Thought it was worth spinning this off into a separate thread!
I came across the Bo Goldman final draft for the unproduced Universal
LEGEND OF KONG at Archive.org -- haven't read it but fans have always wondered what that movie was supposed to entail. Turns out aside from the '30s setting the film wasn't apparently that different than the DeLaurentiis movie's plot, though you can see for yourself there. Peter Falk was set up to play Carl Denham with Joseph Sargent directing. Susan Blakely was lined up for Ann with names like Nick Nolte thrown around for Jack. The UNMADE KONG book I picked up at Amazon also claims Universal had licensed Max Steiner's score for use in the film (?).
Here's Goldman's script:
https://archive.org/details/LegendOfKin ... nprod.Scan
KING KONG (2005)
7/10
Thought I'd revisit this one since we've been talking about the different versions -- and really I felt my original review from 15 years ago was pretty much on-target. I admit the flaws in this movie have clouded its positive elements the more distanced I've become from it, and I picked up the 4K UHD again to give it a fresh look (as it turns out, you're better off watching the Blu-Ray, as the UHD's brightness levels are absurdly aggressive and borderline unwatchable at times).
In short, I'd stick with my review from 2005 -- there ARE some great sequences I had forgotten about. The material on the island with the dinosaurs was great, the film is lovingly made, the homages to the '33 film show the obvious affection Jackson had for the movie. I didn't mind Naomi Watts or Adrien Brody -- I just wish more of a focus was put on them, which is inexcusable for a movie that drifts for over 3 hours.
The problem is that Jackson didn't take sufficient time to craft the screenplay. Even though he was going to make the movie in 1996 before the plug was pulled late in the game (in a version more like THE MUMMY with lots of "action humor"), this reconfigured script still needed more work. They rushed into production before RETURN OF THE KING was even finished, and the screenplay shows the biggest issues that were never overcome:
-Too much time on the boat
-Too much time with the Captain, his 1st mate, and the kid from Billy Elliot, who has no pay off in the plot
-Not enough time focusing on Jack and Ann's relationship
-Poor articulation of Denham's character, who nearly veers into villain territory (and essentially does), but Jackson didn't want to go there
-The "Natives" are very poorly articulated and the entire sequence with them attacking the landing party is probably the worst in the movie -- the editorial work is poor, the violence is ramped up, and the entire way he portrays them (if they're so "ill" how are they fed?) made no sense. They looked like LOTR refugees.
In hindsight, I almost felt like Jackson's best bet on this project was to make a SKULL ISLAND movie. Maybe a prequel -- maybe a fresh story. 2/3 of this film is basically set on Skull Island as it is, he nails the big set-pieces there and the film works best in those moments. And Kong IS superbly articulated, even if not all of the CGI has dated well (some of the water compositing is downright mediocre).
But the love story just doesn't come off, and the lack of focus for a movie THAT long -- it's a problem. In fact I still had to spread this film out over a couple of days, it's very difficult to watch in one sitting.
Overall the 76 picture is much more focused and entertaining for me, even if I acknowledge there are some good moments in Jackson's movie -- the evocation of '30s NYC is believable and attractively portrayed -- but they're surrounded by a lot of unnecessary and/or poor sequences that needed cutting...plus missing components in the development of the three lead roles that should've been worked out before production began.