Best Version of King Kong?

[MechaGodzilla]

Between the '33, '76 and '05 versions, which one do you think is the best?

I'm holding off on voting until I've rewatched them all again. For me it's probably between the '33 and '05 versions, but I honestly think all three are very good, each being better than the other two in some departments and inferior in others.

[dallywhitty]

I've never seen the '76 version so I won't vote in the poll, but I prefer the original film to Peter Jackson's remake. I really liked the remake but I do think it's long for the sake of being long and I didn't care for how over-sentimental it was. I re-watched the original film a few nights ago and I still think it's brilliant.

[Plissken Fan]

While all 3 are worth watching, I think Jackson's version is amazing (extended edition). The 76' film was a big part of my childhood but honestly hasen't held up well imo.

[hasslein]

You should've added to the poll

The colorized version of 1933
The Extended version of 76 (vs theatrical)
The Extended version of 05 (vs theatrical)

just to make things a little more interesting

I like all three but I don't see how anyone can pick 76 or 05 over 1933 version. 76 is my second choice then 05, in order of preference.

[Abby is Q]

King Kong Lives closely followed by King Kong Escapes.

Seriously though, the original is one of the greatest and most influential films ever. One of my favs.

[Angel Eyes]

1976 is my favorite (as I grew up with it) although 1933 is a much better film and a classic. 2005 was awful....

[Race Bannon]

1933 towers over the other two.

1976 has a special place in my heart.

2005 is a technical masterpiece but somehow without life. And I don't like that they made him look exactly like a gorilla. He was always just an unspecific man-ape.

[Dwayne Hicks]

1976 by far.

Then King Kong Lives.

Followed by 1933.

The rest don't exist for me.

[Randall Flagg]

1933.

Where is King Kong vs Godzilla?

[Leonidas King]

Most (not all) tend to crap on the 2005 remake merely for the dino stampede, which I know was a bit ridiculous and unrealistic and the CGI wasn't on par with other scenes in the movie. Oh and some others point out how they hated the ice skating scene, a total shocker as that moment was beautiful and priceless. Overall, the 2005 version felt richer in the story than the original classic or the 1976 version.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

As much as I'm against the pure principle of remakes, Jackson's King Kong really is the best one for me. It was exciting and had a lot of heart. The Central Park scene really elevated the experience for me and made me realize just how much I had come to care about the big lug. That's one remake I feel is completely justified and that I can get behind fully.

No reason to be against remakes in principle, there have been lots of great ones over the years, many that equal or surpass their predecessors. We have A Fistful of Dollars, Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78, Nosferatu '79, The Thing, Scarface, The Fly, Little Shop of Horrors, Heat, etc. to name a few examples. Films like the 1931 Frankenstein and 1956 Moby Dick are also remakes in that the novels had been adapted several times before those particular versions came around.

I dislike remakes when they're uninspired, corporate cash grabs (the Poltergeist remake looks like a perfect example of this), but when you have a passionate and visionary director/creative team with an idea of how to do a fresh take on an old story, you can get great results and they're just as legitimate as any other film. Love it or hate it, Peter Jackson's King Kong definitely falls into this category of remakes.

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

Most (not all) tend to crap on the 2005 remake merely for the dino stampede, which I know was a bit ridiculous and unrealistic and the CGI wasn't on par with other scenes in the movie. Oh and some others point out how they hated the ice skating scene, a total shocker as that moment was beautiful and priceless. Overall, the 2005 version felt richer in the story than the original classic or the 1976 version.

The sauropod stampede is so very Peter Jackson, it put a smile on my face when I rewatched the movie a couple months ago. His big budget action/adventure romps always have at least one of those extremely over the top action scenes, like how Return of the King has Legolas taking down the oliphant or Desolation of Smaug has the barrel sequence. A lot of people groan, a lot of people think "awesome!" and some of us do both at once.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

2005's King Kong is fantastic. Peter Jackson is a brilliant director and tackled the King Kong story well.

[Will.]

Have to give it to '05. Naomi Watts is the best!

[kylor]

2005 version is the best to me.

[DR Herbert West]

1933

[Number 6]

Technically speaking the 2005 version is the best. Classically speaking the 1933 version is the best.

[Mikezilla3k]

2005, although the original is still great.

[CyberpunkCentral]

1933.

[ltb2.0]

The 1933, the first is still the best. Even if the effects are a bit rough.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by ltb2.0

The 1933, the first is still the best. Even if the effects are a bit rough.

I wouldn't say rough. There is a charm to that kinda art form that we just don't see anymore.