Kong didn't win...

[Xenorama]

[Stadawim]

I think what it may boil down to is - kpa seems to be bitter that there are some of us out here who think Kong didn't win and want to sway us over to his side.

It's not going to happen.

See, i saw it when i was a tike. You know, a young lad in about 1978. Now, maybe some of you saw it when you were too old and jaded. Or maybe you saw it after a trip to Japan. Or a trip to Toho. Or Toho's website. In any case, after i had watched the film a couple times (while young, keep in mind), i didn't get up to get on the Net to tell people about it, nor did i look at a script or press release. Neither did i purchase a ticket (even with my family) to fly to Japan for a tourist visit of the place. Yet, through all that i still believed that Kong got lucky and was chickening out and swimming away. Because NObody could beat MY monster.

And that's the story. Pick on it all you want. Pick on Garfield all you want. Doesn't matter. My point of view? Kong's a losing wuss.

[MouthForWar]

[OtiGoji]

[Xenorama]

[el-brazo]

[ScottA]

[el-brazo]

@ScottA:

> That's the whole point. We didn't know their intentions. We
> just watched the movie objectively without any inside information.
> You can't deny the movie portrays Kong very badly. Running away.
> Knocking himself out more than once. Acting like a total duffus.
> This isn't made up by the fans. Toho did it. It's right there in
> living Tohoscope.

The point is that you and several other fans misunderstood the movie, because you did not watch it objectively but biased (since you were ardent Godzilla lovers and did not want your favorite monster to lose). Toho's intention was to portray King Kong as the winner and this they did by showing King Kong at the end of the movie surfacing victoriously and letting him have the final word ... well, roar. That is right there in living Tohoscope and if you totally ignored it and it's clear-cut significance, it's surely not Toho's fault.

[MouthForWar]

[ScottA]

[el-brazo]

@ScottA:

> Wrong,wrong wrong, wrong, wrong. [...] Don't lump me in with the Zilla lovers.

Good, good, good, good, good! If it makes you happy, please ignore the last part of my sentence you quoted. The rest of my posting still remains true: you simply misunderstood the movie. I don't doubt your opinion was an honest one -- but it was definitely not objective.

[ScottA]

^ Whatever you do. Don't chose mind reading as an occupation. You'll starve.

[THEMIGHTYPEKINGMAN]

Come on,guys...I'm new here,so I want to make something perfectly clear: I like Godzilla as much as I like Kong.But there was NO WAY back in 1962 that the big G could have scored a victory over the legend.Most of us knew that before entering the theater to see the picture.

But as far as your comments go,I totally agree that Kong was portrayed like a dim-witted overgrown chimp.Perhaps because Honda wanted to make everybody root for him.Should Kong act like the one in the 1933 version,there would be no "good monster" for us to root for,and the film would have to take a different path.

[kpa]

[kpa]

[ScottA]

Oh Noooooooooooo!
This thread is active again!
Just when I was all calm and feeling groovy.

:smash:

[Lysocanth]

[Mexigojira]

[el-brazo]

@Mexigojira:

> Kong was going to be roosted, he was clearly doomed before the lightning
> storm came, so he was [...] fully charged, plus with enhanced strenght
> and Godzilla [...] didnt received any "power up" or whatever is said,
> plus that electricity weakened him. at that point everything was against
> Godzilla and still proved to ve a formidable opponent,event against all
> odds. maybe Godzilla was defeated, but not without fighting,and proved to
> Kong that he is a force to be reckoned with.

I partly agree, yet this is a typical statement written by a Godzilla fan. In order to understand the film, please do not focus on Godzilla, because he is not the hero of the film, but the villian. King Kong is the real star here, and therefore he is portrayed (as kpa noted) as a likeable underdog while Godzilla is a sheer force of destruction.

Talking about "against all odds": It is made clear from the beginning that King Kong is no real match for Godzilla. Godzilla not only is stronger (note how he uses his massive tail several times to beat King Kong), he also has a "permanent power up" right from the start. The film emphasizes that King Kong is startled by Godzilla's atomic ray which means that he not only has to fight an opponent who is physically stronger, he also has to be very careful in order to avoid getting roasted. (Personally, I think that King Kong's unsureness partly explains his clumsy behaviour during the first part of the fight).

Still, King Kong remains brave, but when it looks like he is going to loose despite all his courage, it's like nature itself comes to help by sending a lightning storm which gives King Kong a "temporal power up", thus establishing justice. Now, both opponents have supernatural weapons. With the help of nature, King Kong is finally able to defeat Godzilla, to save Japan, and to return to where he belongs.

[Gojira, Monster King]

[ScottA]

^ Sorry. Neither you or Keith have made a good argument.

It doesn't matter what the director/writer wanted to portray.
What matters is that he delivers that idea to the audience.

Kong winning makes absolutely no logical sense the way the movie was directed. They made Kong a moron through the entire movie. Then Oopps... he wins.

The closer you are to the behind the scenes information the farther you are from the general audience watching the show.
Sometimes knowing too much inside information can squew your objectivity. And that's what we have here.

A logical person can't watch that movie and accept the ending as nothing but illogical.

[kpa]

[briizilla]

[Mexigojira]

[ScottA]