King Kong (1933)
- Kristoffer4
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Aarhus DK
- Alonzo the Armless
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:57 am
Inserting the spider footage is an awful idea. I find it very presumptuous for a modern director to make new footage he feels the original director should have kept in a final release. If Jackson feels KING KONG should have man-eating spiders, then he can have them in his remake. Why foist his viewpoint by altering a classic where the filmmakers decided it should be removed? For better or worse, that's how the original was made. If they want to speculate on how the footage looks, then keep it as a special feature only.
- oldsheperd
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque
- Kristoffer4
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Aarhus DK
Check this out. A new inside look at the new film and we get a peek at what the new remaster looks like! And it looks very good....from those short seconds.
-
Stig Helmer
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:54 pm
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
- Lino
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:18 am
- Location: Sitting End
- Contact:
And here's a visual comparison between the old R2 and the new 4 disc R2
-
Stig Helmer
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:54 pm
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
That's a real shame. I was really looking forward to the commentary-track for this film. How is Ralstons comments banal?Matango wrote:The commentary is really disappointing. Harryhausen is ok, but Ken Ralston spends most of the time snickering at his own very banal comments. I don't think I've ever heard a commentator bring so little to a film.
- Matango
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:19 am
- Location: Hong Kong
He just goes on about how great the scenery looks, says things like "That's the kind of island you don't wanna be lost on!" (not a direct quote, but that kind of thing), and keeps Harryhausen busy asking questions like "How many stages did they use", instead of letting Harryhausen get into the zone by himself. It's like a guy off the street sitting in, offering no insight at all, just opinions, and asking simplistic questions. Just my opinion, though...others may see it differently...and I gave up after an hour, so it might get better.
- dx23
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
- Location: Puerto Rico
- porquenegar
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:33 pm
Cool. I wanted the stuff in the Tin but also wanted the 3 films and didn't want to double dip. I'll just buy the BB large tin.
Well, the two other films aren't part of the BB tin. They are concealed behind the regular 2-disc tin in the outer box. I didn't want anyone to think that the BB exclusive set includes the 3 movies inside the tin. The set cost me $36 total.porquenegar wrote:Cool. I wanted the stuff in the Tin but also wanted the 3 films and didn't want to double dip. I'll just buy the BB large tin.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm
- Location: NJ
Has anyone seen the RKO documentary? It's so exhausting; it took me two days to get through it. My God, I never thought I'd say it, but talk about too much info! At least that's how it should be, though. There are also some proclamations in here, like scene/beat specific scoring basically being invented for the first time here, etc. Anyone see this? Also, I'm surprised none of the other Hollywood heavyweights appeared in this, ie, Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, etc... I recommend this highly despite the heavy two hours and forty minute running time...
- tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Yeah, I noticed this, too. Obviously, they're glossing over silent film music a little too sweepingly. Haven't any of them ever listened to Metropolis?! Or Steiner's earlier Most Dangerous Game for that matter?! But I suppose that, if any single individual should be credited with "inventing" the language of motion picture scoring, Max Steiner is the obvious candidate. He brought so much together in 1932-33.exte wrote:There are also some proclamations in here, like scene/beat specific scoring basically being invented for the first time here, etc. Anyone see this?
On a separate note, nobody has mentioned that for Kong Warners has returned to their older packaging style for the 2-disc special editions. I wonder if they'll keep it up? I hope so. They look quite nice in a row.
- porquenegar
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:33 pm
That's right. The set is a open-faced box with the three individual movies. The movie at the top of the box is the King Kong Tin which conceals the other movies. I assumed that all three movies would be in the tin but it is not the case.matt wrote:I think porquenegar is saying that all three titles are included in the set, but are not all in the tin.TechNoir wrote:All three titles are indeed in the BB set.
The documentaries on the Kong disc are great. The chapter on recreated the Spider Pit sequence filled me with fanboy joy. It was great to see footage of the meeting where Peter Jackson surprised his special effects team with news that they would be tackling this project. You could just see the joy on their faces.
- Gigi M.
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:09 pm
- Location: Santo Domingo, Dominican Rep
porquenegar I just bought the set over at bestbuy.com. I know the tin can is bigger (I bought it, but then wanted the other movies) than regular dvds cases. How do the other two disc fit in the case? Are they loose or like a regular box set?porquenegar wrote:That's right. The set is a open-faced box with the three individual movies. The movie at the top of the box is the King Kong Tin which conceals the other movies. I assumed that all three movies would be in the tin but it is not the case.
The documentaries on the Kong disc are great. The chapter on recreated the Spider Pit sequence filled me with fanboy joy. It was great to see footage of the meeting where Peter Jackson surprised his special effects team with news that they would be tackling this project. You could just see the joy on their faces.
Thanks
- HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
Hupperz in general-- he "Mickey Mouse'd" certain movements in NIBELUNGEN prior to METROPOLIS.tryavna wrote:Yeah, I noticed this, too. Obviously, they're glossing over silent film music a little too sweepingly. Haven't any of them ever listened to Metropolis?! Or Steiner's earlier Most Dangerous Game for that matter?! But I suppose that, if any single individual should be credited with "inventing" the language of motion picture scoring, Max Steiner is the obvious candidate. He brought so much together in 1932-33.exte wrote:There are also some proclamations in here, like scene/beat specific scoring basically being invented for the first time here, etc. Anyone see this?
What amazed me also was-- not taking anything away from the stop-motion contributions of Willis O'Brien-- the assigning credit to O'B for STOP MOTION IN SUM. Not once was the name Ladislaw Starewicz mentioned. This guy goes back into the teens with stop motion, and was a truly international personality.
I hate to be a downer but I'd vote this a strong runner for worst commentary of the year-- the one for KONG that is. Long, protracted silences, followed by "I love that shot," or, "this is a really beautiful shot", to telling Harryhausen about how around halloween, the fucking SIMPSONS (where Harryhausen comment's he'd never seen an episode beyond 1 or 2) usually do horror-film parodies... and how one year they did one for KONG called KING HOMER, and how "you could really tell how the guys who made it really appreciated the movie." Followed by another long silence. Then Ralston will goof-talk to a guy on screen, or go "owwww" or "that had to hurt" if someone get's stepped on. Then wait for a line and say "I'd always remember that line." Then one of the guys will ask a question, raising it for the viewer as well of course, then not know the answer, saying "I'm going to have to check that one out"... It's the most annoying, no-preparation commentary there is. Comments don't have to be prewritten, but if you have no direct connection to the production like Ralston does, do a little homework so your "expert commentary" billing!Matango wrote:He just goes on about how great the scenery looks, says things like "That's the kind of island you don't wanna be lost on!" (not a direct quote, but that kind of thing), and keeps Harryhausen busy asking questions like "How many stages did they use", instead of letting Harryhausen get into the zone by himself. It's like a guy off the street sitting in, offering no insight at all, just opinions, and asking simplistic questions. Just my opinion, though...others may see it differently...and I gave up after an hour, so it might get better.
Then the FAY WRAY commentary boils down to approx 10 seconds comprising two statements. The first is a sentence where she says, about the cast & crew, how "we all stay in touch to this day,", and her closing statement, saying how (I think) "it's become a very important film which lives on to this day."
Not that I don't welcome these comments, but as the only "featured" member of the commentary aside from the vintage Cooper snippets (which are great) who was actually involved in the film, I was really looking forward to her comments, and was let down. This was a real letdown.
- tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
I agree with HerrSchrek. I'm not sure I'd go with worst commentary ever, but it's awful close. And Ralston almost single-handedly ruins Mighty Joe Young, too -- all those coos and "ahhs," etc. Fortunately, both Harryhausen and Terry Moore are in the room and have a lot to say, so they manage to shut Ralston up. Warner really needed a more experienced critic or filmmaker to pair up with Ray. Someone who knows how to ask pointed but unobtrusive questions. IMO, the man who serves as the best model for this type of Q&A commentary is Norman Hill, whose commentaries with Werner Herzog and Monte Hellman are outstanding.
I'm also puzzled by the near-total lack of Fay Wray's presence. What happened to all those video interviews with her that TCM still shows? Why aren't they included, like the interviews with Robert Wise et al are included on Citizen Kane? These are odd mistakes on Warners' part.
I'm also puzzled by the near-total lack of Fay Wray's presence. What happened to all those video interviews with her that TCM still shows? Why aren't they included, like the interviews with Robert Wise et al are included on Citizen Kane? These are odd mistakes on Warners' part.