Talk:Son of Kong

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tokusatsu

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TokusatsuWikipedia:WikiProject TokusatsuTemplate:WikiProject TokusatsuTokusatsu articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Realistic Sinking?

You know, I was just thinking...How could an earthquake collapse a whole island like that? Skull Island is really big; and that earthquake wasn't even that bad. Is this junk science or ludicriciy? Scorpionman 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that big, but certainly in the tens of square miles. It's probably Junk Science. It's probable that they just didn't want to make a THIRD movie, and so did away with the whole thing. The island seems to just disintegrate and sink, which may make sense since it seems to be largely sedimentary. (Uplifted seabed, perhaps?) CFLeon 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creature Identifications

It seems like this entry has the same problems as the page for the original: editors insiting on precise identifications of the critters that the creators never intended. CFLeon 00:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but some fans are like that. I myself have, since yesterday [2/10/2006], been considering the idea that the backstory of 'King Kong Lives' [a son], could be twofold. It would help flesh out Kiko, AND if you say that 'King Kong Lives' is set in 1943 (ten years after Kong died), then it would give credence to the idea that Kong's mate birthed a second son, and that this second son is who we see in 'King Kong Vs. Godzilla'.

Remake

Since Peter Jackson redid King Kong, is he planning to do a Son of Kong as well, or did he just have the expeditions in World of Kong take the place of a sequel? Ratso 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'm wondering if he or Columbia will remake King Kong vs Godzilla with his Kong fighting Columbia's Godzilla.

On the King Kong Production Diaries, Son of Kong, and a sequel, were both greenlit by Universal Pictures before King Kong had even been completed. The filming was supposed to begin for both soon after the completion on King Kong, with release dates in June and December 2006 respectively. They were apparently cancelled after King Kong's lackluster debut in theatres. Ryo Hazuki 00:41, 11 December 2006

Actually, that was an April Fools joke. No sequels are planned.Superstooge 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. He really oughta do one. Scorpionman 02:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petersen---Where from?

Who says that Hilda's last name is Petersen? "Hilda" itself is nowhere in the film but in Helen Mack's billing in the opening credits. Admittedly, the IMDb says one Clarence Wilson has the uncredited role of "Mr. Petersen," but they do not say that this is Hilda's father (although their posted birth date for this actor definitely makes him old enough for that part), who himself is not named in any way shape of form in the movie. I plan to check my vid tonight and listen to EVERYBODY 's names and see if I can find a Petersen. Afterwards, I'll revise this article one way or another, depending on just what I do and do not find, unless somebody else has done something compatible with my search results in the interim (if identifying these characters as the Petersens comes out of the script, that certainly needs to be explained here). Ted Watson 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I found "Petersen's" on the poster advertising Hilda and her father's show, near--but noticably short of--its top. This is not necessarily their own last name, and is too subtle for "Mr. Petersen" to be an acceptable ID for the role of the father. Hence, I am making changes to both billings (I have, BTW, submitted a similar change for Wilson's credit line at the IMDb, as well; that'll take at least a few days before it gets posted). Ted Watson 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing the dinosaur names

Some time ago I had a discussion with another user about whether the dinosaur names should be capitalized or not! Here is a link from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs which proves that I was right about writing the names of the genera in upper case, no matter whether it's used in a scientific way or not: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Species. They even have to be italicized. General terms like tyrannosaur are not capitalized, whereas genera names like Styracosaurus are. Sometimes it might even be confusing if one writes the genus in lower case; in some cases the reader can't differ between genus and suborder/family.
And if you take a look at other articles about dinosaur films, like e.g. King Kong (1933 film) or Jurassic Park (film), you will see that the names are always written in upper case. So in short, the names should remain captalized in order to obtain unity. Dutzi (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I see what Wiki's rules are on the point (I am the "another user"). However, by definition of much more fundamental Wiki rules, no Wiki page itself "proves" anything, and I do not believe it is correct, as there are far too many analogous books and articles on such that do no such thing (and in fact I see nothing on the linked-in page that indicates not to distinguish between formal, scientific discussion and informal, common usage, which is what SOK is; point it out and I'll apologize). This means that those other Wiki articles listed do not qualify as precedents, either. Nevertheless, as capitalization, or even italicization, of these words does not affect one's ability to read, enjoy or learn-from the article, I won't push the point any further. (Note to administration: See, I can be very civil and concede an argument where I still think I'm right when it's called for.) Ted Watson (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Denham and Hilda.jpg

The image Image:Denham and Hilda.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hilda's non-name

Note to anonymous IP 128.151.71.16: If you'll look at various articles, for example here, you will find several tags saying, "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections...." That's what I'm doing, avoiding starting a "Trivia" list; it's not exactly plot information, but there's just no better place to put it. To fire a pre-emptive shot, you already had the opportunity to dispute the info's notability, but what you said then effectively conceded it, so it's too late now. Also, as I said before, if you think you know better than me how to edit, register! Just leave it alone, please. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Actual/official title"

User:DT29 has "moved" this article from "The Son of Kong" to "Son of Kong," claiming in his edit summaries thereto that it is the "Actual/official title." Such a move should never be done without discussion, and in this case is pure "D" wrong. When I changed this film's title in the general King Kong article's "Filmography" section to include the definite article just a few days ago, I did so having checked my own Turner/RKO VHS of the film for the on-screen title. "The" is there, and you cannot get any more "actual" or "official" than that. However, I will await DT29's response before reversing him. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has said anything once I've put the New Year's holiday behind me, I'll move this article back, per the above. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., it goes back! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Son of Kong → Son of Kong – The poster only says "Son of Kong", the film's title card reads "the Son of Kong" but "the" is not in quotations. The DVD cover is also labeled as "Son of Kong". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Koala15 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AFI states that "Although most reviews and other sources refer to the title as Son of Kong, the actual onscreen title is The Son of Kong". (which can be seen here. The current copywritten title is Son of Kong (source) as well. My vote is that the common name seems to be Son of Kong, so we should go with that one. I don't think anyone will really be confused by dropping or not dropping the "The". We can even make mention of it in the article as it appears there was no major problem with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a note in the article per Andrzejbanas. bd2412 T 17:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Son of Kong vs. The Son of Kong

I read the previous debate that leads to a move and back. The mentioned note about the two titles is not currently in the article. The article's title is Son of Kong, yet two major linked sources, IMDb and Variety, use The Son of Kong instead. IMDb says Son of Kong was the title used before release (in trailers and posters), not the title of the actual film. On top of that, the current Wiki article itself refers to the film as The Son of Kong in the production section. I believe the current situation needs some kind of rectification. Kumagoro-42 00:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As was stated, the title as seen on the screen is "The Son of Kong." So that's the title. How could it not be? On the other hand, since the movie is never refered to as anything but "Son of Kong," we're stuck with that as the common name. Anything else will look odd to the reader, who might even wonder if we're talking about the same movie. So naming the page "Son of Kong," with a mention of what the on-screeen title is, is the common sense approach. 74.104.189.176 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]