The King and I (Blu-ray) Single Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Budgell]

There was quite an interesting snippet in today's Telegraph (you have to register to access the article) about the Broadway revival. In addition to the casting changes, they also have reinserted a lyric considered controversial when the movie was shot. I hadn't caught this information when the show premiered Stateside.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...reinstated-west-end-make-show-less-sanitised/

I saw this at the London Palladium last week while I was in the UK. It's a gorgeous production. I didn't get a chance to see it on Broadway, so I'm thrilled it got a West End transfer. Bartlett Sher is a genius... his new production of My Fair Lady at Lincoln Centre is equally as beautiful.

 

[SFMike]

Flipping channels tonight and came across The King And I being shown in HD on HBO using the same horrid blue tinged mess that was released on Blu-ray. Still pisses me off after all this time. I need to let it go. But I love this film and couldn't stand to continue to watch it on HBO as they reformatted it to 16X9 and although the image is sharp the color is so mucked up it's a joke. I've included a screenshot which is an excellent representation of what was being shown. White cuffs and grey dress all tinted blue, her red hear dulled and even the whites of her eyes have this same blue cast. Where was Fox's quality control? Still amazes me how obvious this abominable heavy handed color grading is and how many "experts" on this site bent over backwards to say that's was how the director of photography wanted it. Fox still owes us a redo on this classic, a replacement disc and an apology.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I enjoyed the look of the Blu-ray so we differ on this issue.

 

[Matt Hough]

Mike, I'll admit the image you're showing us is overly blue. I remember another one someone posted right before the original disc was released showing a scene from "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" where the white face makeup appeared blue in the screen shot. But my Blu-ray, while I admit has a strange sort of electronic cast to it, never looked THAT blue, and the white cuffs and the white makeup were white on my TV.

 

[Thomas T]

Flipping channels tonight and came across The King And I being shown in HD on HBO using the same horrid blue tinged mess that was released on Blu-ray. Still pisses me off after all this time. I need to let it go. But I love this film and couldn't stand to continue to watch it on HBO as they reformatted it to 16X9 and although the image is sharp the color is so mucked up it's a joke. I've included a screenshot which is an excellent representation of what was being shown. White cuffs and grey dress all tinted blue, her red hear dulled and even the whites of her eyes have this same blue cast. Where was Fox's quality control? Still amazes me how obvious this abominable heavy handed color grading is and how many "experts" on this site bent over backwards to say that's was how the director of photography wanted it. Fox still owes us a redo on this classic, a replacement disc and an apology. View attachment 55403

Hmmm .... that "screencap" doesn't look like my blu ray of The King And I.

 

[Nick*Z]

The Blu-ray is sincerely flawed, with muddy colors and a blue caste. Even if we disagree on the intensity of the blue lean, The King and I on disc looks absolutely nothing like it did when projected in theaters in the mid-50's in actual Cinemascope. It also, in no way attests to the Oscar-winning cinematography of Leon Shamroy. You can make color adjustments to your TV set all you want (and certain sets will have their own pre-set color push that may offset the intensity of the blue tint). But nothing ever rids this transfer of its blue tint, and yes - the whites on both my Sony projector and my Panasonic and Sony TV's all lean to blue in the whites, even whites of the eyes.

Let's just agree - something is remiss with The King and I, as is sincerely off with The Blue Max, The Best of Everything, The Black Swan (Tyrone Power movie), Garden of Evil, Desk Set, River of No Return, Wild River, and a slew of other vintage Fox/Scope catalog already on Blu that were released at approximately the same time (from 2011 to 2014 approximately). While a few 'scope' titles were released during this interim without any bias, something went wrong when these aforementioned titles were color-timed. Have spoken to a colorist at DeLuxe who has had the opportunity along with me, to sit down and go through these discs, and who confirms (without wanting to be identified - he values his job) that these discs look nothing like they should or did if properly struck from original film elements. This is not vintage color by DeLuxe. Another dead giveaway color-timing is off. There are no true reds - just muddy/ruddy oranges and dull browns.

If you are satisfied with the way these movies look, I may have some pan and scan and colorized old VHS tapes that may also be of interest!

 

[SFMike]

The Blu-ray is sincerely flawed, with muddy colors and a blue caste. Even if we disagree on the intensity of the blue lean, The King and I on disc looks absolutely nothing like it did when projected in theaters in the mid-50's in actual Cinemascope. It also, in no way attests to the Oscar-winning cinematography of Leon Shamroy. You can make color adjustments to your TV set all you want (and certain sets will have their own pre-set color push that may offset the intensity of the blue tint). But nothing ever rids this transfer of its blue tint, and yes - the whites on both my Sony projector and my Panasonic and Sony TV's all lean to blue in the whites, even whites of the eyes.

Let's just agree - something is remiss with The King and I, as is sincerely off with The Blue Max, The Best of Everything, The Black Swan (Tyrone Power movie), Garden of Evil, Desk Set, River of No Return, Wild River, and a slew of other vintage Fox/Scope catalog already on Blu that were released at approximately the same time (from 2011 to 2014 approximately). While a few 'scope' titles were released during this interim without any bias, something went wrong when these aforementioned titles were color-timed. Have spoken to a colorist at DeLuxe who has had the opportunity along with me, to sit down and go through these discs, and who confirms (without wanting to be identified - he values his job) that these discs look nothing like they should or did if properly struck from original film elements. This is not vintage color by DeLuxe. Another dead giveaway color-timing is off. There are no true reds - just muddy/ruddy oranges and dull browns.

If you are satisfied with the way these movies look, I may have some pan and scan and colorized old VHS tapes that may also be of interest!

Thank you for your knowledgeable addition to this discussion. It just amazes me that so many people are willing to defend this poor color-timing as the original intent of the filmmakers. As a person old enough to have seen this film projected from an actual print on the big screen I refuse to accept this unfortunate version of this classic film as what the original artists had in mind. There have been so many wonderful restorations done in the last few years it's really unfortunate that such a beloved film ended up such a disaster while so many "B" pictures ended up with beautiful new transfers. If they would have just gone with the old Cineric labs restoration we would have had a much better result. So future generations are stuck with this mistake and although the film is still entertaining and watchable the missed opportunity of an actual good looking transfer such as that done on Oklahoma and South Pacific (with all it's weird color experiments) seems a poor excuse for not correcting someone's modern electronic color-timing mistake. For all of you happy with this mess well good for you. As soon as those of us who remember what it originally looked like die off this discussion will quietly die with them.

 

[Will Krupp]

And we're off to the races!!

For what it's worth, while I've defended some other transfers (DESK SET for example) I also think THE KING & I is TOO blue. That being said, do we really need yet another go round with this? It's been four and a half years or so.

They don't acknowledge there's a problem and don't seem willing to fix it so it's a done deal (for now, anyway)

Besides, there are so many NEW things to argue about!

 

[Robert Crawford]

and we're off to the races!!

Yes, this movie has played out here in so many different threads over the years.

 

[haineshisway]

a) blue tinge, too blue - whether you think it is or it isn't, please explain the absolutely correct skin tones and then please explain in the first throne room scene where Anna first meets the King how there is not one OUNCE of blue anywhere. b) As to the long list of Fox films, all that list shows me is that the person making it never saw these films originally. Desk Set looks perfect (and I had a Tech print of it - that is exactly what it looked like), The Blue Max ditto and on and on. But it is very clear that you think previous transfers were right - and they weren't. Therein lies the endless and ongoing problem. Finally, yes, the screen shot above doesn't resemble what I see on my Blu-ray. I'm the third or fourth person who has said that on this page - what does that tell you?

 

[Robin9]

The King and I on disc looks absolutely nothing like it did when projected in theaters in the mid-50's in actual Cinemascope.

Did you see the film "in theaters in the mid-50's in actual Cinemascope?"

 

[haineshisway]

Did you see the film "in theaters in the mid-50's in actual Cinemascope?"

I did Three times.

 

[Nick*Z]

I actually saw it too, not in 56, but in Cinemascope at MoMa in the mid-80's. Gorgeous print, superb presentation. This isn't it, folks. You can try to white wash it many different ways. This still isn't it!

No, we don't need to have another go around on this topic, as it were, if only the other side would simply admit something's wrong. We'll continue to have this discussion until they do. To misquote a scene from Doctor Zhivago - "It would give me pleasure to hear you say it." "Why?" "Because it is so!"

 

[ahollis]

I actually saw it too, not in 56, but in Cinemascope at MoMa in the mid-80's. Gorgeous print, superb presentation. This isn't it, folks. You can try to white wash it many different ways. This still isn't it!

No, we don't need to have another go around on this topic, as it were, if only the other side would simply admit something's wrong. We'll continue to have this discussion until they do. To misquote a scene from Doctor Zhivago - "It would give me pleasure to hear you say it." "Why?" "Because it is so!"

Could it be that the mid-80’s print you saw was timed wrong when it was printed? That is a possibility for it could not have been an original print from the 50’s.

 

[RafaelPires]

This revival was good enough to make me go to Amazon and purchase the bluray, as I love how these Fox 4k restorations look.

This was the only title that I did not purchase before, due to the controversy regarding the color timing. But I am sure I will like it, as I did with the other supposedly problematic titles mentioned above.

 

[haineshisway]

I actually saw it too, not in 56, but in Cinemascope at MoMa in the mid-80's. Gorgeous print, superb presentation. This isn't it, folks. You can try to white wash it many different ways. This still isn't it!

No, we don't need to have another go around on this topic, as it were, if only the other side would simply admit something's wrong. We'll continue to have this discussion until they do. To misquote a scene from Doctor Zhivago - "It would give me pleasure to hear you say it." "Why?" "Because it is so!"

So you want people to say it's wrong even though they don't feel it is? I have said for a long time, is it a bit TOO blue - I don't know, I don't care. But IF it is a bit too blue it's very minor compared to what my Tech print looked like. And no one ever EVER EVER addresses the real points - how can there be a blue "tinge" "wash" whatever, when certain scenes have no blue in them whatsoever and the skin tones are perfect.

 

[Thomas T]

I actually saw it too, not in 56, but in Cinemascope at MoMa in the mid-80's. Gorgeous print, superb presentation. This isn't it, folks. You can try to white wash it many different ways. This still isn't it! No, we don't need to have another go around on this topic, as it were, if only the other side would simply admit something's wrong. We'll continue to have this discussion until they do. To misquote a scene from Doctor Zhivago - "It would give me pleasure to hear you say it." "Why?" "Because it is so!"

I'm old enough to have seen it in my adolescence in 1956 in San Francisco and it looked great and later when I relocated to Los Angeles, I saw it when it was revived theatrically either in the late 70s or early 80s (I think it was at a movie theatre in Century City, now long gone) and it looked great then too. But it didn't look the same as it did when I first saw it. So which was the "correct" look, the original 1956 colors or the tints of the 70s/80s revival? I would imagine that if you saw a later transfer of the film that would be the "correct" coloring because that's how you first saw it and any subsequent viewings that don't match up are "incorrect". When I see the current blu ray it takes me right back to my first childhood viewing of the film. So unless we hold a seance and call Leon Shamroy from the beyond, this old argument will continue to go in circles. Your (and your sources) insistence that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong is presumptuous. You don't like the look of the current TKAI and that's a legitimate gripe. But I'll take the word of those who were there over those who weren't but think they know better.

 

[bujaki]

When I saw it in 1956 or '57, it looked like it was shot in color. I was far too young to notice whether it was blue or white or whatever. When I saw it again some 10 years later and subsequently, it looked magenta. Which is the right coloration? Makes you wonder...

 

[Will Krupp]

I would imagine that if you saw a later transfer of the film that would be the "correct" coloring because that's how you first saw it and any subsequent viewings that don't match up are "incorrect". When I see the current blu ray it takes me right back to my first childhood viewing of the film.

When I saw it again some 10 years later and subsequently, it looked magenta. Which is the right coloration? Makes you wonder...

It's funny talking about the first time you saw something and how it sticks with you. My first experience with KING & I was on public TV in the 70's and you wanna talk magenta? The film was almost completely purple as it was obviously from a severely faded print that our local public TV station got a hold of. We took what we got in those days and didn't think anything of it. I can still remember watching THE RED PONY on TV when I was a kid and they mixed up the last two reels! I distinctly remember the announcer coming on and saying "hey, we kinda screwed this up, sorry but you're gonna have to deal with it because we've got news coming up at 11" Lol, the wild west days.

While I personally feel that KING & I tips a little too much into blue territory (and this from someone who really likes the blue feel of a lot of these transfers), I'm the first to admit I have no idea what it originally looked like or should look like now.

What gives me pause and something to think on is the history I DO remember of DESK SET. When it used to air on WPIX out of NYC in the pre-video days (and nobody made movies look as good as WPIX) I remember it having a "blue" feel. The first time it was issued on VHS, it had a (not unpleasant) pink/orange feel to it (Remember when DeLuxe looked pink/orange on VHS?) After that AMC aired it in widescreen for the first time and it was back to being blue again (though a paler, robin's egg blue rather than the bolder color we have on blu-ray.) The DVD release is the first time I saw it with green/brown overtones and I have to admit it was my least favorite look of all of them. To me, the blu-ray release was a revelation and I (still) love it to this day.

My (rather long winded) point in all of this is that there may very well be historic precedent for the color of these titles that most of us have never seen. Or, if we have seen them, they may have looked differently at different times. Sure, KING & I looks blue to me, some of it looks good and some of it doesn't, but I'm not about to say one way or the other whether that's right or wrong. It's far from unwatchable and I'm not entirely sure what the arguments about it are meant to accomplish.

 

[SFMike]

So you want people to say it's wrong even though they don't feel it is? I have said for a long time, is it a bit TOO blue - I don't know, I don't care. But IF it is a bit too blue it's very minor compared to what my Tech print looked like. And no one ever EVER EVER addresses the real points - how can there be a blue "tinge" "wash" whatever, when certain scenes have no blue in them whatsoever and the skin tones are perfect.

Time for you to bone up on color grading in the all digital realm. Why you can even color grade only a portion of an individual shot! The days of color grading in chemical baths are long gone. And you of all people should know not all technicolor prints are created equal. Anyway end of discussion. Sorry I saw this 16X9 mess on HBO and it brought the whole thing back up in my mind. I should have just let it go as Fox certainly has and you will never give an inch and neither will I so I'm out of here regarding this lousy electronically color graded digital file we seem to have to live with in perpetuity. For all those happy with this I envy you and enjoy the show. I'll refer to the old DVD transfer that isn't blue or close to correct overall but at least white and red are somewhat normal . Bye again.