1933 King Kong in November (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Can't wait. King Kong will be a movie party to remember. I may try to do a screening in the lobby of my 1920's appartment building for the general residents...

 

[Bill Huelbig]

Hopefully Warner will give us the 1949 version of "Mighty Joe Young" at the same time as the big "King Kong" release. But even if they don't, it'll be more than enough to be getting "Kong" at last.

 

[DanHaya]

If I was in charge at WHV, I'd be planning to release both The Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young on the same day that Universal releases Peter Jackson's King Kong on DVD...not to mention including them in a box set with the original King Kong.

 

[Craig W]

Look I liked the 76 remake at one time but it is far from the action adventure movie that was the 1933 version. As Steve Tannehill of the defunct dvdresource.com once said of the 76 remake,"Never underestimate the taste of a twelve-year-old boy."

I would like also to see Paramount release the remake in SE form with the addition TV footage, but I doubt that footage will ever see the light of day again in the US.

My point about Jackson's remake is that this movie is the vein of classic action adventure much like LOTR was in the same vein of the classic Hollywood epics.

The 76 version is an exotic love story about some horny giant ape and a dimwitted actress who tries to protect him.

 

[Tino]

Hey, I was thirteen when I saw the '76 version, so there!

 

[Brandon Conway]

My only complaint is that November is still spelled wrong in the thread title.

 

[TravisR]

Novenber is spelled wrong? Are you sure?

 

[RickER]

I am glad all the young people here know who King Kong is. Didnt know i would ruffle so many feathers. But of course i knew everyone who was wringing on a Kong page WOULD KNOW who he is!?! Even if they were under 25. But have they seen it, would they buy it? And i don't mean us film lovers. And i didn't see any contradictions in my post at all.

 

[PaulP]

Rick, read my post a bit back there about Bambi. It's a 1942 film that's selling REALLY well. No real extranous supportive things, like a Bambi 2 in theaters. So just like Bambi, King Kong will sell itself, without the need for a big-budget remake to help it out.

 

[Damin J Toell]

You can't simply equate every old film. Bambi, with its various theatrical rereleases over the decades and home video repromotions, has been a mainstay of childhood viewing for a long, long time. King Kong, while quite famous, is hardly a staple in the lives of children in recent decades.

I think the opinions expressed so far regarding how many young people today have seen King Kong are more or less on the mark; on the other hand, it seems to me that most everyone I know my age saw Bambi growing up. Further, Bambi needs little to convince modern audiences to watch it: it's animated in rather timeless way (forest animals don't wear period fashions), it's got cute little animals, and it's in color. King Kong, on the other hand is black and white and firmly in the 1930s (from the fashions to the effects to the entire cinematic sensibility it represents).

I think your assessment of King Kong's marketability is overly optimistic. I don't think Universal's releases of the original Dracula and Frankenstein films have set shelves ablaze like Bambi, for example. Its core will rush out and buy it; the real money will come from people who wouldn't normally buy monster movies from 1933 and who will do so out of the interest created by the new film.

DJ

 

[Robert Crawford]

Edit: I see that Damin stole my thunder, but I'm going to post my comments anyway

A couple of important points, Bambi is in color and is aimed towards a specific audience, who's parents and grandparents were raised on a film they've seen as children in movie theaters and on video during Bambi's re-releases. I did an unscientific survey Friday afternoon with six guys that work for me who are in their early 30's to mid-20's. All of them have heard of King Kong and most have seen a clip of it, but none have watched the film from beginning to end. Each of them, honestly admitted that they haven't watched it because the film is in black and white. However, all of them have seen the LOTR films in movie theaters and have purchased all three films on dvd including some buying the extended versions as well. When I told them about Peter Jackson doing a remake of King Kong and participating on the dvd release of the original, four of them suggested that they'll check it out by either purchasing it or at least renting it. Over the years, I have talked film with many of these same guys and they freely admit their prejudice against any movie filmed in black and white. I've made some progress with some of them about certain black and white films, but it's an uphill battle.





Crawdaddy

 

[Dick]

Indeed, WOR ran KING KONG 16 times in a single week on its Million Dollar Movie in the 60's, which ran all its movies that many times - Mon-Fri at 7:30 and 9:00, and Sat-Sun at 1:30, 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. I probably watched Kong ten times that week and memorized dialog and music cues (and unfortunately commercial breaks). Same for HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939), THE THING and dozens of other RKO and Warner Bros classics. In the days way-y-y before home video, Million Dollar Movie was the closest you could come to a movie theater's repeat performances (and don't forget, in those days, most movie theaters changed their programs twice weekly, on Sundays and Wednesdays. None of this multiplex 4-10 week runs! You snoozed, you losed).

 

[Jeff_HR]

I agree with this stand as I've said before. I simply want the DVD in my hands ASAP, so that's why I wish its release was not tied to the release of the Jackson remake. I don't think this desire on my part amounts to harassment of WB.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Exciting news, Mr Harris. Thanks for the comment.

And personally, while I agree with those that want the film in our hands now, I can completely understand the decision of Warners to delay the release. It is a logical decision, for reasons that habve been clearly tlined in this thread. Frustrating, but I do not blame Warners for their decision. In the meantime, I can easily find other things to watch.

And, in the light of the discussion about ages of people that have seen it, I am 27 years old. I have seen it three times, the first time when I was 11 or 12 and it was shown on TV on Sunday afternoon. I also had the delight of watching it on the big screen back in 1999 - very cool experience.

 

[Tino]

You said it Dick! When I first saw Gone With The Wind, I said to myself, "Hey, they ripped of the theme from the Million Dollar Movie!"

Fond memories indeed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Like many of you, I'm from the NYC Metropolitan area too and the many movies that channels 2,5,7,9 and 11 played helped foster my love of films no matter if they were in color or black and white. During those pre-cable days, film buffs from that area had a great advantage. The one disadvantage was the commercials, especially those on the Channel 2's Late Shows. If you close your eyes during a commercial break, after accidently dozing off, the next thing you see when you open your eyes again is the Star Spangled Banner being played.






Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't know about everybody else, but I want the dvd in my hands right now too. I can assume that many of us feel the same way. Maybe, harassment is too strong a word to use in this discussion? I don't know, however, when does continuing posts expressing that desire from the same members become a form of whining? I understand the frustration some might feel, but I don't think constant complaining about a situation is going to change anything, especially if the studios feel it's the right thing to do in order to maximize sales.




Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

One point which may need to be reinforced in this thread is that the production of DVDs is not an "I've got some curtains in the attic. Let's put on a show" situation.

In the best of worlds, if a film needs no work performed on it whatsoever, a properly produced mutli-disc special edition easily needs a 12 -18 month lead time before one gets on line at the stampers.

No one is holding up this release.

Admittedly, it could have been on the shelves several years ago, but with lesser quality elements and in a bare bones edition, hardly befitting a film of this importance.

The work and production ethic at Warner over the past few years has very much gone into a "Let's do it once and get it right the first time." ethic.

I couldn't be more pleased.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Exactly.

Look, we love you guys and I am sorry if
the word "harrassment" was a bit too strong.
Understand that it sometimes becomes a
little embarrasing for us to have the studios
read this kind of negative feedback towards
their marketing department that seems to be
"right on the mark" for this type of release.

Can we now take the tone of this thread
elsewhere? Back to discussing our positive
passions over the DVD release perhaps?

Thanks.

 

[Kevin M]

Robert Harris, thank you for your continued input on this discussion.
Have you seen any footage of the new transfer/restoration? My hope is that WB (or whomever is doing the clean up) does not go the Citizen Kane route with Kong and over do the digital clean up (as with Kane) and eliminate all of the grain, while a beautiful transfer to be sure I felt that Kane was just too sterile in appearance. Lifeless.