King Kong (1933) Blu-Ray (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

Telus Satellite TV (in Canada; it's roughly the equivalent of Dish Network). The upconversion is as much of an improvement as upscaling to 1080i from 480i can be, but still falls short of actual HD like HDNet. It looks like upscaling from my HD-A30, which has an Anchor Bay VRS chipset.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Thanks, Stephen. I hope DTV adds it to their lineup soon.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I was just noticing that Amazon wants $25.99 for King Kong when it's released. I was hoping this would come in at $20 on release day.

 

[jt19006]

As far as KK film elements...
 
I recall back around 1980 when Criterion released their laserdisc version (their VERY first release along with Citizen Kane) the existing elements were discussed in the excellent commentary track by Ronald Haver. I no longer have that disc and haven't heard the track in over twenty years but I seem to recall that they had a negative from RKO from which the majority of the transfer was made. The beginning of the film, though, had extensive sprocket damage on the neg so a fine grain print from the Library of Congress was used for that footage. Haver pointed out the shift in quality at the point of transition between the elements and it was very noticeable. In fact I recall the same being the case on every video version since including the DVD release. At the time I believe the "outtakes" were from a UCLA dupe made from the clipped pieces from an original nitrate release supplied to them in the 70s by a collector in the Philadelphia area who is a friend of mine. (AFAIK he still has the nitrate clips.)
 
The transition between the fine grain source and neg elements occurs right after Denham, Driscoll and Ann are on the deck and Denham sends her off to put on a costume because the "light is right". A message comes that the skipper wants Denham on the bridge because they've "reached the position (he) marked". He tells Driscoll to come along because he's "going to spill it". Near the end of the dissolve to the next scene which is on the ship's bridge - before the skipper says "There's our noon position" - you will see the change in source elements.

 

[Garysb]

Originally Posted by Ken_McAlinden
I don't know about "evidence", but there were certain recent broadcasts that looked like actual HD to me. I am now racking my brain to remember. "A Star is Born" may have been one of them.
Regards,

No, TCM is just SD upconverted. I was doing some work at Turner in Atlanta and asked about TCM HD since it is carried on Cablevision. While TBS, TNT, and Cartoon Network are true HD where available, TCM and Boomerang are SD only at this time.
The video masters used by TCM of the Warner owned films from the 30's and 40's are not HD.

 

[24fpssean]

What's great about the original KING KONG is that it doesn't explore the themes it brings up, but sends them out there for us to discuss. The '76 Kong explores all that stuff. The 2005 Kong fails miserably to explore anything but the cuddle-bear quality of Kong; it's as if Jackson's entire budget keeps slamming against the ceiling of the '33 Kong but never goes above or beyond it, even with all of its effects wonders The original Kong is about so many things - Man vs. Nature, Nature vs. Man, civilization vs. savagery, industry vs. myth, as well as male insecurity, female insecurity, racial insecurity. All of these volatile themes are seen in images, brought to the surface, better never discussed - that is one of the reasons the original film has a staying power that will always outlast any remake (and why most originals will outlast their polished, but shoddy, remakes).
 
On a technical level, Kong '33 is a milestone that has left ripples in the pond it dropped into lasting up to this very moment: Max Steiner's score is the grandfather of all film scores. It was the first time a film had a truly original score written for it, almost wall to wall, rather than the usual score derived from classical music sources. It should have been # 1 on the AFI list of the greatest film scores, but trust the AFI to get it wrong again by asking the public, who naturally voted in Star Wars. Also, Murray Spivak's sound design is astonishing. That such sound should come out of a film just four or five years into the sound era is mind blowing. I saw Kong projected, for the first time for me, here in Hollywood at the Egyptian a few years ago and when the battle with the T-Rex scene came up, exactly an hour into the film, the audience was blown away. At this scene, Steiner's score stops (finally) and all we get is the sounds of the battle, Kong growling, the T-Rex (actually an Allosaurus according to Merian C. Cooper) hissing, the trees cracking and Ann Darrow screaming. Behind us sat two teenagers who had never seen the film in their lives and during the moment when the Allosaur knocks Kong on his back and stands there lashing its tail, hissing like an angry gila monster, the girl behind us said, "That is so f++king COOL..."
 
This is one of the reasons I got into the film industry, even with its flaws (wretched acting from the humans, great acting from Kong). I don't spend a lot of money on blu rays, because I only buy what I know I will watch over and over and over again, like revisiting a good classic book. Kong is on my list and I can barely wait these next two weeks to get it.

 

[warnerbro]

I think the thing that makes the 1933 KING KONG enduring and endearing is its simple dreamlike quality. The sets and monsters don't look natural but more like something out of your dreams or nightmares. The mistake Peter Jackson made was making King Kong just a big gorilla -- just a normal gorilla that happened to be large. In the original, Kong was not a gorilla but something different, unknown, unidentifiable. Those who saw him could only desribe him as being like an ape or gorilla. The original is charming in its quaintness and excitement of the unknown. And we have Faye Wray in her beauty and super-thin costumes I can't believe they let her get away with. I can only imagine what she will look like in High Def!

 

[John_S]

Originally Posted by warnerbro
I think the thing that makes the 1933 KING KONG enduring and endearing is its simple dreamlike quality. The sets and monsters don't look natural but more like something out of your dreams or nightmares. The mistake Peter Jackson made was making King Kong just a big gorilla -- just a normal gorilla that happened to be large. In the original, Kong was not a gorilla but something different, unknown, unidentifiable. Those who saw him could only desribe him as being like an ape or gorilla. The original is charming in its quaintness and excitement of the unknown. And we have Faye Wray in her beauty and super-thin costumes I can't believe they let her get away with. I can only imagine what she will look like in High Def!

 
Well said!!! I completely concur!
 

 

[Aaron Silverman]

 

Originally Posted by warnerbro
And we have Faye Wray in her beauty and super-thin costumes I can't believe they let her get away with. I can only imagine what she will look like in High Def!

Enforcement of Hayes Code: 1934.
 
King Kong: 1933.
 

 

[Johnny Angell]

Originally Posted by warnerbro
I think the thing that makes the 1933 KING KONG enduring and endearing is its simple dreamlike quality. The sets and monsters don't look natural but more like something out of your dreams or nightmares. The mistake Peter Jackson made was making King Kong just a big gorilla -- just a normal gorilla that happened to be large. In the original, Kong was not a gorilla but something different, unknown, unidentifiable. Those who saw him could only desribe him as being like an ape or gorilla. The original is charming in its quaintness and excitement of the unknown. And we have Faye Wray in her beauty and super-thin costumes I can't believe they let her get away with. I can only imagine what she will look like in High Def!

I do agree that the original KK has a dreamlike quality and that it seems a bit quaint today. I suspect that when it was released it wasn't perceived as quaint. I don't agree the PJ's KK is just a big gorilla. PJ's Kong is much more intelligent than a normal gorilla. He can appreciate such abstract beauty as a sunset. The original could not. Fay's Ann is always terrified of Kong. Except when she's in imminent peril of being Trex fodder, she wants nothing to do with Kong. Her dialogue with Kong consists of screams (ah, but what screams).
 
Naomi Watts' Ann seeks out Kong at the end. She loves the big guy. This Kong when encountering something he's never experienced before (a frozen pond) decides to play. The original Kong could never have done that. I don't argue that PJ's Kong is as intelligent as a human, because if he were, he wouldn't have paused to play, wouldn't have climbed the tallest building, from which there was no escape. But he was special not only for his size but for his intelligence.
 
I don't say you have to like these differences, but PJ's Kong was not just a big gorilla.

 

[Doug Otte]

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell
I do agree that the original KK has a dreamlike quality and that it seems a bit quaint today. I suspect that when it was released it wasn't perceived as quaint. I don't agree the PJ's KK is just a big gorilla. PJ's Kong is much more intelligent than a normal gorilla. He can appreciate such abstract beauty as a sunset. The original could not. Fay's Ann is always terrified of Kong. Except when she's in imminent peril of being Trex fodder, she wants nothing to do with Kong. Her dialogue with Kong consists of screams (ah, but what screams).
 
Naomi Watts' Ann seeks out Kong at the end. She loves the big guy. This Kong when encountering something he's never experienced before (a frozen pond) decides to play. The original Kong could never have done that. I don't argue that PJ's Kong is as intelligent as a human, because if he were, he wouldn't have paused to play, wouldn't have climbed the tallest building, from which there was no escape. But he was special not only for his size but for his intelligence.
 
I don't say you have to like these differences, but PJ's Kong was not just a big gorilla.

I think warnerbros meant the appearance, not the personality. I, too, thought Jackson's Kong looked like a regular (albeit huge) gorilla, while the original looked like an unknown species. I agree that there was more intelligent interplay between Kong and Ann in Jackson's Kong.
 
Doug

 

[warnerbro]

I enjoyed Peter Jackson's King Kong and I loved the scene in Central Park on the frozen pond and especially the climax on top of the Empire State Building. I felt like I was really up there with them. And I can appreciate the sweetness between Naomi Watts' Ann and Kong, but I think the original version was going for terror and not a kindred spirit between Ann and Kong. It's a whole different story. I even love the 1976 version. I wonder why Peter Jackson omitted the scene where Kong strips Ann? The other two had it.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Originally Posted by warnerbro
I enjoyed Peter Jackson's King Kong and I loved the scene in Central Park on the frozen pond and especially the climax on top of the Empire State Building. I felt like I was really up there with them. And I can appreciate the sweetness between Naomi Watts' Ann and Kong, but I think the original version was going for terror and not a kindred spirit between Ann and Kong. It's a whole different story. I even love the 1976 version. I wonder why Peter Jackson omitted the scene where Kong strips Ann? The other two had it.

I agree they were going for terror in the original and a closer relationship between Kong and Ann in the second. I think that's why Kong didn't remove parts of Ann's dress in the latter. It's one thing for a dumb beast to remove her clothing, but an intelligent Kong? It would be disturbing and change the character of Kong. Specially after the scene in which she's earned his respect.
 
I have to admit I had not considered the idea that the original Kong was not just a big gorilla, but something unique, besides his size.
 

 

[John Hodson]

The Beaver on the new BD of King Kong

 

[Johnny Angell]

On the Beaver, what's with some of the frames being colorized? BTW, are the Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young DVD's or blu's? In either case am I correct in assuming they are SD?

 

[John Hodson]

The Beav is comparing the new BD to the previous SD releases which include a couple of crayoned in abominations and the SD versions of Son of Kong and Mighty Joe Young are shown in the review because they were included in the SD Kong box set.

 

So, does the framing look correct in this new version? It looked fine last time.

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Hope Robert Harris will have a few words about this before release day. I'd love to get this, but am not sure the Beaver shots show a huge upgrade.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

 

I'd love to get this, but am not sure the Beaver shots show a huge upgrade.

 
You know, this is the kind of thing that looks very wrong when read out of context in a thread-update e-mail.
 
I now understand that you are referring to screen grabs at DVD Beaver. But I feared your post had something to do with the actual content of the film.
 
 
 
You know. The infamous "lost beaver sequence"
 
 

 
Regards,
 
Joe

 

Or the scene where Ann is coming up out of the water!