1933 King Kong in November (1 Viewer)

[Paul_Scott]

Ron, respectfully,
this makes zero sense to me.

do you mean that, if title X is released in Jan of 2004 with little promotion, and then a strongly hyped/promoted remake is released 23 months later, that the masses who ignored the release originally will not want to buy it simply because its been on the shelf for 2 years?
23 months later the studio can simply press more, and then slap a big shiny sticker on the outside "NOW SEE THE ORIGINAL INSPIRATION FOR...!", and finally take out some print and tv ads to promote it (using the money they saved from not promoting it earlier, when only the 'base' knew it was released).
the way i see it Eric is right.
it doesn't matter when its released, what matters is when and how its promoted- because these hypothetical 'fashion followers', who need something to be in the pop culture spotlight before it grabs their attention, would have never have sought it out before- hence its 'new' to them.

slap a sticker on the shrinkwrap,
make some colorful, attention getting, p.o.p standees for the Best Buys and Circuit Citys,
take an ad out in People (or better yet, Time),
and maybe offer some promotional pricing

and they would see a big bump with the hype of the release of the other studios movie.
what they would also have had was an extra 23 months of sales.

yeah, they'll do good in November. but they could have been selling the thing somewhat steady for two years now.
i'll never understand the other reasoning, and God knows Warners is not the first or last studio to do it.

i want to make it clear though, i'm not whining about Warner and KK as much as i am ranting about the industry practice in general.
its very much, imo, thinking inside the box with a very constrained perspective.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Although this Kong-synergy bit still leaves me scratching my head why the fudge Universal didn't bother putting out a FRIGHTENERS box set (a la the LD version which was out for approximately 2 weeks) to tie in with LORD OF THE RINGS. Maybe with Universal putting out Jackson's KONG we'll get that as well.

Regardless, with WB's recent track record, the upcoming KONG DVD is in good hands.

 

[TravisR]

Whether or not the WB's timing for King Kong on DVD makes sense to you or not, it's the way that they are going to do it. When the remake comes out, the words 'King Kong' will be on TVs, radios, and magazines everywhere. It's like free publicity for them and so that's when they're gonna put it out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Don't you think Warner makes these decisions based on marketing research? Companies make product decisions that involves millions of dollars on collected data not personal opinion. These studio people aren't rookies when it comes to marketing their product.






Crawdaddy

 

[PaulP]

I agree with Paul Scott. I think if released now, the 1933 King Kong will be a big seller for WB. It's a well-known classic, and lots of people have been waiting to get it. Surely the 2005 version will give them a little boost, but for the most part the 1933 version will sell itself on its own merit.

 

[EricSchulz]

OK, guys...there's one MORE reason that WB could be holding off on this: with all the promotion you know that the new version will get, the original will also benefit. And a November release will make it a GREAT Christmas present! (I won't be able to wait that long, but it would be a great gift idea, AND IT WOULD GENERATE MORE SALES!!!) YES, the original would sell well now, but I really believe that they are going to take advantage of the "free advertising" that the remake will give them.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Although I've been anxious for this forever, I certainly understand Warner wanting to boost sales by linking it to the Peter Jackson remake. Maybe they've learned since they never bothered releasing the 1949 MIGHTY JOE YOUNG to go along with the 1998 Disney remake.

 

[Paul_Scott]

again, i'm not directing this at KK, just using that film as an example.
although i love the film and would invariably buy it on street day whenever it is released, i've seen it so many times thru the years i really can wait. in this case its not that big a deal to me.
however i still have to take exception to rationale.
for instance, what would preclude the disc being a Christmas gift purchase if it were released now?


but you guys are correct.
the studios spend millions of $ on market research so who am i to argue.

BTW i hear that the Jimmy Fallon remake of Taxi is testing thru the roof!
in fact, the studio is so tickled with these results, they are considering handing the director the reins of a certain blockbuster budgeted, mega-sized franchise to be.
shhh! keep it on the qt.

 

[Al (alweho)]

Robert you would be surprised at just much of the vaunted marketing process at the majors just comes down to the capricious whims of those involved.

Sure there may be a few surveys taken, and a P&L or two generated, but this is the entertainment business, not Proctor & Gamble. Things you expect to be smashes aren't, and many times massive hits come out of nowhere.

A lot of the voodoo is just common sense (taking advantage of a remake) and whatever else pops up in a marketing meeting. ("What a great idea from the intern!") All filtered through, of course, an executive in charge that is usually just barely running things by the seat of his pants.

Just read DisneyWar. (As dysfunctional as the Mouse is, a lot of what they do is SOP in the industry as a whole.)

It sure ain't rocket science.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The difference is that the fact it's a new release will get it in a different part of the store. It won't be stuck on the back shelves - it'll be at the front, and it'll get lots of publicity from various sources.

C'mon - there are people whose livelihood depends on maximizing sales - don't you think they have a good reason for tie-ins like this? You and I may look at re-releases of older titles keyed to sequels - like the new version of Miss Congeniality that's coming to tout the sequel - and think they're not going to do much, but they must sell and actively promote the new movies or we wouldn't see so many of them.

Sometimes people here forget that DVD fans with our level of knowledge and interest are WAY in the minority...

 

[Robert Crawford]

However, unless you're privy to inside information that might not be the case in this particular situation. My main point is that all of us are expressing an opinion about whether Warner made the correct decision or not to release "King Kong" this coming Fall. The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what factors influenced Warner's decision-making process. Was there other problems we are unaware of regarding the restoration process or the gathering of bonus material they wanted for this dvd release? Is it all about marketing this release so close to the remake in order to increase dvd sales? I don't know the answers to those questions and I question if any of us do, except those close enough to the situation that probably read our forum without responding in anyway.






Crawdaddy

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Very well expressed, Robert. Thank You.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Many don't even know that a new version of "King Kong" is coming out.

 

[Paul_Scott]

persistent disclaimer:
once again, this is not about Warner specifically, but the practice in general.






to sum up my beliefs- i know of no heavenly commandment that decrees you cannot cross promote material that has already been released to people who have been unaware of it or uninterested in it before.


i'm not getting rankled about the Kong sit.
this is common practice with many titles i would love to have and have no where near the same supplemental, or print/transfer concerns.
its an industry wide defacto practice that i find wholly brain frozen.

 

[PaulP]

Again, I wholly agree with Paul Scott on this. I realize the studios want to make as much money as possible, and releasing titles to coincide with various events, such as remakes and holidays, etc. is a way to do it. But are they really getting that much more revenue? This isn't about just King Kong, but let's keep using this example. A person who isn't interested in the 1933 version of King Kong, a person who doesn't like "old movies" - would such a person buy the 1933 King Kong just because it was released in time to take advantage of the 2005 version. I don't think so.

Also, I agree with this:



Again I fail to understand this logic the studios have. You rarely see a Christmas-themed film come out as is usual with theater-to-DVD window, in the summer. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Bad Santa (but that isn't a very good example, is it?). So now I, a Robert Zemeckis fan, have to wait a year to see The Polar Express again in the comfort of my home, whereas if it were a non-holiday film, we would probably have an announcement for it by now for May or so.

 

[Craig W]

KONG!!! The Eighth Wonder of the World!

I can't wait to get my hands on this title. It was the first or second movie I purchased on VHS back in 1985. Never did get the LD. But I can't believe it will have taken over 8 years since the release of the DVD format for this classic to show up.

BTW, has anyone watched Kong video diaries over at www.KongIsKing.net ? This remake is going to make up for the 76 travesty. It will never equal the original but it will hopefully be very close.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

All the arguments for NOT waiting to release titles have their logic - no question about it. We got the same discussions back in Ye Olden Dayes when Spielberg proclaimed he wouldn't put out his movies on DVD until there was a substantial base of players.

I stand by my earlier statement: if folks whose livings depend on making as much money as possible consistently market DVDs this way, it seems highly likely that it IS the most profitable method. These people would cripple their mothers to squeeze the last nickel out of a Girl Scout - you think this is some sort of capricious decision?

 

[TravisR]

"These people would cripple their mothers to squeeze the last nickel out of a Girl Scout"

I'd laugh at that if it weren't so true

 

[Jeff_HR]

EXACTLY!!!!!!

 

[Ryan Belfast]

I actually like the 76 remake that u call a travesty. The special effetcs are not bad for the time, and I thought the musical score by John Barry was excellent. I have the Paramount R1 relase and the French 2 disc DTS version with deleted scenes.