User talk:Tbrittreid/Archive/2007/October

Re: King Kong disambig. undo
I can see why that edit summary could have been misleading, I'm so familiar with disambiguation links I assumed that most editors know is the standard template here. No harm done, we both assumed something and it created a misunderstanding.

One misleading edit summary hardly justifies your "we'll all be better off" comment though. Magiclite 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
You're welcome, but we just have to take each vandal as they come. If they come back and vandalize again, then the admins will have to block on an individual basis, unless you can bring together a discussion on WP:ANI about repeat vandalism from a range of IPs that have a similar theme. Corvus cornix 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Corvus cornix 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kong the giant monster
When I say King Kong was the first film to feature a giant monster running amok in a city, I stand by that. The Brontosaurus was a Dinosaur, an actual (though extinct) animal that lived on this planet. Kong was a gigantic prehistoric ape, (a creature that never existed and was entirely fictitious) and therefore was the first film about a giant movie monster.Giantdevilfish 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it could be said that the Brontosaurus isn't technically a "giant", because its natural size is already large, whereas gorillas aren't usually that size -- therefore, Kong is indeed a giant monster (although there is an argument to be made that since a gorilla isn't a monster, that Kong isn't a giant monster but a giant gorilla). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but Kong isn't just a giant gorilla. (I wish someone would have told Peter Jackson that, as he turned Kong into a realistic overgrown silverback, complete with the big herbivores gut). He's a gigantic gorilla monster. In the original film, he has a humanoid look and walks upright. "Neither Beast nor Man" as Carl Denham said in the original film. The marquee even said "Carl Denham's Giant Monster" for a reason.Giantdevilfish 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely stunned that a third party---and obviously, from the lack of sig., not an administrator monitoring things---posted here. That aside, since you responded here, Gdf, I will as well. I submit that the general movie--going audience and the population of a more--or--less modern, major city (in the case of The Lost World, 1920s London), would perceive a brontosaurus as a giant monster, and the distinctions that you draw are nothing more than technicalities which are non-encyclopedic and counter to being truly informative. I therefore stand by my revision. Ted Watson 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are generally not considered giant movie monsters. Whether people "perceive" a Brontosaurus as a giant monster in 1920 is speculation. Kong is considered a giant movie monster. Saying that Kong is the first giant movie monster is accurate. Even in the making of King Kong documentary (Production 601) on the WB DVD release of the 1933 film, its said that "King Kong was the first film where audiences got to see a big monster". My current edit covers both bases pretty well.Giantdevilfish 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Dinosaurs are generally not considered giant movie monsters." By who? You? That aside, I found that you removed your covering-both-bases edit without telling me. I think MY current edit covers both our positions pretty well, but understand, if necessary I will ask for a third opinion. Ted Watson 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Because when people talk about giant movie monsters they generally mention King Kong or Godzilla, or giant ants (like THEM) or a giant moth (like Mothra). Since when do people consider a T-Rex or a Brontosaurus a giant movie monster? These are simply extinct animals not monsters that aren't fantastical or super-sized or mutated etc. Regardless, while I think my previous edit (going back to the way that section of the article was originally written) is more simple and to the point, your recent edit suffices.Giantdevilfish 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)