Do We Need To Protect King Kong?

In 1933, RKO Pictures gave us the eighth wonder of the world…or one of many eighth wonders of the world. King Kong uses stop-motion animation at a time when computer graphics weren’t even science fiction. The movie might not be the first giant monster movie, but it was the biggest until Japan sent Godzilla to take the championship belt. Since then, the tale has been given three remakes, one an animated musical, but the original is still the classic movie standard for the big ape. Even Nintendo was inspired by him to make their Donkey Kong, which led to a legal issue with Universal over the name. Universal, which owns RKO’s library, lost that, though King Kong’s status in the public domain is still debatable. One comic company was able to adapt a novelization because they didn’t copyright it properly. Universal owns the original movie. As for Kong himself…we’ll get into that.

Come January 1st, 2029, a few years away, that’s going to change.

And I’m worried. Why? Because when things hit the public domain lately, some bad things have happened. However, that’s not all we’re going to discuss. Not everything in this article will be negative, but this article from Bounding Into Comics on a new King Kong movie is also rather curious to me. It’s a new American Kong movie, but it’s not in the “Monsterverse” with Godzilla. This also seems an odd choice, but one that might work. It does kind of play into the current “shared universe” discussion after Marvel Studios, arguably responsible for popularizing the concept in recent films, seems incapable of maintaining one, and neither can anybody else. Mostly, I need an article today and don’t feel like breaking something out of the buffer I just got to minimum levels this week, so this is our topic. Hopefully it’s a good one, but you’ll have to judge that.

So who owns King Kong? I asked Google, and here’s what Google AI says.

No single entity owns an exclusive trademark to the name and character of King Kong, as the core elements of the character and the original 1933 story reside largely in the public domain or have been ruled by courts as lacking a single, exclusive source of origin.

However, various companies hold specific, fragmented rights or trademark registrations for modern iterations, merchandise, and media:

• Universal Pictures: Owns specific trademark rights and distribution/theme park rights tied to certain modern adaptations (such as the 2005 Peter Jackson film and the Skull Island: Reign of Kong theme park rides), though a landmark 1983 federal court ruling (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.) established that Universal does not possess a blanket or exclusive trademark over the King Kong name itself.
• Merian C. Cooper Estate: Retains publishing and book rights related to the original creator’s vision and subsequent authorized literary works.
• RKO Pictures, LLC: Retains copyright elements tied to the original 1933 film and The Son of Kong.
• Warner Bros. & Legendary Entertainment: Co-produce and exploit modern MonsterVerse films (like Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla vs. Kong) through partnerships and licenses.
• Other Registrants: Individual commercial trademarks for specific goods (such as toys or games) have occasionally been registered by various companies, like MGA Entertainment.

In other words: it’s complicated. The original 1933 movie–and I didn’t even know RKO was still a factor in all this–will soon be in the public domain, while the novelization of that movie still is. Monster Comics did a six-issue adaptation of the novelization, and I reviewed the issues I happen to own. (I missed the final issue.) So technically you could adapt the novelization and its changes, but why would you unless you’re desperate to make your own King Kong movie?

By the way, not listed: who do we blame Kong: The Animated Series on? That show was rubbish.

Since I’m writing this in November of 2026, it may feel like worrying about Kong going public is rather early, with January of 2029 still a few years away. So why am I worried now? Think about what’s happened to Winnie the Pooh.

And Popeye.

And Mickey Mouse!!! (The “Steamboat Willie” version)

I’m still worried about what will happen when the original 1930s version of Superman goes into the public domain in 2034, and it’s just the original concept, not the DC Comics version. For a reason I’m too me to understand, making something that just entered the public domain into a slasher movie is the “in thing”, especially if it’s based on something kids like because they hate kids, childhood, and childhood innocence. The original King Kong had a couple of scenes removed, like Kong eating people and stripping Ann without consent, so I wouldn’t call it a kids’ movie, unless you mean the animated musical. However, it’s inoffensive enough with those scenes out that I and many others first saw it as a kid. I’m counting it. We’ve seen official Superman get not-kid-friendly takes from Zack Snyder, James Gunn, and even DC Comics themselves. Let’s not pretend slasher Kong isn’t already in pre-production at some minor horror studio so small Elivra wouldn’t give it the time of day. The day he goes public, so does the movie. I want to be wrong, but I’m probably not.

How would that work? How does a Winnie the Pooh horror FRANCHISE work? There are two of those suckers! They ruined Piglet in the sequel. I’m betting Eeyore is next to capitalize on Peter Cullen’s passing. You think they won’t? Welcome to America. You’re clearly new to our culture.

We need someone to go in and counter these with actual adaptations and continuations. Fortunately, Legendary Pictures’ “Monsterverse” has given us interesting Kong movies. Kong: Skull Island was rather enjoyable. The later sequels crossing over with their take on Godzilla are on my Finally Watch list. I did see the first one, but I had to remind myself because it wasn’t the best. The next one has Mechagodzilla, I hear. That’s my favorite G-Foe. It worked better than other Kong sequels, like Son Of Kong or King Kong Lives, while King Kong Escapes works if you’re me. I wonder if Legendary will break out Mechakong for a two-on-two rumble?

That brings us back to the article that inspired this discussion. Rumor has it, and I wouldn’t discuss a rumor if it didn’t spark another of my ramblings, that the next Kong movie from Legendary won’t be part of the Monsterverse. That’s a strange decision, if true, and if they go with it. The Monsterverse is the only shared universe they’ve done right lately, with the various Godzilla and Kong movies. I can’t speak to Monarch since I don’t have Apple TV. Still, nobody complains about it like they do about all the other ones that keep contradicting themselves because they bring in directors more interested in “their” stories than the characters’.

I’m not against it, mind you. I just don’t know why Legendary would do that to themselves. Oh wait, they’re not.

According to industry insider KDM and outlets like Scified, a smaller, independent studio is reportedly spearheading the project under the working title “STRIPES“. Because neither Legendary nor Toho is involved, don’t expect Godzilla to show up and steal the spotlight in this one.

Instead, STRIPES is reportedly being built as a classic “versus” showdown, pitting the Eighth Wonder of the World against a brand-new threat: probably another rival giant creature.

It looks like they may be taking advantage of the rights going public and NOT doing a slasher movie. It’s what I just asked for. I just don’t know how well the general public will handle it. The shared universe idea isn’t viable for every franchise, but for the ones that showed how it could be interesting, like the Monsterverse, you risk confusing the audience. I don’t even mind the “Hollow Earth” thing. Weird science, but it kind of goes back to the science fiction of the time Kong and even Godzilla were around. Those were the days when scientists didn’t insist they knew everything, and science fiction could play a little more loosely with the rules. We aren’t even consistent about that. Giant monsters are biologically impossible, and then physics also has a wagging finger for you. You don’t want to get ridiculous, but why not have a little fun for the sake of the story? Maybe that’s why the “hollow earth theory” is still around? Wait, is it still around? I don’t follow the conspiracy science crowd.

That’s not to say that a new King Kong in a modern setting couldn’t work. It’s just that previous ones were bad at it. The 1970s version didn’t take the concept as seriously as it could. The Peter Jackson version, which I didn’t review because I saw it in theaters prior to starting this site, focused on showing off Kong’s world and the CG effects, and replacing the male lead with a mousy screenwriter was not a good choice. I have yet to see the animated musical, but I remember seeing a clip of it and not being impressed. Maybe I’ll give it a proper watch someday.

Am I worried Kong’s about to be ruined? I’m concerned. I don’t think you can recapture the original. Effects were created to bring the story to life, and the existing effects were pushed forward to make it happen. I don’t see that kind of attention today. Between CG and AI, the traditional effects are all but gone, so they won’t be as impressive. We’re too used to computer imagery being used now. Putting “my spin” on a story usually means altering something fundamental and not giving us anything better than what we already had. So I’m not really interested in what’s coming.

At least it’s not a Kong slasher movie. Yet.