King Kong: Side-by-Side (1933 Film/2005 Film Comparison) V2
2018 ж. 14 Ақп.
1 010 536 Рет қаралды
A side-by-side, shot-for-shot comparison between King Kong (1933) and King Kong (2005). Version 2.
mattskuta.com
King Kong © MCMXXXIII, Radio Pictures
King Kong © MMV, Universal Pictures
Edited by Matt Skuta
mattskuta.com
instagram.com/mattskuta
twitter.com/mattskuta
You cannot deny the passion and respect Peter Jackson put into his remake. It's like a 3 hour + tribute film.
I think I remember Peter Jackson saying King Kong was one of his favorite movies as a kid and influenced him to become a film maker.
@@mathewgodfrey1517 it was THE film that influenced him to be a filmmaker :) it’s his favourite film.
Damn right
Peter Jackson even has the original Brontosaurus figure used in the 1933 film.
It was his lifelong dream to make Kong his own but also in bringing out the true vision as realistic as possible that Cooper originally desired but was limited to with his already incredible revolutionary effects People love hate George Lucas but he pioneered special effects But honestly not as much as Cooper in creating king Kong And then again Peter Jackson also pioneered effects with Gollum and the green scene suit in Lord of the rings and then again with Kong Peter was told he could CGI the sets in Lord of the rings He had the Rohan castle, Hobbiton and others built for his actors He really was inspired by Cooper
i never knew the 2005 Kong was supposed to be a near shot for shot remake.
“Shot for shot” is kind of pushing it....
@@Unqualifiedmedicalperson they said near shot for shot
shot for shot with extra shots
they also put in a couple of scenes that had been cut out of the original, or hadn't been filmed due to budget or technology constraints
@@Unqualifiedmedicalperson its shot for shot and then added better effect ie the fighting think your limits of understanding are just limited lol
I love how the moment when Kong breaks the rex's jaw is almost the exact same in both. That's when you know it's a good remake, when an iconic scene from the original is almost perfectly mirrored, especially if it's a remake of an old movie like King Kong
I know right
@يوسف عمر يوسف ابوحلاله what's wrong with you
kzhead.info/sun/g9SKmcuhjmuXpX0/bejne.html
Psycho be like:
But i also like that they changed some stuff. the Original fight against a Stegosaurus is now a Triceratops :) I think its a very good remake.
It seems to me that she didn’t like King Kong in the 1933 film, but in the 2005, film started to show some affection for him.
yeah I think they did great with the remake making Ann empathetic with Kong. It made it more emotional
Yeah, in the 2005 and 1976 remakes Ann felt more empathy With Kong
@@annieskywalker9290 Dang i didn't see the king Kong 1976 clips I only saw 1933 and 2005
Beastiality
@@hugedisappointment309 wtf you mean beastiality lmfao. she wasn't sexually attracted to the monke. She developed an emotional connection. She knew how smart he was. and he isnt just an animal but he had feelings too. She empathized with him.
Both movies are brilliant
ikr
This is thrilling
Привет чувак, не ожидал тебя тут увидеть))
Pffft no (I’m in my dads account)
Yes
I always thought Jack Black was an interesting choice for Carl Denham. He's mostly known for comedic roles, but pulled off a really believable, dedicated and obsessed film director.
It was refreshing to see that he can ACT act instead of his previous comedic acting. Really showed his skills in this movie
Yeah, I never understood how much people ragged on that casting choice. I felt that he really nailed the part: a guy trying desperately to make it in show business, with enough talent to be GOOD at what he does, but that's all. He'll never be one of the great one, but his massive ego tells him otherwise. Audiences just couldn't look past the fact that it was the guy from "School of Rock."
I really don't care much for Jack Black, but this is one of my favorite films, so that just shows how great of a director Peter Jackson is.
Что Джейкоб Блэк этож мой любимый актёр а он даже не снимался в этом фильме
Honestly, I would've preferred Bruce Campbell as Carl.
Tearing the T-Rex's jaw scene is just an Iconic Picture of this King Kong movie.
I don't get why they changed its name to Vastatosaurus Rex in 2005 probably stuff related to Jurassic Park having the T-Rex name already idk
@@theonlybigsmoke because all the dinosaurs on Skull Island are evolved species of their ancestors, in this case of the T. rex
@@jurassictheory6494 Oh ok thanks
I don’t know why, but the one thing I always like about the King Kong film is it setting in the 1930s.
kzhead.info/sun/f6qkXc-SbGV4eJ8/bejne.html
The first was released in 1933
@@justaguywhowatchesyoutube5588 Yeah he Is talking about the 2005 setting. It could be a modern version like the last one, but they decided to make a remake and preserve the time and space of the first film
both of these films are what film is all about, film making at its finest.
King Kong 2005 is a cinematic masterpiece, it deserve more love.
@Om Patel Yeah man, don't talk me about that move..... Anyway did you know any similar movie? Because I see everyone raccomending indiana jones or lawrence of arabia, all awesome movies but I don't find them as the same "genre" of king kong 2005.
@Om Patel Mmm I think you are right man. With all respect to Avatar, which is an amazing movie, I prefer king Kong 2005. Your tastes are good man.
@Om Patel characters weren’t the greatest though
@Om Patel tbh I’m the guy that prefers movies by enjoyment factor, so I prefer Kong Skull island even though King Kong Remake is a better directed movie
Grandfather: I used to watch King Kong back in 1933. Grandson I also watched in 2005.
@@mr.jenkins5582 yeah
used to watch? Would've been only once in a movie theater. :)
@@mr.jenkins5582 well he couldn't have been born in 1933. Maybe like 92
@@mr.jenkins5582 does that sound unusual to you?
Grand grand son i also watched King Kong in 2017
I like the simpler 1933 version more but the 2005 version was great
What would’ve made the 1933 version a whole lot better would’ve been to add more creatures but keep the encounters short
Both were WAY better than the 70's version!
Well yes but no
I like 2005.
not to mention less time on the ship in the 33 version
I love how the final V-Rex fight is basically a shot-for-shot recreation of the T-Rex fight from the 1933 film.
Makes the original looks even more moderm...
@@dracometeors3010 No it doesn’t lmao. How?
kzhead.info/sun/g9SKmcuhjmuXpX0/bejne.html
@@Bobzilla2023 yes, It does
@@claudiovenancio8462 uh no it doesn’t. The original is amazing and so is the fight. But the only “realistic” thing about it is that it’s a one on one fight.
I'm still not over how this story ends, it's so heart breaking
He came out alive...
Did you cry when you saw the ending 2005?
@@MiguelMartinez-ls4vc yes, every time I've watched it since then I think I've cried Haha
I knew what was going to happen so I did not watch the end of the 2005
As Carl Denham said, The Beauty killed the Beast
Both films are a freaking masterpiece
I know right
Both the original, and the emotional.
4:21 in the 2005 movie I believe her arms would be torn off, unless those ropes/knots are VERY weak
Yes I thought the same
I was looking to see if anyone else noticed that. I think it would have been a better movie had her arms separated at the shoulders and she was armless for the rest of the movie.
I was literally like, "ooh-ahh! shucks her arm was going to break off dude!!!"
Everyone talking about the movies, but the person that edited this video together for us is the real MVP!
Yes. I hope someone edits the two films together one day because when the two films are kept separate, they both have significant flaws.
2005 King Kong theme gives me goosebumps. I love 2005 King Kong so much. Eternally grateful that PJ and his team went the extra mile making King Kong after LoTR
People might not have think it was a good movie but they can't deny that it was a great remake.
It was a good movie
It was a fantastic film, better than the original.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn the original is way better, the remake is pretty good but will never have the impact that the original one had. That movie is basically the father of modern day cinema.
@@jc0044 I disagree, I think while the original is the classic, the remake improved on it in almost every way; story, characters, visuals, tone and pretty much everything else.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn every one has an opinion
Mad Respect to Peter Jackson because MAN, this was a very faithful adaptation.
Peter grew up loving the original. It was clear he put a lot of passion into the remake.
and he just copied the original 1933 classic nothing new here
Watched the 1933 version when I was maybe 5 or 6 and it really affected me in the way that It totally scared me but also really saddened me and for about 7 years I would have the same dream many times : The sound of a heartbeat and slow nasal breathing, the feeling of motion, then the frightening realisation that Kong was carrying me in the palm of his hand. Years later I developed a terrifying sleep paralysis that involved a neanderthal being and I pretty sure it was related to the Kong experience.
I once had sleep paralysis at the age of 4 from watching a scene from Pinocchio (you may know what I’m talking about). It may sound weird at first, but I had nightmares of going to a theme park only to unsucpiciously slowly turn into a donkey for doing the wrong thing. Being transformed into an animal and be sold off to do labor work is an terrifying thing to happen to humans if they were a real thing, especially children.
Wafflekingdor in my opinion it's the most disturbing scene in Hollywood more disturbing than the human centipede
Kong never quit, he still fought like a king until he died. He said if I’m going out I’m going out swingin.💪🏻💪🏻😤😤
He is going to bow for Godzilla
@@abimanyu5216 He won’t bow, even if he loses. He will fight until he dies or wins, as the trailer said, “Kong bows to no one”.
Kong lost to Godzilla but didn't submit or bow to him.
Yeah, I accept it, (I am team Godzilla)
@@vjmout3410 The Movie released and Godzilla won😂
Did you know that Jack Black (the one who played Carl Denham in the 2005 film) also voiced Bowser in Illumination's Super Mario Bros Movie ?
7:40 gave me goosebumps just how sync it is, so beautiful ❤️
I know right
To bring the 1933 film full-circle, Fay Wray was set to make a cameo appearance at the end of the 2005 film (she was to deliver the "twas beauty killed the beast" line), but sadly she passed away before filming began.
I have wanted to see these side by side for years, this is excellent! Peter Jackson’s King Kong has been one of my top favorite films ever since I saw it in 2005. 💛 it’s a faithful masterpiece and a work of art. 🦍 One thing missing is when Kong is pierced by plane bullets for the first time and touches his wound, sees his blood, and realizes that the sting came from the plane.
Who's here after Kong: King of the Apes, Kong: Skull Island, and Godzilla vs Kong
Mee ....
Meeeeeeeeeee
The 1933 version was a excellent work of stop motion vfx. That's truely damn creative. Salute to the dedication and creativity of the filmmaker during that period of time when technology was not a bit closer to the era when the 2005 version was made❤️ Both are beast works at their respective time period ❤️
I really like this. Peter Jackson did a really great job at replicating the original scenes while also keeping the cinematography modern. The special and visual effects for 2005 were also really impressive.
Love how this film really pays homage to the original.
Nothing can beat that silver glowing scenery. So incredible
the lighting and composition of the 1933 version is beautiful
One of the best remakes of all time
The 2005 film is clearly just a love letter to 1933 (Everytime I watch the 2005 one and jimmy almost gets hurt I always scream “JIMMY NO, DONT DIE JIMMY, DO IT FOR HIM JIMMY, DONT DIEEE”)
In my opinion King Kong 2005 is my favourite King Kong thank you so much for making a video about it
I watched Peter Jackson’s version first as that was my first exposure to King Kong and I later watched the original version. Both versions were amazing in their own ways from their respective eras they were made. Whilst the original King Kong is a classic, Peter Jackson’s version was more of a modern day Action Blockbuster made in the style of a Homage similar to that of The Mummy films with Brendan Fraser.
peter jackson version was terrible only thing good was the cgi
It Was Beauty killed the beast.
Beauty and the beast
Grenade NF r/woooooooosh
It was Carl who killed the beast lmao
@@RJIS you used woosh wrong, woosh is for people who dont get a joke. Their was no joke here, that guy was just being stupid lol.
Jesus Gomez yeah, this comment isn’t that great
2005 KONG was an older KONG! Notice the grey hairs on Kong's face? Also 2005 KONG conveyed more heart and affection by Kong and Anne toward each other! Kong reaching out for Anne after he's been gased,is heartbreaking!
Both of them aged well and hold up today. 🦍🗽
'05 hasn't aged as well as '33
kzhead.info/sun/f6qkXc-SbGV4eJ8/bejne.html
I can imagine what an impact the 1933 Kong made to the audience at that time. The originality of the story alone is ground breaking, compared to what was being filmed. I like all King Kong movies. Like him or not, Peter Jackson did a great homage to the original imo. Each Kong has a slight difference to offer, which is pretty cool. Great side by side comparison👍.
I love these both for different reasons. The 1933 is a timeless classic and almost ahead of it's time and it inspired many more films after. However, this is one damn good remake. The world building is next level, and the creatures are quite impressive
It's amazing to me that these scenes are so different but so similar in the same way
Imagine seeing the original film as a kid and being frightened, only to see Peter Jackson’s remake 72 years later as an old person and be frightened Crazy how far we have come with animation
13:06 1933: *haha monkey go yeet* 2005: *who can say where the road goes*
1933:😂😂🤣🤣 2005 :😢😢😭😭
I like the 2005 version of Anne more in the ending, but we can't deny the original movie has way more of a certain charm.
Seeing Peter Jacksons version in theaters as a kid was worth it
I think both these films do a really good job showing just because you could get a giant Gorilla in New York doesn’t mean you should. Kong was living a stable life fighting dinosaurs on his Island and didn’t need humans to enslave him like a circus animal.
Side-by-Side series directory here: mattskuta.com/sbs/ Comment to help me choose my next side-by-side: Psycho (1960/1998) Cabin Fever (2002/2016) The Great Gatsby (1974/2013) Open Your Eyes (1997)/Vanilla Sky (2001) Romeo and Juliet (1936/1968/1996/2013) Animal Farm (1954/1999) The BFG (1989/2016) Avatar: The Last Airbender(2003)/The Last Airbender (2010) Cinderella (1950/2015) Clash of the Titans (1981/2010) Nosferatu (1922)/Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) The Shining (1980/1997) Ghost in the Shell (1995/2017) The Jungle Books (1994/2016)
Kong looks like he had his neck snapped in both falls when he hit the ground, bruh that’s so gruesome
It's so many similarities, it makes me nervous. Love it!😮❤
Both endings were so sad, Kong was never the bad guy. The humans that took him from his home skull Island were.
You Forgot 1976 One With Jeff Bridges. Oh Yeah They Have No Similar Plot. The Film Crew Are Just Ocean Oil Miners And The Blonde Is A Castaway They Rescued.
Sydney Hamilton And Kong climbed the World Trade Center.
I still want him to do that though
That was a cheap one. Guy in ape suit. Stupid effects.
This one was very bad...
@King Kong Fan no
Notice how in the original the camera is fairly static more like watching a play with fixed audience perspective. In the remake it's always moving about and generally closer to the actors to feel more immersive and see expressions better.
Most 20s and 30s films were like that. They were more like a theatre play than actual film.
@@MultiKamil97 Because film evolved from theatre plays to begin with But to say the perspective is fixed is rather ignorant, we close in plenty of times to see the expressions of characters, especially Kong.
@@MultiKamil97 Honestly, it’s kind of boring the way they did it back then. I wish someone would edit these two films together. On their own, both movies have significant flaws.
@@ASR-AnsoriHonestly, it’s kind of boring the way they did it back then. I wish someone would edit these two films together. On their own, both movies have significant flaws.
this film proves remakes can be good
Some. Not all...
@@LazyOldFusspot_3428 if done right
This movie lived up to its 1933 version 🦍
I had no idea how similar the two versions are. Wow.
Nothing can top the original Kong, but Jackson's remake/homage is very, very good. As for the 1976 Dino de Horrendous version, the special effects were somewhat shoddy even for its day, plus it had an addle-brained script.
If the people who make the original movie could watch the 2005 version I'm sure they would cry of happiness
And they'd be in amazement at its quality and how far technology has advanced since they made their version.
I think you guys are forgetting something very important: People back then didn't really like remakes all that much They thought it was unnecessary, and an insult to the creative medium. Which is quite agreeable.
Why another great franchises like Robocop, Ghostbusters, Die Hard, Nightmare on elm street doesn't have a decent remake like this? 😔👌
I love how its an exact remake
Yes. 1) If you're gonna do a remake...never do a movie that won an academy award for Best Picture. 2) Because of Peter Jackson u can write a remake and keep it as original as u possibly can, while paying homage.
So much respect and love brought by Peter Jackson to make his dream movie. 13:08 damn 1933 does not respect Kong 😂
Well man its limited to their technology
They gave him the ragdoll death treatment
2005: slow rotating shot that emphasizes the tragic loss of this great beast 1933: ragdoll
It's kinda sad that in the 1933 version he hits the building 2 times while falling. Makes it look even more painful.
@@MrEdit-ic7th so true 🤣🤣🤣
remembering 2005 when my friend was narating d story which is a ditto copy of the 1933 film😁 super editing bro 🙏
King Kong 2005: A remake Kong: Skull Island: A new take
Godzilla vs kong 2021: A new take also
@@reeceyyeceer9380 Yeah, it's a remake and a new take on the original King Kong vs Godzilla movie
Thanks for seeing the full movie
The last scene always make me cry in both the movies.😭😭😭😭😭😟😢😢
Same here. And I’m 58. 😢💔
The remake is more sadder because Ann actually cared for kong and they had a connection
@@roverclover8324 I think you forget the meaning behind "beauty killed the beast". It's part of the tragedy of the film. Kong shows interest and even affection towards Ann, but Ann does not return those feelings, and he dies sad and alone without a moment of happiness after being taken from his home. That's what Denham's iconic line signifies. Ann killed Kong, not the planes.
Bruh
A versão de Peter Jackson é a refilmagem definitiva do clássico de 1933!!
Wow
Both these movies were great I love them!!!!
Felicitaciones!!! Hermoso trabajo de edición!!!
My grandma saw the original movie when she was a kid back in heaven 1933 and she remembers the dinosaurs Ann and the Empire State Building. When I saw peter Jackson’s King Kong in theaters 17 years ago I absolutely loved it
la de peter ees simplemente magnifica, espectacular
Al fin uno español
Damn Jackson's version still looks great
Its peter Jackson dude, of course it does
@@RockHoward256 he knows how to use CGI in a great way
Nice, thanks for putting this up. I want to go and revisit this film.
This is very well done, thank you for taking the time to create this comparison And I must say, Fay Wray is still the most beautiful Kong girl.
2005 movie was great. beautiful. for a long movie its weird that can be good as a story.
Yes, because long movies equal bad stories... What's that logic? lol
que hermosa la señorita Ann de 2005 😍😍😍😍😍😍
Naomi Watts
Las dos son bonitas para mí porsierto es el viejo tele fono de mi mamá me llamó Isaías y repito lade 1933 y la de 2005 los dos son lindas para mí😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
@@saitespinozagomez2007 cual?
@@saitespinozagomez2007 haaa es el actor del la pelicula del pianista
@@saitespinozagomez2007 cual el 2005 o 1933?
Thank you for this comparison, I enjoyed it!
Excellent work , congratulations.
What crazy to me is that when Directors have their minor freedoms to do what they want and feel is right… how ever small the changes have such a huge impact, even if it’s literally copy / paste. It’s the difference between Lion king ‘93 and the “live action” remake. Copy/ paste style directing when a studio just needs someone to make it is significantly drier than when a director puts in the effort with their freedom. Hats off to you Mr. Jackson.
Increíble comparación y resumen
So this is why the dinosaurs went extinct
This movies sounds track is legendary 👍👍👍👍
If the 2005 version is on HBOmax, I'm going to watch it now for the first time
me encanto esta comparación, se ve el respeto y el encanto de peter jackson hacia la pelicula original
Both footage from 1933 & 2005 film version of King Kong courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures, Turner Entertainment Co., RKO Pictures & Universal City Studios, LLC. (Universal Pictures).
That is how you do a remake. Peter Jackson knew what he was doing.
crazy to think without the 33 film we wouldn't have some of the most epic movies ever created (king kong and LOTR trilogy)
King-Kong vs. T-Rex (1933) King-Kong vs. V-Rex (2005)
Kong has only ever had one bad movie (Lives from 1986) Always inventive, fun, brilliant, and well written-rounded films.
Peter Jackson's King Kong is the best movie ever made by man! (imo)
Agreed, its a masterpiece people don't give this film enough credit because its "too long " and "its a remake"
For me the greatest film ever is The Godfather
i couldn’t agree more
@@LazyOldFusspot_3428 That movie sucks.
Nah c'mon Ksi is great, although it will never replace the iconic movies side-by-side
The 2005 remake proves how good the original 1933 film is.
The remake is miles better then the original. Very rare case.
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt Definitely not. The 2005 version is is little too over-bloated. Not bad by any means, but not better than the masterpiece that is the original.
@@Rilumai the original is far from a masterpiece.
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt It's an absolute powerhouse of a film and is most definitely a classic masterpiece.
@@Rilumai it has many problems with the writing and overall story. It is far from a masterpiece. A classic? Yes. A masterpiece? No. Jackson's film is far better then the original but it also isn't perfect.
Me sorprende y agrada los paralelismo entre ambas películas
I wonder if any cast members of the 1933 version of King Kong are still alive
Maybe like 1 or 2
@@BotchuLeeSim you might be right
After the Godzilla vs Kong 👉 they will make King kong vs kong next project
Yeah i hope that yhey do
Wow that is a really good video great job👍👍👍👍👍👍!!!
Man, can you believe that in 11 years time King Kong will be 100 years old?
As a New Yorker, the 3rd Ave. Railway center 3rd rail streetcar is very accurate in its colors and interior.
And also, why Peter Jackson didn't do a sequel with Kong's white son which would be a remake of the sequel of the 1933 movie ?
The original is a classic but I’ll always have a soft spot for the 2005 film for being my introduction to King Kong as well as being something I watched with my dearly departed aunt
Thanks for this. The 1933 version is my favorite movie of all time since I first saw it in 1968. It has been endlessly fascinating. The best parts of the 2005 remake are when Kong is on the screen - just like the 1933 version. When cut to just those elements, the remake rivals the original, IMO. I like the remake but it had too much character development that lead nowhere and those natives were terrible. Too Lord Of The Rings. P.S. despise the 1976 flick.
The original 1933 natives are... I'm not sure... Just like was the fuking idea of the savage people... Too crusty and not real... With flowers in the head, coconut - bikini and banana leaves used for clothes... Terrible!!!! The 2005 version is more realistic... Good savage no more!!!
@@edoardotortora628 agreed, these people would probably look all worn out since skull island is such an unlivable dangerous place, makes sense they were so aggressive
Too Lord of the Rings? Those are the greatest movies ever made!!!!!!
@@edoardotortora628 They were fictional natives designed after several other cultures, they aren't necessarily realistic, either depiction, but they're based on different things. Also, the wall protects the natives from the animals on the island, they're not in much danger themselves.
Amazing