The reading this week brought up the idea of copyright: more specifically, that that King Kong and Donkey Kong could be distinguished from one another and be made to generate their own profit. At its conception, ‘King Kong’ was one of the most successful films to date, earning it both the standard fame of profit and the conceptual fame of idealized morals and stories.
With the idea of “Beauty killed the beast” (as proclaimed by the popular film), the idea of the design of a gorilla as a superhero was not a farfetched one, as suggested by the popularized proposal that he was completely foolish and pigheaded.
The game was proclaimed to “suggest a renegade primate, like King Kong, who was renegade and primate, like a donkey” (115). However, if that were the case, I feel that the commercial appeal of Donkey Kong who be hard to come by. Rather than believe that the idea that donkeys are heard-headed and absolute, I feel that the idea of “donkeys” has been glorified by the idea not only of different perception but also as for each person being ambushed because he might not agree with a certain logic. However, even though someone may or may not enjoy a certain game does not mean that he can’t enjoy another: eventually what it comes down to is each person’s personal perception and his willingness to adapt to change and logic. Even though I might feel sympathy for King Kong does not mean I can’t feel sympathy while playing Donkey Kong the game.

This entry was posted in First Readers, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.