I think the general consensus (and from wasting way too much time looking at screenshots) is that for a VC1 or AVC encoded video you want the average video bitrate to be at least 20Mbps. At that point there shouldn't be any major image quality issues. But 25-30 Mbps is probably the sweet spot, most BDs with average bitrates in that range are free of noticeable artifacting, grain resolving, and banding issues. There's lots of variables, like quality of the encoder, skill of the compressionist, etc but I think I listed reasonable averages.

And what should the file size be? I mean, since, no matter what, higher bitrate means a better picture, what's the allotted remaining disc space on a BD 50 to be sure the picture is at its best? If it's a shorter movie, why isn't the bitrate increased to make it to that magic threshold, since, no matter what, higher bitrate and bigger file sizes automatically mean a better picture?


Hint: diminishing returns obviously don't exist, and therefore shouldn't be factored into the answer ;)

Right side, from what I can see.

I'm guessing that is the HD DVD?

There are definitely no easy answers with this release.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8304/kkposternb4.png

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8304/kkposternb4.png

The one on my left is sharper.

The one on the left (poster) is slightly sharper as the 'R' in 'adventures' you can see the centre circle in the upper half of the 'R' clearer on the left.
Mind you, not an waful lot in it between them though, not sure you'd notice in motion?

Wow, the comparison shots definitely showing removal of fine detail. I do have to question why that is?

I have the HD DVD of King Kong and have always felt it had one of the stellar transfers. Some might complain of the level of grain, but I've never had a problem with it.

Still interested in the BD for the DTSMA alone!! I figure like U-571, whatever picture differences are made up for the quality increase in audio.

WOW What a comparision,you must have a lot of time to do this thing,but it is wonderful.

So, are we getting ALL this stuff?
http://www.kingkong.com/images/bonus.jpg

ie., can I get rid of my SD version? (let alone my HD DVD version)

200% crop fun time. Which side is better defined?

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3736/kkfabricux0.png

Right side. You can tell it on the background. The grain is more smudged.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8304/kkposternb4.png

Left.

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/8304/kkposternb4.png
The one on the left is superior. It's also from the Blu-ray shot. It's too bad the entire disc isn't like that.

The one on the left is superior. It's also from the Blu-ray shot. It's too bad the entire disc isn't like that.

How can you tell what disc its from??

So, are we getting ALL this stuff?
http://www.kingkong.com/images/bonus.jpg

ie., can I get rid of my SD version? (let alone my HD DVD version)

Uhh...no. You're getting NONE of that.

How can you tell what disc its from??
By saving the two original (and format-identified) images that are on the previous page and zooming in on them and comparing the differences from the crops. If you pick out the few specific differences (like the aforementioned hole in the R on ADVENTURES), it's quite easy to tell which is which. Of course, as I mentioned, the situation is reversed in quite a few shots. I'm curious as to why Universal is wasting over 10gb of this 50gb disc when the title could obviously use a higher bit rate.

... I'm curious as to why Universal is wasting over 10gb of this 50gb disc when the title could obviously use a higher bit rate.

Again, what's the acceptable amount of space not used on a BD50? 1GB? 5GB? 512MB?

Again, what's the acceptable amount of space not used on a BD50? 1GB? 5GB? 512MB?
Oh please, don't give me that BS. I'm no bit counter but it's blatantly obvious this encode would have benefited from more room to breathe and the space is certainly available.

Again, what's the acceptable amount of space not used on a BD50? 1GB? 5GB? 512MB?

Depends upon the studio. In case of King Kong, UNI didn't even bother to feature the film extras.:( The extra space will be used to accommodate multiple spoken languages as part of the overseas release.

Oh please, don't give me that BS. I'm no bit counter but it's blatantly obvious this encode would have benefited from more room to breathe and the space is certainly available.

What are the "blatantly obvious" problems you're talking about here? If I'm wrong to assume that "blatantly obvious" means these problems would just jump out at you under normal viewing, please let me know. That's what I'd consider blatantly obvious.

And how much more "room to breath" was required to correct these blatantly obvious problems? Another avg 1 mbps? Another 5 mbps?

Depends upon the studio. In case of King Kong, UNI didn't even bother to feature the film extras.:( The extra space will be used to accommodate multiple spoken languages as part of the overseas release.

You mean, the amount of unused space of a BD50 (which people are complaining about, yet for some reason refuse to quantify) as it relates to PQ/AQ of a title ... is studio specific?

My head hurts.

There are compression artifacts. There is detail lost. What's so hard to understand about the idea that a higher video bit rate would help to alleviate these issues?

There are compression artifacts. There is detail lost. What's so hard to understand about the idea that a higher video bit rate would help to alleviate these issues?

You claimed that these compression artifacts are "blatantly obvious." Give me time stamps (I only have the HD DVD at this time, which, BTW, has a higher avg bitrate) so I can watch at these points to see how "blatantly obvious" these are, unless normal viewing isn't what you had in mind when you said "blatantly obvious." This shouldn't be difficult if the problem is as obvious and prolific as you state it is.

How much higher of a bitrate will alleviate these blatant issues? Again, does it need another +1 or +5 or (gulp) +10 avg mbs to fix these? And what's the magic file size (or remaining disc space) that will satisfy you in that bitrate has been maximized and all problems will have gone away? You were the one that said 10 GIG was wasted, so what remaining amount of space will satisfy you?

I just received a review copy of this title today and it is amazing. The video is pretty much on par with the HD DVD. Sometimes you think you see a small difference, other times not. To me, that means there isn't. If you have to strain to think you see a difference, you don't. As for the audio, the DTS HD MA track is reference in every way and appreciably better than the DD+ encode on the HD DVD. When the ship's horn blows as the ship approaches the fog surrounding Skull Island, I almost jumped out of my seat. Reference audio and video IMHO.

You claimed that these compression artifacts are "blatantly obvious." Give me time stamps (I only have the HD DVD at this time, which, BTW, has a higher avg bitrate) so I can watch at these points to see how "blatantly obvious" these are, unless normal viewing isn't what you had in mind when you said "blatantly obvious." This shouldn't be difficult if the problem is as obvious and prolific as you state it is.

How much higher of a bitrate will alleviate these blatant issues? Again, does it need another +1 or +5 or (gulp) +10 avg mbs to fix these? And what's the magic file size (or remaining disc space) that will satisfy you in that bitrate has been maximized and all problems will have gone away? You were the one that said 10 GIG was wasted, so what remaining amount of space will satisfy you?
The compression artifacts and detail lost can be seen right in front of your face with the screenshots in both of the King Kong threads.

Why do you keep asking me how much higher the bitrate should be? How the hell should I know that? What's clear is that there is space on the disc that could be used for a higher bit rate and that a higher bit rate would help to clear up video issues with this encode.

You are being intentionally obtuse and contrarian.

Fwiw, it's no great revelation to premise that compression artifacts are present in KK. Whether or not they are easily visible is another question altogether (see samples below derived from hdvd encode). While detail is very generous in the scene, it is pretty evident that compression artifacts encroach upon the image pretty much anywhere it is very bright or it is shadowed. The well lit areas remain very detailed while grain/noise is ruthlessly clawed away and detail is filtered to 50% resolution (it looks about like that to me) in the aforementioned areas that are very bright or shadowed. This duality is no doubt a consequence of the aggressive tuning/tweaking that has been cited to make this encode look so good at such a relatively low bitrate for hd. The difference between the rendition of hard detail in well let areas as opposed to the softened detail in shadowed areas seems pretty distinct, imo.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=129759&stc=1&d=1231960595http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=129760&stc=1&d=1231960595

The compression artifacts and detail lost can be seen right in front of your face with the screenshots in both of the King Kong threads.

When I view those scenes on calibrated Pioneer Plasma, I'm not seeing any issues. Even after all this time, this (the HD DVD) is still a very good looking title. But just so I'm sure, normal viewing isn't what you had in mind when you said "blatantly obvious?"


Why do you keep asking me how much higher the bitrate should be? How the hell should I know that?

Because you're the one claiming a higher bitrate, leading to a larger file, will clear up the problem. If you're so sure, you must have some idea what these bitrates mean, and how much more will fix these "blatantly obvious" issues. And you still haven't answered my question, that was asked because you claimed 10GB is too much unused space: How much unused space will satisfy you that the encode has been optimized?

You are being intentionally obtuse and contrarian.

No, I'd say I'm being pretty focused in asking you to quantify your claims. You've been pretty evasive in backing up your statements.

When I view those scenes on calibrated Pioneer
No, I'd say I'm being pretty focused in asking you to quantify your claims. You've been pretty evasive in backing up your statements.
There are compression issues with this title. There is space available on the disc. A higher bit rate is one of the things that can help to reduce or eliminate compression artifacts. The available space on this disc could be dedicated to a higher bit rate, thus providing a superior video presentation.

Is there anything flawed or difficult to understand about any of this that I'm just missing? Or are you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative?

There are compression issues with this title. There is space available on the disc. A higher bit rate is one of the things that can help to reduce or eliminate compression artifacts. The available space on this disc could be dedicated to a higher bit rate, thus providing a superior video presentation.

Is there anything flawed or difficult to understand about any of this that I'm just missing? Or are you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative?

No, and I promise this is the last time I'll ask you to defend what started this. It was:

... I'm curious as to why Universal is wasting over 10gb of this 50gb disc when the title could obviously use a higher bit rate.

You don't want to quantify bitrates that would optimize this encode. Great. You were willing, though, to say 10GB was wasted. What amount of remaining disc space on a BD50 will satisfy you that the encode was fully optimized?

It was never about using a specific amount of space. You created that argument all on your own. I was only referencing the available space on the disc. To my understanding, this encode is using only 36 of the available 50gb for the movie (I wasn't sure of the exact amount of free space at the time, so i just said "over 10gb"), and we're talking about a movie that's over three hours long. When there is space available and the video encode suffers from artifacts that could be reduced or eliminated with a higher video bit rate, then that available space is wasted (I'm looking at you, Warner). I could care less about the numbers.

What amount of remaining disc space on a BD50 will satisfy you that the encode was fully optimized?


Umm, until it is transparent?

I'm not a bitrate monger just so long as it is sufficient to ultimately provide the most artifact free final product. It is apparent from the various screen caps that each encode has its strength and weakness, alas I do not get discs early ;{ so haven't seen it yet, but in some instances it is perhaps due to the slightly higher average bitrate that the HD encode does better in certain situations. Where as from comments from some folks who have the BR disc claim the more action oriented scenes look better on the BR.

From what I inferred and understood from Deviations contested post he was saying that perhaps a little higher allotment of bitrate would have removed some of the visible compression artifacts in certain instances and was not advocating MAXIMUM BITRATE.

As far as I know he is not a compressionist and does not have the full extensive technical knowledge of a pro who could possibly estimate to what amount of increased bitrate would have removed some of the visible artifacts. That does not mean his assessment is necessarily wrong that an increase in bitrate would be beneficial just because he cannot quantify a number for you. I'm sure there is a term for that type of argument but I cannot recall what is right now, I'll ask my lawyer ;}

All said and done it appears that the BR release of KK overall is a good transfer, at least from the various shots I've seen, and does not warrant the same justified backlash as few other titles received.

I'll probably be picking this up eventually and discover whether the extended cut is an improvement like LOTR(s).

Best Regards
KvE

PS Let's be nice. ;}~

I'm curious as to why Universal is wasting over 10gb of this 50gb disc when the title could obviously use a higher bit rate.

The closer that you get to the full 50 gigs the more errors you get. This lowers the yield. Its for quality control.

As far as I know he is not a compressionist and does not have the full extensive technical knowledge of a pro who could possibly estimate to what amount of increased bitrate would have removed some of the visible artifacts. That does not mean his assessment is necessarily wrong that an increase in bitrate would be beneficial just because he cannot quantify a number for you.Definitely not a compressionist. I'm just a somewhat tech savvy film fan who loves HD and wants to see every movie get as transparent of a transfer and encode as possible.

This King Kong disc from Universal is good enough. Good enough that I'll buy it and enjoy it. But it's not as good as it could have been, which is is a shame.

The closer that you get to the full 50 gigs the more errors you get. This lowers the yield. Its for quality control.
How does Paramount keep getting away with discs in the mid to high 40's then? I'm not saying that Universal should have used every last available byte on the disc, just that they probably should have used more than they did. I'll throw out a (completely) wild supposition and say that upping the size of the video encode so that something more like 44gb was used instead of 36gb could have provided noticeable improvements without lowering yield.

Of course, if Universal really wanted to go full hog, they could have then added a second disc to the set and included all of the supplemental features that are available in other releases.

Bickering removed. Further off-topic posts will result having posting privileges for this thread revoked.

My review copy arrived today as well!

You mean, the amount of unused space of a BD50 (which people are complaining about, yet for some reason refuse to quantify) as it relates to PQ/AQ of a title ... is studio specific?

My head hurts.

Yes. Studio specific could mean 2 things.

1) Authoring budget and selling potential
2) Willingness to feature extras

In case of KK, UNI deprived it's customers of film extras. For instance, Jarhead got BD-50 treatment and was encoded at twice the bit rate than the U.S release. Overseas release of The Thing featured all extras though we don't have any explicit confirmation on DNR.

UNI opted to create single UNIVERSAL encode of King Kong and leave 11 GB of space in the U.S BD release. IMO, they could have easily ported the film extras from the previous DVD editions, just to make up for Jarhead and The Thing.

I could have swore the BD would supposed to included all the DVD extras from the biggest DVD set out there?

What really makes the point for me about caps being iffy at best is the recent caps I have seen from forum member ricwhite. He posted caps of Golden Compass and other films in the tier thread that were the same frames Xylon posted in the Golden Compass and other cap threads. The same exact frame and shots, yet they looked quite different in terms of color, clarity, etc. I am sure Xylon is providing us exactly what he is seeing and is able to in his screen caps, but they were and are not what I see on my setup most often in terms of color clarity and so on. ricwhites are the same as I see. :confused: ric has a projector and I have a 60 inch RPTV. I would have thought the colors and PQ in general would look different, but astonishingly they most often look exactly the same.
This is kind of a curious thing to say, but I guess it makes sense if you are viewing these on a (possibly poor contrast) PC monitor rather than your RPTV. In that case, ricwhite's (very nice) photos of his FP might more closely match your viewing experience since his contrast/color tweaks may be similar to those you have made on your own primary display.

However, if you view one of Xylon's caps on your RPTV (through the same processing chain you use for Blu-ray playback) it should be identical to the paused frame from the Blu-ray, since it *is* the frame from the Blu-ray.

EDIT: Just to make sure I wasn't straying too far off-topic...

I'm not completely sure King Kong really needs to be any longer and I would have been more interested in a director's cut shorter than original theatrical! However, I'm curious to see the new footage. I never picked up the DVD or HD DVD (only saw it once at cineplex) and I look forward to viewing this again with fresh eyes (and the opportunity for intermissions) in a couple weeks.

First up...

Highdefdigest.com:


Video: 5 stars
Audio: 5 stars

The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
'King Kong' first arrived on HD DVD in a 2.40:1 widescreen 1080p/VC-1 transfer, which featured the film's 187-minute version only. It was a highly-anticipated release, and as I noted in my original review, a five-star, reference-quality high-def presentation. The film now arrives on Blu-ray over two years later, and nothing much has changed. We now get the option of either the 187 or 200-minute versions (accessible via seamless branching and spread across a BD-50 dual-layer disc), and the source is the same. The additional footage is seamlessly integrated, making watching either cut a pleasure.

My personal feelings about the CGI notwithstanding, 'King Kong' is a visually sumptuous film. The production design, costumes and physical locations are simply some of the finest Hollywood has produced in recent memory (I guess when you have a $200 million production budget you can afford the best). I remain tremendously impressed by the cinematography by Andrew Lesnie. He gives the film a supple, rich and textured look that is both pristine yet realistic, modern and timeless. The film's luscious color scheme comes through wonderfully on high-def. Hues are perfectly saturated and fleshtones dead-on. There is a slight softness to the image that is consistent with Lesnie and Peter Jackson's use of filters and diffused lighting, but it does not affect this transfer's wonderful sense of depth and three-dimensionality. Sure, it is a cliche, but there are moments during 'King Kong' that are picture perfect, where your home theater screen becomes a window.

Given the film's extensive computer-generated imagery, some may find fault with the effects-heavy scenes that sometimes look a bit flatter and less sharp. In particular, the heavy motion blur applied to Kong and his various nemeses -- such as the dinosaurs -- does give those scenes a more muted and fuzzy look. But that's the way it goes with today's heavily-processed visual effects extravaganzas, and even the "worst" shots of 'Kong' still hold up with the best I've seen on Blu-ray. 'King Kong' didn't disappoint the first time around on HD DVD, and it doesn't disappoint now.


The Audio: Rating the Sound

Universal has greatly improved 'King Kong's audio on Blu-ray, giving us a DTS-HD Lossless Master Audio 5.1 Surround track (48kHz/24-bit) versus the Dolby Digital-Plus track on the HD DVD. The improvement is clear, and 'King Kong' roars even louder.

The majority of 'King Kong' sounds demo-worthy. The many bombastic fight scenes and Kong rampages are sonic nirvana. The Kong vs. Dinos scene remains my highlight, as is the extended climax on top of the Empire State Building. The 360-degree soundfield that is created is simply flawless and incredibly immersive as the bi-planes whiz around Kong's head. It's clear the sound designers outdid themselves in having fun with the mix -- transparency, pans and the sense of detail and realism to the discrete effects is second-to-none ('King Kong' didn't win the Oscar for Best Sound for nothing). Dynamics are also incredibly powerful, with low bass some of the best I've heard in recent months.

'King Kong' can be subtle, too. The sense of atmosphere is first-rate. The early scenes with Jack Black and company near the jungle island are alive with ambience and intricate sound effects. And when the crew is first surrounded by the island savages, the wall of sound that envelopes is quite effective. Dialogue is perfectly balanced in the mix. I never once had to adjust my volume control, which is a true rarity for a film like 'King Kong.' I didn't love the film, but I loved this soundtrack.


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1943/kingkong2005.html

I just received a review copy of this title today and it is amazing. The video is pretty much on par with the HD DVD. Sometimes you think you see a small difference, other times not. To me, that means there isn't. If you have to strain to think you see a difference, you don't. As for the audio, the DTS HD MA track is reference in every way and appreciably better than the DD+ encode on the HD DVD. When the ship's horn blows as the ship approaches the fog surrounding Skull Island, I almost jumped out of my seat. Reference audio and video IMHO.

Thanks for the review JWhip.. I look forward to checking out the upgrade blu-ray version.

Not really a fan but of the film but I can give it a second go due to Naomi Watts :D Plus having a DTS-MA track!!


edit: thanks Jrcorwin

I have the HD DVD copy of King Kong and it is still the "cream of the crop" among HD DVDs. That said, I really want to see the Blu-ray version to *listen* to the DTS-HD MA track. There are several scenes that should give my Velodyne Servo sub a real workout....and possibly wake up my neighbors as well. :D

Here is a good comparison of that motion shot.

http://gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_bd.png&url2=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_hd.png

Here is a good comparison of that motion shot.

http://gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_bd.png&url2=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_hd.png
You need to edit one of those images so the frames lineup. It's quite distracting to use that tool when the shots aren't lined up because of how Universal centered the frame differently in the Blu-ray version.

Here is a good comparison of that motion shot.

http://gmontrone.com/bdcompare/default.html?url1=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_bd.png&url2=http://gmontrone.com/BDCompare/imgs/kk_6_hd.png

We need a tool like that for all BD movies that have average to poor PQ. Simply slide the bar over and like magic it is a tier 0 reference BD. Upscaling in a sense, but better. Something that really works with no side affects or is it effects. :D

Yes. Studio specific could mean 2 things.

1) Authoring budget and selling potential
2) Willingness to feature extras

In case of KK, UNI deprived it's customers of film extras. For instance, Jarhead got BD-50 treatment and was encoded at twice the bit rate than the U.S release. Overseas release of The Thing featured all extras though we don't have any explicit confirmation on DNR.

UNI opted to create single UNIVERSAL encode of King Kong and leave 11 GB of space in the U.S BD release. IMO, they could have easily ported the film extras from the previous DVD editions, just to make up for Jarhead and The Thing.


I'm not understanding your logic. Both Jarhead and The Thing were BD-25 in the US. We got shafted. If you want BD-50's with all the extras, you have to import.

You need to edit one of those images so the frames lineup. It's quite distracting to use that tool when the shots aren't lined up because of how Universal centered the frame differently in the Blu-ray version.

Up until the King Kong comparison pics, most of them seemed to line up pretty well. I will try , sometime soon, to implement a way to add an offset to help them align.

For others who have tried it out, does it make sense how to use it and all 3 modes?

I'm not understanding your logic. Both Jarhead and The Thing were BD-25 in the US. We got shafted. If you want BD-50's with all the extras, you have to import.

You forgot to read "than the U.S release". Pardon me for eating up few words.

i remember we had those thread were people said DD+ is as good as lossless audio. and i was like ehm am i stoned? because to me lossless audio always sounded better then DD+

and as more bluray movies get released with lossless audio tracks compared to the hddvd releases with DD+. it becomes all to much clear that some people were either deaf or lying.

about the Picture quality of King Kong. i think with the war studios used a lot of effort to bring out their movies as good as possible. specially in the beginning when microsoft was helping them. now that war is over and tools have advanced i can understand that studios just used these automatic tools. and while the visual difference maybe like 3% different. a studio likes to safe time and money on that.

Finally my movies have been shipped I will be able to watch Kong on BD.

Finally my movies have been shipped I will be able to watch Kong on BD.
Since we use the same pre/power from Denon.I just recieved this morning,saw some scenes I must tell you that may be you must turn DYNAMIC EQ OFF cause too LFE.many scenes(stamped dinosarus,kong roaring).The picture is the same asHD DVD.:)

Since we use the same pre/power from Denon.I just recieved this morning,saw some scenes I must tell you that may be you must turn DYNAMIC EQ OFF cause too LFE.many scenes(stamped dinosarus,kong roaring).The picture is the same asHD DVD.:)

Why have they increased the LFe on it?

Why have they increased the LFe on it?

I guess they don't raise LFE,but DTS-HD MA ,I guess.:)

If calibrated correctly should not really have to touch the system.

If calibrated correctly should not really have to touch the system.mate,this is good for you.I told my dealer about this EQ with new JBL is too much for bass effect,so he told to turn off this Dynamic EQ.

mate,this is good for you.I told my dealer about this EQ with new JBL is too much for bass effect,so he told to turn off this Dynamic EQ.

I just realised I don't use the dynamic eq. I don't think it applies at refrence level either.

It is always that great for DENON,When LFE. change so sudden,This function get the best for bass compensation,sometime it's too much.BTW,This BD is a reference quality for picture and sound,with my system I had not noticed a flawed about picture as told before,just for my system and opinion.

My local video store chain was selling this early for $20 so I jumped on it.
As an owner of the following:
3 disc SD extended
HD DVD

I can't tell you how happy I am with the BD.
The T-Rex scene with DTS-MA was worth the price of the disc alone.
Dont hesitate. Go buy it.

Why have they increased the LFe on it?

Great special effects movie,comes the reference sound quality.I just finished this BD.In the fight scene between Kong and 2 T-REX,the surround in DTS-HD MA was the best that the sound mixers team can offer to our ears,it's filled with great details in surround sound and deep LFE.,my room was shaking while enjoyed the movie.This movie deserved oscar for great sound recording,sound editing and exactly great cgi but it did't won just a one oscar,Did it?:)

Local Blorkburster had this one out for rent already, but I passed for now. Might grab it next week.

Great special effects movie,
...
and exactly great cgi but it did't won just a one oscar,Did it?:)

Are you kidding me?

The CGI for the bugs and dinossaurs was laughable at best.

Kong though is pretty good for most of the time

Are you kidding me?

The CGI for the bugs and dinossaurs was laughable at best.

Kong though is pretty good for most of the time

Those two scenes were silly the stampede and the crew getting attacked by the bugs but generally the rest was ok!

I wonder if they will do another remake in 10 - 20 years ?

It's supposed to be a fun film...not an analyzed film...! Remember, leave your brain in the car and enjoy.

It's supposed to be a fun film...not an analyzed film...! Remember, leave your brain in the car and enjoy.

I had to do that too many times (i.e., leave my brain in the car) - e.g., the kid shooting the bugs off Driscoll with a Tommy Gun, sometimes with his eyes closed, and not hitting Driscoll even once; the dino stampede/pile-up; Naomi Watts experiencing more multi-G-force whiplash than a chicken having its head wrung and snapped off, yet not suffering so much as a sore neck - such that the movie became a satire of itself. Peter Jackson turned a classic into what at times became a sad, laughable farce. Great CGI for Kong; great to mediocre for some of the other animals and effects. It stops being "a fun film" when you start laughing at it instead of with it. Not Van Helsing- or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen-bad, but close at times. But I'll still Netflix the Blu-Ray when I have a 7.1 or True DD/DTS system.

I had to do that too many times (i.e., leave my brain in the car) - e.g., the kid shooting the bugs off Driscoll with a Tommy Gun, sometimes with his eyes closed, and not hitting Driscoll even once; the dino stampede/pile-up; Naomi Watts experiencing more multi-G-force whiplash than a chicken having its head wrung and snapped off, yet not suffering so much as a sore neck - such that the movie became a satire of itself. Peter Jackson turned a classic into what at times became a sad, laughable farce. Great CGI for Kong; great to mediocre for some of the other animals and effects. It's not "fun" when you start laughing at the movie, instead of with it.

We have to face it that no remakes being made today or in the past has surpassed any of the classics...not one!

Now, some are pretty good in their own right but they never surpass the original.

I've enjoyed the re-imaginaging of films such as "The Thing, War of the Worlds, and King Kong" but they still shove crap on us like "The Day the Earth Stood Still!"

Some go into my collection and some are a memory...what are you going to do?

Are you kidding me?

The CGI for the bugs and dinossaurs was laughable at best.

Kong though is pretty good for most of the time

Kong was one of the most amazing CGI achievements to date. If anyone thinks Kong was only "pretty good" it only shows how blase people have become about special effects. Good special effects are as hard (or harder!) than ever. People think CGI makes everything easy and often hearken to older days in which they like the effects better, but the work that went into something like Kong vastly exceeds men in rubber suits, or even stop motion models, and most other screen creatures in film history.

The FX did falter with some of the other CGI critters, but keep in mind all the rest of the effects too: The expansive recreation of New York during the depression (both day and night scenes) was quite an achievement as well.

I think it's because I've worked in the film industry for so long and I regularly
see just how much hard work and detail goes into even what people would consider slight films, that seeing the audience get blase about the results
can be a bummer.

I wonder if they will do another remake in 10 - 20 years ?
Yes I guess,by S.Speilberg(if he is still alive that day)as he did remake 'Wars of the World':).

I think it's because I've worked in the film industry for so long and I regularly
see just how much hard work and detail goes into even what people would consider slight films, that seeing the audience get blase about the results
can be a bummer.

"It doesn't look real."

Well that just ruins the whole movie doesn't it? :D

I thought the majority of the effects in KK were great and even when they were less than 100% photo realistic I still appreciated the design and effort.

"It doesn't look real."

Well that just ruins the whole movie doesn't it? :D

I thought the majority of the effects in KK were great and even when they were less than 100% photo realistic I still appreciated the design and effort.This is by far the best cgi that Weta effect co.can offer to the audiences.Kong look like the real thing,you may notice his hairs,wringles,teeths etc.All in great detail.I don't think that ILM did the CGI better than this.:)

Also You must see in 100 "screen and you will know this is great CGI,not in LCD 42,50".

It's supposed to be a fun film...not an analyzed film...! Remember, leave your brain in the car and enjoy.

Exactly that's what its all about!

Exactly that's what its all about!Exactly that the reason we always watch movie,please ignore some minor defects.No such a thing is all perfect.:)

I thought that kong was phenomenal. I also really dug the old New York scenes. Felt like I had gone back in time.

:)

It's supposed to be a fun film...not an analyzed film...! Remember, leave your brain in the car and enjoy.
No that's wrong. Any film over the 2hr20min mark is no longer a popcorn flick. Any movie that takes 3hrs is an epic that requires you to be involved and interested.

With the scope of the film and Jackson's love of the material he meant for it to be something more. You can tell from the terrible references to Heart of Darkness... unless that line was supposed to make me vomit.
"It's not just an adventure story? Is it?"
"No Jimmy. It's not."

The script itself says 'me too, I'm something more'. No, it's not.

Still a good film in terms of scope and production design. Jack Black and that one line keep me from loving the film. As a plus between this and Eastern promises I like Naomi Watts more than Nicole Kidman.

i thought that kong was phenomenal. I also really dug the old new york scenes. Felt like i had gone back in time.

:)


+1. :) FUN movie, and a great escape!

I think it's because I've worked in the film industry for so long and I regularly
see just how much hard work and detail goes into even what people would consider slight films, that seeing the audience get blase about the results
can be a bummer.

The audience got blase because the movie stank. Kong IS fantastic but the film is criminally overlong and packed with superfluous side characters who don't pay off. Jack Black's character is a total mess, you're supposed to hate him one moment, think he's funny the next -- in the end the whole picture just felt like it had no focus, no center to it. And it's one of the most "overlong" films I've ever seen. Literally 30-45 minutes could have been taken out with no detriment to the story. The original KONG was 100 minutes, there was no reason for this film to be well over 3 hours in length. I'm still trying to figure out the point of the ship's captain, the kid who was onboard...who CARES about any of those characters. They had no payoff. It was like Jackson just kept adding and adding to the narrative and there was no need to.

Lots of pretty pictures but not much else....a beautiful looking film to be sure, and Kong as a creation was marvelous, but IMO there's a reason a lot of people dislike this picture.

It stops being "a fun film" when you start laughing at it instead of with it. Not Van Helsing- or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen-bad, but close at times.

Neither of those movies were 3+ hours long though. This movie goes on forever, every scene feels like it could've been trimmed. I'll never forget walking out of KONG and a group of people were laughing, each one stating how awful it was. And IMO it really is a lot worse than critics thought -- it had that LORD OF THE RINGS hangover where everyone was doing cartwheels for Peter Jackson, and frankly I think it got something of a pass from some critics (and the "online community") who all thought it was great when it really wasn't.

+1. :) FUN movie, and a great escape!

Having grown up in NYC and being lucky enough to work backstage on Broadway where many of the old theaters look the way they used to, I have always dreamed of traveling back to the 30's, 40's for a journey. Films like this when well executed get as close as possible to that. I relished the detail and the beauty of the NYC scenes.

Having grown up in NYC and being lucky enough to work backstage on Broadway where many of the old theaters look the way they used to, I have always dreamed of traveling back to the 30's, 40's for a journey. Films like this when well executed get as close as possible to that. I relished the detail and the beauty of the NYC scenes.

Man, how awesome that experience must have been for you! I have been to NYC 2 times now, and both times were seriously magical. My first time in NYC was Christmas 2001 for work (2002 Salt Lake torch relay crew) and I took in the city for 3 days on my own and topped off the experience by seeing Phantom on Christmas Day.....amazing. Sorry to get off topic, but what a cool experience that must have been to work backstage on Broadway:)

It's supposed to be a fun film...not an analyzed film...! Remember, leave your brain in the car and enjoy.

If it was supposed to be fun, then it wouldn't have been over 3 hours long. If it wanted to be "fun" then a solid 2 hours would have served it WAY better.

If it was supposed to be fun, then it wouldn't have been over 3 hours long. If it wanted to be "fun" then a solid 2 hours would have served it WAY better.

I guess we all have different idea's on what's fun. I personally don't mind sitting back and watching this film, I tend forget the time as im immersed into the film. I guess the movie is not made to please everyone.

I guess we all have different idea's on what's fun. I personally don't mind sitting back and watching this film, I tend forget the time as im immersed into the film. I guess the movie is not made to please everyone.

I loved the film. I thought it was great. But to chastize people for scrutinizing over video differences because you think its not in the "fun" spirit the movie wass meant to be enjoyed, just seems well.....:rolleyes:

I loved the film. I thought it was great. But to chastize people for scrutinizing over video differences because you think its not in the "fun" spirit the movie wass meant to be enjoyed, just seems well.....:rolleyes:

What?? Where did I chastize people:confused:

Your the one that said:
If it was supposed to be fun, then it wouldn't have been over 3 hours long

I responded we all have different ideas of fun, that was not having a go at you.
There have many been many responses where members have not liked the film and thats why I wrote "I guess the movie is not made to please everyone."

Its a little comical that some can't stand the visuals of this version though they can easily sit back and enjoy the original from the 30's and all that era's technology had to offer (I'm on that list, I also luv the original, a true classic). Yeah, it was no doubt a better movie, but if you can swallow the original flicks story and its special effects (whatever that method was called), then surely we haven't become so stuffy that we can't kick back, lighten up and enjoy basically the same simple minded, quilty pleasure popcorn ride today in the same manner? Or maybe we can't...and I thought folks back then were supposedly stiff, yikes. (=

then surely we haven't become so stuffy that we can't kick back, lighten up and enjoy basically the same simple minded, quilty pleasure popcorn ride today in the same manner? (=

exactly!

Hiya Toe! I work for the Shubert Organization and work all 16 of their broadway houses. Lots of history.


http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb207/davymack/musicbox.jpg

This is me at one of the theaters...

And I meet some very cool people. For example, I had a nice chat with the girl who plays "Peggy" on "Mad Men" this Saturday. She is at the Barrymore in "speed The Plow". And Daniel Radcliffe is a very nice and cool kid.

:)

VERY cool!:cool: Thanks for taking the time to share that picture and what a interesting job:)

Yeah, it was no doubt a better movie, but if you can swallow the original flicks story and its special effects (whatever that method was called),...

Good ole stop-motion photography! ;) I have a feeling that people could be more critical of how it looks in the original KK, but mostly they give it a pass because it is a "classic". Personally, I never understood what was so "bad" about the cg in Peter Jackson's KK (other than straining the bounds of gratuitous).

Hi all! Supposing I like the original cut of this movie very much. Will the EE add much for me? And what about the DTS-HDMA soundtrack? Is it a major upgrade from the already fabulous DD+ soundtrack on the HD-DVD?
I already considered the HD-DVD a pretty amazing transfer (both audio/video) of this film. Have any people previously owned the HD-DVD and now have the Blu-ray disc? What are their thoughts?

Why do so many people think Jack Black's Denham is so bad? My opinion is he is spot on perfect. He was a perfect choice. He was not cast to play the original Carl Denham, he was cast to play Peter Jackson just like the actor from the original was cast to play it's director. The 2005 Carl Denham was written as Peter Jackson, and I think from what I know about PJ is Jack Black played it perfectly.

just my .02

Josh

The audience got blase because the movie stank.

Nope. It was one of the more magical movie-going experiences I've had.

It is certainly flawed and overlong in my opinion too...but then I always felt that way watching some of Apocalypse now, which nonetheless I would go see every time it came back to the theaters. Like Apocalypse now, there is some magic and greatness in Kong that allows me to visit the film again and again. That's a far cry from a movie that simply "stank."

Wait...which one of us is right? ;)


Kong IS fantastic but the film is criminally overlong and packed with superfluous side characters who don't pay off. Jack Black's character is a total mess, you're supposed to hate him one moment, think he's funny the next -- in the end the whole picture just felt like it had no focus, no center to it. And it's one of the most "overlong" films I've ever seen. Literally 30-45 minutes could have been taken out with no detriment to the story. The original KONG was 100 minutes, there was no reason for this film to be well over 3 hours in length. I'm still trying to figure out the point of the ship's captain, the kid who was onboard...who CARES about any of those characters. They had no payoff. It was like Jackson just kept adding and adding to the narrative and there was no need to. Lots of pretty pictures but not much else....a beautiful looking film to be sure, and Kong as a creation was marvelous, but IMO there's a reason a lot of people dislike this picture.

It's amazing how closely that critique tracks what a lot of people said about
one of the most famous films of all time: 2001 Space Odyssey.

Not saying Kong is in 2001's league; just pointing out that opinions often can differ about films that reach perhaps too far.

Anyway, my point was mostly about visual FX and the sentiment that the Kong creation was just "pretty good."

I really enjoyed it even if it was imperfect. Sometimes when I go to the cinema, (rarely these days with work and kid) I want to truly escape. The longer, the better if it takes me away and this film did. I just wanted to jump on the screen and walk around NYC back then.


:)

. I just wanted to jump on the screen and walk around NYC back then.


:)

Too cold and too many large hairy apes running amok. ;)

Hi all! Supposing I like the original cut of this movie very much. Will the EE add much for me? And what about the DTS-HDMA soundtrack? Is it a major upgrade from the already fabulous DD+ soundtrack on the HD-DVD?
I already considered the HD-DVD a pretty amazing transfer (both audio/video) of this film. Have any people previously owned the HD-DVD and now have the Blu-ray disc? What are their thoughts?It'was not any EE add much atall.According to my system which I think a quite decent one.My EPIC Supernova curve screen 96" showed the best picture entire the film,not notice this EE or may be I picked a good BD one.About the sound,you will forget the DD plus which was also great but DTS-HD MA in this Kong was superb,so as The Bourne Ultimatum bd.just my BD,OPINION.:)

Too cold and too many large hairy apes running amok. ;)

I have always found from growing up in the city, that if you just ignore the large, hairy...

;)

It'was not any EE add much atall.According to my system which I think a quite decent one.My EPIC Supernova curve screen 96" showed the best picture entire the film,not notice this EE or may be I picked a good BD one.
He means extended edition, not edge enhancement.

Why do so many people think Jack Black's Denham is so bad? My opinion is he is spot on perfect. He was a perfect choice. He was not cast to play the original Carl Denham, he was cast to play Peter Jackson just like the actor from the original was cast to play it's director. The 2005 Carl Denham was written as Peter Jackson, and I think from what I know about PJ is Jack Black played it perfectly.

just my .02

Josh
I'm not sure... for all of my problems with this movie (overlong, over indulgent, etc, etc), Jack Black was never one of them. I actually thought he served his purpose perfectly.

Hi all! Supposing I like the original cut of this movie very much. Will the EE add much for me? And what about the DTS-HDMA soundtrack? Is it a major upgrade from the already fabulous DD+ soundtrack on the HD-DVD?
I already considered the HD-DVD a pretty amazing transfer (both audio/video) of this film. Have any people previously owned the HD-DVD and now have the Blu-ray disc? What are their thoughts?

Your mileage will vary. I too had the gorgeous HD-DVD version and this one looks the same and the DTS-MA is a nice upgrade but the ole DD+ holds it's own. I noticed a little more ooomph in the LFE but it's slight. The new scenes seem to flesh out more of the dangers that the men faced in their quest for Miss Darrow. I enjoyed them & for the most part they fit seemlessly into the original cut. If the movies length doesn't bother you & you like the movie, then I think it's a worthy upgrade.

Why do so many people think Jack Black's Denham is so bad? My opinion is he is spot on perfect. He was a perfect choice. He was not cast to play the original Carl Denham, he was cast to play Peter Jackson just like the actor from the original was cast to play it's director. The 2005 Carl Denham was written as Peter Jackson, and I think from what I know about PJ is Jack Black played it perfectly.

just my .02

Josh

Compare the delivery of the same lines from the films - e.g., the remarks about the chains being made of chrome steel; 'twas beauty killed the beast; etc. Jack Black mangled them. He said them like he was expected to, not because they naturally came from his character.

In Jackson's version, Denham was a lousy businessman, a lousy credit risk, a lousy self-centered person, and a rectum to boot, yet his partners and friends still stuck with him. That just wasn't credible at all. The original Carl Denham was likeable. Jack Black's Denham character was neither likeable nor realistically unlikeable. From experience none of his "friends" believed or trusted him; he was a weasel and a liar, and they knew it, yet they let him string them along. I don't get it.

Jack Black fit the part like a size 10 foot in a size 7 shoe. Or maybe a size 7 foot in a size 10 shoe, because he couldn't fill the role.

At least those are my reasons for disliking Black's Denham, as well as my perception of his character.

Your mileage will vary. I too had the gorgeous HD-DVD version and this one looks the same and the DTS-MA is a nice upgrade but the ole DD+ holds it's own. I noticed a little more ooomph in the LFE but it's slight. The new scenes seem to flesh out more of the dangers that the men faced in their quest for Miss Darrow. I enjoyed them & for the most part they fit seemlessly into the original cut. If the movies length doesn't bother you & you like the movie, then I think it's a worthy upgrade.

Thanks for your thoughts there! :) The HD-DVD had NO extras too, so I may consider this when it's released here in the UK.

Pretty cool. Never saw those cut scenes, think they actually shoulda left them in place, especially the first real one (encounter with the triceratops...man that was a nifty moment! And it actually helped the flick a bit because it seriously introduced the group and viewer to just how dangerous their little quest is gonna be (only Denham initially saw the ape and knew)....on top of that, it was one of nice cgi parts where someone was thankfully still paying attention to detail (unlike some other spots, heh). The other "encounter" that was cut out was way cool as well and also looked incred, only this time, it was a hint at whats to come flaw wise, I found myself thinking *ok, now its going long with this*...anyway, yeah, wish he woulda left those intact (but ONLY in exchange for omitting weaker parts elsewhere...this movie truly screams for a directors CUT).

Still a fun ride, glad I added it, though I admit, if I still owned the HD DVD and had a player that worked (my A2 died), I'd prolly would've stuck with that, I do believe it looked a tiny bit better (just from memory) and the sound was 'good enough' FOR ME...but this is a killer Blu Ray all around if you like the movie! :)

I was going to watch Bayblon AD tonight but I think I will watch kong instead.:)

Pretty cool. Never saw those cut scenes, think they actually shoulda left them in place, especially the first real one (encounter with the triceratops)...man that was a nifty moment! And it actually helped the flick a bit because it seriously introduced the group and viewer to just how dangerous their little quest is gonna be (only Denham initially saw the ape and knew)....on top of that, it was one of the nice cgi parts where someone was thankfully still paying attention to detail (unlike some other spots, heh). The other "encounter" that was cut out was way cool as well and also looked incred, only this time, it was a hint at whats to come flaw wise, I found myself thinking *ok, now its going long with this*...anyway, yeah, wish he woulda left those intact (but ONLY in exchange for omitting weaker parts elsewhere...this movie truly screams for a directors CUT).

Still a fun ride, glad I added it, though I admit, if I still owned the HD DVD and had a player that worked (my A2 died), I'd prolly would've stuck with that, I do believe it looked a tiny bit better (just from memory) and the sound was 'good enough' FOR ME...but this is a killer Blu Ray all around if you like the movie! :)

EDIT: Drat - I had to edit, Frank, lol!!

I opened my package last night and found 2 surface scratches on disc already, it was meant to be new. Dumb question but can they remove surface scratches like they do with the dvd's put them through the machine? I was going to send it back to dvd pacific, but if I can avoid it I'd rather. That only cost around $2 a disc to remove scratches at my local DVD store.

But anyway watched the Extended Edition last night, fantastic I thought but they were some scenes I now know why PJ took them off. Video quality was hard to tell the difference but the AQ showed some improvement.

I opened my package last night and found 2 surface scratches on disc already, it was meant to be new. Dumb question but can they remove surface scratches like they do with the dvd's put them through the machine? I was going to send it back to dvd pacific, but if I can avoid it I'd rather. That only cost around $2 a disc to remove scratches at my local DVD store.

But anyway watched the Extended Edition last night, fantastic I thought but they were some scenes I now know why PJ took them off. Video quality was hard to tell the difference but the AQ showed some improvement.

Do you still have the HD DVD?

I'd like to hear from someone who can be objective on the matter and A/B both on their 1080p set-up.

Do you still have the HD DVD?

I'd like to hear from someone who can be objective on the matter and A/B both on their 1080p set-up.

Yes I do!

I'm thinking about picking this up but would like to know how much additional footage is in the extended cut. I have the HD-DVD but don't want to upgrade unless there is some worth while additional scenes.

I'm thinking about picking this up but would like to know how much additional footage is in the extended cut. I have the HD-DVD but don't want to upgrade unless there is some worth while additional scenes.

For me, i can't say its worthwhile. I think i prefer the theatrical edition come to think of it.

For me, i can't say its worthwhile. I think i prefer the theatrical edition come to think of it.All along with you,too much running time,don't mean good.

All along with you,too much running time,don't mean good.

It was not the running time, to me I found the EE parts were not revelant to the story at all.

Hi all! Supposing I like the original cut of this movie very much. Will the EE add much for me? And what about the DTS-HDMA soundtrack? Is it a major upgrade from the already fabulous DD+ soundtrack on the HD-DVD?
I already considered the HD-DVD a pretty amazing transfer (both audio/video) of this film. Have any people previously owned the HD-DVD and now have the Blu-ray disc? What are their thoughts?

I have also the HD DVD and just rented the Blu version for the AB comparison, the initial thoughts I have is the same PQ, and the DTS HDMA was not a signifigant upgrade for me to purchase, but in all fairness, I have just begun to do my sampling of the two....

Like tkbryant said, the DD+ does certainly hold it's own! Very immersive soundtract on the HD DVD side

It was not the running time, to me I found the EE parts were not revelant to the story at all.Exactly what I talked about in many times with this EE issue,I saw it without noticed any of it.If I saw ,I would ignored it cause I want to enjoy the movie.:)This is Blu-ray disc extended uncut version I talked about,not HD-DVD.Sorry for get you guys misunderstood.

I think people are starting to mix up Edge Enhancement with Extended Edition.

EE

Exactly what I talked about in many times with this EE issue,I saw it without noticed any of it.If I saw ,I would ignored it cause I want to enjoy the movie.:)

I was talking about Extended Edition Butsu:)

Just to ask again can surface scratches be removed on a BD disk? My King Kong copy had two.:(

Just to ask again can surface scratches be removed on a BD disk? My King Kong copy had two.:(If these scratches on the surface of BD don't harm your watching,don't do anything to it.:)

I agree the theatrical cut was better, could even be shorter actually (goes without saying), but I did think it was cool to watch the cut scenes once to see what they had to offer and I actually enjoyed them for what they are, theres just no need to watch 'that entire cut' of the flick every time just for that when we now have the best of both worlds on this disc.

As for the scratches - I don't know if they can be removed, but its hit or miss if they'll worsen and eventually foul up the reading of the disc, you're prolly fine with it, most discs end up with a scratch or two but they're usually ok (sucks that they showed on a brand new disc though). My first copy of 'A Few Good Men' had a nasty little scratch yet it played perfectly through the first time I watched it - the very next time I popped it in to show to some friends however (didn't have many flicks at that time, lol), I was embarrassed, it was a wreck, skipping, blocking, freezing up, etc - luckily that was only 3 weeks later and I was able to swap it with another at BB. Other than that one, I never had another issue with a Blu Ray disc :::knocks on desk::: but I also now ALWAYS pop 'em open in the car and check before pulling away when I buy 'em at B&Ms!

I agree the theatrical cut was better, could even be shorter actually (goes without saying), but I did think it was cool to watch the cut scenes once to see what they had to offer and I actually enjoyed them for what they are, theres just no need to watch 'that entire cut' of the flick every time just for that when we now have the best of both worlds on this disc.

As for the scratches - I don't know if they can be removed, but its hit or miss if they'll worsen and eventually foul up the reading of the disc, you're prolly fine with it, most discs end up with a scratch or two but they're usually ok (sucks that they showed on a brand new disc though). My first copy of 'A Few Good Men' had a nasty little scratch yet it played perfectly through the first time I watched it - the very next time I popped it in to show to some friends however (didn't have many flicks at that time, lol), I was embarrassed, it was a wreck, skipping, blocking, freezing up, etc - luckily that was only 3 weeks later and I was able to swap it with another at BB. Other than that one, I never had another issue with a Blu Ray disc :::knocks on desk::: but I also now ALWAYS pop 'em open in the car and check before pulling away when I buy 'em at B&Ms!

I know DVD's can be removed I thought it would be similar, oh well might have to ship it back to DVD Pacific again.

Don't get me wrong it was fun to watch the Extended edition but it would of been good if they added more to the story like the LOTR Extended edtions.

still wanting to pick this one up -

everyone local is sold out
and a few of the stores told me they only got 3 copies initially

what gives ?


maybe I'll just wait for the next release with all the extras - who am I kidding , they know I'll buy both :p

Yes,all dealers told me this BD is best seller for now and sold out already.people must wait for 1 week for new shipment.