Talk:King Kong (1976 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:51, 16 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Kong (1976 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tokusatsu

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TokusatsuWikipedia:WikiProject TokusatsuTemplate:WikiProject TokusatsuTokusatsu
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Talk header}}
-{{FilmsWikiProject|class=Start|importance=Low}}
-{{HorrorWikiProject|class=Start}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
+{{WikiProject Film|British-task-force=yes|American-task-force=yes}}
-==Response Section==
+{{WikiProject Horror|importance=Mid}}
+{{WikiProject Tokusatsu}}
-I've recently been deleting some negative comments regarding the film that have been inserted at the bottom of the "Response" section.  The only reason I've removed them is because the comments are unsourced  and, therefore, simply sound like the opinion of the editor who made the additions. It should be pretty easy to find citations for the claim that most people feel the film is "vastly inferior" to the original, or that it allegedly received "mostly hostile" reviews at the time of its initial release. I think both of these views are already addressed in the article, but from a more reality-based perspective, in the line indicating "While the film received mostly mixed responses from critics, especially from fans of the original ''King Kong'', it did receive extremely positive reviews from several prominent mainstream critics."  This clearly shows that the film was judged unfavorably by some critics in comparison to the original.  Also, I don't believe the film received any "hostile" reviews outside of the small fantasy film fan magazines (such as ''[[Cinefantastique]]''); most of the major reviewers had genuinely mixed reactions to the film.  Note [[Vincent Canby]]'s review in the ''[[New York Times]]''[http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?_r=1&title1=&title2=King%20Kong%20%28Movie%29&reviewer=VINCENT%20CANBY&pdate=19761218&v_id=27392&oref=slogin] that found much to praise and pan in the movie. I think that particular review was very typical of most of the critical responses to the movie.[[User:Hal Raglan|Hal Raglan]] 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USFilm=yes|USFilm-importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}}
-:Yes of course however despite some of its success, its worth noting that this film wasn't a "grand hit" as the section implies since multiple review sites and users at IMDB aren't as forgiving. The term mixed is good enough. [[User:Stabby Joe|Stabby Joe]] 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
+}}
-::I disagree. Since many of the obscure, amateur "critics" on the "multiple review sites" you mention erroneously believe the film's initial critical reaction was overwhelmingly negative, I believe its important to mention in the article that the major, notable reviewers at the time either actually gave the film a mixed review, or, as noted in the article, responded favorably.-[[User:Hal Raglan|Hal Raglan]] 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-:::Do know that we are talking about it for its time and the the section is presented implies great success even tough if anything its regarded inferior to the original and 2005 remake and that the reviews enjoyed the film but didn't take it seriously, word like "joke" and "comic". [[User:Stabby Joe|Stabby Joe]] 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)