Directed by John Guilerman. Written by Lorenzo Semple.
Starring Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin.
1976, 134 minutes, Color, Rated PG.
Starring Jessica Lange, Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin.
1976, 134 minutes, Color, Rated PG.
Critical Overview
NOTE: This review contains spoilers throughout.
The 1976 version of KING KONG is generally not given much love. In The Phantom's Ultimate Video Guide (Dell, 1989) it is referred to as "the useless KING KONG remake". In John Stanley's Revenge of the Creature Features Movie Guide (John Stanley, Creatures At Large Press, 1988) says that it "unfortunately calls on some of the TV BATMAN traditions of high camp and emerges a mishmash of satire, thrills, fantasy, and spectacle", and concludes "Boy, what a bomb!". The Great science Fiction Pictures II (James Robert Parish and Michael R. Pitts, Scarecrow Press, 1990) calls it "one of the greatest disappointments in the history of motion pictures", and claims that it is "no better in quality than the economical Japanese Toho productions of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962) and KING KONG ESCAPES (1967)". Richard Meyers, in The Great Science Fiction Films (Richard Meyers, Citadel Press, 1990) attacks the film's special effects and concludes that it "was disappointing in almost every respect". Finally, for a more mainstream perspective, Leonard Maltin gives it one and a half stars (out of four) in his 1998 Movie and Video Guide (Leonard Maltin, Signet Reference, 1998) and calls it "addle-brained" with "idiotic characters and [a] campy approach".
But is it truly as awful as all that? Pauline Kael, for one, didn't think so. In her review for The New Yorker (January 3, 1977, reprinted in For Keeps: 30 Years At The Movies (Pauline Kael, Plume / Penguin, 1996) she appreciates the film's romantic approach and extols that the "story is paced majestically" and concludes that "I don't think I've ever seen...a comic-strip great romance in the way this one is--it's a joke that can make you cry." More recently, John Kenneth Muir tried to objectively look at the film in his Horror Films of the 1970s (John Kenneth Muir, McFarland Press, 2002) and concludes that aside from poor special effects it "is an interesting and valuable remake because it attempts to expand and re-imagine Kong's universe rather than merely rehash what came before".
Note that almost all of the above quotes come from overviews of genre films, and this perhaps illustrates why the film has been blasted so often over the years. I don't think the 1976 version is a horror movie, much less a science fiction movie. It is fantasy, true, but the heart of the story is a love story pure and simple. Considering that it was a remake of one of the most beloved fantasy action films of all time, a large amount of the genre viewing population were perhaps predisposed to not liking such an approach. Especially since the makers opted to forgo stop motion animation and use a man in a suit for Kong. This man in a suit approach no doubt turned off a percentage of the viewing audience as well—if you can’t just roll with it the film no doubt would seem pretty silly.
Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was decidedly influenced by the 1976 version--it more closely mirrors the action of the 1933 version but uses the elevated emphasis on the relationship between Kong and the girl from the 1976 version.
The Good Stuff
I think the 1976 version of KING KONG is a good movie with occasional flashes of both greatness and mediocrity. The first hour of the film, which covers everything up to Kong's first appearance, does just about everything right. From Richard H. Kline's opulent widescreen photography to John Barry's evocative score, the movie is a perfect blend of mystery, menace and grandeur. It just works. That things subsequently being to fall apart after that first hour should not diminish the achievement of what came before.
Scope
The wide shots of the fog-enshrouded island are among the film's most striking visual moments and are all the more impressive because the fog is a practical effect and not an optical special effect.
Humor
The film is funny. Intentionally funny. Some critics felt the humor undermined the film and mistakenly categorized it as camp. Not so. The humor is organic to the situations, intelligent and consistent. The film never treats Kong as a joke and neither do the characters. Indeed, the characters in this film are afraid of Kong and this works wonders, especially when it is just a man in an ape suit on the screen. Charles Grodin’s performance as Fred Wilson is deserving of note. He creates a thoroughly despicable character who remains likable throughout most of the film. Dwan's relationship with Kong is believable and touching, and it's a testament to the film's effectiveness that Kong's death is truly affecting.
Updating the Story
Semple's approach to updating the story for the 1970's is ingenious. In 1976 it was still conceivable--barely--that there could be the proverbial "undiscovered" island. Technological advances in satellite mapping would soon make that a hard sell. The 2010 novel Fragment by Warren Fahy deals with an undiscovered island and the author has to go through hoops to explain how it remained so. When Peter Jackson remade the film in 2005, it is telling that he set it in 1935--it is simply too hard to try and update the story to modern times without drastically altering the setup. KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017), which was intended to set the stage for a new film franchise involving the big guy, also tellingly set the action in the early 70’s. GODZILLA VS. KONG (2021) sets the action in the present, but a present in which the existence of large creatures that roam the Earth (and seas) is a given so it is obviously not intended to be taken as realistic. The 76 version of Kong tells the classic tale, however, set in the mid-seventies and in a reasonably believable fashion.
Note, however, that this updating accounts for one of the biggest knocks against the film. I'm talking about the dinosaurs, of course. Or rather, the absence of dinosaurs. In what was partially a budget-saving measure there are no dinosaurs on the island. This alone accounts for much of the ire the film has faced over the years from fans of the original, and when comparing the 1976 film to the 1933 film it's a noticeable omission. Still, as mentioned above the 76 KONG is more of a love story than a rousing action film. Just from that standpoint alone the omission of the dinosaurs can be excused, but I think the real reason the dinosaurs were omitted were that they didn't fit in with the more realistic tone that this version strives for. Granted we have a 40-foot tall ape, but the story--and characters--treat Kong as realistically as was feasible given the inherent unrealistic nature of the story.
Characters
In the 1976 version of KONG there are only two characters that affect the actions of the film. Fred Wilson (Grodin) and Kong. Every one else is just along for the ride. Wilson instigates the trip to the island to find oil, when the oil is not forthcoming he sets his sights on Kong as a promotional gimmick. The fear of Kong prompt the natives to kidnap Dwan. Kong takes Dwan. Jack (Bridges) goes after Dwan. Kong comes after her when she is taken back by Jack. Wilson gets the idea of capturing Kong and taking him to New York. In New York, Kong escapes, takes Dwan and high tails it the World Trade Center.
Truly, it's like a love triangle between Kong, Wilson and Dwan, only Wilson never understands that he's competing with Kong. Bridges' character surprisingly contributes very little to the story. He's supposed to the be voice of environmental sanity, but it's underdeveloped and gets lost in the crowd.
Jessica Lange's performance is frequently the source of much criticism. No, that's not entirely true--the character she portrays is frequently the source of much criticism. Indeed, some critics say her performance is awful. I ask, what film were they watching? Lange is superb in the role, which is humorous in an admittedly idiosyncratic manner. But it works and she's playing the role as it was written.
Charles Grodin is likewise terrific in a villainous role where his villainy is masked by humor. There is a shifty deviousness to just about everything he does, like a little boy throwing rocks at a hornets nest just for fun. He is so exuberant early on that it effectively masks his darker nature, though this eventually comes out.
Jeff Bridges is generally good as the male lead. He takes an underwritten role and does the most with it that he can, but there's no getting around that there is nothing for him to do once they are off the island. He is sadly relegated by the film's climax to watching from the sidelines, unable to affect the outcome in any meaningful way. This can also be read differently, of course. Bridges could also represent the environmental movement, and the way the film treats him could be read as a comment on what their chances were when faced with a) big business and b) nature itself.
So how does Kong fare as a character? In this re-imagining, he's thoroughly sympathetic. True, the characters in the film fear him but the audience never does, as he is by far the most relatable character they have to deal with. Who hasn't gotten a little worked up when the attention of their love spurns them? He has a bit of a temper? Lots of people do. He occasionally steps on people? Who hasn't wanted to do that at least once in their life?
What did Kong do wrong? Nothing. He's a victim and his ultimate fate is a sad one. This 1976 version of the story doesn't get into the mythical aspects of the Kong. There is no time given to the island, it's inhabitants, or how Kong got there. One assumes that Kong must have had parents but the film simply does not get into it. How long have the natives worshiped Kong? On one hand it is irritating that the film never even tries to answer these questions, but this goes back to what kind of film KONG 76 really is, which is a love story so it devotes its time to building that up. It should also be noted that KONG 33 didn't try to seriously answer these questions either.
We can't really talk about Kong the character without talking about the masterful job that Rick Baker did playing him. Rick Baker is the man behind the mask for the majority of Kong shots, and in my opinion is solely responsible for the audience liking Kong. Simply by using his contact lens covered eyes and body language, he conveys a depth of emotion that is impressive and affecting. There are several shots with someone else playing Kong and it's a testament to Baker's performance that it is instantly noticeable. With the other guy in the suit, it looks like just that: a guy in an ape suit.
Environmental Allegory?
The KING KONG story be taken as an allegory for man's impact on the environment. The basic premise contains the notion of a existing ecosystem totally and utterly destroyed by man's intervention. This is of course not unlike countless other stories from history, notably with what happened with native Americans in the United States, or how the Mayans were seriously harmed by smallpox brought over by explorers. The 1933 version seems to be more a story of that kind of impact and is not overtly environmental. The same cannot be said of the 1976 version.
In this reading, Kong is the environment and big oil (Wilson) comes in and does its thing at the expense of the environment. Let's suppose for a second he had found oil ready to be extracted. What kind of impact would this have had on the natives and island? Would Kong have survived in any event if the island became needed to pump billions of dollars of oil out of the ground? The fact that Kong dies in New York city is besides the point. He was dead as soon as Wilson set his sights on the island.
Kong's first appearance is flat out great and is just about worth the price of admission. Here is an abbreviated version of it:
Good stuff, and from the screen caps above we see that in theory the idea of using a man in an ape suit is not necessarily an unworkable one. The concept of many of the effects shots are imaginatively designed, with at times ingenious marrying of foreground and background elements. That they are not always successfully executed does not diminish the creativeness of the shots--blue screen shots often feature mismatched colors, and there are several instances of blue fringing. All this said, the shots show that the filmmakers were trying and the end result is engaging fantasy storytelling.
The Bad Stuff
Special Effects
Effects-wise, the film's low point is a ridiculous fight between Kong and a giant rubber snake. In fact, aside from two or three butchered blue-screen shots, all of the special effects work with miniatures can be considered failures.
The Island
This brings up another frequent complaint of the 76 version of Kong--no Skull Island. It is true, the island in the 76 version of Kong is just that, an island. Whereas the 33 version of Kong featured dinosaurs, impossibly deep jungle vistas and some serious mojo, the 76 version of Kong just features an island. True, it is at times much prettier than the 33 version island, but that does not exactly work in its favor. The location work doesn't quite matches the studio sets of the island, which are always overcast and lacks foliage. It probably doesn't help that all of Kong's scenes occur at night.
(Anti) Climax
Unfortunately, the climatic battle atop the World Trade Center tower is marred by poor blue screen work AND poor miniature work.
Are these special effects deficiencies enough to kill the experience? Well, obviously I think not. It's not like the 1933 film's special effects are exactly seamless either, but not many people complain about them. Why? Because while the movie is playing you are involved enough in the action to suspend disbelief. The 1933 film moves like a cat with a bag on its foot, and the 1976 does not. Subsequently, you are more apt to notice things like mismatched opticals.
The Larger Picture
This film experienced a publicity backlash when it was released. This was due in part to how much the film cost to make--reportedly $24 million dollars, or just under $100,000,000 in 2009-adjusted dollars. It received an enormous amount of press coverage leading up to the film's release, so when it finally was released there was a backlash against the film.
Universal had also announced a remake of KONG in 1975, but because this version was rushed into production they canceled their film, which was a period remake and would have reportedly followed the original much more closely.
The 1976 version of KING KONG has some interesting priorities in that it is a love story first, a cautionary environmental tale second and an adventure story third. The love story and adventure story aspects should be self evident, but the environmental angle is a bit subtler, and perhaps a bit prescient. Who is the villain of the piece? Ostensibly it is Wilson, but he represents a large gas company. Like it or not, he typifies the public perception that the "big" companies are only concerned with profits, the environment be damned. Kong is nothing if not a part of the environment and what happens to him is akin to an oil/mining/logging company ripping up the land side for drilling purposes. Wilson's actions are driven first by dreams of grandeur, then by self-preservation. Whereas Denham in the 1933 version wanted to land the big one to sell tickets, Wilson's dream of landing the big one means selling gas, presumably because it will help him get higher in the company. When the oil evaporates, he turns to Kong as a possible advertising tool. Does he care about the ecosystem of the island? Not so much.
Home Video
I wanted this film to show up letterboxed on laserdisc back in the 90's (yeah, I'm dating myself), but it never did. It was available only in a pan and scan version, and I never got around to picking it up. It's been released on DVD twice in the U.S., but while it had two different covers it was the same disc featuring the same transfer and features: the film and the trailer. It is a decent transfer for the time period and shows the film to good effect, notably in simply presenting the film in it's proper aspect ratio. The soundtrack options on the DVD are a Dolby 2.0 and Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Both are fine, though dialogue sounds a bit weak in the 5.1 mix. Detail is good as Paramount afforded a high bitrate to the film in the encoding.
More recently, the film was released on Blu-Ray in France in 2009. The disc is region free and thus playable on any Blu-Ray player worldwide. The special features, however, are encoded in the PAL format and may not be playable on U.S. players. The features include a trailer, a short "making of" feature, a short feature on Rick Baker and about 8 minutes or so of deleted scenes. Most of the deleted scenes are trims to existing scenes, although there is one shot of Kong destroying a car in New York.
The high-def transfer was stunning and rendered the previous standard def versions of the film obsolete. There is a fair amount of grain to the image, but along with the grain is an astonishing amount of detail. Black levels are good and the image is again presented in the proper 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Audio options include a French 5.1 DTS "High Resolution" track, an English 5.1 DTS "Master Audio" track, and a Spanish 2.0 DTS track. The included subtitle tracks are French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch. Subtitles can be turned off.
Even more recently the film has shown up on HD movie channels, in its proper aspect ratio and in 5.1. The transfer seems a bit cleaner than the French Blu-Ray--meaning less grain--but this may simply be due to the higher compression used on the channels (satellite channels in my case).
So how does Kong fare as a character? In this re-imagining, he's thoroughly sympathetic. True, the characters in the film fear him but the audience never does, as he is by far the most relatable character they have to deal with. Who hasn't gotten a little worked up when the attention of their love spurns them? He has a bit of a temper? Lots of people do. He occasionally steps on people? Who hasn't wanted to do that at least once in their life?
What did Kong do wrong? Nothing. He's a victim and his ultimate fate is a sad one. This 1976 version of the story doesn't get into the mythical aspects of the Kong. There is no time given to the island, it's inhabitants, or how Kong got there. One assumes that Kong must have had parents but the film simply does not get into it. How long have the natives worshiped Kong? On one hand it is irritating that the film never even tries to answer these questions, but this goes back to what kind of film KONG 76 really is, which is a love story so it devotes its time to building that up. It should also be noted that KONG 33 didn't try to seriously answer these questions either.
Environmental Allegory?
The KING KONG story be taken as an allegory for man's impact on the environment. The basic premise contains the notion of a existing ecosystem totally and utterly destroyed by man's intervention. This is of course not unlike countless other stories from history, notably with what happened with native Americans in the United States, or how the Mayans were seriously harmed by smallpox brought over by explorers. The 1933 version seems to be more a story of that kind of impact and is not overtly environmental. The same cannot be said of the 1976 version.
In this reading, Kong is the environment and big oil (Wilson) comes in and does its thing at the expense of the environment. Let's suppose for a second he had found oil ready to be extracted. What kind of impact would this have had on the natives and island? Would Kong have survived in any event if the island became needed to pump billions of dollars of oil out of the ground? The fact that Kong dies in New York city is besides the point. He was dead as soon as Wilson set his sights on the island.
Special Effects
Kong's first appearance is flat out great and is just about worth the price of admission. Here is an abbreviated version of it:
Impressive shot: full scale wall set with many extras.
Kong arrives, she looks up...
Blue screen optical composite of Kong suit (background) and actor (foreground).
Optical composite of Kong suit and full scale wall set.
Full scale mechanical arm.
Blue screen composite of Kong suit (background) and actor (foreground).
Blue screen composite of actor in giant hand (foreground) and full size set (background)
Man in suit (foreground) and location work (background)
Actor (foreground) and man in suit (background)
Actor in giant hand (foreground) and man in suit (background)
Actors on log (forground) and man in suit (background)
Man in suit holding doll (foreground) and location shot (background). Note that you can see the waterfall through Kong's head.
Man on stage (foreground) and man in suit on set (background)
Actor on ladder (foreground) and man in suit on set (background)
Matte painting with a live element at the bottom of the screen.
Matte painting.
Special Effects
Effects-wise, the film's low point is a ridiculous fight between Kong and a giant rubber snake. In fact, aside from two or three butchered blue-screen shots, all of the special effects work with miniatures can be considered failures.
Shot from the television version.
Man in suit on set
 | ||||
Full size Kong
|
This brings up another frequent complaint of the 76 version of Kong--no Skull Island. It is true, the island in the 76 version of Kong is just that, an island. Whereas the 33 version of Kong featured dinosaurs, impossibly deep jungle vistas and some serious mojo, the 76 version of Kong just features an island. True, it is at times much prettier than the 33 version island, but that does not exactly work in its favor. The location work doesn't quite matches the studio sets of the island, which are always overcast and lacks foliage. It probably doesn't help that all of Kong's scenes occur at night.
Unfortunately, the climatic battle atop the World Trade Center tower is marred by poor blue screen work AND poor miniature work.
Are these special effects deficiencies enough to kill the experience? Well, obviously I think not. It's not like the 1933 film's special effects are exactly seamless either, but not many people complain about them. Why? Because while the movie is playing you are involved enough in the action to suspend disbelief. The 1933 film moves like a cat with a bag on its foot, and the 1976 does not. Subsequently, you are more apt to notice things like mismatched opticals.
The Larger Picture
This film experienced a publicity backlash when it was released. This was due in part to how much the film cost to make--reportedly $24 million dollars, or just under $100,000,000 in 2009-adjusted dollars. It received an enormous amount of press coverage leading up to the film's release, so when it finally was released there was a backlash against the film.
Universal had also announced a remake of KONG in 1975, but because this version was rushed into production they canceled their film, which was a period remake and would have reportedly followed the original much more closely.
The 1976 version of KING KONG has some interesting priorities in that it is a love story first, a cautionary environmental tale second and an adventure story third. The love story and adventure story aspects should be self evident, but the environmental angle is a bit subtler, and perhaps a bit prescient. Who is the villain of the piece? Ostensibly it is Wilson, but he represents a large gas company. Like it or not, he typifies the public perception that the "big" companies are only concerned with profits, the environment be damned. Kong is nothing if not a part of the environment and what happens to him is akin to an oil/mining/logging company ripping up the land side for drilling purposes. Wilson's actions are driven first by dreams of grandeur, then by self-preservation. Whereas Denham in the 1933 version wanted to land the big one to sell tickets, Wilson's dream of landing the big one means selling gas, presumably because it will help him get higher in the company. When the oil evaporates, he turns to Kong as a possible advertising tool. Does he care about the ecosystem of the island? Not so much.
After Kong
This was Jeff Bridges first taste of being the lead in a big Hollywood movie, and one gets the impression that he did not particularly enjoy the experience. He retreated to smaller films after this--the quirky WINTER GAMES was begun in 1976 but not finished until 1979, and SOMEBODY KILLED HER HUSBAND in 1978. He is good in both of these films, but still had not developed into a true lead. This would begin in CUTTER'S WAY in 1981, where Bridges exhibits considerable growth in his ability to play serious. He also flashed a bit of the sexy swagger that would be utilized much more fully in 1984's AGAINST ALL ODDS, after which he became a legitimate Hollywood leading man. He would hone his craft in such diverse films such as STARMAN, THE FISHER KING, AMERICAN HEART, THE VANNISHING, and THE BIG LEBOWSKI,
Jessica Lange had a bad time with KONG. She was unprepared for the critical thrashing she received--unjustly--and retreated from the limelight. She regrouped and started his career again, this time with an eye towards being the serious actor she was. She was worlds apart from Dwan as Cora in the 1981 remake of THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, showing serious dramatic acting chops. She was grounded and endearing as Julie in 1982's TOOTSIE, and incendiary as Frances Farmer in 1982's FRANCES. Never again would her acting ability be questioned. If anything, the subsequent work she did over the next four decades proved what a great job she did in Kong.
Charles Grodin continued working after Kong, appearing in a wide range of films both small and large. He would occasionally break out in a larger role, such as 1978's HEAVEN CAN WAIT, 1980's SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES, and 1988's MIDNIGHT RUN, but mostly he worked consistently in smaller films and role. He also hosted a talk show for a couple of years in the 1990's.
I wanted this film to show up letterboxed on laserdisc back in the 90's (yeah, I'm dating myself), but it never did. It was available only in a pan and scan version, and I never got around to picking it up. It's been released on DVD twice in the U.S., but while it had two different covers it was the same disc featuring the same transfer and features: the film and the trailer. It is a decent transfer for the time period and shows the film to good effect, notably in simply presenting the film in it's proper aspect ratio. The soundtrack options on the DVD are a Dolby 2.0 and Dolby Digital 5.1 mix. Both are fine, though dialogue sounds a bit weak in the 5.1 mix. Detail is good as Paramount afforded a high bitrate to the film in the encoding.
More recently, the film was released on Blu-Ray in France in 2009. The disc is region free and thus playable on any Blu-Ray player worldwide. The special features, however, are encoded in the PAL format and may not be playable on U.S. players. The features include a trailer, a short "making of" feature, a short feature on Rick Baker and about 8 minutes or so of deleted scenes. Most of the deleted scenes are trims to existing scenes, although there is one shot of Kong destroying a car in New York.
The high-def transfer was stunning and rendered the previous standard def versions of the film obsolete. There is a fair amount of grain to the image, but along with the grain is an astonishing amount of detail. Black levels are good and the image is again presented in the proper 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Audio options include a French 5.1 DTS "High Resolution" track, an English 5.1 DTS "Master Audio" track, and a Spanish 2.0 DTS track. The included subtitle tracks are French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Dutch. Subtitles can be turned off.
Even more recently the film has shown up on HD movie channels, in its proper aspect ratio and in 5.1. The transfer seems a bit cleaner than the French Blu-Ray--meaning less grain--but this may simply be due to the higher compression used on the channels (satellite channels in my case).
A UK Blu-ray was released in 2017 by Studio Canal. It appears to have used the same transfer as the French disk, but with better encoding. Extras are comparable—some standard definition deleted scenes in 2.35:1.
In 2021, the film made its US debut on a two disk special edition from Scream Factory. The transfer seems to be the same as the original used for the French 2009 release, but again with better encoding and what looks like digital clean up and color tweaking. The release includes a 2.0 “original audio” track as well as the same 5.1 track featured on the earlier releases. Also included are a variety of extras, which I will cover below. To date, this release has the best audio of any release, and this includes the two UHD releases.
I should state here that while all of the previous 1080p versions above are without a doubt miles better than any previous versions, there are a couple of nits to pick. Firstly, until the television version ALL of the Blu-Ray releases have been based on the same Studio Canal transfer that was done back in 2007 or 2008. Yes, some encodings are better than others but by and large the video transfer is pretty old, at least in home video terms. And while the image quality is sharp and full of detail, it's also a bit faded. It also has a vaguely 'video' look, or to say it doesn't especially look like film. The Shout Factory is probably the best iteration of the transfer, which makes sense as it was the most recent.
As stated, this was a title I wanted to see for many years, even before the first US widescreen DVD release. My idea of the perfect special edition for this release was formed back in the standard resolution days of laserdiscs. I wanted three things: 1) the film in widescreen, 2) good reproductions of the wonderful pre-release artwork by John Berkey, and 3) the television version included as an extra. Now, back in the laserdisc days adding the three hour television version would push the overall price of the release into the box set realm. Box sets were not exactly a thing for Paramount Home Video, so this was always destined to be a dream. I am happy to report, that the new Scream Factory Collector's Edition checks all three boxes on my wish list.
Just two years after the Scream Factory release, Studio Canal in the U.K. released the film in 4K and remastered Blu-Ray. The UHD features Dolby Vision. Taken from a new scan of the original negative, this new version features much more fine detail and a substantial color shift. I've included some captures from this new transfer to illustrate the differences. While it suffers at time from being too yellow or too teal, much of the time it looks fabulous, and remains my favorite way to view the film at present. What becomes clear upon direct comparison with older scans is how bright everything has been up to now, almost to the point of being washed out. Notice how more mysterious the night scenes on the island now play.
In 2024 Paramount released their own UHD version. It uses the Studio Canal restoration but tweaks the colors to be less yellow. The encoding is noticeably less impressive than the Studio Canal version, however. It looks pretty good in Dolby Vision, however. In this next section, the first image is from the Studio Canal version, the second is from the Paramount version.
Television Version
In the US, NBC purchased the broadcast rights to KING KONG. The theatrical version runs over two hours so NBC was looking at either editing the film down so that it would fit in a two hour time slot, or adding footage to fill a longer time slot. They opted to make a four hour version of KONG that could be broadcast over two nights. They showed it three times, in 1978, 1980 and 1983. I originally watched it in 1980. The television version was prepared by using unused footage from the original shoot. This was usual for most--but not all--television versions*. Entire new scenes were added back in, as well as extensions to existing scenes. In many cases, scenes were extended by including multiple takes of the same scene, so action is frequently repeated throughout the film. In some cases, such as Kong attacking Charles Grodin’s character on the wall, it is tripled or quadrupled.
When Studio Canal released this title in Europe, they surprisingly included footage from the television version in the original widescreen 2.35:1aspect ratio. The French release includes just under 14 minutes of footage from the television version that is completely unique. The later German release includes about two and a half more minutes of footage. All things considered with regard to the television, 16 and a half minutes is very close to all of new footage that consists of action not seen in some form in the theatrical version. The rest of the additional footage—roughly a half hour—is all extensions and multiple takes. There is some good stuff in that 16 and a half minutes, and with two exceptions the repeated footage doesn’t really harm things. The exceptions being Kong attacking the wall, and Kong fighting the snake. These two sequences go on far too long. Indeed, the ideal “extended” version of the film is probably the theatrical version with only the 16 and a half minutes edited back in. I may have to try that.
Curiously, the back cover of the Scream Factory does not list all of the special features found on the two discs. The release features two audio commentaries on the theatrical version. One is by author Ray Morton who wrote a fantastic overview of the Kong films called King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson (2005)**. This book was released as a tie-in to the Peter Jackson remake, but includes what remains the best overview of the making of the 1976 version of the film. The other commentary features Rick Baker, who co-designed, built, and played Kong.
 |
| US DVD Release (1990's) |
 |
| French Blu-Ray Release (2009) |
 |
| German Blu-Ray Release (2017) |
 |
| Scream Factory Front (2021) |
 |
| Scream Factory Alternate Front (2021) |
 |
| Scream Factory Back (2021) |
 |
| Studio Canal UK UHD Front (2023) |
 |
| Studio Canal UK UHD Back (2023) |
 |
| Paramount UHD Steelbook Front (2024) |
 |
| Paramount UHD Steelbook Front w/overlay (2024) |
 |
| Paramount UHD Steelbook Back (2024) |
 |
| Paramount UHD Steelbook Back (2024) |
