Why did Bobby and Flags of Our Fathers fail?

[david r]

Why did Emilio Estevez's Bobby fail at the Box Office and the Oscars? I was surprised many critics seemed to dismiss the film. I give Emilio Estevez a lot of credit for taking on a project with the passion that he did.

Why did Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers fail at the box office and the Oscars? Eastwood won the Best Director nod for the sister film, Letters from Iwo Jima, but why was the first film ignored by moviegoers and critics alike?

Any thoughts?

[Scorpion13]

Because who gives a shit?

The goddamn Oscar comittee isnt the be all and end all, judge of what movies are any good.

And I could care less what the movie going public thinks. Theyll go see a remake of an old tv show or movie that isnt anywhere near as good as the original because Jessica Simpson or Lindsey Lohan is in it in short shorts.

Sorry to go off on a rant here. Its just things like this bother me about film-making today.

[DWEarhart]

The Oscars haven't meant anything for years, possibly a decade. Now, the commitee is just covering their butts in the politically correct movement.

If you're going entrust the American public to pick which movies succeed or fail, expect four more Scary Movie sequels.

[Scorpion13]

The Oscars haven't meant anything for years, possibly a decade. Now, the commitee is just covering their butts in the politically correct movement.

If you're going entrust the American public to pick which movies succeed or fail, expect four more Scary Movie sequels.

Quoted for truth.

[Athena Bast]

I pretty much gave up on the Oscars when Titanic won in '97. That was bullshit.

[david r]

But what about the critics? They seemed to dismiss Bobby without a second glance. Emilio Estevez as director and taking on this subject matter took a lot of guts.

[DWEarhart]

Critics are paid to praise or dismiss whatever films their editors or prodcuers tell them to.

Reading any modern critic basically plays out as a movie having great acting, good cinematography, a great score, and maybe one or two lines about why you shouldn't see the film.

Money talks.

[Scorpion13]

But what about the critics? They seemed to dismiss Bobby without a second glance. Emilio Estevez as director and taking on this subject matter took a lot of guts.

Again, who cares about the critics? Youre trying to determine how good a movie is based on what a tiny, tiny portion of the population says is good.

The only critic who's opinions mean anything to me is Roger Ebert, and even then I disagree often.

[DrewTheXenocide]

Again, who cares about the critics? Youre trying to determine how good a movie is based on what a tiny, tiny portion of the population says is good.

The only critic who's opinions mean anything to me is Roger Ebert, and even then I disagree often.

Concur'd. The only reason I dig Ebert in the first place, though, is because first and foremost, he's a damn good writer. We disagree often too, but he always makes good points.

The only value that Roeper provides is comedic value when the two guys heartily disagree on a movie and begin to argue about it. Fun stuff.

[DWEarhart]

I watched Ebert's program, but every week it became more and more apparent that Roeper is just Ebert's bitch (as it should be), and the more I missed Gene Siskel (R.I.P.:( ).

[Tages]

Because who gives a shit?

I think the better question is: why do you have nothing better to do than go out of your way to let everyone know you don't care about something?

Anyhow, "Bobby" failed because, simply, it's stunningly mediocre. It's an ensemble piece, though, which means it has to get recognition from actors, since most of the Screen Actors Guild is friends with at least one person in it.

"Flags of Our Fathers" is a bit harder to pin down. Honestly, I think most people were expecting a traditional war pic instead of an introspective meditation on the force that media has in our lives and how our views of history can be skewed by propaganda. Also, I'm getting very tired of Paul Haggis. "Million Dollar Baby" was great, "Crash" was a fucking cartoon, and there are moments in "Flags" where I can see him hunched over his typewriter with a shit-eating grin on his face, saying aloud to anyone who will listen "Everyone, I have just written something important! I just thought you should know."

[hoffmandu]

Critics are paid to praise or dismiss whatever films their editors or prodcuers tell them to.

Reading any modern critic basically plays out as a movie having great acting, good cinematography, a great score, and maybe one or two lines about why you shouldn't see the film.

Money talks.

I'm pretty sure the Oscar committe is not a paid position. I't not necessarily people like you and me (I once heard that Leary is on it) but it's definitely not bought. Good films get snubbed every year, it's just the way it works. I personally don't agree with Sunshine getting any nominations other than Best SUpporting but what are ya gonna do. Look at Tennenbaums, one of my all-time Favs, I don't think it got nominated for anything and that was Hackmans best work.

[Scorpion13]

I think the better question is: why do you have nothing better to do than go out of your way to let everyone know you don't care about something?

Anyhow, "Bobby" failed because, simply, it's stunningly mediocre. It's an ensemble piece, though, which means it has to get recognition from actors, since most of the Screen Actors Guild is friends with at least one person in it.

"Flags of Our Fathers" is a bit harder to pin down. Honestly, I think most people were expecting a traditional war pic instead of an introspective meditation on the force that media has in our lives and how our views of history can be skewed by propaganda. Also, I'm getting very tired of Paul Haggis. "Million Dollar Baby" was great, "Crash" was a fucking cartoon, and there are moments in "Flags" where I can see him hunched over his typewriter with a shit-eating grin on his face, saying aloud to anyone who will listen "Everyone, I have just written something important! I just thought you should know."


Although it should be apparent why I started out my post like that had you actually read it,I was just trying to say that one should not be distressed if a movie one liked didnt do well at the box office or the Oscars, for they really arent any kind of accurate ratings on how good a movie actually is.

Now you dont have to wonder any more.

[Ite]

Critics are paid to praise or dismiss whatever films their editors or prodcuers tell them to.

Reading any modern critic basically plays out as a movie having great acting, good cinematography, a great score, and maybe one or two lines about why you shouldn't see the film.

Money talks.

Not the critics I watch and follow.

I watch Ebert and Roeper every week, you can't say that they are paid to follow someone.

[Ontir]

The Oscar NomCom really blew it this year, in a lot of ways. The best films I saw this year weren't up for anything or much of anything, in the Oscar race.

The best animated film Rennaisance isn't nominated, nor is A Scanner Darkly.

Not to mention Brothers of the Head, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the History Boys, Little Children, the Dead Girl, the Motel, Black Book, Wrestling with Angels, Unknown, Tenacious D, and the Pick of Destiny, Jonestown: the Life & Death of Peoples' Temple, Catch a Fire, Running with Scissors, Sherrybaby, Shortbus (which is FANTASTIC, and even the Spirit Awards lost their balls on this one!), The Film Has Not Been Rated (which is, next to Shortbus, the most important film achievement of the year), Scoop, Hollywoodland, the Science of Sleep, a Place to Dance, Darkon, Wordplay, Wah-Wah, 12 and Holding, any of which would have been great contenders, the first 5 being my personal picks for Best Feature contenders.

It's a let-down year, in terms of awards.

[Knightmare10880]

I think alot people just don't go to the movies anymore. The turn around time from theatre to DVD as sped up considerablly and, most studios have the bare bones dvd reay once the theatrical cut of the movie is finished and then after it's released they decide how many features to add on to it. It takes a lot to get people to see a movie when like it was mentioned earlier must of the stuff are re-makes of older films and tvshows, and alot of really good original films end up going stright to DVD theses days also.

[DWEarhart]

Epic Movie is your #1 film at the box office this weekend, ladies and gents.

I rest my case.

"You rest your case?"

"I'm sorry, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed."

[Scorpion13]

Epic Movie is your #1 film at the box office this weekend, ladies and gents.

I rest my case.

"You rest your case?"

"I'm sorry, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed."

Have to disagree with you there.

Epic Movie has Kevin McDonald in it, and any movie with one of The Kids In The Hall gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

;)

[Subotai]

I love Kids in the Hall, but I'm not watching celeb poker every week.

[DDM]

I think alot people just don't go to the movies anymore. The turn around time from theatre to DVD as sped up considerablly and, most studios have the bare bones dvd reay once the theatrical cut of the movie is finished and then after it's released they decide how many features to add on to it. It takes a lot to get people to see a movie when like it was mentioned earlier must of the stuff are re-makes of older films and tvshows, and alot of really good original films end up going stright to DVD theses days also.

I remember it used to be 5 years (!) before any current movies made it to video in the 80's.

[Scorpion13]

I love Kids in the Hall, but I'm not watching celeb poker every week.

I said "benefit of the doubt". Besides, at least Epic movie has something to do with comedy....of a sort...

[TheLazy]

I pretty much gave up on the Oscars when Titanic won in '97. That was bullshit.

/\/\/\God has spoken/\/\/\

:)

[Titan76]

I think alot people just don't go to the movies anymore. The turn around time from theatre to DVD as sped up considerablly and, most studios have the bare bones dvd reay once the theatrical cut of the movie is finished and then after it's released they decide how many features to add on to it. It takes a lot to get people to see a movie when like it was mentioned earlier must of the stuff are re-makes of older films and tvshows, and alot of really good original films end up going stright to DVD theses days also.
That and ticket prices are also too dam high. Sorry but when I have to pay nearly $10 for one ticket I am going to be very picking in choosing what movies I go and watch at the theater. Also, it will be out in 3-4 months anyway and I could buy it for $15 and watch it as much as I want.

[kalorama]

But what about the critics? They seemed to dismiss Bobby without a second glance. Emilio Estevez as director and taking on this subject matter took a lot of guts.

Could it be that they just didn't think it was a very good movie?

[OhMyGato]

most movie theaters have become juvenile detention centers.

[Jamal]

Anyhow, "Bobby" failed because, simply, it's stunningly mediocre. It's an ensemble piece, though, which means it has to get recognition from actors, since most of the Screen Actors Guild is friends with at least one person in it.

I'm not sure if you saw this movie or not but I don't think this was any were near mediocre. If your just judging it as a movie with a bunch of well known actors helping a friend do a laber of love movie, then yeah I can see how you might feel that way but this movie is much more than that.

This movie is about the way this country was deveoloping in the time of war, racism, classism, and political scandal which are a lot of the same things that this country is still facing today. I think the critics bashed it because they expected it to be more of a peice on RFK's life and not a study on his beliefs and how they could have effect the growth of this country if he had not been assassinated.

As for it not playing well, I live in one of the biggest movies cities ( San Francisco ) and with all the theaters we have Bobby only played in two of them. The fact is that in the times we live in now a movie like this won't get any support because it's a film that will make you think and who wants to think about a movie after they've seen it.:rolleyes:

[Spastic Minnow]

I'm not sure if you saw this movie or not but I don't think this was any were near mediocre. If your just judging it as a movie with a bunch of well known actors helping a friend do a laber of love movie, then yeah I can see how you might feel that way but this movie is much more than that.

This movie is about the way this country was deveoloping in the time of war, racism, classism, and political scandal which are a lot of the same things that this country is still facing today. I think the critics bashed it because they expected it to be more of a peice on RFK's life and not a study on his beliefs and how they could have effect the growth of this country if he had not been assassinated.

As for it not playing well, I live in one of the biggest movies cities ( San Francisco ) and with all the theaters we have Bobby only played in two of them. The fact is that in the times we live in now a movie like this won't get any support because it's a film that will make you think and who wants to think about a movie after they've seen it.:rolleyes:

Bobby was rediculously mediocre. The way this country was developing in the time of war, racism, classism, etc.? Granted, that was what it was going for but it did so rather weakly. I watched it with my parents, huge RFK supporters who were in their early 20's when this happened and even they didn't get much out of this other than sentimentality of their own experiences. Nobody's experiences in this film really touch you.
It's obvious he was going for an Altman feel but he came short on showing a really unique perspective.

[KenK]

The Oscar NomCom really blew it this year, in a lot of ways. The best films I saw this year weren't up for anything or much of anything, in the Oscar race.

The best films you saw aren't necessarily the best films other people saw. I'd have loved to at least see a Best Cinematography nom for Hard Candy, but I'm not really crying about it.

The best animated film Rennaisance isn't nominated, nor is A Scanner Darkly.

Renaissence may have looked very pretty, but the story was ridiculously convoluted. I feel asleep on three separate occasions during that film. . . .and it was only 90 minutes long! I'll agree with you on A Scanner Darkly, but that Best Animated Feature award has always felt like a sham to me.

Not to mention Brothers of the Head, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the History Boys, Little Children, the Dead Girl, the Motel, Black Book, Wrestling with Angels, Unknown, Tenacious D, and the Pick of Destiny, Jonestown: the Life & Death of Peoples' Temple, Catch a Fire, Running with Scissors, Sherrybaby, Shortbus (which is FANTASTIC, and even the Spirit Awards lost their balls on this one!), The Film Has Not Been Rated (which is, next to Shortbus, the most important film achievement of the year), Scoop, Hollywoodland, the Science of Sleep, a Place to Dance, Darkon, Wordplay, Wah-Wah, 12 and Holding, any of which would have been great contenders, the first 5 being my personal picks for Best Feature contenders.

There was nothing Oscar-worty about Scoop, don't try to fool people.

[kalorama]

This movie is about the way this country was deveoloping in the time of war, racism, classism, and political scandal which are a lot of the same things that this country is still facing today. I think the critics bashed it because they expected it to be more of a peice on RFK's life and not a study on his beliefs and how they could have effect the growth of this country if he had not been assassinated.

Or they "bashed" it because they just didn't think it was very good.

You seem to be confusing intent with accomplishment. Just because a movie has serious subject matter and lofty storytelling goals says nothing about the quality of the finished product.

[Shellhead]

Why did Emilio Estevez's Bobby fail at the Box Office and the Oscars? I was surprised many critics seemed to dismiss the film. I give Emilio Estevez a lot of credit for taking on a project with the passion that he did.

Why did Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers fail at the box office and the Oscars? Eastwood won the Best Director nod for the sister film, Letters from Iwo Jima, but why was the first film ignored by moviegoers and critics alike?

Any thoughts?

Bobby: Other posters have already addressed why this movie failed to impress the critics. The box office was probably poor because the trailers and commercials made this look like a slow-paced, nostalgic, and talky treatment of a subject that no longer interests the general public as much as it did even 10 years ago. Roughly half of all Americans weren't even alive when RFK died.

Flags of Our Fathers: Because it came out so close to when Letters from Iwo Jima came out, it was inevitable that critics would compare these two movies and possibly find one of them to be better than the other. Letters took a popular theme (WWII battlefield acction) and gave us an unusual perspective, at least for an American audience. Flags seemed to be less focused on the battlefield action, and again, slow-placed and talky.

[Jared]

Bobby, because Kennedy-worship isn't in style like it used to be. And because (judging only from reviews here,) it isn't anything special, if anything it's just reminsicent of earlier, better enesemble films.

Flags of Our Fathers, I suspect it's just that many people have had enough war movies for a while.

[Jamal]

Bobby was rediculously mediocre. The way this country was developing in the time of war, racism, classism, etc.? Granted, that was what it was going for but it did so rather weakly. I watched it with my parents, huge RFK supporters who were in their early 20's when this happened and even they didn't get much out of this other than sentimentality of their own experiences. Nobody's experiences in this film really touch you.
It's obvious he was going for an Altman feel but he came short on showing a really unique perspective

Maybe you were expecting another JFK, I don't know but I do feel that this movie succeeded in captuing this "moment" in time and put a spotlight on the social ills that still effect us in our country today. I never said it was perfect but far from mediocure.

Bobby: Other posters have already addressed why this movie failed to impress the critics. The box office was probably poor because the trailers and commercials made this look like a slow-paced, nostalgic, and talky treatment of a subject that no longer interests the general public as much as it did even 10 years ago. Roughly half of all Americans weren't even alive when RFK died.

Neither was a lot of people alive when JFK, MLK, or Malcolm X were assassinated ( All four in the same decade ) does that mean that RFK's life and ideas were any less important? The fact that the general public no longer cares to remember any subjects from 10/15 year ago is one of the greatest problems we have in this country and the main reason that we continue with the same self destructive mentality that plagued us 50 years ago. This movie has it weak points but it tries in a way that's not preachy to remind us that at least some of our leaders had more on their minds than how they could line their pockets at our expense.

[kalorama]

Neither was a lot of people alive when JFK, MLK, or Malcolm X were assassinated ( All four in the same decade ) does that mean that RFK's life and ideas were any less important? The fact that the general public no longer cares to remember any subjects from 10/15 year ago is one of the greatest problems we have in this country and the main reason that we continue with the same self destructive mentality that plagued us 50 years ago. This movie has it weak points but it tries in a way that's not preachy to remind us that at least some of our leaders had more on their minds than how they could line their pockets at our expense.

Even if all of that is true (and I don't concede that it is) none of it constitutes a prima facie argument that the movie was actually any good as a movie. You asked why it was panned by the critics. Again, the same reason critics (and noncritics) pan any movie: because they didn't like it/didn't think it was very good. It's really that simple.

[Jamal]

Even if all of that is true (and I don't concede that it is) none of it constitutes a prima facie argument that the movie was actually any good <i>as a movie</i>. You asked why it was panned by the critics. Again, the same reason critics (and noncritics) pan any movie: because they didn't like it/didn't think it was very good. It's really that simple.

If yourself and the critics didn't like the movie that's fine, but I felt that the movie was good ( not great ) and doesn't deserve the tag of mediocure.
My response to you was more about your last couple of lines.

a subject that no longer interests the general public as much as it did even 10 years ago. Roughly half of all Americans weren't even alive when RFK died.

[the film freak]

I'm too busy wondering why Children of Men and Volver (both of which got great reviews) didn't get Best Picture nominations.

[the film freak]

The Oscar NomCom really blew it this year, in a lot of ways. The best films I saw this year weren't up for anything or much of anything, in the Oscar race.

The best animated film Rennaisance isn't nominated, nor is A Scanner Darkly.

Not to mention Brothers of the Head, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the History Boys, Little Children, the Dead Girl, the Motel, Black Book, Wrestling with Angels, Unknown, Tenacious D, and the Pick of Destiny, Jonestown: the Life & Death of Peoples' Temple, Catch a Fire, Running with Scissors, Sherrybaby, Shortbus (which is FANTASTIC, and even the Spirit Awards lost their balls on this one!), The Film Has Not Been Rated (which is, next to Shortbus, the most important film achievement of the year), Scoop, Hollywoodland, the Science of Sleep, a Place to Dance, Darkon, Wordplay, Wah-Wah, 12 and Holding, any of which would have been great contenders, the first 5 being my personal picks for Best Feature contenders.

It's a let-down year, in terms of awards.

Scoop? Sorry even as a diehard Woody Allen fan I can't defend that one.

[kalorama]

If yourself and the critics didn't like the movie that's fine, but I felt that the movie was good ( not great ) and doesn't deserve the tag of mediocure. .

Which is your right. However, the open question posed to the forum was why the critics panned the film. I was simply answering the question that was asked. All of the other things you wrote (regarding the film's focus on important historical issues) serve as perfectly valid reasons for you to like the movie (if you like that kind of thing). However (and contrary to the point you seem to be trying to make) they don't serve as any kind of (A) blanket justification why anyone else should like it or (B) proof that there's some logical flaw in the reasoning of anyone who doesn't like the film.

For the record, I haven't seen it (and have no intention of doing so) and have no personal opinion of its quality. But, again, that wasn't the question you posed.

[Shellhead]

If yourself and the critics didn't like the movie that's fine, but I felt that the movie was good ( not great ) and doesn't deserve the tag of mediocure.
My response to you was more about your last couple of lines.

.

Those lines you quoted are from post #30 in this thread, which I wrote.

To be blunt, RFK's ideas were less important than those of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and even his brother Jack Kennedy. RFK didn't have anything to say that hadn't already been said by his brother, but a lot of Americans wanted him to be a clone of Jack, to replace JFK who had been taken away from them by assassination.

People were understandably upset when Bobby got assassinated, too, but that alone doesn't retroactively make his ideas just as important as the others. Since a lot of us weren't alive when Bobby died, we don't have that emotional connection to his death that might make it seem more important than it was.

I didn't see Bobby (or Flags of Our Fathers), but I am commenting on it in this thread because my lack of interest in seeing the movie is relevant to the low box office that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread. To know why a movie did great box office, you want to talk to the people who saw it, especially if they saw it more than once. To know why a movie did poor box office, talk to the people who didn't see it because they didn't want to.

I understand your frustration that you saw a movie that you enjoyed but it didn't make a lot of money or get any awards, because sometimes my taste in movies doesn't match up with the critics or the general public. But it is ultimately futile to argue with people about why they should like something that they don't. Opinions are subjective, and you can't change those opinions just by disagreeing with them.

[the film freak]

Also surprised at the lack of award recognition for Eragon.

[Jared]

Also surprised at the lack of award recognition for Eragon.


Have the Razzies been announced yet?

[Dreadstar]

Why did Bobby and Flags of Our Fathers fail?

I can only answer for myself.

Because, nine times out of ten, I'd rather go to a flick to be entertained, not enlightened.

I still want to see those movies, don't get me wrong, it's just that they didn't make the entertainment cut.

[Spastic Minnow]

Not to mention Brothers of the Head, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the History Boys, Little Children, the Dead Girl, the Motel, Black Book, Wrestling with Angels, Unknown, Tenacious D, and the Pick of Destiny, Jonestown: the Life & Death of Peoples' Temple, Catch a Fire, Running with Scissors, Sherrybaby, Shortbus (which is FANTASTIC, and even the Spirit Awards lost their balls on this one!), The Film Has Not Been Rated (which is, next to Shortbus, the most important film achievement of the year), Scoop, Hollywoodland, the Science of Sleep, a Place to Dance, Darkon, Wordplay, Wah-Wah, 12 and Holding, any of which would have been great contenders, the first 5 being my personal picks for Best Feature contenders.

It's a let-down year, in terms of awards.

Two complaints about Scoop but no one metions that Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny and Running With Scissors are in this list as well?

I assume you only mention Tenacious D for song consideration (jokey songs rarely get awards) but Running With Scissors is one of the most panned art films of the year.

All these films may have good source material, some sort of unique style or worthy film maker attached but that does not necessarily mean an award worthy movie. At least you didn't list Gilliam's Tideland, a unique looking film made by one of the industry's critical darlings but wildly considered a steaming pile of crap.

[KenK]

Two complaints about Scoop but no one metions that Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny and Running With Scissors are in this list as well?

I assume you only mention Tenacious D for song consideration (jokey songs rarely get awards) but Running With Scissors is one of the most panned art films of the year.

All these films may have good source material, some sort of unique style or worthy film maker attached but that does not necessarily mean an award worthy movie. At least you didn't list Gilliam's Tideland, a unique looking film made by one of the industry's critical darlings but wildly considered a steaming pile of crap.

I was just commenting on what I've seen. I figured Tenacious D might be more Ontir's pick as for as maybe a song is concered. Hell, "Blame Canada" from the South Park movie was even nominated, so it's not that farfatched. As for others on that list, my sisters who have seen Running With Scissors after having read and loved the book both agreed that the movie was terrible. But I didn't want to voice a second-hand opinion.

[Black Atom]

The Oscar NomCom really blew it this year, in a lot of ways. The best films I saw this year weren't up for anything or much of anything, in the Oscar race.

The best animated film Rennaisance isn't nominated, nor is A Scanner Darkly.

Not to mention Brothers of the Head, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, the History Boys, Little Children, the Dead Girl, the Motel, Black Book, Wrestling with Angels, Unknown, Tenacious D, and the Pick of Destiny, Jonestown: the Life & Death of Peoples' Temple, Catch a Fire, Running with Scissors, Sherrybaby, Shortbus (which is FANTASTIC, and even the Spirit Awards lost their balls on this one!), The Film Has Not Been Rated (which is, next to Shortbus, the most important film achievement of the year), Scoop, Hollywoodland, the Science of Sleep, a Place to Dance, Darkon, Wordplay, Wah-Wah, 12 and Holding, any of which would have been great contenders, the first 5 being my personal picks for Best Feature contenders.

It's a let-down year, in terms of awards.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they want people to actually watch the Oscars. I'm more into movies than the averahe person and I've only heard of some of those on your list and seen even fewer, so I doubt the average joe has any interest in most of the films on your list. The Oscars are already seen as stuffy and pretentious as it is.

[oddieson]

Well, the 76? 77? king kong gave an oscar to some italian buddy of Dino Delaurentis for his robot Kong that was on screen for ten seconds. Rick Baker in a monkey suit didnt get nuthin.

[Tages]

Please ignore

[Tages]

Well, the 76? 77? king kong gave an oscar to some italian buddy of Dino Delaurentis for his robot Kong that was on screen for ten seconds. Rick Baker in a monkey suit didnt get nuthin.

In the 2005 version? That was Andy Serkis.


EDIT: On further research (thank you, imdb) Baker was Kong in 1976.