The Lego Batman Movie : King Kong is not a villain, right?

King Kong is not a villain, right?

Why was he roped in with Voldemort, the Daleks, the Gremlins, and all the other bad guys?
King Kong is usually portrayed as an innocent animal who gets mistreated and exploited, falls in love, and is ultimately killed in a very sad way.
Yes he kills a few people (and eats some, depending on which film you're watching), but if he was left alone in the first place that wouldn't have happened. I always got the sense that you're supposed to sympathise with the beast, and that the true villain is man's greed. So it seemed a little out of place having him as a pop culture villain.
I guess he's a famous character that Warner Bros. currently hold the rights to (they're behind the upcoming Kong: Skull Island (2017)) so they figured they might as well use him. But it still didn't sit right with me.
You could maybe say the same thing about the Kraken (if that's who the big green thing was); is he a monster or simply an animal? Ditto the dinosaurs and the shark for that matter.
Yeah, I realise I'm thinking into it too much, but still. I enjoyed the film though.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

He's a beast that wants to be left alone so ultimately it's man's fault for interfering with him. But i still think he's closer to a baddie than a good guy.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

Lego is hoping to get your child to buy more Lego dimension toys. No good reason they were put in this movie. Also see who sells the highest make that franchise the next Lego movie.

They set up Zod as the Villain instead they give you a random assortment of franchise WB and Lego have the rights to.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

What are you talking about? I asked whether King Kong should be classified as a villain. What does that have to do with children buying Lego??
And they didn't set "set up" Zod as the villain at all. He was onscreen for about 2 seconds. If you were disappointed about that then you shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion in the first place.
Besides, we already had a film with Zod as the villain a few years ago, and most people hated it. Why would they go with it again so soon?

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

I guess you weren't thinking too much after all.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

I guess you realised you were wrong, as you dodged my questions entirely.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

How am I wrong? A toy company has a movie and owns the rights to Harry Potter and LOTR toys (and maybe now King Kong?), and makes a Batman/DC movie who for all intensive purposes in the first half was all set within the DC universe. Fine.

Yet the inclusion of the smorgasbord of other random franchise's that makes little to no honest sense beyond the fact that they have sets for or buyable characters for their Lego Deminsions line.

So your saying it was a creative decision on the screen writers part to have random character's (that Lego already have sets or toys for) included in the movie, and it was just kismet that it worked out that way. And it wasn't purely a marketing decision.

Sort of like how we are getting a Cars 3 despite the fact that 1-2 or some of Pixars lowest grossing movies? That has nothing to do with their 3 Billion Dollar toy sales?

If that's your belief then, awesome. I'm glad you have so much faith in THE ONLY toy company who is given an entire row to themselves in every toy store. Clearly making a meaningful movie and not selling toys as it's bottom line.

I mean why just make an eye rolling toy commercial when you can make a semi decent yuck fest that even adults will enjoy and feel better about throwing down hundreds of dollar's on toys that have essentially not changed since their inception. Naw no way is this just brilliant marketing at its best.

It's all about THE ART OF CINEMA!!! But sure hit me with your best snark, and miss my point entirely. I for one will be buying the new King Kong Lego set when it's released.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

First of all; the phrase is "for all intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes".

Secondly, my original post was about the validity of classing King Kong as a villain. It was nothing to do with why he was in the movie.

You're probably right that these characters were included to sell more toys, but that's not what this thread was about. It was about the character of King Kong, and how he (arguably) shouldn't be classed as a straight villain along with the others he was grouped in with.
If I'd have asked "WTF is Voldemort doing in the Lego Batman movie?" then your response would have been on point. But that's not what I was asking.

The other point I was saying you were wrong about was your agrument that they set up Zod as the villain.
They showed about 20 villains in the first quarter of the movie, and Zod had no more screen time than any of them. So suggesting they made some bait-and-switch move, and swapped Zod with a random assortment of WB villains is incorrect. The main Villain was the Joker, and then he gathered a bunch of other villains to help him.
Even if you're Zod's number 1 fan, there's no reason to feel he got short-changed.

Finally; King Kong Lego set? He was just made up out of hundreds of bricks. He wasn't like an officially-licenced mini figure like the rest of them. There's nothing stopping anyone from making a Lego-movie-replica of him from a normal assortment of Lego bricks. Which kind of makes your point about him being in there to sell toys a little moot.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

Lol, don't act so pretentious. Both "for all intents and purposes" and "for all intensive purposes" are accepted in modern english speech.

The only reason you started that off was to try and belittle their intelligence, which just makes you look like a snob. You could've easily countered his point without acknowledging that one expression - but instead you tried attacking the intelligence of the poster to make yourself look like your intelligence was superior, increasing your likelihood of being correct. Instead it just makes you look like a douchecanoe.

u friggin suk d00d.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

How do you know that I was trying to belittle their intelligence? I was pointing out they've misunderstood/misheard the phrase, and advising them of that could avoid them looking foolish in future. I doubt they'll make the mistake again if they're made aware of it.

Also; in what way is "for all intensive purposes" accepted in modern English? (aside from the fact that those words used together make sense).
In the same way; calling something "a damp squid" instead of "a damp squib" would also be accepted, as a squid is something that can be damp. But it still doesn't stop the phrase being incorrect and the meaning being lost, does it?

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

OH. I can assure you I will be using it incorrectly again in the future, but preciate the grammar policing, very useful. Especially when you want to talk about how specific your question is then get upset when I go deeper with the question only for you to fret over my grammar whilst languishing over the fact that my response to your question went deeper than you were willing to go with the question. Lot of ups and downs with this one mate.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?


OH. I can assure you I will be using it incorrectly again in the future
In that case, here's some more things you might want to do in order to look dumb:
Instead of the word "utmost" say "upmost".
Use the word "literally" immediately before saying something figuratively.
Say "should of" instead of "should have".
Repeatedly use the word grammar, even if what you're referring to is not actually about grammar.
Reply to a conversation with points unrelated and irrelevant to what is being discussed. If someone notices what your saying is irrelevant, tell them you're "going deeper", and suggest they are not thinking too much.
Vote Batman V Superman 10/10 while voting Iron Man 1/10 (that'll show the Marveltards).

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

I still don't see how any of this is relevant to King Kong being a villain or not?

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

That's more like it. 😃
Someone else mentioned King Kong being a villain in Kingu Kongu tai Gojira (1962), and Godzilla the hero (although the trivia page for that film suggests the opposite is true).
Either way, I suppose the Kong character has drifted into villain territory in some of his film appearances.

I had the original film, the 1976 film, and the 2005 film in mind. But I guess other movies might portray him in a different light (The Lego Batman Movie being one of them).
It'll be interesting to see what angle WB go for with their portrayal of him in their upcoming films.

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

I think it's going for a more simplistic view of villains, being if they endanger human (lego) life they're a villain. Not to mention they probably want some variety in the villain choices.

My Lego Batman Review
https://youtu.be/mxgOKdYrjcM

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

WB included him because of their upcoming King Kong film, Skull island made by WB.


It's that man again!!

Re: King Kong is not a villain, right?

He most definitely has been a villain in some adaptions. Particularly in King Kong Vs. Godzilla, Godzilla is the good guy, and Kong is a rampaging beast.




It has been fun fellow message board users. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YgdrhrCM8
Top