Talk:King Kong (1976 film)

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): Excitement, Zavvi, Flop

For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Last updated by WildBot 14 years ago | FAQ | Report a problem

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Response Section

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[1] 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.Hal Raglan 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stabby Joe 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.-Hal Raglan 14:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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". Stabby Joe 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the portion of the response section which claimed that this movie helped launch the career of Jeff Bridges. He had already earned two Academy Award nominations prior to appearing in King Kong, and had been acting since he was a youth (along with his brother, Beau) in television as well as movies. The portion about Jessica Lange's career being launched by the film was left intact. ChargersFan (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:King kong 1976 movie poster.jpg

Image:King kong 1976 movie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kong76.jpg

Image:Kong76.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of recent revert

A frequent editor of this article reverted some changes I made and I have restored them. The explanation is as follows.

After Dwan tells them her name, she goes on to explain her real name is Dawn and that she rearranged the letters to make it more showy. It may not be but I feel mention of this is relevant.
There is no evidence Dwan is an actress. She says she was hoping to get into movies by going on the yacht so "wannabe" is probably a more accurate adjective.
It was not specifically a "rich mans" yacht. Dwan says it was the "directors" yacht. Obviously he was rich but that was not her stated interest.
The oil was found after finding the wall so my edit simply put it in the correct order of discovery.
I replaced "babbling" with "rambling". Babbling means meaningless incoherent babylike sounds while rambling means continuous talk lacking regularity or purpose. Dwan was rambling not babbling.
I don't want to step on anyones toes so if you feel any of these are a problem I'm willing to listen. Wayne (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]