The Canon 30 | 6/8/15
King Kong (1933) vs. Jurassic Park (1993)
Share
Listen

Devin & Amy are back in battle mode as they put two adventure/monster films against each other: 1933’s King Kong vs. 1993’s Jurassic Park. Will King Kong’s iconic status as a staple in pop culture give it the edge it needs to be entered into the Canon? Or will Spielberg’s mastery of filmmaking and impact on the way we looked at dinosaurs give Jurassic Park the upper hand? Tune in to hear a battle as iconic as Kong vs. the T-Rex between Devin & Amy -- and head to the forums on Wolfpop to cast the deciding vote!


Listen

Gallery

This episode is sponsored by

Blue Apron

Blue Apron delivers farm-fresh ingredients and step-by-step recipes to your home, allowing you to create healthy, hand-crafted meals at home without going to the grocery store. Check out this week’s menu and get your first 2 meals free by going to BlueApron.com/CANON.

Loot Crate

For less than $20 a month you get 6-8 items of gamer and pop culture licensed gear, apparel, collectibles, unique one of a kind items and more! Make sure to head to lootcrate.com/canon and enter code canon to save $3 on any new subscription!


Talk About This Episode

Please sign up to join in on the conversation!

Register
alienjesus
alienjesus
1 posts

King Kong. Just to my taste the story alone is vastly superior. Then again I probably saw Kong for the first time when I was 5 or 6 and by the time JP came out, I'd already seen most if not all of the giant monster movies out there. In comparison, JP seemed a little tame.

carteradams
carteradams
13 posts

Haven't listened yet, but prediction: this podcast is going to largely just be a discussion of King Kong and the Jurassic Park discussion will be a little bit perfunctory. I love Jurassic Park and I think the T-Rex sequence specifically is the best action scene of the 90s. But everyone knows Jurassic Park like the back of their hands and there just isn't very much to say about it at this point.

Anyway, I'm going to vote for Jurassic Park ahead of time. This is obviously one of those cases where both should go in, but Jurassic Park affected movies as a whole more than King Kong. What? Blasphemy. But look at the 20 years of filmmaking after King Kong. There's not a lot of copycats, at least not important ones. King Kong inspired a lot of B Movies, but giant monster films did not become the mainstay of big-budget Hollywood after Kong. Whereas Jurassic Park completely changed the movies that studios put the most money and promotion into, it totally altered the technology of fil

jacobkristos
jacobkristos
3 posts

i have to disagree with carteradams i think you're ignoring a really obvious fact when you say that King Kong didnt have an immediate affect on cinema. There was no way it could until young people watching it broke into the film industry inspired by king kong. How long would that take? 20 years sounds about right. There was no immediate talent pool for studios to exploit to make an immediate kong likes and it took about 20 years for that pool to develop.
and Jurassic park changed the movies that studios put the most money into? I think StarWars deserves that credit more than Jurassic Park. Also why do you have just blow off the movies that King Kong inspired as b-movies. King Kong inspired the 1954 Gojira and that movies is a god damn masterpiece

JoeSchmoe
JoeSchmoe
3 posts

King Kong, like, BY FAR. I'm older, so I was in college when JP came out, and honestly, while certainly well-made, it left me kinda' cold. My Spielberg jam as kid were always Jaws and Raiders, so to me JP was always a bit of a disappointment.

I saw King Kong as a tyke, and it left a HUGE impression on me, and watching it as an adult, I was happy to realize I still enjoyed it on it's own terms, and not through a lens of nostalgia. JP had some great moments, but great moments do not a great movie make.

Amy, you mentioned wanting to compare the $20 ticket to see King Kong vs. the $1000 ticket to Jurassic Park. According to data.bls.gov... $20 in 1933 is $364.00 today. And $1000 in 1993 is $1,637.36 today. And one more, $20 in 1933 is $222.31 in 1993 dollars. So yes, $20 during the Depression a significant sum of money.

deanrossjohnson
deanrossjohnson
1 posts

Jurassic Park. Love them both, but watching my young kids get sucked into Jurassic Park reminded me of how I felt when I saw it. Kong never made me want to be a zoo keeper or adventurer, but jurassic made me consider paleontology.

ykarps
ykarps
2 posts

Oh, it's King Kong by a million miles; it's pure invention and in both actual quality and sheer impact it has to be in any Canon; but:

The Canon has talked a lot about Spielberg, but it has not had the best conversation about Spielberg-- which is, of course, entertaining Spielberg vs. serious Spielberg.

I'm saying this episode should have been Jurassic Park vs. Schindler's List.

laserena
laserena
1 posts

I wish I could say both. I honestly think both of these deserve to be in. As someone who works in animation and VFX both of these films are influential for their technological breakthroughs on top of being wonderful films.
Jurassic Park was originally going to be animated in stop motion, which makes it even more of a call back to King Kong. ILM approached Spielberg with a 3D test of a dinosaur and changed everything. It was a break through for actual character animation in films. It opened the flood gates to the major summer hollywood blockbusters as we know them (be they good or bad).
This is the who ever comes out on top I honestly feel that they both fully deserve to be in The Canon.
I honestly don't know what to decide.

hoombop
hoombop
6 posts

King Kong.

pkinney
pkinney
1 posts

While I agree that king kong is the more worthy movie, I disagree that jurassic park has no elements of it's time. Genetic engineering was and still is one of the HUGE questions of our time, and jurassic park not only comments on it, it has become part of it. Do you really think people would be trying to resurrect Mammoths without JP?