|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Kong article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Isn't it weird how similar that World War I poster is to King Kong, which supposedly wasn't dreamed up until 1929? If we're gonna include that photo in the article, shouldn't something be said about it? Was it used as inspiration? Just a crazy coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KannD86 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I archived the page, mainly because it was getting quite long and it was taking me forever just to scroll down the page (I have dail-up). I think I did it right, but if I made a mistake, can a more experienced editor make the necessary corrections? Thanks.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I can see that is the least bit worth mentioning is that I usually find links to archives in prominent boxes (and I don't know how to do that, either). Other than that, you've got it. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Monster Comics adaptation: licensed or not?
There is a sentence in the section "Character rights" which reads, in part: "In 1990 they [i.e., the Cooper estate] licensed a six issue comic book adaptation of the story to Monster Comics...." However, the article King Kong (comics) says of this publication, "It is not, in fact, based on the 1933 film, but instead on the 1932 novelization by Delos W. Lovelace, and thus differs from the movie in numerous places." The text continues on to detail these differences and how they do indeed match the novel. It was Giantdevilfish's recent changing of "novel" to "story" in the passage from this article that caught my eye, as I remembered the other quite clearly and thought his edit ill-advised. Before I could change it to "novelization," the full context registered. The problem is that, as the "...rights" section with which I began states, Lovelace's work had been in the public domain for at least two decades as of 1990, and no license (and therefore no fee) would have been needed for the comic described, and consequently there probably wasn't one. Shouldn't all mention of the comic be removed from this passage? --Ted Watson (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
During the RKO/Universal court case, the judge (on Decemeber 6, 1976) gave control of the King Kong plot/story to Cooper's Estate (as covered in Mark Cotta Vaz's book this was the main reason Ricahrd Cooper got involved in the court battles). The novel's publishing rights remained and still are in the public domain. If someone want's to do an print adaptation of the King Kong story outside of a word for word reprint of the novel, they must go through Richard Cooper. Anyone can publish the original novel as long as it is a word for word reprint because of its public domain status. But if someone wants to do an adapatation of it (illustrated novel, comic book adapatation etc.) they must go through Cooper. The Monster Comics series was commisioned by Cooper's estate (Richard Cooper is credited in the comic's fineprint) because Monster Comics had to acquire premission from him to do this series). That's the reason I changed it from novel to story since Cooper doesn't have full control over the original novel anymore (in terms of its publishing status).Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand how something can both be in the public domain and also have restrictions on creating derivative works -- other than the provisions of laws relating to trademarks. "Public domain" means a lot more than having the right to reprint original novels. Trademark law should, at best, allow Cooper to prevent others from marketing material, other than the original novel itself, with the title "King Kong." However, anyone should be free to have a character derived from the King Kong of the novel appear in a derivative form in... say, "Amazing Monster Tales." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that you are understanding this correctly and have requested verification below. Trademark has been explicitly declined by the courts, and the original text is public domain. Elements in copyrightable sequels may be protected, but derivative works based on the original can't be, certainly not under any ordinary process of copyright. I so far haven't found a legal ruling to indicate otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I am restoring the cite tag to the statement in the intro claiming that Kong has sometimes been depicted as a "mindless monster." I'm not aware of any, not even in the Japanese movies where one might expect it. Admittedly, that the person who put that up in the first place simultaneously sabotaged (or just botched something intended in good faith?) a number of reference citations does his credibility no good, but I see this point as valid. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree. Kong was never mindless. The only movie where he was portrayed as outright vicious was the original film, but he never came off as "mindless". I think "rampaging" monster would be a better fit. Cooper intended for Kong to be a scary, vicious monster, as quoted in the book The Making of King Kong, "I want Kong to be the most vicious, the most brutal, the most damned thing the screen has ever seen". He wanted Kong to be fearsome, something that changed as the films progressed. Look how sympathetic they made him in the two remakes (waterfall bath for Jessica Lange, ice skating in Central Park and watching sunsets with Naomi Watts etc.), and even in the Japanese films he comes off heroic. So I think changing it to rampaging would be a better fit then mindless. And besides, if Kong was mindless would he know how to undo the ropes holding Fay Wray into place on the alter? Remember when Kong gets Fay Wray from the sacrificial alter? He's actually undoing the crank with his fingers to loosen the ropes binding Fay WrayGiantdevilfish (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
note - i've changed the "monster" to "fictional animal" - refering to e.g. Godzilla page, i think it a) has to be mentioned that it's fictional, b) in most of the movies it's an actual animal (gigantic gorilla, not an ordinary monster), that's only perceived as monstrosity due to its size and apish behaviour. so IMO it's not a 'monster' per se, in the most commonly used sense. edited to reflect that. Vaxquis (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. King Kong has always been referred to as a movie monster. Every book through the years about movie monsters has always talked about King Kong. I have a plethora of books that talk about movie monsters or monsters of the movies and Kong is always in those books for a reason. He is always grouped in with Frankenstein, Dracula, Godzilla etc. etc. In the film Carl Denham's marquee evern states King Kong: Carl Denham's Giant Monster. I can give you a quote from Merian C. Cooper (Kong's creator) where he refers to him as a monster. Just because a creature is an oversized animal doesn't mean its not a monster. Mothra is an oversized moth but is considerd a movie monster. Heck Godzilla and friends are animals. Wether they are mutated Dinosaurs or not they are still Dinosaurs which makes them animals, but they are all considered monsters.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- i'm not saying that it cannot be called 'a monster', but that it *isn't* a monster; if you can describe a monster more precisely than by just calling it a monster, an wikipedia should be just the place to do that, don't you think? and, honestly, Mothra is just an oversized moth that's considered a monster, not a monster that's considered an oversized moth. if you want to know why the word 'monster' shouldn't be used in the way you think it fits, i just quote from wiki on 'Monster' (not to mention the ambiguity of the word) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster
A monster is any fictional dangerous or hideous creature, usually in legend or horror fiction.
so it's a quite wide definition, and anyway not too descriptive, even if it seem nice&triggers some memories - and i'd put a stress on ANY, OR and USALLY there. describing something as a monster may seem acurate, but why the hell shouldn't we describe the dog as just 'an animal' there, why struggle for the fancy 'domesticated form of the wolf' thingy?
so yeah, it's semantic. but ANYway i've changed the change to reflect your POV. change it yourself if you ever understand why i've corrected it in the first place.Vaxquis (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that's good. Like I said, Kong has always been referred to as a movie monster, and while Peter Jackson opted to make Kong a realistic overgrown gorilla, he wasn't really presented that way in the earlier films. Even RKO referred to Kong as an Ape-like monster in their promotional materials.`
This article seems to be indicating some findings of law that I cannot verify at . Please locate, either in that court document or another, a specific quote to support the contention that "Universal thus owns only those rights in the King Kong name and character that RKO, Cooper, or DDL do not own" and that "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights." I have not read Vaz's book to see what his interpretation of the court case may be, but I have at least read that judgment, and I don't see it there. If it is located in another judgment, please provide a link for verifiability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court document from Vaz's book is cited on the page. The actual quote was from a court summary taken from this document in the footnotes. It's described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. This is what is written in the footnotes section of his book
"The narrative of King Kong litigation in the 1970's is based on information set forth in the factual summaries contained in two court opinions from federal court in New York, Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 578 F. Supp. 911 (S.D.N.Y 1984) and Universal City Studios, Inc v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 615 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985). Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent tals with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. The copyright action could not be brought in the state court because the federal court has jurisdiction over claims brought under the federal copyright act."
Then another footnote states.
"The narrative that follows is drawn from factual descriptions set forth in the legal opinions in both the district court in New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd., 578 F. Supp 911 (S.D.N.Y 1983); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 615 F. Supp 838 (S.D.N.Y 1985); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir. 1984); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd, 797 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.1986)
And then listed is quotes from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co, Ltd 578 F. Supp at 923. and as stated above the quote that is written in bold on the page is described as Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to those court documents? I have added a link to the judgment in the court case, , in the article, and I don't find it there. If you have not yourself verified the primary source, you should not cite to it, but only note that it is quoted in the book. Citing to the primary source gives the impression that you, yourself, have verified it, and I gather that you only know what Vaz says? (Please correct me if I've misunderstood.) I have been attempting to locate any additional court findings related to the case, but so far have been unsuccessful. Everything else I've found is older court documents. (I think it's very important that we address this, because evidently Vaz is making some extraordinary claims regarding the rights to this material.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't read the court documents, I'm going by what is written in the book. He's citing an actual court document including a word for word quote from it, so I can't imagine him lying since he seems to be a very reputable author. And I think its a legitimate cite. If he was summarizing himself then its valid that its simply the opinion of the author, or his interpretation, but that particular word for word quote is specfically cited via that particular document that I listed courtesy of his footnote citation (citation 9 on page 458). It seems that not every document from the trial is listed on the link you provided, so it's possible that it was a latter document from the trial. Bare in mind that the litigation lasted from 1982 through 1986. Either or, because of its specificness I don't think it should easily be brushed aside, because that particular quote isn't listed on a websiteGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about brushing it aside; I'm talking about accurately citing our sources (as opposed to citing his.) His being a reputable author hasn't really anything to do with it. It's just that we have to cite to what we've seen, not what we've been told exists. You cite to his book, and if he's reputable, our readers will trust the information on that basis; we don't want to imply that we've seen an official court document when we haven't. That quote is supported by two references, when evidently it it has only been verified in one of them. It's perfectly valid to say, "Citing to yadadayada" in the Vaz footnote. We just need to acknowledge that its hearsay, so to speak.
- The document I've linked is the judgment, from July 1986. Later documents are possible, but if the court case lasted from 1982 through 1986, it seems unlikely. Most of the higher court's judgments are available online these days, but unfortunately I haven't had much luck with finding more on this one. Searching for the quote "Universal thus owns only those rights in the King Kong name and character that RKO, Cooper, or DDL do not own" only picks up Wikipedia and its mirrors. It does not seem to appear in any news source or searchable book text (Vaz's book is not searchable). But of significance, the court does specifically state, in repeating the terms of the Cooper judgment, that:
The court incorporated its previous findings from the interlocutory judgment and concluded that, as between RKO and Cooper, Cooper possessed all rights in the name, character and story of King Kong other than the rights in the 1933 movie and the sequel "Son of Kong." The court also found that RKO's license with DDL for the remake of King Kong, and its licenses with certain toy manufacturers, had breached RKO's original limited assignment from Merian Cooper. Therefore, RKO owed Richard Cooper the profits accrued from these breaches. The court consistently noted, however, that its determination of Richard Cooper's cross-claim did not affect any other person and did not affect its finding that the King Kong story was in the public domain.
It is clear from the above that Cooper did not hold any trademark rights against the world in King Kong. Any such rights that might exist would be solely against RKO.
- This seems inconsistent with our articles' indication that "on December 6, 1976, Judge Real made a subsequent ruling, which held that all the rights in the name, character, and story of King Kong (outside of the original film and its sequel) belonged to Merian C Cooper's estate." This court case says that such trademark rights were not held against the world, but only against RKO. It also makes the quote "Universal thus owns only those rights in the King Kong name and character that RKO, Cooper, or DDL do not own," confusing, particularly as the Court noted also: "After the entry of the Cooper judgment, Cooper assigned all of his rights in King Kong to Universal for $200,000. The primary value of the assignment, it appears, was Cooper's right to receive certain revenues DDL would pay to RKO under DDL's license to produce a King Kong remake. DDL released that remake in December 1976." The question of who owns what, how & why seems very muddled.
- But this is all getting into the details of the court case. At heart here, what we need is either direct verification of the court case or specific attribution solely to the book that quotes this document, rather than to a court document none of us has seen. Also, while these points are clear—"RKO owned the rights to the original film and its sequel", "The Dino De Laurentiis company (DDL) owned the rights to the 1976 remake."—this one needs clarification: "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights." To what? The court document is clear that the King Kong story is public domain. Is it referencing novelizations of the copyrighted films or derivative works (such as sequels) based on those? Is there some legal precedent for suppressing sequels based solely on the original, which is PD? I would love to see the primary source Vaz is citing, since that would undoubtedly help provide context for these confusing assertions. Too bad Vaz isn't searchable. :) Does he provide any clues as to what that means? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It's stated in his book, that Cooper had recieved control over the King Kong plot and story as well as all the rights associated with the name and character of King Kong from judge Real, that he specifcally went to court to get control over the story that his father previously had copyright of (which is why he got involved in the RKO/Universal case in the first place). Everytime an adaptation of the story had been done outisde of a reprint of the Lovelace novel, Richard Cooper (and the estate) are always credited in the fine print. Cooper not only has control over the story but any published adaptations associated with it. This included the comic book (which Richard Cooper is credited), and the illustrated novel adaptation (which Richard Cooper is credited). A new novelization of the story was written with Cooper being credited and a tie in story (a prequel/sequel to the King Kong story) was written called Kong:King of Skull Island, where the estate is credited. So I believe the rights in terms of the publishing rights are rights associated with adaptations of the King Kong story which Cooper has control of. Furthermore a King Kong play is being planned by the crew responsible for the Walking with Dinosaurs production based on the King Kong story and they are working with Cooper's estate. So it seems that Cooper has control over the aspect of the story outside of the publishing rights to the Lovelace novel, since all of these adaptations are going through his estate. As for Vaz, I don't know how to get a hold of him or how he gained access to that particular court document which contains the quote in question. I do know that he interviewed Cooper (Richard) as well as the estate's lawyer (Randy Merritt) for his book. It would be nice to ask him, but I don't think he has a website.Giantdevilfish (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- That still all seems contradictory to the single primary source I've been able to locate. Argh. Too bad this isn't more widely discussed in published sources. :/ (We can't draw conclusions from the Walking With Dinosaurs production, since it could be based on the movie as opposed to the novel, and the movie is copyrighted. We also couldn't use it even if Vaz himself came to this talk page to explain, since that would be WP:OR. We'd have to ask him to publish it somewhere in a reliable source. :))
- Well, we should take care of the question of sourcing in our article, which needs to be modified to clarify that we (Wikipedia's editors) haven't utilized the primary sources Vaz uses, but are receiving them second-hand. If you still have access to that book (it seems you do), it might also be helpful to include a specific page citation next to "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights" along with (if there's a good, succinct one) a quote from Vaz. Since the one judgment that I've been able to locate seems to complicate that assertion, it seems like it would be useful context for our readers in footnote. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Walking with Dinosaurs thing is based on the story. Remember, Cooper doesn't have any rights related to the films. The original 1933 film is copyrighted by Time/Warner, the 76' version is copyrighted by Studio Canal and the 05' version is copyrighted by Universal. Every adaptation of the basic King Kong story that has been done in the last 20+ odd years (outside of word for word reprints of the Lovelace novelization) has been through Cooper's estate. Each and every one of them has Richard Cooper being credited. Wether it was the comic book series from 1990, the illustrated novel done by Anthony Browne, the new novelization and prequel/sequel (Kong:King of Skull Island) and this upcoming play. None have any acknowledgments of the films copyright holders only the rights holder of the story which is Cooper's estate. Perhaps some more info has come to light since the 1980's. If you read the very first paragraph I posted (from Vaz's footnotes section), it states Additional facts and background obtained through an interview and subsequent talks with Randy Merritt, an attorney representing Colonel Richard Cooper, who has engaged in an extensive survey and analysis of copyright and trademark rights related to Merian Cooper's great ape creations, King Kong and Mighty Joe Young. Now this was done in 2005 which is pretty recent. Anyway as far as the quote from the document, how about instead of cite 25 going to the court document in question and cite 26 going to the page numbers from Vaz's book, maybe cite 25 can go to "According to Vaz's book on Pg. 389 and citation 9 on Pg. 458, this quote is taken from a court summary from the document Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F. Supp. at 924. ". This will then let the readers know that Vaz got the info from a court document through his research but not actually using that document as a straight-up cite?Giantdevilfish (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's all very bizarre. I'm tempted to run down some old friends and ask them to check the registers. I'd love to know how this has all played out; if future rulings have come out, I'd like to know what the arguments were and etc. :) But, my curiosity aside, your solution for the reference sounds perfect. It lets our readers know where Vaz says it came from, but in such a way that we don't suggest we've seen it ourselves, and it acknowledges openly the source of our information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I did it, how does it look? And you're right there is alot of confusion here. You have so many rights holders to different aspects of the character. You know Dark Horse comics wanted to do a comic book adaptation of the 1933 film back in the 1990's, but as lamented by Arthur Adams in the book Comics Gone Ape by Michael Eury (page 39). "Well we talked about that. The rights were a horrible mess. Dark Horse couldn't find a way to do it. Someone held rights for the music, someone for the movie, someone for the story, and were ready to sue each other whenever anyone wanted to do anything with it." This seems to gel with Cooper having rights to the story.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's good; thanks. And if you get a chance, a page citation (and, if there's a good one, quote) from Vaz for the "Richard Cooper owned worldwide book and periodical publishing rights" would be helpful, since the primary source does seem contradictory. That will let our readers know why we think so and where to go find that information themselves. I don't expect I'll stumble across any more information any time soon, but should I find a link for the quote, I will definitely add it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A Tarzan vs. King Kong project?
In the section character rights, we find the following:
- In 1935, Cooper began to feel something was amiss when he was trying to get a Tarzan vs. King Kong project off the ground for Pioneer Pictures....After David O. Selznick suggested the project to Cooper, the flurry of legal activity over using the Kong character that followed, [sic for the comma] gave Cooper pause as he came to realize that he might not have full control over the figment of his own imagination. (This is followed by a reference citation to the recent Cooper biography by Mark Cotta Vaz.)
The problem here is that RKO isn't known to have had any access to Tarzan until about 1942, at which time MGM sold their rights (including the contracts of series stars Johnny Weissmuller and Johnny Sheffield) to them. Admittedly, the rights were a bit splintered in the mid-30s, with two independent serials and one independent feature being produced between MGM pictures around that time, but I've never understood how that could happen, although there is no question it did, of course. Nevertheless, given the fact that RKO's only known possession of rights to the apeman did not begin until several years later (to say nothing of the in-universe facts that Kong was dead and Skull Island was destroyed, making such a cross-over unfeasible anyway), this story reeks of being something that somebody made up long after the "fact." Note that it is not truly elaborated upon and is immediately followed by discussion of the licensing of Kong rights to Toho in the early 1960s, a jump of more than 25 years. Furthermore, The Making of King Kong, by Willis O'Brien crew member Orville Goldner & film historian George Turner (Ballantine Books, 1975), reported that Cooper tried to make a movie relating events during the trip taking Kong from the island to New York, which was completely skipped in the original film, and does not give a good reason as to why it was never made. Maybe questions arising over the rights for this Kong picture was what "gave Cooper pause." Even if the Tarzan project is reported in Vaz's book as flat fact, we really shouldn't report such a dubious claim as flat fact here, unless Vaz has more (and convincing) details about it. Understand that I am not saying we should add a note that Vaz's claim of a Tarzan/Kong film is dubious, or replace that with a mention of the "insertive semi-prequel" (I made that term up, as I couldn't find one for this sort of situation already existing). I merely suggest that we remove the mention of it. Anybody else? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Kong project you are talking about was The New Adventures of King Kong from 1934. That was an idea that Cooper was kicking around in terms of a project with RKO that would have been a pseudo sequel/semi-prequel of sorts to the original film (showing what happened between the trip back from Skull Island to New York), but was talked out of it by Shoedshack because he felt the story/concept had been milked dry at this point, and Coops agreed with him.
- As for Tarzan vs King Kong, that was a project that came about with Pioneer Pictures in late 1935. Cooper had assumed management with that company at this point, and the company had just been absorbed by Selznick's own production company (Selznick International Pictures). Selznick suggested a Kong project with Cooper for Pioneer Pictures, and Cooper agreed. And they decided on Tarzan vs King Kong. But two things scuttled the project. One, MGM refused to allow their character to be involved in such a project, and two, Cooper (who thought at this point he outright owned King Kong and was free to make film projects with any studio he wanted), realized he might not have full control over Kong, because of legal activity being threatened by RKO. Cooper let the project go and focused his efforts on The War Eagles which he described as a "King Kong type picture". That project was killed with the advent of WW2.
- Cooper never expressed any interest in other Kong projects in the years following, as at this point (outside of wanting to do a film adaptation of his novel in 1952), he was involved in other projects. He only became interested again when Kong's popularity began to grow in the 1960's and he heard about RKO being involved in a Kong project (King Kong vs Godzilla), as well as the plethora of Kong merchandise that began to sprout up (bubble gum cards, records, model kits, toys, board games etc.) all through RKO licensing, and that is when he got involved in the battle over the rights with RKO, as described in the article.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- (I trust you will take no offense at my taking the liberty of indenting your post to make it clearly separate from my original.)
- Most of this sounds pretty good. I now understand that New Adventures... was proposed within RKO and Tarzan... away from it, causing the question of Cooper's Kong rights to come up with only the second project. This is an aspect of the situation there that should be made clearer in the article, shouldn't it? I mean, a number of Hollywood figures had their own production companies that worked within the studios, most famously John Wayne's Batjack, and it is not clear here that Pioneer was completely outside RKO. But one question remains: Given the reason specified for the first Kong film being scuttled in 1934, why would Cooper not immediately dismiss Selznick's suggestion of another one just a year later? --Ted Watson (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pioneer originally spun off from RKO and was associated with that company at first. But, by late 1935/early 1936, it became completely seperate from RKO after having been absorbed by Selznicks company.
- As for why Cooper didn't dismiss Tarzan vs King Kong? Remember, the 1934 project was Cooper's idea and it was his partner Shoedshack who told him it would be a bad idea and convinced him to drop it. In 1935, Shoedshack wasn't a part of the planned Tarzan vs King Kong project. Thanks to his company absorbing Pioneer Pictures (where Coops worked as the manager), Selznick was reunited with Coops for the first time since he had left RKO in early 33', and he suggested the project to Cooper. According to Vaz's book, Cooper adored the Tarzan character. He actually tried to buy the rights to the character in the late 1920's but was rebuffed. So I suspect this is what got Cooper interested in this project and why he wanted to do it. It gave him a chance to crossover his famous creation with a character he loved.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- O.K. How about this for the article, then?:
- ...the flurry of legal activity over using the Kong character that followed—Pioneer having become a completely independent company by this time and access to properties that RKO felt were theirs was no longer automatic—gave Cooper pause....
- Done. I assume you asked me to do it so I'd get the credit in the edit history logs. Thanks. BTW, the damned thing "saved" while I was composing my edit summary, and never got to preview it once; fortunately, it came out all right, although the ES is pretty unhelpful. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Its mentioned on page 277 of the book Living Dangerously The Adventures of Merian C Cooper written by Cooper biographer and historian Mark Cotta Vaz.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A Mockumentary On Skull Island Shown On The DVD Of The Remake But Originally Shown On The Sci Fi Channel?
I cannot Find anywhere on the internet that it says that this exists, Really! Show me where it says that! Where does It exists on This DVD and when did this air on the Sci Fi Channel? Where And When Show Me That This Exists, Otherwise This Should Be Deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if this thing aired on the Sci-Fi channel or not but there is a "documentary" about Skull Island as an extra on the first DVD release of this film called Skull Island: A Natural History
The Mighty Gorga?
Have any films critics ever pointed out, that all 3 Kong movies failed to show how an unconcious Kong was transferred off Skull Island & onto the waiting boat? If so, could we add it? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the Toho version really notable enough to warrant a whole dedicated section in the main article? This stuff could well be covered in the Appearances and Abilities section or the Filmography section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)