• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Will Kong Kong get cancelled ?

German Hops

GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
In 1933 the classical movie King Kong hit the theaters. In 2005 a relatively faithful remake, but with a more advanced set of visual technologies, made by Peter Jackson once again showed the aggressive, savage like natives of Skull Island sacrificing women to the big ape, and the big ape having an affection to a white women (an affection that he obviously never showed to the black native women which he usually ripped apart) and finally the big ape being chained and brought to New York where he could have a final show down with the airplanes.

Those who claim that the films are racist see the racism on two levels. One is the rather stereotyped image of the native people of the island, who are portrayed as very savage, nearly inhuman (in Jacksons version some have seen a resemblance with the orcs or Uruk hai of his LOTR films) and who sacrifices their own young girls to the beast. Some also see another level of racism where King Kong himself becomes a symbol of the super-potent and bestial black man who lusts for white women (while he trashes women of his own color). In the film one can see how the white men manages to subdue him and bring him into the civilization, but his wild nature is hard to tame and he breaks free and once again takes possession of the white woman. But in the end the white man manages to finally subdue the black male and win back the fair lady.

Some debaters have asked why Peter Jackson brings these old stereotypes to life again, does he not see the racism, does he not care, or does he maybe agree to the stereotypes. Or is there any racism's at all, in the 2005 movie? Maybe it is just a tribute to the old film and to fantasy and adventure in general? What is your opinion about this? Will the King of Kong end up cancelled ?
 

haxan7

Volunteered as Tribute
Jack Black already sacrificed himself for the good of his corporate overlords, so there won’t be any canceling here.
 

DogofWar

Member
Well that depends if they get an actual gorilla to do the voice acting for the next King Kong remake. Otherwise it's very specie-ist and animal appropriation.

And I think they should do the setting in Alabama instead and have the natives be inbred trailer trash. Since everyone knows that every single white person in the Southern States are inbred savages a la The Hills Have Eyes it would not be racist at all.
 

Alx

Member
Why would you relate Kong to a black man ? He's not even human (and played by Andy Serkis, in case some people see any meaning in that)
58c1ce380beac527008b47c7-750-563.jpg


The savage tribes in the movie are defined by... being savage. Not by any "race" they would belong to. In Jackson's movie you can't even tell the color of their skin since their body is covered with paint.
6130b6714d7601eca08799b4daa4bae3.jpg


Also in that movie, it's not "white men" subduing the ape, as a matter of fact the most skilled man in the crew is black.
005KKG_Evan_Parke_027.jpg


People seeing racism in the 2005 movie show more of their own prejudice than anything.
 
Last edited:
In Jackson's remake, Ann actually entertains Kong by performing some acts and dances and stuff, and it's implied that's the reason he starts liking her, not her white skin.

Personally I don't think the Skull islanders are racist, because it's a fictional culture. It doesn't really share much in common with other real tribes as far as I know. You can bet your butt people will find something wrong with it though.

As for the original movie, it's incredibly old so who's surprised some of it doesn't hold up as well? The movie leans entirely on its practical effects. The characters are flat and uninteresting. I think the natives in that one are a bit more stereotypical, but I'm not the kind that wants to abolish stereotypes.
 
Hopefully not but you never know as a lot of the "cancelling" is done out of ignorance and hate.

For the original, the racial readings of the story are complete fantasy and there's not really anything actually racist in the movie. The Skull Island tribe can be seen as an outdated concept (Course it's 1933, it will have dated content) but they're never portrayed as evil and the characters never bear any ill will toward them at any point(Even after the kidnapping), with both also working together when Kong attacks the village. Charlie the cook would be considered an offensive racial stereotype but he's in the movie for maybe a minute. To try and erase the original is pretty much akin to burning history and art.

For future movies, who knows. Skull Island might be the last time we see an entry that's at all in the vein of the old movies. People are just too warped and mentally immature to handle anything anymore. They'll prob just have the military using Kong to fight rando monsters from here on out.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
Is the Kong id a black man from Inglorious Bastards? I never really heard that untill the movie came out and now its kinda seeped into the zeitgeist of popular culture.

I mean Godzilla is clearly w reference to the evil giant white people with their destruction and atomic bombs. Cancel Godzilla #alllivesmatter
 
And yet the most evil character was the rich white man trying to use a rare animal for profit. Also, it's kind of alarming that you would correlate a giant monkey with black people. not a good mindset to have from anyone.
 
Last edited:
Is the Kong id a black man from Inglorious Bastards? I never really heard that untill the movie came out and now its kinda seeped into the zeitgeist of popular culture.

I mean Godzilla is clearly w reference to the evil giant white people with their destruction and atomic bombs. Cancel Godzilla #alllivesmatter
You cancel Godzilla and I be fighting in the streets for my boi
 
Top Bottom