again, thank you for allowing me to comment.

"you cannot reasonably expect people from the region around Sumatra to look like Vikings or Celts"

I think this is a very simplistic take on the matter. For me, personally, I would expect people from that region of the world to have SOME color. Jackson, however, gave the savage natives the darkest end of the color spectrum, and that's what bothered me. People from the South Pacific assume a range of skin colors, so to I think its reasonable to say that Jackson had many other choices. I doubt anyone's arguing that his only other choice was making them look like "Vikings and Celts."

So that question remains...why did they have to be SO dark? And was the scene even necessary? Did he have to be faithful to the European model of historically depicting indigenous people, particularly those whose skin is dark, as evil, dangerous, and primitive?

I never saw the original King Kong (or any of the previous remakes), but when I saw Peter Jackson's version I abolutely loved it. (well, I hated the ending, but I guess that's what tragic stories are all about). So I was rather surprised to hear about all this racism stuff because it never even crossed my mind while watching Kong '05. Maybe it's because I'm from a Pacific island, or maybe I just take movies at face value.

Anyway, I recently bought "The Making of King Kong" official guide book, which has a lot of really interesting information, including the history they invented for Skull Island, the original natives, and then the later natives that appear in the movie. I won't type it all up, but I'll paraphrase some parts that maybe will help or something:

Skull Island is somewhere off the coast of Sumatra. Thousands of years before the movie takes place, Skull Island was very rich in culture and a successful trading port, "on par with an ancient Peruvian culture". And the people who lived there were in harmony with the surroundings, despite the deadly wildlife that threatened them. They built the giant wall around their city, and that helped control the balance between them and the monsters. But about two thousand years before the movie takes place, there are large-scale earthquakes that begin to destory the protective walls and the island begins to sink. The monsters get inside the city and basically all hell is breaking loose. Whether it's because of them or what, the people are ultimately wiped out.

Four generations or so before the movie takes place, the movie natives get shipwrecked on what remains of Skull Island. They had been blown off course by the winds of the Indonesian ocean, and have no choice but to survive on the desolate rock outside the last remaining wall. "All of their previous culture, the harmony that they had in their previous life and the sophistication of their seafaring, is stripped away, due to basic survial instinct." They're actually living in the ancient city's crypts, because land outside of the jungle is so scarce. They can catch fish or hunt seabirds, but the jungles beyond the wall are too dangerous to venture into because of the creatures. "So their whole life they stay clinging to this tiny outcrop of rock. Their sole purpose is survival." They can't even decorate their clothing much because there's no pigment in the rocks, and bird feathers are hard to come by. Everything is crude and bleak, and it seriously takes a toll on them.

And for whatever reason, "Every six or twelve months they're sacrificing yet another young woman to appease Kong." Because of this, their gene pool is further deteriorating which causes more aggression in the males because there are less women.

As for how the natives looked, Peter was inspired by a photograph in the National Geographic of a man with ultra dark skin and bright red eyes. It was unsettling, which was just what he wanted the Skull Islanders to be. The actors *were* spray-painted to make their skin darker -- it says Peter really liked the color of the Sudanese people. It also says that he wanted them to be really aggressive, but the book doesn't mention why they were so.. y'know, zombie-creepy.

Either way, it sounds like their new life on Skull Island really sucked, and I think anyone in that situation for a long period of time would pretty much lose it. Especially when you include giant gorillas and dinosaurs and lizards that wish to eat you.

This is an interesting debate, but an issue that warrants discussion has been overlooked.

Why is it that Kong killed all the native women (that were previously sacrificed), yet when he encounters a blonde white woman, he falls in love with her?

What does this say about the filmaker's interpretation on what "beauty" is?

JJ asks, "So that question remains...why did they have to be SO dark?" Simple explanation, but it requires an explanation of physics. When you see the natives during daylight, they are brown and dirty. And here's where the physics comes in: Later, when you see them at the night-time sacrifice, they are darker. And there's your answer---night time makes people look darker. Even in the new Narnia film, when the pasty-white English children are under cover of trees at night time, their skin changes shade and they appear darker. Incredible how that works. Something to do with a lack of light. Which reminds me....as far as real racism goes, I am still curious 16 years after the fact why the Smithsonian published a book commemorating the 150th anniversary of photography by titling it: "On the Art of Fixing a Shadow." Sounds patently racist to me, no?

Skull Monkey asks, "Why is it that Kong killed all the native women (that were previously sacrificed), yet when he encounters a blonde white woman, he falls in love with her?"

That is a two-parter.

One, we have no proof that all the native women were killed. Kong is purportedly 125 years old. We really don't know anything about his personal back story. (What's to say Ann Darrow wasn't his third love? All we know is that he is lonely). And,

Two. Early in the movie we have a foreshadow---and your answer. Interviewing Ann Darrow at the New York diner, the character of Carl Denham says something along the lines of, "Vaudeville? That's the toughest audience in the world. If you don't make them laugh quick they'll eat you alive." Fast forward to the capture of Darrow at Kong's lair. How does Darrow deal with the situation? What does she do? Think of what Denham says. She's been captive to tough audiences that'll eat her alive, and almost instinctively goes into her Vaudeville routine. As Roger Ebert has pointed out, this routine "delights Kong." It is not the color of her hair nor the smell of her dress that Kong falls in love with---and was suggested in the original '33 Kong and '76 remake. Darrow's attempt to communicate in a language that stimulates Kong is an elemental shift of motivation from the earlier films, so there's your answer, and IMO it makes logical sense.

You could also deduce that Kong might have initially viewed the white-blonde sacrifice as an oddity that captivated his curiosity, in the same way that human primates used to pay money to look at albinos and hermaphrodites at freak shows over a century ago.

Re: people paying money to view freaks; I am reminded of something nobler, but nevertheless cut from the same cloth, and that is Omai.

Re: that last link, it's a tag, scroll up to the intro. O wot th howl, here 'tis:

In 1774, the first Polynesian to visit London travelled to England with the crew of Captain Cook's second Pacific voyage and became an overnight sensation. Seen as a living example of the 'Noble Savage', Omai as he was known, was discussed by scientists and philosophers, celebrated in all the best circles and written about in everything from poetry to pornography. He proved a lightning rod for European anxieties regarding imperialism, civilisation and the true nature of mankind.

Source.

It is interesting to view the paintings from that exhibition linked above and see that even brown-skinned Maori warriors from 250 years ago made themselves *appear* more menacing by covering their faces in dark tattoos. Of course, even the Vikings and Celts, as a poster mentioned above, did the same thing, albeit slightly less elaborate and permanent, they used dark grease smeared on their faces to look scary. This isn't something invented by Pete Jackson or even Hollywood. Races and tribes from all corners of the globe have been doing it for thousands of years, and independently of each another.

"Beauty killed the beast."

That is the central premise of the film.

Therefore, Kong falling in love with a blonde white woman as opposed to the native women can't be overlooked.

Also, it is apparent that all of the previously sacrificed native women were killed by virtue of the evidence left behind - bones and necklaces in the pit below his lair.

It begs the question on what is the filmaker's interpretation of "beauty."

Re: "Beauty Killed the Beast." "That is the central premise of the film."

No it is not. And in answer to your question, you ignore the obvious.

Beginning of movie: The character Carl Denham impulsively selects Darrow for two reasons: one, because he is desperate, and two, because Darrow is an attractive actress who is small enough to slip into a Size 4 dress. The impulse is that he -- Carl Denham, a full-blooded American whitey -- finds Darrow attractive. It wasn't simply Kong that found her attractive. The fact is that her voyage was mitigated by the fact that she already *was* deemed attractive, at least in the eyes of the film director Denham.

Conclusion of movie: The director Carl Denham tries to sell the press and photographers a publicity stunt. He wants them to write up the sensational "8th Wonder of the World" with a back-story. He tells them to write about the way Kong was captured with the "Beauty and the Beast" hookline.

And what does Denham do with his stage show? He throws an attractive white blonde woman on stage in front of Kong. Not Darrow, but an impostor.

And Kong becomes enraged at the impostor. Why?

Not because he's attracted to white blondes, 'cos if that was the case, then he'd be perfectly satisfied with the white blonde girl on stage in front of him. But instead, this infuriates him. After he escapes the theater, he then randomly picks up attractive blonde women, inspects them, sees they're not the right girl, and then disposes of them.

Why does Kong throw them away?

Again, the answer is perfectly clear. It's not because Darrow is white, nor blonde, nor attractive.

It is because of who Darrow is. Kong's attraction isn't simply the way she looks. It is ultimately about the way she behaves. It is because she is special. And why is she special? Because she delights him, she communicates with him, she is not afraid of him, she empathizes with him. Kong is not any gorilla, and Darrow is not any ole bottle-blonde bimbo.

The "Beauty killed the beast" angle was always a part of Denham's character, that he could publicize and take ownership over his "We're gonna make a million bucks!" gravy-train. It is a narrative device exploited by a character within the movie -- it is not the plot nor the premise of the movie itself.

What the movie is telling us is NOT that beauty killed the beast, but that captivity in the jungle of modern human civilization -- and man's fear of nature -- killed the beast.

Wow, this thread is still going! I thought I had exhausted all that I had to say, but this film and the discussion stirs my thoughts. So, with regrets, a few more points...

Skull, you write: "Therefore, Kong falling in love with a blonde white woman as opposed to the native women can't be overlooked."

Aagain, we simply have no clue whatsoever that Kong never fell in love with a native woman previously. According to several sources, Kong is supposed to be over 100 years old, much longer than humans without good emunization policies, health insurance coverage and hospitals.

Continuing: "Also, it is apparent that all of the previously sacrificed native women were killed by virtue of the evidence left behind - bones and necklaces in the pit below his lair."

"All"...? Again, there's simply no evidence he devoured each and every woman sacrificed before him. Not unless you have a magnifying glass and a degree in biology and medicine, because for the life of me, I've seen the movie twice, and I'll be damned if I can accurately match skeletons and bones to necklaces. My eyes aren't that good, and I can't count fast enough.

IN ANY EVENT, that is beside the point. AGAIN, there simply isn't any evidence that Kong "saved" Darrow because she was white. That is jumping to conclusions, and ignores the logic of the actual scene that is played out with imagery and non-verbal dialogue. Notice that Kong's eyes widen and his behavior changes---not when he sees a cute chick as deemed attractive in the white world---but instead when he reacts to her captivating performance for him and her body language clearly displaying that she is not afraid of him.

The point is not just that Ann Darrow is gorgeous. It is that she is quick on her feet, has intelligence and a talent for communication, and she possesses deep empathy and pathos.

This is brilliant drama, and these changes to Darrow's character are such vital and crucial differences from the original (and '76 remake) as to require some sort of recognition from the people claiming the movie is racist. The argument is full of holes, especially when there are much better and more obvious explanations. Some people (as above) think there's nothing new in the film, which is an utterly mistaken reading. The differences are clear, they are included for a reason, and almost every change makes logical and believable sense.

It is dismaying me that so many people would marginalize this film as being vile racism---and if that were in fact true, I would be the first to condemn it. But there are so many roadsigns and glaringly obvious plot points in the movie that are there to hold your hand and help you along. Perhaps some of the audiences imaginations are even more fantastical that the film and story itself, and we see things (as another poster above asserts) that just aren't there, and then wilfully ignore obvious resolutions that might help them understand what's going on.

I feel there is some racism in it. Let's admit it. Part of tackling the color issue is not denial.

Epsilon Upsilon, I dont think Kong used to romance with its prey before eating, he had ample opportunities to chew her Ann Darrow long before she started her agile performances.

But the King Kong - Ann Darrow relationship can be let to pass. I mean I saw the preview, I knew what King Kong was about. Even the dark savages was not such a bad thing. But what really bored me was the on stage act of King Kong and that other blonde. The savages in that act were negros and everyone in and out of the stage, in and out of the movie, seems to find this relation fitting.

This movie was based on a time that racial discrimination was a norm, and Peter Jackson had little choice but to present it that way otherwise the story would have carried another title.

The good thing is that, King Kong is in effect black the movie is based on this huge hero. And that aspect of the movie seems to suggest love crosses racial boundaries (okay even species-boundaries!!) and that's somewhat positive in the fight against racism.

My Thoughts

hi im gona woch da movie tonite all ur tips were great now i no wot 2 luk out 4 thx guyz!!! p.s. dont tthink ulll like me now but....im only 10 yrs old! but evry1 sez iv got a brain ov an adult so still. But thx 4 ur koments!!!

hi im gonna woch da movi tunite all ur tip wur grayt i no wot 2 luk out 4!!

u probably wont like me now kuz im only 10 but EVRY1 sez i hav the brain ov an adult and im REALY sirius!!! so still...but thx 4 ur komrntz anywayz guyz it helped a-lot!

p.s. im so gd @ drawing i met da prezident 3 times!!!! a lot init! nd i winEVRY SINGLE drawing kompatition in skl...nd im nt da 1 2 bost but...i luv bein me!

I have a few things to say about whether or not King Kong had any racist elements to it.....

First off, was I the only one who noticed the girders on the elevated railway spelled out KKK?

Not just once, but three times, I could notice that the paint scheme was bright enough on certain crossbars (or girders) forming a verticle K K K. This was not only prevailent in one shot, but from different angles whenever the railway could be seen in the background during the street scenes.

Next, unlike the 1980's version where you had a Scientist trying to speak up for the animal (Jeff Bridges), or like Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park , no one ever acknowledged the dangers of taking this large black beast out of it's element.

I guess they just expected it to behave like a "Good Monkey", like Toby (Kunta Kent'e) did when he got to America after his long trip of being chained up in the bottom of the boat from Africa.

Immediately it seems like a lesson in what happens with interracial, or in this case "Interspecies" dating between white women and big strong black men, who are often refered to as Gorillas or Monkeys (behind their backs of course).

Finally, I liked the special effects also. I enjoy a good action film just like anyone else, but tell me why did the only African American actor in the whole damn film have to be a Gay Sailor?

(...oops I'm sorry, there was one black lady in the background of the final scene)

Why couldn't Adrien Brody's part have been played by Jamie Fox, as a character twist? He's got a larger than average nose too!

King Kong, a racist movie? ROFL @ this idea. OK, lets demand a remake! Perhaps in the new version Kong should be an albino gorilla (courting Jordan Richardson, of course) who gets captured and carried to Mississippi where he gets denounced by the NAACP and then hung from a tree with a rope by a group of Black Panthers.

Sheesh, it amazes me how people can't just sit back and enjoy a movie for what it is. Jackson's Kong was no more, or less racist than the original King Kong. I surely didn't see the natives as bad guys at all; just natives who have never had any contact with anyone else, live in constant fear and have a need to make sacrifices to protect themselves. Saying the natives are portrayed as bad guys is like blaming rattlesnakes for biting you because you climbed down into their snake pit. And certainly King Kong was not the bad guy in the movie. He was just doing what any 25 foot silverback would do if it was just handed a toy like non other it had ever seen before. I do not understand how some people can take this movie so seriously. It was cleary intended just to be a fun movie and not to make some sort of political, or racial statement. Some people like to complain about anything. Everyone is so caught up in policing movies and televisions for political correctness that they don't even know how to enjoy anything. Too bad, you may never see Kong for what it really is. Also, it took place in the depression era, not the most glorious time in black history, so if Jackson had black people working as executives in the movie industry in King Kong then the historically correct clowns would be screaming about that type of innacuracy.

As for technicalities: The Bronto pile-up was hilarious, as was T-Rex when it figured out how to swing in the vines. I was hoping for a little more smash up scenes in NYC, but I found myself ready to cheer each time King smashed a plane. As for the Jurassic Park references: sheesh, what do you expect? Dino behavior in Jurassic Park was based on what is believed, or was at the time, to be actual behavior patterns. If Jackson had altered the behavior of the dinosaurs so dramatically that they no longer fit into our perception of how they behaved then everyone would have said "they did not behave that way; Jurassic Park was ore realistic;" as if anyone here has access to the secret time machine that is used to send people back to observe dino behavior. I think Jackson did marvelously by giving the dinosaurs some entertaining personality... remember, this is supposed to be a fun movie, not educational, or politically correct, just FUN and anyone who thinks otherwise just does not know how to have fun watching a movie. So what if some of the CGI was not perfect; I doubt anyone here complaining about it could have done better and if they could have then why were they not hired to work on the movie?

i think it is important to acknowledge something before we debate over whether or not the movie is racist:

any remake of a movie that clearly had elements of racism is going to carry with it some of those same racist elements. i am not saying this to validate jackson's remake, but just as a point of fact. also, i think it makes more sense to say that the movie is infused with elements of racism, rather than saying it is outright racist.

the movie is confusing. in some ways it reinforces many of the ideas of the original--the ideal purity of white/blonde beauty, the greatness of white/western civilization with its tall buildings and street cars vs. the savagery of skull island and its primitive dark people.

at the same time, there is some reflection on these ideas. as pointed out by others, jack black is seen as greedy and self-absorbed. he is, in some ways, the embodiment of western expansion and all it has wrought. we are also shown an upper class theater audience that is completely oblivious to blatant inhumane treatment of the gorilla. we are meant to feel sympathy for kong and we are glad when he escapes from his chains and tramples audience members.

basically, the movie is a contradicition--in some ways it accepts and reinforces the racist elements of the original film while, at the same time, offering a critique of some of these elements. i think we can safely say that the movie is not racist, but that it still embraces many of the racist ideas put forth by the original film.

i think it is important to acknowledge something before we debate over whether or not the movie is racist:
any remake of a movie that clearly had elements of racism is going to carry with it some of those same racist elements. i am not saying this to validate jackson's remake, but just as a point of fact. also, i think it makes more sense to say that the movie is infused with elements of racism, rather than saying it is outright racist.
the movie is confusing. in some ways it reinforces many of the ideas of the original--the ideal purity of white/blonde beauty, the greatness of white/western civilization with its tall buildings and street cars vs. the savagery of skull island and its primitive dark people.
at the same time, there is some reflection on these ideas. as pointed out by others, jack black is seen as greedy and self-absorbed. he is, in some ways, the embodiment of western expansion and all it has wrought. we are also shown an upper class theater audience that is completely oblivious to blatant inhumane treatment of the gorilla. we are meant to feel sympathy for kong and we are glad when he escapes from his chains and tramples audience members.
basically, the movie is a contradicition--in some ways it accepts and reinforces the racist elements of the original film while, at the same time, offering a critique of some of these elements. i think we can safely say that the movie is not racist, but that it still embraces many of the racist ideas put forth by the original film.

All of these posts that say that Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of the classic film King Kong are 100% ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!! Why are the people on Skull Island SO dark? Well, lf you know anything about the human skin you would know that human skin color is based on the amount of MELANIN in the skin. The more Melanin you have the better protected you are against the sun. Do you remember what the Islander's Island "real estate" happedned to look like? It was a crude rock formation with no defense against the sun. Do the math and dark skin seems pretty logical don't you think?!

Also, as for the Jurassic Park, Titanic pull off. I say crap!!!! First of all, King Kong has none of the same Dinosaurs as Jurassic Park. NO, it wasn't a T-rex it was V-rex(Vestatosaurus rex) from the Greek and Latin words for the ravager lizard king, didn't you notice how different it looked form the one in Jurassic Park? As for the raptors, they were not Velociraptors they were Venatosaurus', the hunter lizard, once again didn't you notice how different they were from the Velociraptors in Jurassic Park? As for the Brontosaurs, ugh don't even get me started!

As for Titanic, I see no relation, Hell, I doubt Peter Jackson ever even saw Titanic. After all, if you ask me, there are many differences between Leonardo De Caprio and a 25 foot tall Megapramatus Kong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Sorry I didn't get to say as much before I ran out of time, but as I was saying There is nothing to say that King Kong(2005)is racist in any way! I am really just pissed off that you can't just watch a movie and take it face on instead of being way too sensative and saying things like "it was racist!" I mean come on! Now to answer some of confusion stated on this page. First off, that claim of seeing KKK in the elevated Railway...COME ON!!!!!!!! Do you honesty think that Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh sat down and said ,"Alright, we need as many racial discrimination towards Afrcians as we possibley can slip in"!!!!!!!?????? Because if you do , then I'm sorry but you are just too sensative or just too dumb! So as a final(hopefully) silence to all of these racial postings, stop being so sensitive, start thinking logically, and just watch the movie, as opposed to sitting down and just picking out anything ridiculous that you call rascist!!!!

Now as for a continueation of the Jurassic Park/Titanic Similarities. It is obvious that Jurassic Park will have some similarities with King Kong...why? Because of the fact that both movies have dinosaurs in them. Some people say that King Kong borrowed from Jurssic Park too much. I don't think so. Someone here said that the appearance of the T-rex was the exact same as the appearance of the V-rex in King Kong, and that is just plain not true. In Jurassic Park, the appearance of the T-rex was anounced by him breaking through the cables, stomping a little bit, and roaring as to say, "I'M HERE, SO WATCH OUT" However, in King Kong, the true appearance of the V-rex went like this: Ann runs out of the log due to her dislike of giant centipedes and beetles crawling on top of her, she heres something behind her and turns around to see a huge dinosaur towering over her with a giant lizard haning from its mouth. Another imporatant thing to remember is that, which came first King Kong or JP, King Kong! The movie you all saw was a remake of the classic film made in 1933! If I'm correct, Jusassic Park, the novel, was written in 1987.

Now for Titanic. King Kong and Titanic are two completely different plot lines.

Personally I think we should stop trying to criticize a brilliant filmaker like Peter Jackson for doing his job. You know, he has a vision that we almost nothing about, so mabye we shouldn't be the ones talking

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings with my comments, I was in one of my "passion crazy" moments.

You can't be 42457 serious?!?

O.K. frist off I hate kong!at the age of seven I seen the[33]kong and when he ripped that allosaurus's jaws apart I lost it.Then becuse we had too win aginst japan agian godzilla was blackballed in to losing aginst kong.[dude breathes fire come on now]It was a tie 'yeah whatever.As far as racist all movies at that time were racist and it wasn't just limited to blackfolk the jews and irish got it too.Gone with the wind any one?But after seeing the remake of kong I don't hate him as much now and I can't really understand why.But why do the rapters look like spudds mikinsy?Really they look like pitbulls on smack

You are very stupid it seems like you have never even see what the movie looks like you dumb ass! and for a tip you are the stupid iest person it this world and the next time you ever say "GET some black friends I will call the police.

Here is a rap:

Another white boy tryin to rap go figure, I goin to say somthing you can't say Nigger

You are very stupid it seems like you have never even see what the movie looks like you dumb ass! and for a tip you are the stupid iest person it this world and the next time you ever say "GET some black friends I will call the police.

Here is a rap:

Another white boy tryin to rap go figure, I goin to say somthing you can't say Nigger

You are very stupid it seems like you have never even see what the movie looks like you dumb ass! and for a tip you are the stupid iest person it this world and the next time you ever say "GET some black friends I will call the police.

Here is a rap:

Another white boy tryin to rap go figure, I goin to say somthing you can't say Nigger

It's already been pointed out; I'll say it again. Peter Jackson has based his remake on the original 1933 production of King Kong. This movie had many racial overtones, and it would be impossible for Jackson to create a remake of Kong that eliminated these overtones without destroying the spirit of the original movie. He stated that his reason for making the movie was that he loved the original when he was a boy and wanted to remake it. Fine. The fact remains that King Kong is a story about a white woman who goes to an island filled with savages, meets the giant (black) monkey and tames the primal beast. The beast is then extracted from his (primitive) natural environment and taken to the (representation of white industry and dominance) city. These stereotypes are inherently racist, and the removal of them and many more would destroy the spirit of the original film. Jackson has done what he can to mitigate the effects of these stereotypes while still staying true to the original movie. Yes, the movie has some racial overtones. It's a period film anyway. Racism was a fact of life at the time the film is set. Deal with it. If you don't like it, don't see the movie.

It's already been pointed out; I'll say it again. Peter Jackson has based his remake on the original 1933 production of King Kong. This movie had many racial overtones, and it would be impossible for Jackson to create a remake of Kong that eliminated these overtones without destroying the spirit of the original movie. He stated that his reason for making the movie was that he loved the original when he was a boy and wanted to remake it. Fine. The fact remains that King Kong is a story about a white woman who goes to an island filled with savages, meets the giant (black) monkey and tames the primal beast. The beast is then extracted from his (primitive) natural environment and taken to the (representation of white industry and dominance) city. These stereotypes are inherently racist, and the removal of them and many more would destroy the spirit of the original film. Jackson has done what he can to mitigate the effects of these stereotypes while still staying true to the original movie. Yes, the movie has some racial overtones. It's a period film anyway. Racism was a fact of life at the time the film is set. Deal with it. If you don't like it, don't see the movie.