Some bad news concerning the dvd release of the original "King Kong" (1 Viewer)

[David Lambert]

Guys, may I point out that this discussion highlights the reasons why some studios (Columbia most notably) refuses to discuss upcoming releases until the last moment?

We (consumers in general, not just HTFers) beg and beg the studios to put out our favorite film. If they finally come up and say "yeah, we're working on it", we then beg and beg them for a reasonable idea of when we'll see it. They finally give us a far-off, VERY general idea of when that would be - "sometime in 2003", for instance - and then we later criticize them if it turns out to be January 2004 when the darn thing hits.

It's easy to generally plan for the anniversary year in a case like this; there is a natural marketing tie-in. Once the guys at the studio get that into their head, they do everything possible to make it. They keep on trying to make it. They don't want to give it up...until the reality of the schedule forces them to. It sounds like this may be what happened here. Whatever happened, it does't matter, and it really doesn't concern us.

When we go on an protest the delay, and insinuate that the studio folks aren't fully competent planners, it just leads them to ask themselves, "Why do we do this to ourselves? Why don't we just shut up about future plans, and the world will know about it only when we're about ready to ship it?" Is that what you want?

Not me. I'd rather have a "ballpark" expectation, and then not be the guy who tries to hold the studio to it in case a delay comes up - for ANY reason.

Include me in with the group that is glad Warner's taking the time to do it right the first time, instead of giving it a half-baked rush job. Under no circumstances would I begrudge them the extra time on this release. It might lead to the next movie being rushed out the door with a less-than-best effort. No way any of us want that!

 

[Jeff_HR]

Include me in with the group that is glad Warner's taking the time to do it right the first time, instead of giving it a half-baked rush job. Under no circumstances would I begrudge them the extra time on this release. It might lead to the next movie being rushed out the door with a less-than-best effort. No way any of us want that

I completely agree with you David. I only wish for some frankness about what the delay is about.

 

[David Lambert]

Jeff, I hear you. But I don't see how knowing that would benefit us. It doesn't matter what the delay is, it just matters that it's coming.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I don't know about anybody else, but honesty about the reason for the delay would stop any speculating in my mind about what is going on at WB. Something like "Ladies & Gentlemen such and such is the reason King Kong is delayed. We appreciate your patience as we wish to supply you with the best possible DVD." I'm just an average DVD consumer, I don't have the insider knowledge & connections that some other members of the forum seem to have. Without frankness by studios, I'm left to speculate, in private & in public. I guess I'll just content myself with my Criterion LD & non-region one DVD until WB releases Kong.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Ladies & Gentlemen

'Most' people would be "clueless" to a technical reason for a DVD's delay.
Potentially creating more confusion, not less!
Next time your in a B&B, ask the consumer next too you [and this is someone 'shopping' for DVD's, not just 'anyone' off the street], what benefits an anamorphic transfer has.
Good luck!

 

[oscar_merkx]

absolutely fascinating discussion about delaying the King Kong DVD, yet isn't WB the same company that decided to delay the 20th Anniversay Edition of Blade Runner for similar reasons.

Or am I wrong here ?

Oscar

 

[Chris S]

I just don't see the importance of knowing the exact reason the restoration process is taking longer than expected. Lets assume that the Warner comes out tomorrow and says:

"Ladies and Gentlemen. The reason for the delay in the release of King Kong on DVD is because we ran out of Big Red soda. We just can not do the restoration process justice without more of this superb beverage."

Does the reason make a difference as to whether the studio wants to release a quality disc? And as long as they are doing their best on the restoration then shouldn't we let them get back to that process and not waste time telling us why it will be late (which could possibly cause even more delays)?

Chris S.

 

[Eric Peterson]

This is definitely a disappointment as this disc is an automatic purchase upon it's release, but I'm also very happy that Warner is taking it's time and doing the disc right. I don't care what the reasons are unless, the eventual disc comes out and is something less than expected.

I don't understand how anybody can knock Warner for this, when they have never given a definite release date. This is the very reason that most studios are hesitant to give release dates early and why they don't like to talk about specific titles during the chat sessions. There are many bigger things in DVD land to be upset about, instead of worrying about a schedule slip for King Kong.

 

[Kevin M]

..check out It Happened One Night (note: 16mm section is the BEST possible element for those scenes. Can't be deducted due to being unavoidable), Casablanca, and UCLA's restoration of Speedy. You'll believe a classic can look great.

Yeah, "great" but not "reference quality", that's what I'm saying.
Perhaps your definition of "reference quality" and mine are not the same, to me reference quality in this case is something you would use to demonstrate the pinnacle or near pinnacle of an audio or video or film source, and as good as the transfers and/or restorations that you mentioned are, in my definition of the term, they are not nor will the ever be of reference quality. They are IMO fantastic examples of what restoration (digital or physical) can do for older films, but there are definite limits to what can be done for film based material of a certain age, at least if you want to preserve the filmmakers original intent.

None will be happier to be proven wrong then me. But personally I'm keeping my expectations realistic.

 

[Brian McHale]

No matter how well you plan something, or how high a priority you put on it, things can always go wrong or unforeseen circumstances can change the scope of the job.

As someone mentioned, a different print could have been obtained that needed to be taken into consideration. Or maybe some new process was developed that could do a better job. Any number of technical problems could have arisen.

I think it's unfair to disparage a studio when inadequate information is available to draw that conclusion. Why do so many people immediately assume that the studio screwed up?

I, for one, will be happy to buy this when they get it out. I'm sure we'll all be happy with it when it's released. If it takes another year, I can live with that.

 

[Cees Alons]

I don't understand how anybody can knock Warner for this, when they have never given a definite release date. This is the very reason that most studios are hesitant to give release dates early and why they don't like to talk about specific titles during the chat sessions.

Exactly!

I'm amazed by some of the comments in this thread. If they never had mentioned it, we couldn't have been "disappointed", wouldn't ask for inside explanations now or else say we're "left to speculate, in private & in public", and in general couldn't bash Warner for this latest slightly disappointing message, insinuate they cannot cope with their own processes, have "other" priorities, etc.
But also - we wouldn't even know we can expect this important release and we would effectively be treated like children.

Is that what we want?

My personal answer is, how did you guess: no!
Please, studios, let us know when you tentatively plan releasing important works of film art. Don't wait until you have checked and rechecked and subsequently secured each and every detail. I, for one, will be looking forward with pleasure.
Oh, and thanks!


Cees

 

[Jeff_HR]

I guess no one cares about corporate honesty & forthrightness. WB can take until 2020 to get Kong as perfect as it can get. All I can do is dole out my $$$ when it is eventually released.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I guess no one cares about corporate honesty & forthrightness.

Since Warner never officially said anything about Kong coming out - I don't consider The Digital Bits' Rumor Mill to be an official source - there's no need for Warner to do anything. Unless there was an official press release or announcement issued that says it was coming in 2003, I don't see the problem here.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Jeff,
For a couple of years, I've been one of Warner's biggest critics on this forum about releasing more catalogue releases, but in this situation I can't in all fairness be as critical towards Warner as some members have been in this thread. They never issued an official release date so the criticism is unwarranted in my opinion.




Crawdaddy

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It's not like Warner doesn't want to get this to us...they know it's a hot title and will give it the respect they've afforded their other classics as of late.

What's the rush and what's the worry?

Here's the exact text from the bits:

This hasn't been announced, but it comes directly from authorized studio sources, so you can consider it official. We've been told by Warner that their upcoming special edition release of King Kong will NOT be released in 2003. The studio very much wanted to make it happen this year, given that it's the film's 70th anniversary, but their greater concern is to make sure that the film is presented in the highest possible quality on DVD. Apparently, the process of fully restoring and remastering the film has been very time consuming and the studio wants to make sure it's done properly. If all goes well, look for Kong in 2004.

To most film-lovers the above reads as a *very* positive bit of news.

dave

 

[Patrick McCart]

Yeah, "great" but not "reference quality", that's what I'm saying.
Perhaps your definition of "reference quality" and mine are not the same, to me reference quality in this case is something you would use to demonstrate the pinnacle or near pinnacle of an audio or video or film source, and as good as the transfers and/or restorations that you mentioned are, in my definition of the term, they are not nor will the ever be of reference quality. They are IMO fantastic examples of what restoration (digital or physical) can do for older films, but there are definite limits to what can be done for film based material of a certain age, at least if you want to preserve the filmmakers original intent.

I think that's the case. My definition of reference quality refers to the films, not what I watch them on. To me, my home theater is second banana to the DVDs themselves.



While we're on quality issues, anyone care to shed light onto what supplements are possible for a DVD of King Kong? The Criterion LD seemed to only have a commentary and some other minor materials.

 

[Thomas T]

I'm perplexed by the attitude of some of the posters chastizing Warners for not coming forth with an explanation of the King Kong delay!

AS IF THEY OWE US AN EXPLANATION!

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm alarmed by the attitude of some of the HTF members who, liked spoiled brats, feel a sense of entitlement to the DVD format with the "gimme me, gimme me", "I want", "why don't they", "how dare they", "let's boycott them until ...", "why isn't Fill In The Blank on DVD yet?", "Finally, Fill In The Blank is coming out but it's barebones, damn!" etc. remarks.

As Bette Davis said in Now Voyager, "We have the stars, why ask for the moon?"

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

At the risk of getting flamed, I'm alarmed by the attitude of some of the HTF members who, liked spoiled brats, feel a sense of entitlement to the DVD format with the "gimme me, gimme me", "I want", "why don't they", "how dare they", "let's boycott them until ...", "why isn't Fill In The Blank on DVD yet?", "Finally, Fill In The Blank is coming out but it's barebones, damn!" etc. remarks.

Thomas T, you hit the nail on the head there; I was just about to say the same thing...and I'm sure that a few people would agree with you and me...

 

[Damin J Toell]

I guess no one cares about corporate honesty & forthrightness.

Did Warner ever lie to you about King Kong? Or do you just believe that every studio should issue updates to you about every title in their catalog?

I care about corporate honesty, but I also don't think that Planet Warner revolves around the Damin Star. To disparage the honesty of Warner for not letting me micromanage their catalog seems to be just a slight overreaction to me.

DJ

 

[Terry Hickey]

Whenever "KING KONG" comes out on dvd, I will definitely purchase it. Warner has put out some outstanding products in the past, and if they want to take time to get this "the best it can be" then so be it. I'm just glad that they are
working on it.