Surprise: there WAS nudity in the first King Kong and Guillermin's 1976 version was the most succesful

In conclusion, this famously erotic scene is not at all sexual, even though viewers might be aroused by the undressing itself. Actually, Ann’s shapes and nipples are more visible during the test scream scene and when she swims after the pterosaur scene.

There is no sniffing in the 1976 version, but here Dwan is less passive, she even calls Kong a “goddamned male chauvinistic ape” and flirts for her life (Haber, 2005). With his inspection Kong uncovers her breasts (not seen thanks to a rapid cut), and Kong not only showers her but also dries her by blowing, a tender scene that in real life would probably be shocking because of his bad breath (I have not been that close to a gorilla but I am extrapolating from my Rottweiler).

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3313978/Throwback-photo-Meryl-Streep-32-unlikely-viral-hit-shared-fan-page-inspiring-message-overcame-sexism-Hollywood.html

Source: http://kingkong.wikia.com/wiki/Ann_Darrow

The final version, that according to Mackenzie (2006) has no soul and according to me has no eroticism, is Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake. Why is his script so dull?

When there were no strong financial and censorship pressures, Hollywood was realistic and innovative; according to Dirks (2016), in the 15 years before King Kong, mainstream films had shown sex work (Traffic of Souls, 1913; Girls about Town, 1931), full female nudity (The Penitentes, 1916), atheism (The Godless Girl, 1929), lesbianism (Pandora’s Box, 1929), sadomasochism (Red-Headed Woman, 1932) and rape (The Story of Temple Drake, 1933). Like other films (Croft, 2006), all King Kong versions reflect the culture and times when they were made. The 1933 version served escapist needs during the depression and presented partial nudity and explicit violence. The 1976 version had a conservationist message and reflected the sexual liberation of the period. My hypothesis is that the 2005 version also reflects its time, when a right-wing president sat in the White House and an erotic component could get the film a rating that would keep families away, threatening the film financially (see Croft, 2006).

Many reviewers unfairly rejected the 1976 version (Morton, 2005), yet it was the one that made the best profit: 3,96 times its cost, against 2,66 of the 2005 version and 2,43 of the original (calculated from references in wikipedia.org). So, at least financially, there was justice for John Guillermin’s version.