King Kong Isn’t Dead Yet, but He Should Be

Why pay a writer for a fresh story when you can simply mine a creative well over and over again until it’s completely dry?

Hollywood studios seem to have an obsession these days with throwing millions of dollars at retellings of worn-out film properties, though American audiences often reject them at the box office. Here’s looking at you, “Ghostbusters” — a 2016 reboot that was reported to have lost Sony at least $75 million.

The latest remake to come out of the bowels of Hollywood is “Kong: Skull Island,” set for release March 10.

The latest remake to come out of the bowels of Hollywood is “Kong: Skull Island,” set for release March 10. That’s right. King Kong is back. The giant gorilla’s story apparently wasn’t told right the first three times — so Hollywood is giving it another go with a big-budget franchise starter starring Samuel L. Jackson and John Goodman.

Released in 1933, the original “King Kong” was something new and fresh to moviegoers. Even with obviously dated effects, it’s a monster movie like no other that cemented a character inside the minds of audiences everywhere. Made for a measly $672,000 ($12 million after inflation), it brought in $2.8 million ($51 million after inflation).

Why anyone would think there was more to say about a giant gorilla taken from a mysterious island only to wreak havoc on New York City is anyone’s guess. Hollywood did it anyway — multiple times.

The year 1976 brought the first “King Kong” remake. Though it was slightly profitable and generated a sequel, it’s mostly regarded as one of the more lifeless remakes and an entirely unnecessary venture. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has a “rotten” score of 46 percent from film critics and a 30 percent score with voting audience members.

Related: The Outrage Against ‘Ghost in the Shell’ Misses the Point

As if that weren’t enough, Hollywood mined King Kong once more in 2005 with director Peter Jackson’s spin on the tale. In place of originality was money — lots of it. The movie was made for a staggering $207 million. The movie managed to make only a tad more than that in America and just over half a billion dollars worldwide. While that may seem like a lot of box office dollars, it likely equated to pennies in profit after the studio paid for prints and advertising (likely over $100 million) and gave half its gross total to movie theaters.

[lz_ndn video=32029018]

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it — but Hollywood doesn’t seem to care. “Kong: Skull Island” is about a giant gorilla that inhabits a lonely island and the mostly doomed travelers who find him. Sporting another $200 million budget, it looks to be a breezy exercise in special effects with nothing to say. To be fair, after three “Kong” movies, not even Hemingway could find something new to say about this oversized ape.

Why can’t Hollywood leave well enough alone? Are screenwriters today really so devoid of ideas that we need constant retellings of stories that can be picked up for a couple dollars on home video? The unfortunate truth is that studios are competing on a more global scale today and fear that the risk of investing in original properties outweighs the risk of losing tens of millions on sanitized remakes that just might hit it big globally. That, of course, leaves American audiences with a lack of new or original studio films at the multiplex.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is sage advice that would save Hollywood millions and award audience members with fresh film content if any studios decided to listen to it.

King Kong isn’t the only character Hollywood studios will be running into the ground this year, either. June brings the release of “The Mummy.” It’s the second remake of the 1932 original and it looks to be Universal’s reintroduction to its filmography of famous fictional monsters — Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolf Man, etc.

There likely is a screenwriter out there with a new King Kong, a new Mummy, or a completely original monster tale on par with the classic films Hollywood so often aggressively mimics. However, we will forever be deprived of such tales in our entertainment life — because Hollywood insists on regurgitating itself in an effort to produce sanitized, globalized, “safe” and familiar content.