whaaat

baracine

Ture story: I came back from the office just now and there's a message in my mailbox that a package came in and was left with the super. This being Friday night, I have to wait till Monday morning to get at it but I can clearly see through the super's office window that it's my laserdisc all shiny and desirable and securely packed in sturdy brown cardboard, paper and string (not colourized). I will probably give in tomorrow about 10 AM and tip the super an extra 20 $ (CAN) for him to fork it over outside office hours. I am sooooo weak....

Breakfast with Girls

Did you know? Baracine likes the colorized version of King Kong. I just wanted to let everyone know.

resinrats

Why don't they make a new colored version. I'm sure today, it would look much better than the old colored version.

I also feel the need to point out that while the girl is hard to see in that one picture, she is easy to see during the film since she is moving all over the place.

baracine

PatrickMcCart

Even easier to see on a new digital transfer mastered with modern technology, unlike an ancient video transfer made in the late 1980's.

Heck, even the un-restored print on TCM has better image quality.

baracine

... Better image quality than what, exactly? The laserdisc? I should remind you that laserdisc technology's main characteristic is that it's "better than broadcast" (BTB). Better than the DVD transfer screen captures? I'm not sure where you're going with that exactly. I've just watched the laserdisc in colour and black and white during the whole weekend (it cost me 4 cans of REV) and I conclude:

1. The Turner print, remarkable as it is, still needs a lot of work: the picture is not stabilized from frame to frame, especially in the first part of the film, which can be corrected digitally. Some parts are rock-solid. And the negative has suffered a lot of damage, particularly in vertical bands of varying shades - which may go back to the original negative - and outright vertical scratches. It is also covered in dirt and spots which can be removed digitally. The sound, however, is pretty much where we want it. Some faults can't be corrected, like the too-soft focus on the human characters in the heavily composited - and therefore second or third generation - escape from Skull Mountain scene.

2. The stop-motion Fay Wray is totally invisible in black and white for a few frames when she is up on that tree and not moving (did she pass out from all the excitement?).

3. The colour has, as a side effect, the ability to make some of the front projections and rear projections (like the charge of the stegosaurus) look more convincing as it unifies those fields of vision somewhat, compared to the more detectable black and white contrast between the different black and white source elements, which is surely not the directors' intention. [I am assuming here that the directors would have attempted special effects in order that they look "real" and not be easily detected by the viewer.] I realize that is no great argument against the "warts-and-all" school of film preservation. I also realize that "warts-and-all restoration" is also a bit of an oxymoron.

PatrickMcCart

The master shown on TCM has better image quality than the video master used for the colorization. It doesn't suffer from the excessive edge enhancement and blurriness. In fact, the only problem is the dirt and scratches. Obviously, a newer remaster (i.e. the 4K restoration) will get rid of these scars, as well as offer much better image definition, as well as detail not visible in older masters... just due to the improvements in newer transferring technology. One big problem with older colorization technology is the use of DVNR and interpolation to speed up the process. This results in ghosting, softness, and loss of detail. For films with opticals like King Kong, this turns those shots unintelligible... especially since heavier grain doesn't mix well with DVNR.

Also, the bootleg R3 (?) DVD was made using an actual laserdisc, rather than a digital master which wouldn't be availible to a bootleg company.

Just as another demonstration, this is how colorization should look if it's supposed to be "convincing":

baracine

Here's another new one on me: Older colourization uses DVNR? Seems to me that if the colourized King Kong had been cleaned up with Digital Video Noise-Reduction technology, it would have less conspicious specks of dirt and debris.

Anyway, this whole colourization debate will pretty much be yesterday's news when the reality starts sinking in that what many of today's directors really want to do is to dimensionalize(TM) their films:

What fresh hell is this!?

DRG

What I find interesting about those colorized stills is that they look like the halfway point between a photograph and a painting. Not quite live action, not quite animation. Now I've never actually seen this colorized version (or the B&W version in its entirety, if I'm being honest), but if that effect carries through to the actual movie I can see a certain charm in it. In no way should it replace the B&W version, but the shots are pretty in a strange sort of way.

baracine

Yes... Yes... Pretty ... Good master...

a handle

Heres two more cents. I just bought the colorized version. Actually on Half.com I thought it was the B&W it also said shipping from kansas or some where in the US. it came from Taiwan by the post mark and stamps. Anyway I liked it a lot. It is a lot clearer than the B&Ws I have seen over the years. May be the new B&W will be clear. I for one like colorized movies and think they have there own place in the world of movies. Downing colorized is about the same as saying there should not be DVDs or VHSs only the big screen is how the makers intended for the movies to be seen.

PatrickMcCart

That's a really poor comparison.

DVD's are basically equal to having a high-quality framed reproduction of a painting. You don't get the textures, all the details, but it's the best you can get without stepping into the museum or art gallery.

Colorization, on the other hand, is like taking a charcoal artwork reproduction and painting over it in color.

The former involves adapting the original in the best possible way for having in your own home. The latter doesn't preserve the original artwork, it's something separate from the original.



As for DVNR, it doesn't mean anything is perfectly clean. For example, the DVD of "Some Like It Hot" has a heavy use of DVNR, but it still has occasional specks... one shot even has some really horrible acetate decomposition (film rot). This is partially why I think using blunt automatic processes like DVNR or edge enhancement are useless... it doesn't help that much and ends up doing more harm than good. Studios need to rely on processes that are manned like Criterion's use of Mathematical Technologies restoration software. Also, there's Lowry Digital Images... their software is much more complex and effective than DVNR... mainly due to actual frames being cleaned up rather than DVNR's brainless "comparing" and averaging to get rid of problems. And LDI's work actually enhances detail rather than reducing it like DVNR.

baracine

BTW, I just got hold of the colourized My Man Godfrey (1936) and I like it a lot (the colour version, I mean, although the B&W is included and, according to dvdbeaver.com, very comparable to the Criterion edition in quality - at 1/4 the price). The people at Legend Films tried to give the impression that the film was originally shot in colour and took particular care with the interior decoration and the complementary ensembles and outfits of the characters and even their harmonization with their background, which is the work of art directors, really. Compared to this, the colourized King Kong is not much more than animated sepia-toned lobby cards - but I still really, really like it. Really!

One sure giveaway of colourized films, however, is still the tendency to endow male characters with the same copper-coloured hue as if they just jumped off a tanning bed. Must be a shortcut after spending so much time on the ladies' makeup and various complexions.

a handle

Patrick WOW I diddn't realize how smart you are, thanks for the lesson. I am totally convinced and surely must stop using such poor analogies.

baracine

BTW, the "enhanced stereo sound" on the Turner version of King Kong features directional dialog, which has almost never been done since the widescreen fifties and is always a plus, and directional sound effects, particularly groovy during the circling airplanes finale.

baracine

This appeared in this week's DVD Savant (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/):

Also see this thread: http://www.dvdmaniacs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13671 about Peter Jackson reconstructing the missing parts of the sequence in CGI to look like stop-motion animation.


Still from the spider pit sequence

Spider model used in this sequence

Not to douse anybody's enthusiasm about this rumour, but it should be noted that Max Steiner never wrote any music for a "spider pit" sequence, which means that, if it ever existed, it was cut before the final editing copy that Steiner worked from. If it was ever shown, in some preview or overseas, it must have been dubbed with music recycled from other parts of the film. Either way, if this scene is ever found or reassembled or whatever, it can never be part of the film itself and can only be shown as an interesting DVD extra. And my question is: When will it be colourized?

PatrickMcCart

I think the rumor that the "lost" sequence was found in Europe is bullshit. First, it was cut out in previews, so why would it end up in Europe? I think someone distorted the news that Warner was using a less choppy print without jump cuts from Europe.

Sure, anything can happen, but since a lot of the RKO negatives and fine-grains don't even exist, why should a deleted scene suddenly turn up? It's silly to think that for a studio that couldn't even preserve the original negative to Citizen Kane would save a then-unimportant scene.

baracine

From John Morgan's reconstruction notes of the Steiner "King Kong" score (1997 CD - Marco Polo 8.223763):
"To set the record straight, Steiner never wrote music for the now-famous deleted "Spider Pit" sequence. He was not brought into the film until this entire sequence was dropped and refilmed with the sailors falling to their death in the chasm."

So the spider scene was not just an addendum to the log sequence, it was meant to replace it, which means a very different film. And the complex log sequence certainly took a long time to film and put together after eliminating the spider idea. I also note that those rumours are in circulation since at least december 2004 or thereabouts, ample time to confirm or deny either way. On the other hand, it is certainly possible that Peter Jackson might still concoct something for his and our amusement with the ample moolah he has at his disposition, such as a "recontructed" CGI spider scene extra for the upcoming DVD.

Other tentalizing possibility: John Morgan's quote may be meant to say that in the original version, the sailors, instead of falling to their death right away at the bottom of the chasm, fell in the spider pit and survived until eaten by one or more spiders, which would only mean reshooting the sailors hitting the gound - which is, by the way, a not very convincing part of the existing film in the way they rebound all over the place like superballs. In this version, the spider pit sequence could have survived until the very end of production. Also note the presence of a lizard type creature in the spider pit still, probably the same lizard that goes up a vine to Jack Driscoll's hiding place later in the log sequence.

One must also factor in the fact that sometimes different negative elements were used for overseas versions of films, at least as late as the end of the silent film era, which makes the existence of interesting variants possible, especially in light of the extreme care the French took in dubbing foreign films and the possibility that the spider sequence was eliminated purely for stateside censorship reasons (i.e. too violent for American stomachs), and one can still hope for a miracle along those lines.

Other factor: Apparently, science-fiction author Ray Bradbury claims that he saw the spider sequence in a preview at age 13 (in 1933).

Well, it's possible. Or am I just clutching at vines?

[The debate rages on... Also see this Yahoo discussion group: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group...or/message/776 for contradictory opinions. Also this cached discussion of the Yahoo group discussion in Sinister Cinema: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...der+pit&hl=en]

The Bus

This new colorization breathes a new fantastic life into this scene.

baracine

Well, it's a start. Thanks.

shill66

One very important thing about the colorized release of King Kong: at the time, it was the best available home video transfer of the film, color or not. I myself am a very big fan of King Kong. I love the black and white, but I also love the colorized version.

BigStinky

well thats what i said too so I now I even make my own screen savers. I spent a couple days on Ansel Adams that guy maybe knew some stuff about f stops and how to focus to get the best tones but what a dweeb when it comes to colors. This one time I was at half dome in Yosemeite with my dad and I stood there looking up and it wasn't just blacks and whites you could see the real colors. Shiny blues plus the other colors that are in there. So right then I thought about how the picture doesn’t even look like it except for the rock shapes and the way the moons round and that’s when it hit me. The guy left something out of his pictures. Okay maybe the rock is gray cause its granite or what not but I made mine a better color cause it could look that way if it was made up of some different minerals or when the sun hits on it when the park is closing plus I got this 19 inch viewsonic and I didnt pay for it to just do black and white. So I got to thinking well how come he ruined his picture before he ever clicked on the shutter I mean he blew it when he went to the guy in the store and said give me some black and white film, see what I mean what a dummy. So then I thought okay maybe hes not dumb maybe he just couldnt afford the right film. But then he's still dumb because if he knew he was going to make posters out of it why didnt he just borrow some money from his parents or somebody - it could be a cousin maybe and get the more expensive color film first and then take it in color so theres that then if he wants to he can make a black and white poster later on for the 5 people who like it that way. Either way he goofed up big time and it takes somebody who comes along to fix it. What a goof.

baracine

Well, I don't know if you're being serious or what. Either way, it's nice picture.

marknyc

baracine wrote:

So the spider scene was not just an addendum to the log sequence, it was meant to replace it, which means a very different film. And the complex log sequence certainly took a long time to film and put together after eliminating the spider idea.
_____________________

No, the log sequence was the first thing shot for Kong, long before the Spider Pit or anything else! In order to get backing for the film, Cooper and O'Brien shot the log sequence as a test. The original plan was to have some of the sailors survive being shaken off the log, only to be eaten by the giant spiders below.

The story that is most widely told is that when the rough cut was complete, Cooper and Shoedsack felt that the Pit slowed down the film, and distracted from the pursuit of Kong. So it was cut - along with a lot of other bits of business on the ship.

It's possible that the Spider Pit was shown to preview audiences, or that it was cut even before previews. Either way, NO PRINTS would ever have left the studio - not to France, not to the Philippines, not anywhere. In fact, only one workprint of the sequence would ever have existed, and once cut would surely have been destroyed.

The chance of Ray Bradbury being lucky enough to catch one of the few sneak previews is very slim, IMHO, but who knows?

The bottom line is that the sequence was shot, cut out, destroyed, and will never be seen again.

So has anyone heard any more on a release date for the new DVD?

Mark