Talk:King Kong (2005 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Kong (2005 film) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

King Kong (2005 film) (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	To-do list for King Kong (2005 film):	edit - history - watch - refresh
	extensively copyedit and trim peripheral information, spelling and grammar, comma use, and spell out measurement words, eliminate OR get to 35 references format external links expand small sections http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/kong.php http://www.euphonix.com/news/reviews/psnus_kingkong_dec05_1.htm http://www.canmag.com/news/4/3/2529

King Kong (2005 film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

King Kong (2005 film) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Wikipedia:Peer review/King Kong (2005 film)/archive1

---

Contents 1 Jimmy R.I.P 1.1 An Ode To Lumpy, 2 Copyright 3 Lottery game 4 Poster 5 Ambiguity in the introduction 6 Article Cleanup! 7 Voiced 8 Pictures 9 Heads up 10 The Bestiary 11 Style 12 Unanswered questions and inconsistencies 13 User:24.253.120.206 14 Peter Jackson is in the movie? 15 Wall climbing babble 16 beauty killed the beast 17 Response section clean up. 18 Year? 19 Wikipedian Reviews 19.1 "Non-Stop Epinephrine" 20 "42" Reference to Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy?! 21 Accurate Depiction of the Empire State Building? 22 Criticism Neutrality 23 Original Research? 24 Hollywood or Kiwi film? 25 Fantasy/adventure? 26 I`d like an explanation 27 Trivia 28 Slow motion? 29 Box office - and other revenues? 30 Not "Remake" 31 removed sentence 32 Comparasion to 1933 section 33 Brontosaurus 34 Judo Monkey 35 Article Peer Review Improvements 36 GA failed 37 King Kong biplanes 38 a question 39 Question 40 Obtained GA Status 41 watermarks 42 nonsense 43 DVD release

[edit] Jimmy R.I.P

Watch the end of the film again. Jimyy escapes into a boat, which is promptly crushed by Kong.No people from that boat were seen in the film again, so I assume that they and Jimmy died uncomfortable and wet.(Sammy 09:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

No,you can see jimmy with Jack,unconsious for a few seconds after kong's death.

[edit] An Ode To Lumpy,

Dear Lumpy, How fowel those giant parasitic worms were. If I had lost my mind i`d try to save you. Pour Choy, It was all the big monkey`s fault. Choy also chose a bad place to fall, in the organic slop with the giant blood-worms. You bravley fought those giant worms, trying to save poor Choy`s corpse, But Jimmy was busy saving Jack from the giant wetas, and Carl was boldly fighting all the assorted creepy-crawlys. Your horrible screems from inside the worm, at that point it was to late, you were gone. After the Skull island earthquake, the island went down and sunk, you now lay at the bottem of the indian ocean some place, with no more bugs to eat you, finnaly your skelliton can R.I.P. Lumpy, R.I.p my friend, R.I.P. By Vincent B.P. King, 8:31, May 26.

[edit] Copyright

My understanding is that King Kong is in the public domain (google King Kong Nintendo for more information). What I don't understand is how a public domain work gets built into a $100 million dollar film in this day and age, with the toys, action figures and such that will tie into the film. Does the studio releasing this film think they hold the copyright? --Measure

On second thought, Brothers Grimm is being released this weekend on a huge budget, and is definatly Public Domain by now. --Measure 23:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the studio would hold the copyright to this particular work, but anyone can create a character called "King Kong" for their original work. However a character named "Mickey Mouse" would still be a copyright violation. - Dr Haggis - Talk 21:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lottery game

I think the part about the lottery game should be removed or changed to past tense it is well past 5th of December--Ajitravindran 10:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Ajit

[edit] Poster

I want to make it clear, once and for all, that the alleged teaser poster that keeps on getting posted in the article (red fabric with gold "circus"-looking letters spelling out the title), is, while a very cool poster, NOT the official teaser poster for the film. It is a piece of fan art, and as such, does not belong in the article. Boxclocke 20:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity in the introduction

Could someone familiar with the writing credits please clarify this sentence from the introduction? Thanks. "Written by Merian C. Cooper and Edgar Wallace, it is directed by Peter Jackson, produced by Jackson and Fran Walsh, and written by Jackson, Walsh and Philippa Boyens" KeithD 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some. Cooper and Wallace wrote the original film. However, the whole passage may be redundant as it offers no information not seen in the infobox. Perhaps it should be deleted altogether. Boxclocke - "!" 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I simplified the opening sentence & took out writing credit. I think this works. Willerror 07:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Cleanup!

This article looks like it could use a clean up, there's just so much junk in the article!! Thanks Empty2005 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voiced

King Kong is going to have a voice in this film? Did he have a voice in any of the other films? Scorpionman 01:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What, outside of roars and grunts? I'm pretty sure they'll manage to give it a "voice" using actual gorilla noises, if that's what you're asking. But if you're expecting it to speak... no, I doubt it'll do that. MasterXiam 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't speak, though he is very expressive (just saw it) ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a scene in the end, on top of the Empire States Building where King Kong gestures to Ann Darrow that the sunset is beautiful --203.101.45.23 09:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Ajit

Well, then what's the "voice" that Andy Serkis provides? Scorpionman 03:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What I can think of, Andy Serkis is the one that does the sound of Kong. He should be able to do the roars and the grunts and the laughters.

Peter Jackson actually used live digital morphing (which he called the Kongaliser) to make Andy sound like a gorilla. Scorpionman 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Does anyone have any pictures? This article looks painfully bare for a movie that looks so good. Bibliomaniac15 01:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added some press release pictures to the article. Underneath-it-All 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

There is an argument going on in the imdb.com message board for King Kong(here), with both parties citing this wikipedia article for support. There's a potential of one or both of them modifying content on this page to "support" their own arguments. -PK9 23:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am on that board right now and watching this argument. I know already some trolls have changed this page. It has been changed back, but it is going to happen again I'll bet.-NewsCaster300

[edit] The Bestiary

I am wondering what to do with the section on the film's creatures. The creatures from the Bug Pit deserve at least minimal explanation beyond their name and size, while only one of the cited centipede species actually appears in the film, as far as I know. (The others might be in the video game.) I am uncertain how I should make changes to the list as it stands. -AndromedaRoach 04:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the dinosaur Ligocristus is listed although it does not actually appear in the film (unless I blinked and missed it). Likely, this info was copied from the official Kong page, which also has Ligocristus (as well as the additional unseen bugs) listed. This info in turn is taken from the book "The World of Kong: A Natural History of Skull Island," a publicaction by Weta showing the "backstory" of Kong's island home, including over a hundred species -- the vast majority of which obviously are not in the movie itself. I am wondering, then, if Ligocristus and other "not in the movie" creatures should even be listed here. What does everyone else think?

Additionally, the giant fish Piranhadon is not listed; while not in the theatrical release of the movie, it was featured in the trailers and did have a scene in the movie (likely deleted and perhaps a DVD release of the film will have this creature back in the movie) and is still featured prominately in some of the Kong toys and merchandise rolling out. Should this be included in the article or no?

Finally, the ceratopsian dinosaur Ferrucutus is seen briefly in the film; however it is missing from the listing on this page. Can someone who knows a little info about the animal and can add it nicely to the section please do so? Thanks. -jurassiraptor

[edit] Style

Is there any information about the stylistic choices of this film? I just saw it and noted that there seemed to be several specific stylistic effects littered throughout. For instance there were several slow/blur-motion scenes. In addition, it frequently had the overt feel of people acting in front of a green screen when dealing with distant objects (such as the scene when the rescue party first finds themselves in the valley of what appears to be an old roadway and Carl Denham happens across the herd of distant dinosaurs for the first time and then later during the stampede in that same valley). Given that the look of Lord of the Rings was much smoother and had little to no hint of that effect (that I remember), I have to wonder if it was intentional. My guess is that perhaps this was done to match the look of the original - however I have never seen it so I cannot say for certain. BigZaphod 08:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered questions and inconsistencies

Could this perhaps be merged into the trivia section? (Smerk 07:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Good idea. I've done as you suggested. I also broke the trivia section out further by adding a sub-section for references to the original film. --MisterHand 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have some more:

• Why does the dinosaur that eats the dinosaur then attack Ann? It's got food *in its mouth*. Why would it drop the food to hunt more food?
• Where do all the natives go? It's vaguely implied that they shoot them all. Why? Why don't we see the bodies?
• How does Ann juggle without looking at the rocks? (it is possible, but you have to juggle much lower)
• Where does the name "Kong" come from?

Stevage 01:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I can answer one. The name Kong comes from the natives chanting. They repeat the phrase several times in the chants they do at the various ceremonies. --kralahome 02:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• You're right, Kong is what the natives called him, except that I remember hearing something like "Torei Kong" or "tarei kong" (not sure if this is what they said) but I think that's supposed to be their word for "king" and thus that old woman was saying "King Kong". This is just a guess, I'm not really certain. --Revolución (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh another one: Why doesn't the weight of Kong break the ice in the pond? :) Stevage 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thick ice? Lengis 18:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I can answer another one. It is not implied that the natives was killed. In fact, the captain talks about setting a gaurd post (or what it is called). They did probably go to hide (remember, they hid very vell in the beginning)

I thought that, as with the original, Dehnam gave him tha name KING Kong to have a catchy title. In both versions he is not refered to as King Kong untill they return to NY. And I think the only referance to the name is the sign on the marquee in both versions. Although both have in Dehnam's speech, "In his home he was a King, but he comes before you in chains," or some such. As far as the ice, if the lake was frozen through in the dead of winter, or was frozen solid at least at the top, it would probably hold the weight.--Talison 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Try this one for size: in some of the shots where Denham is hand-cranking his camera both of the magazine spool hubs are turning in the same direction, but in others they're turning in opposite directions. (I'd have to see the film again to confirm it, but I'm pretty sure I'm right.) I could quibble about why he's using a hand-cranked silent camera 6 years after The Jazz Singer, but I guess it's because he can't afford a modern electric one. Lee M 04:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

"A prominent sideplot featuring the young misfit crewmember Jimmy is dropped following the party's return to New York. The character is neither seen nor mentioned from that point on and the film ends with the plot unresolved.

Just like Jimmy's sideplot being unresolved (as noted above), there is no explanation or scene that shows the fate of Preston, Denham's assistant. It should be noted that when he and Jack where evacuating the theatre, Jack was the only one left in the balcony when Kong broke fear of his bonds. It is most likely that Preston escaped the theatre unharmed."

All this is nothing new for PJ, who left the stories of Saruman, Wormtongue, Faramir and Eowyn unresolved in the Theatrical Edition of the LotR Trilogy.

"As in the 1933 film, there is no explanation of the aftermath of Kong's rampage through New York, who is responsible for the damage he caused, whether or not Denham is to blame, and what becomes of Kong's body. Denham would possibly be sued by many for several damages, but then there is the possibility of the company who made the weak chains that might be to blame. If Denham sells Kong's remains and the movie rights, he might have been able to clear his debts"

In The Son of Kong, the sequel to the original King Kong, Denham is indeed sued by many, many parties. Gildir, 2 February 2006

---

Addressing some of the Inconsistancies:

• The natives. Lots of questions about the civilization that built the ruins. From the state of the ruins and having no idea of the orginal forms, their age is probably several centuries rather than millenia. That might put them in the time period of Angor Wat, which they have some resemblance to. (On the other hand, they might have deliberately been designed with AW in mind.) I'm wondering why, if the builders could erect large structures all over the place, they needed the wall? (possible explanation: the ruins beyond the wall are temples, observatories, etc, that didn't require constant occupation- the wall protected the homes and crops where the women and children kept to. Another possiblity is that at the height of the culture, they could keep reasonably even with the critters; but as time passed they lost ground, until they were pushed to the little spit of land where natural defences helped. It looks like the natives are pretty much on the last legs of culture, anyway.
• pterodactyls. First of all, I did not see any recognizable pterodactyls (or ANY pterosaurs) in Jackson's version. It did have those nasty 'batoids', which amount to the same thing though (except nocturnal rather than dinurnal, as pterosaurs are thought to have been). And of course, just because we don't see any, doesn't mean they don't exist on Skull Island. The wall seems to have been made to keep out the large dinosaurs from blundering through, and the carnivorious forms from finding easy pickings ammongst the humans. Pterodactyls might keep to the highlands, or not have any interest in humans. Also, the natives might have other, unseen methods (all those spears lying around, like they're at hands-reach for ANY emergency. Hmmmmmmmmm... And those bulidings so close together with all the over-hanging projections that would be so useful in preventing attacks from the air.)
• the attacking dinosaur that was eating already. It bothered me a bit, too; but I recall several older books speculating that carnivorous dinosaurs were "mindless killing machines" where seeing movement triggered a killing response- whether or not they were humgry. I don't know of a good equivalent, although the concept seems to be based on sharks; some older ideas about "varmints" (any sort of carnivorous mammal) sort of have the same idea. Current thinking about dinosaurs gives them much more complex behavoir than this.

Or ann was just so diffrent looking,the dinosaaur was curious

[this above was added to the bulk of my text without any attribution, I separated it for clarity; no other editing was done CFLeon 21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)]

• Ann & Jack's return. Because of the scene in both movies of the two running, it gets forgotten that they fall into a river and swim away. This is confirmed in the book and the first movie even has Jack say "We came down the river." The running scene is just for dramatic purposes- the last few hundred meters or so as they approach the wall.
• Kong's tranport. Don't know about Jackson's ideas, but the first movie at least has a line about building a raft. I've heard that there was a scene filmed with Kong being towed on the raft, but it was dropped. (As it stands, I like the way BOTH movies cut from Denham's Line about "The 8th Wonder of the World!" to the marquee with that line.) In the 1976 movie, the ship is an oil tanker with a nice big hold.
• Kong on the ice. I thought of it myself, watching the scene. Even did a rough calculation that Kong weighs roughly 50 tons, with one ton to each square foot of his feet (standing upright). I have no idea how deep the Central Park pond was in the 1930s, though. I do know that the 30s in general had more severe winter weather than we're used to nowadays.
• Women in New York winter. Surely, you reading this know people who wear shorts or t-shirts in any weather?
• Jimmy's subplot. I think I caught a quick shot of him in the theater (sitting in the balcony). Jimmy actually is a carry-over from the original novel, where he's the only crewman regulary called by name. He's responsible for carrying the gas bombs, and is killed early on when the raft capsizes (this results in the loss of the gas bombs which the rescue party brought- remember they fall the stegosaurus with them?). The scenes in the 1933 movie with his name usually are cut from tv showings.
• one question from the original that bugs me: How reasonable do you think it is that the 3 lead characters in a movie all have last names starting with "D" (Denham, Driscoll, and Darrow)?

CFLeon 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.253.120.206

I had technical difficulties with my computer that would delete sections of the article every time I would try to edit, which I did not intend. All I tried to do was move an image. My edits should not be considered vandalism, as the changes other than the image placement alteration aforementioned were completely accidental. I apologize for the confusion. --24.253.120.206

[edit] Peter Jackson is in the movie?

I saw through the whole credits, and one name had my attension. One of the air plane gunners was credited as Peter Jackson. Is it a random Peter Jackson or is it the Peter Jackson?

Yep, cameo of the director - there is also another cameo of Rick Porras, who was a producer of the Lord of Rings Films, but not conected in any other way to King Kong movie.

I believe Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, the directors of the 1933 King Kong, played the same, gunner and pilot cameos in the original [1] -Typhin 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And of course PJ has cameos in all his films. Lee M 04:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall climbing babble

Why do I see comments such as "if Kong can climb the Empire State Building he should also be able to climb the 100 foot wall" everywhere? Just because I can climb a flight of stairs, it doesn't mean I can climb a building too, right? Rbarreira 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There also seemed to be lots of fire pouring from the walls, I think that would also contibute to the difficulty of climbing it, along with all the defensive spikes along the base and top of the wall.

Well I think it's because Kong had no reason to climb the wall, he only climbed the Empire State Building for safety and to see the sunset etc. which he had no real need to do near the wall. NeoRicen 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

J.D. Lees mentioned this in an arctical in G-Fan recently as well. I don't get it myself. A building with hand and foot holds (ledges and such) is much different than a flat vertical wall. --Talison 02:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] beauty killed the beast

The meaning of the final line of the film changes: in the original, "it was beauty killed the beast" refers only to Ann Darrow. In the remake, it refers not only to Ann's beauty, but also to Kong's love for beautiful sunrises and sunsets, which is presented as the answer to the question of why he climbs the Empire State Building.

I know Ann commented that it was beautiful, but was this stated as the reason why Kong climbed up the buildings? He didnt start climbing until he was being shot at. Before then he was just playing in the ice with her. --DrBat 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get this. I thought he climbed up to get somewhere high to hide (like he did on Skull Island) not knowing man could fly. He then coinsidentally saw the sunrise as he did from his cliff on Skull Island. But the reason i think he was looking for some place high to hide was to save Ann.--Talison 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that's correct? "it was beauty killed the beast" should be grammatically "It was beauty that killed the beast". If it's actually said in the movie that way, it should stay that way. --Revolución (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"It was beauty killed the beast," is how the line is delivered in the the 33 and 05 versions by both actors, gramatical errors and all.--Talison 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would weakly argue for it being "It was beauty killed the Beast" - the 'beast' is definitely a reference to the story of 'Beauty and the Beast', but the 'beauty' is ambiguous. See also my comments at bottom of this page. Stevage 10:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it "'twas" ['twas]? As in "'Twas beauty killed the beast?" Gspawn 16:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response section clean up.

I made big cuts to the Response section, as it was marked as in needing of tidying. Basically, I removed examples of critic reviews, as it seemed really messy, and that it was on the IMDB Top 250, because, currently, it has fallen off. I also added in that some complained of moments where it was clear that CGI was used (many called them "hiccups"). The section seems short now, but I thought it was justified to remove the review excerpts that really made it look unorganized, you can see it if you look at what I cut in the history. Maybe we can add more without getting back to that clutter. - Viewdrix December 28th, 2005

Who complained that it was a promotion of bestiality? --DrBat 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's hard to describe the love between Kong and Ann, but I don't think it's romantic, and definitely not sexual. It's more like love between friends, but deeper. --Revolución (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked on the Rousseau allusion and found at least one reviewer who talked about J.J.R. On the other hand, many seem to have referred to bestiality. I didn't chase down the references, but I suspect most weren't serious. -Willmcw 05:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the critical response section to be biased against the movie? The sentence "The film is viewed as many as a pretentious attempt to revive a cinematic classic that, first and foremost, did not need to be remade." especially stands out considering the mainly positive critical response (83% on Rotten Tomatoes).

I think that a list of blurbs from reviews by critics both famous and unknown, each one inserted mostly to support the opinion of the person inserting it, is inappropriate to an encyclopedia article and not particularly helpful to anyone. A reader looking for such information will find a wealth of reviews, unbiased in their selection, by following the external links. --DannyZ 06:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the fact that one particular user keeps re-inserting the totally inaccurate statement: "However, the film grossed $66,181,645 at the box office, losing over $140 million of its original budget, making it a flop." into the Response section of the article is not at all helpful. The box office figure quoted was for only the first five days of the movie's run (Dec. 14 - Dec. 18 only), and the statement that the film is a "flop" is just wholly fictitious. Moreover, this one particular user is not only inserting completely false information into the article, he (or she) is also removing the useful link to Box Office Mojo in the Response section which properly documents the correct and up-to-date box office figures. I will be reverting this vandalism inaccurate information now if it has not already been done. --DannyZ 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to link the box office figures in this article to www.boxofficemojo.com, so that they are update automatically each day? [Really New User]

[edit] Year?

when is this movie supposed to take place? I'm going to guess 1933 since the Empire State Building wasn't built until 1931 and the old movie was made in 1933. Also, the King Kong videogame for the Xbox and other consoles has some date I can't remember that's in 1933 listed as a date in the beginning. --Revolución (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1932-1933. There is a mention of Fay Wray, as being in the midst of production on a film for RKO. Which is actual historical fact, and sort of an injoke: the movie Fay Wray was in for RKO was King Kong. Vorn 06:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if the mention of "killing off the first mate" in the script by Denham is also an inside joke referring to changing Jack Driscoll's profession from a first mate in the original to a writer in this version. Paul 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The opening scenes are of great poverty. Obviously the great depression, so 1930's. DirkvdM 08:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There are also scenes of the police destroying liquor so it's in the Prohibition era (not later than December 5, 1933). Lee M 15:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I (Familyguyfan1990) think that this film was supposed to have been sometime in the mid to late 1920's as noted by the Al Jolson recording from 1925 and the fact that every new car seems to be a 1927 model A ford. Howerver with that said i think later on in the film some idiot tried and succeed with turning it in to a film from 1933. Well any way thats just what I think. Jan. 17 2006.

[edit] Wikipedian Reviews

[edit] "Non-Stop Epinephrine"

• King Kong was three hours of non-stop Epinephrine. This Peter Jackson and Jack Black at their cinematorial best. PeterZed 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I Agree

 **While we are all glad to read your opinion, Wikipedia is a place for No Point of View (WP:NPOV). --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "42" Reference to Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy?!

Honestly. Does anyone else think this line should be removed in trivia? I don't see what the big deal is. I've read the books, and I know that 42 is the answer to everything, but who cares? It seems like it was just a random number on the box, and there was no reference.

I agree. I'll remove it. --Revolución (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate Depiction of the Empire State Building?

At the end of the film Kong falls to his death from the top, but it's a clean fall straight to the bottom and if memory serves, in the 1933 original Kong bounces and tumbles off the sides. Did Peter Jackson have to fudge the architecture of the Empire State Building in order for Kong to fall all the way and not impact the sides? There appears to be some side momentem as Kong (apparently already dead) slides off, but I don't know if it would be enough. Looking at the pictures of the ESB and remembering what I saw in the film, I just don't know if Jackson's portrayal of the fall was technically accurate.

There's no real problem with an unobstructed fall. The ESB only has setbacks down its "sides". Its "faces" are single planes from the bottom to the observatory deck, and it's feasible enough that the "side momentum" you mention carried Kong beyond that deck. JDG 09:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you don't see the fall until he's past that point (right?), so hey may have bounced a bit there. Funny thing is, I thought, "gee, imagine that falling on your roof" and was then disappointed he didn't bounce enough for that to happen. Anyway, you don't get to see the end of the fall either. DirkvdM 08:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that PJ's effects crew actually studied blueprints of the building, so they pretty well knew it inside and out. (As indeed could any terrorist?!) Lee M 04:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm more disturbed that Kong didn't explode on impact, especially given the rampant gore / nasty bits in other parts of the movie (like when [no spoilers] gets eaten by what was essentially an anus... totally unnecessary visuals). If you look into actual research on falls at a building like ESB, you'll find that there are other factors that lend to slamming down the sides- like wind rushing around the tower often creates a vacuum that sucks objects into the sides. Realism just went out the window from time to time in this flick (which was a shame), and the fall was one of those times. Gspawn 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That scene was pretty much silent,you wouldn't hear the crash.Also,You don't see the entire fall!!!!

[edit] Criticism Neutrality

Did a massive editing of Critism page, and offered counterpoints to the criticism to maintain a balance of neutrality. I am thinking tha this section in its entirety should just be purged, but perhaps a discussion on King Kong's realism is beneficial. But I do believe that critics are misinterprating Jackson's term "realism" and expecting every faculty of the film to be life-like and factual when the film itself is already dealing with dinosaurs born out of the creative team's imagination, man-size leeches and bugs, and a living 800lb. Gorilla.

Edit: Entire Criticism page purged? On whose authorithy? I worked so hard on that, too. =(

<-- Deadpool Esq.

I have marked the criticism section with a Neutrality Dispute warning because the tone of the section to me seems to lack a NPOV.

This includes statements such as:

Overall, the concept of "realistic gorilla" made the film significantly less believable, comparing to 1976' rendition, where authors tried to rationalize the situation by presenting non-realistic animal and, simultaneously, more realistic, believable supporting circumstaces.

To me the idea of something seeming realistic is a matter of Opinion and the author of this section has failed to point out only some people may have said that and makes it appear as fact.

The problem is the above statement and others aren't placed in the dot points of criticism received and are formatted as if part of the article and not a collection of criticism, also the author failed to provide any sources of where these criticisms came from and appear to be the Authors own original review which doesn't comply with Wikipedias policy on Nor Original Research: Wikipedia:No original research

This statement makes it seem to me that it is an Original work:

In this sense, limited realism of the new version of King Kong is self-contradictory on many layers and therefore still makes some trouble for perception and success of the film, as well as for delivering the films main spiritual message.

I won't edit the section myself as I think there are people who could do a much better job at it.

Overall I feel the author has taken a bias against this movie and clearly in favour of the 1976 version and fails to maintain a NPOV.

NeoRicen 13:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; text will be neutralised. Though I would not say that it "clearly biased", because it offers ultimate denial of all of that kind of criticism, explainting the director's goal and making all those criticism points rather useless. DenisRS 04:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The new edits are an improvement, but I really think they need to go further. I've re-added a boilerplate to that effect in the article. Gobeirne 18:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it could use an improvement to but I removed the boilerplate because Neutrality wasn't as much of an issue, but in retrospect leaving the plate was probably a better Idea, I still feal it violates the No Original Research policy.NeoRicen 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Marked by "*" sign points from that section should be at least included in other sections, such as about inconsintences, for example. Those findings have nothing to do with "original" research, because ones are blatantly obvious to anyone who hears the word from the director about realistic look and behavior of gorilla. "Inconsistences" are there, and in not a small value. DenisRS 13:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To give credence to both sides: All of the work that went into Kong's special effects and emoting, all of the work lending realism to fight scenes, all of the work that went into showing why the characters wind up on the island... and then Kong falls off the Empire without a hint of gore on impact (despite ALL the gore in other parts of the movie). If the movie had picked one side of realism or the other, few people would mind. This doesn't give anyone license to post completely off-the-wall bias, but obviously contradictory notes (as well as comparisons to source material) should stand, especially since (as noted elsewhere) the movie had a startlingly small opening and a rather mediocre overall return compared to expectations. I think these notes need to be in here (they help explain the box office return as well as provide source comparison), but they do need to be regularly scrubbed for NPOV they should be cited if/whenever possible. Gspawn 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research?

Jack rushes up to the building to comfort Ann after Kong falls, while Carl Denham arrives at the scene where reporters, police, soldiers, and bystanders crowd around Kong's body. Gazing upon Kong's corpse, he notes that it wasn't the planes that killed Kong, but rather "It was beauty killed the beast". In truth, it was beauty that saved the beast. It was society's fear, arrogance and ignorance that destroyed him.

Is there anything to support any of this? Surely in the film Kong was killed because he was in the middle of destroying NYC and killing large numbers of people. Arrogance and ignorance doesn't really come into it. And surely there should be a mention of the pun of "beauty" (the sunset etc) vs "Beauty" (the character in Beauty and the Beast) here. Some references would be great. Stevage 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kong clearly was thinking tactically and of his own safety when he climbed the ESB. Later a reported said he went up there because "he was a dumb animal that didn't know anything." Also he was peaceful in NY till provoked. By that I mean he was defeated and depressed untill the stageshow POed him with lightbulb flashes, clapping, and "taunting" him with a fake Ann. Later he just runs off, but cars, people and things he doesn't understand kep interfereing with him. Finally he finds Ann and calms down greatly. You could say he was to the point that they could have controlled him long enough to contain him. Instead they open fire on him and he rages wanting to protect Ann. So you could say because 1930's mindsets treated him as a dumb unthinking animal, it made him more volitile. Modern mindsets and trained animal psychologists could probably have attempted to controlled him like any other wild animal. --Talison 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood or Kiwi film?

A recent addition said Jackson got the highest salary hollywood ever paid a producer. Which set me thinking. Is it a Hollywood film? Imdb says it's NZ/US production. What does that mean? Where the money came from? Universal Studios is a US company and Jackson's Wingnut Films a NZ one. Where did most money come from? (Not that it's a contest :) .) Or is it where it was filmed? Interesting point. Suppose a German writer publishes a book in Belgium. That doesn't make it a Belgian book. Of course a movie company normally does more than just publish it (although the credits in this case don't claim any more), but this was filmed in Miramar. So did Universal do any more than just (partially) finance the film? Oh, and even more confusingly, Universal is owned by NBC, which in turn is partly owned by Vivendi, which is a French company. I suppose one can't say it's a Hollywood production or make any similar claim. Not that this is very important anyway, I was just wondering. :) DirkvdM 08:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Jackson and WETA have been incredibly NZ-intensive since the beginning of LOTR. That part should be obvious (filmed in, probably edited in, special effects done in NZ...). And you're confusing the Hollywood part unnecessarily... Bill Gates owns quite a bit of stock in Apple. Does that mean he created the iPod? Gspawn 16:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy/adventure?

Um. I would have gone more horror/romance or something. Is there an official genre for this film? Stevage 16:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDb says "Action / Adventure / Sci-Fi / Thriller", and Rotten Tomatoes says "Action/Adventure". Personally, I'd say there was Romance, Action, Science-Fiction, Adventure, and Thrills, but it would be hard to substantiate that it was a horror. "In film, the horror genre is characterized by the attempt to make the viewer experience dread, fear, terror, disgust or horror." I do not think that there was any large amount of this in the film, at least, as far as I recall. If someone were up to the task, they could look through some of the reviews and see what the critics call it. --imaek 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

One the King Kong website in an interview with Richard Taylor, he said that Peter Jackson wanted the menagerie of creatures to be a "horror show", probably referring to the pit with giant bugs. Cameron 20:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for action/adventure. Fantasy would involve some kind of supernatural or magic, but King Kong's creatures all seem to be the result of millenia of isolated evolution. --Revolución (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I`d like an explanation

Ok, I know that the movie is a fiction, but the following seem more like mistakes to me:

- How did the wall stop the ptherodacyles on the island? Hidden AAA perhaps :-)?

- How could have they put Kong on board after they stunned him in obviously shallow water inaccessible to the ship?

- How didn`t the girl freeze walking through the snow-covered New York dressed only in a light dress?

- What kept high heels on her legs as she climbed the ladder to the Empire State Building top?

Veljko Stevanovich 31. Jan 2006. 11:45 UTC+1

• The answer to all your questions: a wizard did it -- MisterHand 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A. The pterodactyles were free to leave, but where would they go? The ocean around the island was too large and they would get tired/drown. B. A gurney? C. Epinephrine? D. straps. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant stop the pterodactyles from eating all the human inhabitants of the island

What makes you think pterodactyls eat humans? Seems like too big a prey. About Ann in the cold - what about on top of the empire state building? The wind chill factor would add to the cold there. And what about Kong on the ice? He must have been freezing his but off.

I'd say it's a mark of quality of this film that people focus so much on illogicalities (there's a whole section on it). In just about any other film (especially a fantasy film) ther would be too many to start making such a list and people would cal you a nut to take a film so seriously. Especially Kong is highly convincing as a gorilla. I added a reamrk about that in the trivia section (there was already something there about studying gorillas for the film), but this deserves a more prominent place in the article because it is a real bonus of the film. DirkvdM 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to forgive a lot, but the numerous bits like when Kong threw Ann around at forces that would have OBVIOUSLY liquified a human are too glaring for many moviegoers to let go- especially when Kong himself was portrayed so "realistically" (or not?). Plus, the film was basically a major box office failure compared to expectations (especially at opening), so there should be a bit more leeway than usual given to explaining why. Gspawn 16:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I don't like the section on King_Kong_(2005_film)#Unanswered_questions_and_inconsistencies. There are no sources, and it seems that many of the arguments do not make sense. I think this section should be removed or shortened significantly. Does anyone object? --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the entire section would be rather exaggerated. Could you be more specific? DirkvdM 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slow motion?

The articel says one of the most common criticism was an over-use of slow motion. But there isn't all that much slow motion in the film. There are similar effects, though, such as blurry images (especially when the crew is attacked the first time in the village). This has a similar effect to slow motion, but it's not the same. Is there a generic term for this sort of thing? Because as it stands the text is wrong. By the way, is this original research or have 'official' critics made this claim? DirkvdM 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically, it is slow-motion, is less than the standard frames per second are being shown (if you follow), and the action is similarly slowed. The blurring and such was just added on top of that. And slow motion isn't the only killer- the extended running time and others mentioned are all factors that have been expressed by many people. Gspawn 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box office - and other revenues?

The title and section 'Finance & box-office' suggest the only revenues of the film come from the box offices, ie cinema ticket sales. But that's just the beginning. After that tv broadcasters will pay for viewing it and I suppose there will also be other forms of income. I haven't a clue how these sources of income normaly compare, but shouldn't there be a bit more on this? Also, the 600 million dollars probably means the amount of money that is neede to break even, but that is not very clear. DirkvdM 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, there should be more on this. To quote from the article: "Typically a Hollywood film must make at least twice its budget, including marketing and promotion ($600 million), to break even for the studio" -- Sez who? I'll tell ya who, and I'll tell ya why: the studios and distributors always try as hard as they can to downplay the amount of profit they're making, because they have to pay a lot of people a percentage of that profit. I'm very, very sceptical of the claim that King Kong hasn't made a profit yet, at over $540 million box-office worldwide. Why are the box-office figures made public, down to the last dollar? Because some people get paid a percentage of the gross, of the total box-office revenue, not the profit. And they tend to have much more clout than the -- relatively -- poor suckers who get a piece of the profit, and long ago they got sick of the financial hanky-panky going on with the money they were promised. Unfortunately for the cause of truth and fairness, however, revenue from home video, TV rights, commercial tie-ins -- remember the Burger King-King Kong commercial? -- product placement and so forth, are not made public, which allows the studios and distributors to engage in something some people call creative bookkeeping, and some other people, including myself, call lying. In the case of King Kong, these revenues which are not a matter of public record will probably add up to several hundred million dollars.

Sorry if I got a little long-winded there. To summarize: in place of the quote, I would suggest something like "Hollywood studios often claim that a movie of theirs must make at least twice their production and promotion budget to break even. In the case of King Kong, that would mean $600 million in world-wide box office. However, such claims are controversial. Also, besides the box office, a film like King Kong will generate a huge amount of revenue from home video, television rights, advertising tie-ins such as Burger King's King Kong-themed commercials, and other sources, which, unlike the box-office figures, are not a matter of public record." I'll wait and see if anybody wants to argue with me about this. If there are no objections after a few days, I'll edit the article.GBWallenstein 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

section is about box-office revenues, not "other revenues". and where there are other revenues, there are other costs associated with them. so best to just stick with known facts, to avoid one-sidedness and original research. Zzzzz 11:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should the section be only about box office revenues? It's a fact that Universal made and will make a lot of money from "King Kong" from commercial tie-ins, home video, TV broadcasts rights and so forth, even if the exact figures are a closely guarded secret. It's a fact that there is some controversy over exactly how profitable movies are. I'm not the only one who suspects less-than-honorable motives in the secrecy surrounding "other" revenues.GBWallenstein 23:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed the sentence I suggested above, striving for greater objectivity. For example, instead of 'a huge amount of revenue', I wrote 'a certain amount of revenue.' I pointed out that inasmuch as we don't have all the figures, neither for income nor for outlay, we don't know for certain how profitable or unprofitable King Kong may ultimately be for Universal. I edited the section and changed its name to 'Finance. Box-office & other revenues.'GBWallenstein 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys I remember reading an article during the late Fall/early Winter of 2005 that claimed Universal was paid over 100 million dollars from companies looking to promote the film through their products. Universal even turned away companies due to too much interest, according to an article from an exec in the Toronto Star's business section. These companies were from all around the World including Burger King, Kellogs, Volkswagon, Hefty garbage bags, Playmates, Humpty Dumpty potato chips etc. So this would basically cancel out the supposed 100 million that was spent Worldwide on marketing and advertising. Therefore the "general rule of thumb" would apply to the production budget NOt the total cost. Since advertising revenue would pay off the fee for marketing/distribution. I modified this through the edit on the page removing the "prints and advertising" aspect of the original article.

[edit] Not "Remake"

Does Peter Jackson consider his own film to be a remake? Because I think I've heard him saying it's not so much a remake, as it is a tribute; and there are other directors, like Spielberg, who I have heard say that he dislikes remaking films, and feels that those films should be appreciated the way they are... I've tried google, but I can't confirm Spielgerg NOR Jackson's beliefs; although I'm pretty sure Spielberg made that comment (just not sure if Jackson did). Can someone confirm this?

[edit] removed sentence

I removed this question from the Comparison section of the article: (Which was precisely accurate of the Empire State Building in 1933?) --Fang Aili 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparasion to 1933 section

Is is just me or is the section repetative, overlong and mostly pointless. Many of the the points are repeated and many are simply to simple to be put in there (i.e. In the 2005 film, the wall looks a lot more ancient and ruined, and the gate and sacrificial-ceremony pillars are more crude and primitive than in the 1933 version.) This is just a difference in the way the movie looked. We don't want to list every single difference. --kralahome 05:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just you. The section has gotten even LONGER since your comment and has many duplications. It's interesting, but really, really needs major editing and significant cutting to even be readable. CFLeon 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brontosaurus

Why is the Brontosaurus featured in this film? The brontosaurus didn't exist; its skeleton was the result of the bones of two different dinosaurs being fused together. Peter Jackson should have known better. Scorpionman 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well,on skull island the dinosaurs had 65 million years left to evolve.It's not really brontosaurus,they just think it is

Hmmm. Scorpionman 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should Jackson have known better? He's not a paleontologist, as you seem to assume he is. Even if he knows the situation, he's more likely to say "the public is more familar with Brontosaurus, so call it that". CFLeon 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The vastosaurus, and ginat bats didn't exist either. And giant sauropods wouldn't run from raptors. It would be like an elephant running from a lion. And gorillas (normal sized ones) can't swing from trees, why would a giant one be able to? It's a 30's movie. It depicts dinosaurs like monsters. It's not scientifically acurate like Jurassic Park. Malamockq 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judo Monkey

I hate this movie. Kong looks like an oversized WWE wrestler. -- Toytoy 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you, This Films Awsome! so is Kong.

[::Can this section be removed as irrelevant and non-NPOV? CFLeon 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)] Sure

[edit] Article Peer Review Improvements

I propose, and will wait for consensus, for removing the bestiary section. It is very tangential to the article, and the little paragraph at the beginning is all that is needed, the actual list can be accessed at World of Kong. Also, lets break up those lists and start trimming the text down. Judgesurreal777 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• • As it appears that there are no objections, and tons of extraneous information has been added since the last peer review in January 2006, I am going to trim down the article significently to be like it was. If there are any specific objections, please say so. Judgesurreal777 00:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. As with the orginal, none of the critters are identified in the film (other than a general 'dinosaurs'). The connection with Dixon's book is very interesting, and should be at least mentioned, but not to the point of a Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide that some people are trying to make it! CFLeon 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

• More subsections.
• Choose Ann or Anne in the text and stick with it.
• This scenes makes more sense of the timing... plural or singular?
• In Deleted scenes it is tough to know if each paragraph or each section or what else is a deleted scene. It could be clearer with a list.
• In addition to that, Deleted scenes shouldn't be in Cast and Characters.
• The inline external references should be converted to inline citations.
• The bats that attack King Kong look a lot like... is this some original research?
• This, References to other versions of King Kong, could be another article by itself or better sectioned.
• Needs more links or references. Lincher 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel its ready, send it back to GA nomination. Lincher 21:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong biplanes

The article says that the biplanes that attacked King Kong are Curtiss Helldivers, but I am totally sure they are not Helldivers. The biplane Curtiss Helldivers had retractable gear and enclosed cockpits. The biplanes in the movie had neither of these attributes. I'm not sure what kind of biplanes they are, but maybe someone else can identify them. Amur Golin 8:00p.m EST, June 15, 2006

• I found a reference that says officially they are Curtiss Helldivers Judgesurreal777 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• PJ mentions on the production diaries he went to the Smithsonian to use the old blueprints of the Helldivers in order to build the planesfor the movie, and used bits of vinatge planes combined with new construction. ViceroyInterus 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a question

This question has been bugging me for a while now. If the natives built a wall to keep out Kong and the dinosaurs, why did they incorporate a huge wooden door big enough for Kong to break through? Scrumshus 14:16. 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• In an interview, Phillipa Boyens says she doesn't know Judgesurreal777 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Peter Jackson repeatedly mentions that the Islanders currently living on the island migrated there, and the ruins were built by a different civilization. The answer to your question is meant to be "lost forever". ViceroyInterus 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Regarding this sentence in the article lead: The film was released on December 14, 2005, and received very positive reviews, though not as positive as the reviews given to the Lord of the Rings trilogy that the director Peter Jackson had previously worked on. - Is this really relevant? What do reviews for one movie have to do with reviews for another, unrelated one (even if by the same director)? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It has no relevance. 'Spose it should be removed. ViceroyInterus 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obtained GA Status

This article could use a polish in quite a few areas. As well, it could a thorough copyedit and a trimming of some of the peripheral information. But with that said, I think this article has all the basic components of a good article. This is a hard article to do because there is so much information to keep track of. You did a good job. (But don't think of getting this through an FA in the current state!) :) --P-Chan 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] watermarks

KKDD watermark is Region 1 KKID watermark is Region 2 Region 1 is where the movie was made

King Kong Domestic Distribution and King Kong International Distribution, perhaps?

--YesIAmAnIdiot 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense

At the beginning of "production" it says this: At age 12 he tried again, this time with his parents' super-8 camera and a model of Kong made of wire and rubber with his mother's fur coat for the hair.

Tried what again? I can't make any sense of this sentence. 24.110.21.111 18:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD release

I was checking for the KKDD or KKID watermarks as it's suppose to be on my region 2 copy, and i found that the times stated don't match the scenes they describe. For example 01:30:05 on the bamboo stick King Kong is chewing on, Kong isn't even chewing on a bambo stick at this time!! He's laughing! Nor do the other times match what is described. Can someone get back to me on this? -- Ryan2807 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys I'm new here so I really don't know how to make changes other then editing. I changed King Kong's DVD sales to 7.2 million units. This is according to this website http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20060630/115165712100.html

The question is, how much money did it generate? If DVD's sell for 20$ a pop, you multiply that by 7.2 million units that would give Kong a gross of 144 million. If including the 38 million it made on DVD through rentals, This would give Kong almost 182 million in North America alone. This does not imclude international DVD sales and rentals which will probably equal or surpass the Domestic numbers.