The Differences Between Original And Remake: King Kong
The movie King Kong (1933) and the 2005 remake of the same name are both, in their own way, cinematic marvels for their time. While the movies were created in vastly different eras from each other, both share very similar storylines. Most of the differences between the two films aren’t quite differences, rather the 2005 version is more of an expansion into the plot line of the original. This is possibly due to the sheer length of the 2005 film. The original had a running time of around 100 minutes, while Peter Jackson’s remake is a whopping 187 minutes, allowing for a more in depth storyline. A product of this great difference in runtimes is the development of the main characters, and the addition of new characters into the remake’s storyline.
The story of Kong is a classic “mankind vs. nature” showdown. Both of the story begin in New York City in the 1930s. Filmmaker Carl Denham is in search of a new starlet to play the lead in his “next big film,” but his motive in the original differs from that in the remake. In the original, Denham is just seen as an over-obsessed director who will go to any lengths to get his film, just for his own personal gain, at the expense of everyone in his cast and crew. But in the 2005 film, Denham is shown to have just lost his job and is in jeopardy of being thrown in jail due to his unpaid debts. His escape on the boat to Skull Island, was more of a last chance effort to save himself.
At the end of the movie, most people can agree that Carl Denham is a bad guy. Robert Armstrong’s Denham is bold and willing to take risks, and he continues to put the people in his party in danger, just so he can get his film made. The remake’s version of the character is as equally unethical. Denham in the 2005 film is morally and literally bankrupt, and because of this he is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get his picture made to save himself from going to jail. In both films, Denham still has moments of courage and loyalty, and is hinted to feel sympathy in the 2005 version, along with probable guilt, for Kong's death at the end.
Both actors played the part well, but I personally prefer Jack Black’s portrayal of Carl Denham. This could be due to the more specific storyline that was a product of the longer runtime, but I think that while Denham is perceived as a slimy and greedy in both films, it is easier to understand the motives behind his actions in the remake, even if they were morally invalid. I think the pressures like those of which the ‘05 Denham are under can cause many people to make the wrong decisions and Jack Black’s character is an accurate representation of that. And the fact that the remake Denham has these motives give the audience themselves an internal struggle because while most people can agree that his actions are wrong, there is a small part that makes you feel for him because you can understand where he is coming from and that many people will go to great, even immoral, lengths to stay out of trouble. But the 1933 Denham, at least for me, just made me angry because I couldn’t understand why he was organically that selfish without any true motive.
There are many similarities and differences between the leading female, Ann Darrow, in both films. In both the 1933 and 2005 versions, Ann is portrayed as a beautiful young woman. In the original, Ann is charming, which causes Jack Driscoll, the tough, manly first mate, who previously claims that a woman’s presence on a ship is a mere “nuisance”, to fall in love with her. Fay Wray's Ann, the 1933 version, was a down-on-her-luck, struggling actress, who somehow stays charming and generally optimistic. Yet, the second Kong first appears on screen her character goes from being mildly interesting to extremely annoying. She never stops screaming and becomes basically helpless. Her character is the typical “damsel in distress,” which is common of movies of this era. Women in this time are often portrayed as being incapable and powerless and can only be saved by a big, strong man.
Ann’s character in 2005 is also charming, but in a more awkward way that makes you love the interaction between her and the equally awkward Jack Driscoll. We're shown Ann trying to entertain Kong on Skull Island when he first kidnaps her to prevent Kong from killing her. When we are shown Ann entertaining the beast, it is seen that she is not a damsel and is capable of, at least for the time being, keeping safe. During this sequence the audience sees the beginning of Kong falling in love with Ann.
It’s impossible to speak of the differences between these two films and not discuss the character of Jack Driscoll. In the 1933 version, Driscoll is the first mate of the ship that takes Denham and his crew to Skull Island, while in the 2005 remake he is a playwright. In both versions he is one of the heroes of the story who falls in love with the actress, Ann Darrow. When Ann is kidnapped by Kong, Jack Driscoll leads a search to find her and ends up rescuing her. This is where the similarities between the character of original and remake end. The duties of the first mate from the original are transferred to the ship’s crew member, Ben Hayes, in the remake, while the character name and the role of Ann Darrow's romantic interest are given to the playwright Driscoll who Denham asks to write the screenplay for his movie. Even though the original’s Driscoll is not aware of Denham’s intent to travel to Skull Island, is still willing to go on the expedition as he is a member of the crew. The remake’s Driscoll did not write enough of a script for Denham to go off of but stills deliver it to him on the ship before it leaves, and Denham, desperate for more of a story, tricks Driscoll into staying on the ship by keeping him occupied as it leaves for Skull Island.
The change in characteristics in this character is dramatic, yet intentional, I believe. I think that in the original, Bruce Cabot’s Jack Driscoll is seen more as a classic hero: strong, handsome, and predictable. But in the remake, Peter Jackson made Driscoll a screenwriter, which I believe was deliberate due to the change in audience from 1933 to 2005. In the 1930s, the hero character is more often portrayed as a person who possesses qualities that distinguish them from ordinary people. But in modern day film, it is common for heroes to be underdogs, who are originally perceived as weak and are expected to fail, but ultimately succeed despite the obstacles put in front of them. Adrian Brody’s Driscoll is portrayed as an underdog to appeal to the modern audience. In the original, there is no background of struggle and the character holds himself as a generally confident person, and it is very easy for the audience to believe that he is capable of saving the day and getting the girl. But in the remake he is a struggling screenwriter who is not stereotypically handsome, and even though it is easy to recognize these qualities and expect Driscoll to fail, he becomes a love interest of the leading female character, Ann Darrow and saves her from Kong on Skull Island and is there to comfort her after Kong kidnaps her in New York. I think that the choice to make Driscoll into a screenwriter is smart on the 2005 writers’ behalf because it is shown through the audience reception of many underdog movies that came out around King Kong (2005) that everyone loves an underdog. The belief that the underdog could fail adds to the suspense of the film, whereas the stereotypical hero is always expected to succeed, and is, in my opinion, less interesting. People enjoy watching movies about underdogs because they represent the common person, and people enjoy watching characters who are like them become the hero.
The title character in both films is portrayed very differently. In the original, Kong comes off as seeing more human than ape. This is shown by how he walks and in a way acts like a person. He's full of curiosity and possesses a childlike wonder. Because he is human-like, the character makes the audience actually feel sorry for him when Carl and his team capture him to bring him back to New York. In the remake, Kong is portrayed as more ape than human. He acts and looks more like an actual gorilla, which is shown by his more animalistic actions and how he walks on his feet and knuckles. Another important detail is that in the remake, Kong isn’t just a man in a gorilla suit or a clay stop-motion character, which at the time was revolutionary, but actually is a CGI depiction of an actual actor, Andy Serkis. This allows for the ‘05 Kong to show human emotions despite looking and acting like a real ape. But one downfall of the CGI presentation of Kong is that it makes the relationship between the character and Ann so real that it comes off as rather creepy. Despite this, I still prefer the remake Kong to the original. Most people think that the CGI makes the story less believable but I disagree. I think Andy Serkis’ portrayal of Kong captures the human-like emotion that is necessary to believe that an animal can fall in love with a human woman, but doesn’t take away from the fact that Kong is first and foremost a beast. CGI allows for the perfect balance of human and animal that is nearly impossible to show with stop-motion technology. But this doesn’t take away that for the time period that the use of stop motion was revolutionary and was adequate to get the story across accurately and tastefully.
The differences mentioned are just a few examples of the variation between the two films. But in general, I found that the 2005 movie is a fairly true-to-the-original remake. But it is natural for a remake to elaborate or alter some things due to the changing of the times, which is why it is interesting to make a comparison between the 1933 and 2005 versions of King Kong.
