Talk:Kong: Skull Island

Film's poster
The poster for the film has officially been released, during SDCC. The poster can be viewed | Here.

Cleanup and Expansion
This article really needs to be cleaned up and there is more information on this article present in the article on Kong.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Toby Kebbell as Kong
Multiple sources have confirmed that Toby Kebbell provided some of the facial motion capture used to portray Kong. (I'm on mobile so I can't provide a source right now, but I will when editing the article). Obviously, we should include this in the casting section. My question is where in the casting section should it go. Should it go with Toby Kebbell as Chapman or should it go with the Kong listing. I slightly prefer the latter, but I don't feel at all strongly one way or the other. JDDJS (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added Kebbell was one of the mo-cap performers for Kong. I saw it again the other day and he is credited as one of the mo-cap performers along with Terry Notary in the ending credits. Armegon (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Biophysical Analysis of Kong
In the given Monge-Nájera reference, the author discusses three films: the 1933 the 1967 and the 2005 king-kong movie. All of them have different particulars. For example: * the island size, which would be necessary to support kong does not account for the hollow earth * kong is obviously omnivore in this movie, whereas it was vegetarian in the other movies * the size of kong: it has been speculated to be 5m tall in the previous movies, whereas it is at least 10m tall in this movie. Therefore it is not true that kong is biophysically plausible based on that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.15.175 (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OPPOSED. Any information about the monsters can be found in the Creature design section. Armegon (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Monsters
I think that we should rewrite, cleanup, edit and expand Monsters including King Kong and Skullcrawlers to the article please? There is going to be a lot more work that needs to be done. 89.187.100.71 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC
Too much edit warring over this issue. Need consensus on how to keep the naming style of a section: option A - Sequels or option B - Sequel and anime series. Armegon (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: my input would depend on understanding the content, which I don't (I have no knowledge about these works and haven't traced through the revision history). I'm stuck because I don't see any real connection between the anime series and the subject of this article. No connection ==> no need for complicated section (w/ heading) including the series. It seems to me, as an "outsider", that the anime stuff should just be deleted. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kong: Skull Island is the second film in the MonsterVerse series. Completely unrelated to past films and shows. The upcoming anime Skull Island is also set within the MonsterVerse. So it merits a reference in the Sequel(s) section of this article since both titles are related. The issue here is what to call the section. Option A: Sequels, with a subsection for the anime titled "Anime series"? Or Option B: simply call the section "Sequel and Anime series"? There's been edit warring over this and I would like to settle this issue. Armegon (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A, they are announced separately. To combine the section would suggest the sequel and anime series are being worked at the same time. enjoyer|talk 15:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Should we add a subsection under Sequels for the anime title "Anime series" or "Netflix series"? Armegon (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If me choosing option A wasn't obvious enough, yes. enjoyer|talk 23:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh damn. My bad. I forgot I added that to the RfC as well. Apologies. Armegon (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of procedure: I see, Armegon, that you have just changed the article, offering, as the edit summary for the first edit. This is inappropriate for a couple of reasons, primarily that the RfC is not yet over. When you make an RfC, you ask for input from a wide(r) group of editors than may normally frequent a talk page, and you leave the request open so they have time to provide their opinions. You haven't done that here. You've got exactly one opinion, but it's been barely five days since you opened the RfC. That's hardly consensus.
 * You should wait for somebody (not you) to close the RfC, then you can act according to the closer's findings. With so little activity, you may want to make extra sure the RfC is widely advertised at appropriate venues (Idk what they would be). See WP:RFCEND for details about ending an RfC.
 * Also, since you write about "the opposing editor", it seems (1) you are not really interested in getting wide feedback, just (sort of) crushing your opposition, so the RfC has a taint of bad faith, and (2) if you are in a dispute with a single, known editor, then you should definitely ping them directly to make sure they're aware of this RfC. And again, if it's just one editor, you didn't need an RfC, just a discussion here. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's say things keep going the way they are (only 1 opinion so far), when would it be an appropriate time to end the rfc and make changes? Should I revert the edits I made? Armegon (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, self-reversion would have been good, IMO, but now that it seems clear nothing is going to happen, I wouldn't bother doing anything about it. User Walterandree123450 has been active (on other articles) even up until today, and hasn't weighed in. IP address 190.148.53.111 has been inactive on-wiki since before the RfC, and no other IP has complained, so I think it's safe to say, per WP:RFCEND, that "discussion has naturally ended".
 * So, although I've never done it before, I will boldly close this RfC, so it gets removed from the list. I do not think anybody will complain, and I don't consider myself "involved". &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

care to throw in your two cents? You two were the ones that kept reverting the edits. Armegon (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024
There is a typo towards the end of the following sentence: "Arriving at Skull Island, Packard's men begin dropping seismic explosives, developed by Randa's seismologist Houston Brooks, to map out the island and prove Brooks‘a Hollow Earth theory."

It should be fixed to "prove Brooks's Hollow Earth theory." Arcturus95 (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Barry Wom (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Producers
You are missing Tencent pictures as one of the producers for the movie in the opening sentences. You only list Warner and Legendary 174.28.175.47 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)