Excellent topic and you give a very cogent explanation of the differences between the arts of cinema and literature. I think the first line of dialog in the film is particularly well-done. The talent agent employed by Carl Denham to find his leading lady asks a worker on the fog-shrouded dock " Is this the motion picture ship?" In that one line we are given information that there will be a voyage, that it involves filming a movie, and even a clue for modern viewers as to the era in which the story occurs ( Motion picture instead of movie or film ship). You are probably aware that in 2005, to tie in with the release of Peter Jackson's version, several original novels were released to tie into the occasion. One was a sort of prequel to the film that depicted Carl Denhams pre Skull Island career, and the procurement of the map to said island. Another, of more interest to us monster kids, has Jack Driscole returning to Skull Island in search of Denham who has disappeared on a subsequent visit. That one is particularly interesting, as a series of subterranean passageways leading from the village into the dinosaur infested interior plays into the plot.
I have a Reprint of the Novel on Paperback, I bought It because It had a Frank Frazetta Cover. I also have a Novelization of the 1976 King Kong, I bought It because the Cover had the Poster from the Movie. I've never read either Book.
To be fair, that statement at the beginning part does show the whole "Hollywood isn't original" that, to me, is too done to death and annoying. is nothing new since it happened before in the past. Though many of us know that the issue is that original ideas require a lot of buy‐in to both the producers and the audience. Like with vaccines or special education schools for people with mental disorders. As well that we still live in a business first, creativity second. Since it doesn't matter if they are going to be praised or despised, what matters is how much profit it'll make in return. Otherwise, it'll just be seen as a waste of time and money if it won't make back the costs. But on a note related to this video, there were some films that I do wish that were based on books, or did a technique similar to this film, Lady and the Tramp, and Pagemaster. That's what I hope with Toy Story or any of Pixar's films.
Развлечения
Excellent topic and you give a very cogent explanation of the differences between the arts of cinema and literature. I think the first line of dialog in the film is particularly well-done. The talent agent employed by Carl Denham to find his leading lady asks a worker on the fog-shrouded dock " Is this the motion picture ship?" In that one line we are given information that there will be a voyage, that it involves filming a movie, and even a clue for modern viewers as to the era in which the story occurs ( Motion picture instead of movie or film ship). You are probably aware that in 2005, to tie in with the release of Peter Jackson's version, several original novels were released to tie into the occasion. One was a sort of prequel to the film that depicted Carl Denhams pre Skull Island career, and the procurement of the map to said island. Another, of more interest to us monster kids, has Jack Driscole returning to Skull Island in search of Denham who has disappeared on a subsequent visit. That one is particularly interesting, as a series of subterranean passageways leading from the village into the dinosaur infested interior plays into the plot.
Lovelace wrote this in less than 2 weeks. The movie had just wrapped production when it hit bookstores at the end of December of 1932.
That would explain a lot about it, actually 😆
I remember a Comics Adaptation of King Kong that Included the Episode with the Triceratops.
I have a Reprint of the Novel on Paperback, I bought It because It had a Frank Frazetta Cover.
I also have a Novelization of the 1976 King Kong, I bought It because the Cover had the Poster from the Movie.
I've never read either Book.
Quite interesting - AND we share the same birthday!
Birthday buddies!
저는 1932년 소설,1933년영화,1991년 만화판은 꺼럼칙해서 싫더라고요 그리고 2005년작 영화가 심리묘사가 더 잘되서 좋더라고요
🗿👍🏿👍🏿
To be fair, that statement at the beginning part does show the whole "Hollywood isn't original" that, to me, is too done to death and annoying. is nothing new since it happened before in the past. Though many of us know that the issue is that original ideas require a lot of buy‐in to both the producers and the audience. Like with vaccines or special education schools for people with mental disorders. As well that we still live in a business first, creativity second. Since it doesn't matter if they are going to be praised or despised, what matters is how much profit it'll make in return. Otherwise, it'll just be seen as a waste of time and money if it won't make back the costs. But on a note related to this video, there were some films that I do wish that were based on books, or did a technique similar to this film, Lady and the Tramp, and Pagemaster. That's what I hope with Toy Story or any of Pixar's films.
This Kong is Scar in new movie...
콩 해골섬
원작 소설의 공식 후속작 소설은 콩 리본이 아니라 킹콩 해골섬의 왕이라고 하네요. 비공식 후속작 소설인 콩 리본은 별로라 싫더라고요
콩 리본은 별로라 싫더라고요
Very,rascist, story
No,it, isn't