King Kong (1933) VS. Godzilla (1954)

Because of the King Kong vs. Godzilla movie that is in the works, I thought I would go back and visit the originals.

I've seen King Kong long before, but haven't seen the original Godzilla till now. Both movies have their pros and cons.

King Kong has considerably better special effects and is better shot, where as Godzilla, some of the effects you can tell are toys on the ground, and the movie has a lot more dust and scratches on the film in comparison, and more continuity errors and jump cuts.

Godzilla goes for deeper themes in it's story although arguably preachy and heavy handed perhaps, where as King Kong as a shallow story that didn't really want to go for anything in deep and seems to concentrate a lot more on the action.

But what do you think?

It's been a long time since I saw either but according to my memory I do prefer King Kong. Those Japanese mega monsters have never appealed to me that much. Also shallow fun is often better than being preachy.

The 30's King Kong is so bad. I saw it as a kid so i thought my opinion of it would be off but nah i was definitely being generous.

Haven't seen Godzilla. The only Godzilla i've seen is the one with Matthew Broderick actually.

Whatever, gojira ftw

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I don't think the Broderick one should count as a Godzilla movie cause they changed too much of the monster around to even count, IMO.

Love 'em all, though I must say that Godzilla was my jam when I was a kid and I have almost all of the DVDs because he is still my jam. The only ones I don't have are currently unavailable or else they'd be in my library.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

King Kong of 1933 has not dated well, but even now, it still delivers on spectacle and showmanship. And it wants to entertain in such an honest way that there's a certain charm to it. Godzilla, on the other hand, does deliver on spectacle, but does so in a way that's unpolished and very raw. It's totally naked about what it does and how it does it. There's no "magic" to it, it's simply over the top and that's all. So, I have to vote King Kong. Again, I'm not saying it's a great movie, or any of that, but at least it has class and tries to bring some semblance of class and sophistication about it.

Godzilla easily for me. It's difficult for me to call a film that elaborates on confronting absolutely destructive power less than a decade after nuclear weapons leveled 2 cities in their country either heavy-handed or preachy.

Godzilla got pretty campy pretty quickly. But the first film is actually an incredibly powerful film.

I kind of want think of Godzilla as being powerful like others say, but a part of me feels like it's exploitative as it takes a real life nuclear tragic event, and makes it into a monster movie, and it feels exploitative or distasteful for doing that. It would be like in the US, if during the AIDS crisis, they decided to make a giant monster movie where the monster spread AIDS to everyone... or something like that.

The problem, too, is that when both of these movies were made, the world was a drastically different place. In 1933, World War II wasn't even on the horizon. The atom bomb wasn't even conceived. It was a time where most information was still being conveyed through paper books, and to a certain extent, radio. The idea of visiting some uncharted island and finding a lost world was a notion worth entertaining. It "could" happen!


When Godzilla came out, not only had World War II happened, but two atom bombs got dropped, as well. And all kinds of countries were obtaining atom bombs for the very first time ... when nobody else in the world wanted them to. The Cold War was in full swing. It was also a time when international travel was still not as easily accessible as it is, today. So, these themes, even though we can certainly understand them, intellectually, were thought of quite differently, in their day. Their reality was such that it may not have seemed exploitive to make movies about such tensions, but rather relevant and timely. Still, the quality of both of these films remains such where neither film has aged well, regardless.

Godzilla (1954)

I haven't seen the original Godzilla, but i do like the 1933 King Kong. I know it hasn't aged well but that can be said for many movies and i would rather watch King Kong than most of these modern day monster B-movie flicks like Sharknado or Sharktopus etc...

The Computer, as a marvel of human ingenuity, has evolved from its early days of occupying entire rooms to now fitting in our pockets in the form of smartphones. It has become an indispensable tool that empowers us to accomplish tasks with ease and efficiency.

Unlike King Kong, Godzilla takes a more serious tone and uses the monster as a metaphor for the fears and anxieties surrounding nuclear weapons, reflecting the post-World War II context of Japan. The film explores themes of destruction, consequences of human actions, and the dangers of nuclear power

Imagine a Christopher Nolan Directed GODZILLA movie after the success of OPPENHEIMER?? I wonder how that would fare??

King Kong, I think.

Kong.

They're both great. And not just as monster movies. Great movies, period, end stop.


If forced to choose though, probably Godzilla

Godzilla. Full stop. I will always root for the lizard over the ape.

Oh wait…you meant the movies!

King Kong……