King Kong's Rights Issues

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by CinephileConnoisseur

LOL! Disney isn't buying nothing. Disney has many problems thanks to Bob Iger's short-term poor planning that's going to hurt them on so many levels in the long-term. There is so much the general public isn't aware of pertaining to Disney's broad issues. Disney isn't the powerhouse the media tools & their sheep think (not surprising). For example, Disney's purchase of LucasFilms has actually backfired in many ways as the Star Wars property is financially hurting as merchandise sales have continued to decline in the property since Disney's purchase (even though it was already on a downtrend but it has progressed more so). Disney has had to do a significantly massive write-off on its Star Wars theme park entities that have failed. I mean I could on & on but if you think Disney is going to be some ultimate powerhouse over everyone else in the long-term... no, they won't as they are in trouble. Also, Marvel & its whole MCU programming will meet its decline in due time as well as its inevitable. Hell, Disney's entire business model is troubling in an array of facets but that's a whole mess of eggs that I'm not getting into.

[blakninja]

Originally Posted by CinephileConnoisseur

LOL! Disney isn't buying nothing. Disney has many problems thanks to Bob Iger's short-term poor planning that's going to hurt them on so many levels in the long-term. There is so much the general public isn't aware of pertaining to Disney's broad issues. Disney isn't the powerhouse the media tools & their sheep think (not surprising). For example, Disney's purchase of LucasFilms has actually backfired in many ways as the Star Wars property is financially hurting as merchandise sales have continued to decline in the property since Disney's purchase (even though it was already on a downtrend but it has progressed more so). Disney has had to do a significantly massive write-off on its Star Wars theme park entities that have failed. I mean I could on & on but if you think Disney is going to be some ultimate powerhouse over everyone else in the long-term... no, they won't as they are in trouble. Also, Marvel & its whole MCU programming will meet its decline in due time as well as its inevitable. Hell, Disney's entire business model is troubling in an array of facets but that's a whole mess of eggs that I'm not getting into.

But they just bought Fox.

[John1701D]

Originally Posted by CinephileConnoisseur

LOL! Disney isn't buying nothing. Disney has many problems thanks to Bob Iger's short-term poor planning that's going to hurt them on so many levels in the long-term. There is so much the general public isn't aware of pertaining to Disney's broad issues. Disney isn't the powerhouse the media tools & their sheep think (not surprising). For example, Disney's purchase of LucasFilms has actually backfired in many ways as the Star Wars property is financially hurting as merchandise sales have continued to decline in the property since Disney's purchase (even though it was already on a downtrend but it has progressed more so). Disney has had to do a significantly massive write-off on its Star Wars theme park entities that have failed. I mean I could on & on but if you think Disney is going to be some ultimate powerhouse over everyone else in the long-term... no, they won't as they are in trouble. Also, Marvel & its whole MCU programming will meet its decline in due time as well as its inevitable. Hell, Disney's entire business model is troubling in an array of facets but that's a whole mess of eggs that I'm not getting into.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by John1701D

Still looking for the new member in the last two years, that is not upset about something when they join this site.

[CyberpunkCentral]

I said it before and I'll say it again, Disney is not as rich as some may think. Especially after buying Fox. They are more worried right now on making their money back from buying Fox, which is going to take years and years. Buying another major studio is out of the question. Besides, the government probably wouldn't agree to it anyway.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

I said it before and I'll say it again, Disney is not as rich as some may think. Especially after buying Fox. They are more worried right now on making their money back from buying Fox, which is going to take years and years. Buying another major studio is out of the question. Besides, the government probably wouldn't agree to it anyway.

Well yeah, a major acquisition a couple years before a full shut down doesn't help...but they'll make it through alright lol.

Honestly, I would love to see an original monster movie that can be made into a long running franchise. We don't need to go back 50-100 years to dig that up. It's why I had such high hopes for Pacific Rim

[starsteam]

It's weird how the MonsterVerse tips toes around the name "King Kong", never uttering the two words back-to-back, while the LEGO Batman Movie and Ready Player one also only refer to him as Kong, which implies using the name "King Kong" is a no-no if Universal isn't involved- yet the Space Jam 2 trailer clearly uses "King Kong".

This is just a mess, and I hate that they can't call him King Kong in the new movies.

[starsteam]

And there are no products that credit Universal as the owners of King Kong. The new NECA figure uses absolutely no character trademarks, they are using it as public domain which is also why they're using a original design. When Funko released a Pop for K:SI, the box originally said "King Kong" with a trademark crediting Warner, but later on this was changed to just "Kong" without the character trademark.

The majority of merchandise for Peter Jackson's film also did not use "King Kong" because the name cannot be trademarked. Instead they trademarked "Kong: The 8th Wonder of the World" and used that for the merchandise. The video game had to use some god-awful-long legal title.


So if the King Kong name isn't actually trademarked, it doesn't really make sense why the MonsterVerse and the various animated movies/cartoons can't use the name. There's a missing factor somewhere.

[GuruAskew]

Kong has always been the character’s proper name. I don’t even think the original movie was called King Kong until after the filming.

There’s no rhyme or reason to Universal owning the rights to the name. The Jackson-produced Skull Island was just called Skull Island. De Laurentiis was able to use the “king” on King Kong and King Kong Lives. Universal sure as **** didn’t tell RKO they couldn’t call the sequel Son of King Kong.

So again: Universal doesn’t own Kong’s film rights or the title “King Kong.” They used titles like “Peter Jackson’s King Kong” and “Peter Jackson’s King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie” because they DON’T own the title.

Universal has literally lied about owning Kong in a court it law, and unsuccessfully. They don’t own Kong. They own Peter Jackson’s King Kong. That’s it.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Doesn't Universal also have some ownership with the original King Kong vs. Godzilla as well?

[JayTL]

What's a King (Kong) to a God(Zilla)

[blakninja]

Switch it to Kong King?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by starsteam

It's weird how the MonsterVerse tips toes around the name "King Kong", never uttering the two words back-to-back, while the LEGO Batman Movie and Ready Player one also only refer to him as Kong, which implies using the name "King Kong" is a no-no if Universal isn't involved- yet the Space Jam 2 trailer clearly uses "King Kong".

This is just a mess, and I hate that they can't call him King Kong in the new movies.

Maybe Kong abdicated his throne and that's why he cannot be called "King" Kong anymore?

Or maybe the government of Skull Island switched from a constitutional monarchy to a republic and there's a President Kong out there somewhere.

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Maybe Kong abdicated his throne and that's why he cannot be called "King" Kong anymore?

Or maybe the government of Skull Island switched from a constitutional monarchy to a republic and there's a President Kong out there somewhere.

Kong was like "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by starsteam

It's weird how the MonsterVerse tips toes around the name "King Kong", never uttering the two words back-to-back, while the LEGO Batman Movie and Ready Player one also only refer to him as Kong, which implies using the name "King Kong" is a no-no if Universal isn't involved- yet the Space Jam 2 trailer clearly uses "King Kong".

This is just a mess, and I hate that they can't call him King Kong in the new movies.

How many times is Kong called "King Kong" in the RKO and two Universal films?

[Show spoiler]The answer is zero.

[GuruAskew]

I think “King Kong” does appear on the marquee in NYC in the original film. But it’s not in the dialogue because the character is just called Kong.

[Kong2004]

Originally Posted by JayTL

What's a King (Kong) to a God(Zilla)

Godzilla’s name in Japan is Gojira- Gorilla and Whale! Which is a nod to the original Kong. Nothing to do with a God!

[Kong2004]

Originally Posted by starsteam

And there are no products that credit Universal as the owners of King Kong. The new NECA figure uses absolutely no character trademarks, they are using it as public domain which is also why they're using a original design. When Funko released a Pop for K:SI, the box originally said "King Kong" with a trademark crediting Warner, but later on this was changed to just "Kong" without the character trademark.

The majority of merchandise for Peter Jackson's film also did not use "King Kong" because the name cannot be trademarked. Instead they trademarked "Kong: The 8th Wonder of the World" and used that for the merchandise. The video game had to use some god-awful-long legal title.


So if the King Kong name isn't actually trademarked, it doesn't really make sense why the MonsterVerse and the various animated movies/cartoons can't use the name. There's a missing factor somewhere.

I thought Universal owned the rights to the name and O’Brien’s estate owned the rights to the book. I also thought that universal owns rights to distribution of any King Kong related films or items, but gave Warner’s the rights to use the character not the name .

[starsteam]

Originally Posted by Kong2004

I thought Universal owned the rights to the name and O’Brien’s estate owned the rights to the book. I also thought that universal owns rights to distribution of any King Kong related films or items, but gave Warner’s the rights to use the character not the name .

That's why this topic exists. Nobody knows what the heck is with the rights to this character, name, and story. Some of it is public domain under certain uses, some of it is not.

[starsteam]

Originally Posted by Kong2004

Godzilla’s name in Japan is Gojira- Gorilla and Whale! Which is a nod to the original Kong. Nothing to do with a God!

Godzilla is often treated as a god-like being in several of the films and Toho has established that idea (hence Shin Godzilla's tag line "A God Incarnate"). But so was Kong. And since Godzilla is referred to as the "King" of monsters, that means both Godzilla and Kong are referred to as a King and a God.

But ultimately the reference is to "King" Kong and "God"zilla under the statement "what is a King to a God?".