Joe DeVito and Brad Strickland - King Kong

[kooshmeister]

This is a weird book. It's a redo of Delos W. Lovelace's '32 novelization of the classic film King Kong.

I know the back cover says it's a "full rewrite" of the 1932 book (by Delos W. Lovelace, who goes unmentioned for the most part despite the fact he did the legwork of the original novelization), but what they should've said was "rehash." Despite what the cover claimed, I was expecting more effort on DeVito's part at doing a totally new novelization of the movie.

Apart from some word changes here and there mostly just to update the text for modern readers, something no fool would do with a truly classic book but can get away with here because this is a movie novelization, and the addition of dates to the chapter headings, DeVito's book is essentially identical to Lovelace's. In fact, I can name only one single difference - DeVito has two sailors survive and return to the wall with Denham, so not all the men die in the log chasm/spider pit incident. However, merciful of Mr. DeVito towards the expendable crewmen though this is, it's still pretty negligible.

The only other new additions are a foreward and some artwork by Brad Strickland. The foreward is pretty much a love letter to Merian C. Cooper, with the usual over-glamorizing him and not one single mention of Mr. Lovelace or his work which DeVito rehashes without even crediting him, along with the usual snubs aimed at the 1976 film and free publicity for Peter Jackson's then-upcoming remake. All positively oozing with hyperbole of course.

And as for Strickland's art, not only isn't it anything special (it isn't terrible, mind you, just sort of mediocre), there isn't enough of it.

So, if you don't own the Lovelace novel, then you should get this as it's basically the same book just "modernized." If, however, you already own Lovelace's book, getting this is akin to getting a second copy, so you don't need it. FYI, the best version of the original novel is the faithful reprint by the Modern Classic Library which actually has a foreward of some merit that discusses the writing of the book and Lovelace's involvement. And since it was published at the same time, it just makes Joe DeVito's version even more pointless.

Please note, I did give this book a chance. When I initially read it, I got annoyed at the way it was packaged, playing up Cooper's name, promoting Jackson's upcoming movie, and omitting anything about the original novelization's author, and, overall coming off as DeVito and Strickland being a little too pleased with themselves.

I tried to give this another chance before writing this review, and my opinion not only didn't change, but actually became slightly worse. Unto itself the book is fine, I guess, but, even for a blatant tie-in to get people amped up about Jackson's movie it came off as shameless, and ultimately it didn't need to exist. Rather like Jackson's movie.

And, yes, I am grumpy right now.

[pulphack]

I don't blame you for feeling that way! This is a typical publisher's franchising trick, and of course Delos W. or even his estate were probably no longer around to complain. I'm glad someone has, though, even if it is only on here. Shameful - I'd be feeling cheated on so many levels after reading it. I'm surprised you gavce it a second go - I wouldn't be inclined to be so fair.

[kooshmeister]

I do try and be fair, heh. Besides, like I said, there's nothing wrong with the book in and of itself; it's a decent enough read - it just doesn't need to have existed, and is overall just too similar to Lovelace's book to really stand on its own. Besides that, my only real issue with it is the disrespectful omission of any mention of Mr. Lovelace and the smug backpatting going on in the foreward.

[dem bones]

Nov 14, 2013 14:12:16 GMT kooshmeister said:

I do try and be fair, heh. Besides, like I said, there's nothing wrong with the book in and of itself; it's a decent enough read - it just doesn't need to have existed, and is overall just too similar to Lovelace's book to really stand on its own. Besides that, my only real issue with it is the disrespectful omission of any mention of Mr. Lovelace and the smug backpatting going on in the foreward.

And another one, snapped up this morning at local market. No smug foreword this time, but no mention of Lovelace either.

Christopher Golden - King Kong (Pocket, Dec. 2005)

Blurb:

Academy Award-winning director Peter Jackson brings his sweeping cinematic vision to this unforgettable retelling of an iconic adventure story for all time.

With vaudeville in its death throes, actress Ann Darrow finds herself out of a job in Depression-era New York. But her luck changes when she meets Carl Denham — entrepreneur, raconteur, adventurer, and filmmaker — a man struggling to make a name for himself in the entertainment industry. Bold, ebullient, and charismatic, Denham leads Ann, along with famed playwright Jack Driscoll and the crew of the tramp steamer Venture, on a faraway filmmaking expedition, to the Indian Ocean and the legendary, primordial jungles of Skull Island. It is here that Denham hopes to capture on film the waning undiscovered wonders of the world — wonders available to anyone for the price of admission.

What they all find instead are living nightmares and deadly perils in a hostile place that time forgot ... where a director is willing to risk everything for the sake of his film ... where a writer will test his physical courage and his heart ... and where a beautiful actress will forge an unshakable bond with the most fantastic creature ever to walk the earth ....