Warning -- shoddy transfer of the new King Kong

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by anthony, Dec 21, 2005.

  1. anthony

    anthony Guest

    My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    widescreen.
    And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    shades of white, grey and black.
    And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......
    anthony, Dec 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    says...
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......
    >
    >



    err dickhead the movie you're describing is Waterworld, THINK before you
    post next time.
    --

    "Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James
    Fish! - of Arcadia., Dec 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. anthony

    GraB Guest

    On 20 Dec 2005 17:48:17 -0800, "anthony"
    <> wrote:

    >My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    >Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    >For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    >widescreen.
    >And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    >shades of white, grey and black.
    >And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    >transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    >under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    >packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    >Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......


    The colour in the 1933 version was pretty washed out. I bought the
    same one. :)
    GraB, Dec 21, 2005
    #3
  4. anthony

    Justin Guest

    anthony wrote on [20 Dec 2005 17:48:17 -0800]:
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......


    I really hope you're a dumb troll and not stupidly serious.
    Justin, Dec 21, 2005
    #4
  5. anthony

    anthony Guest

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, Justin. And have a great Christmas
    too.....
    anthony, Dec 21, 2005
    #5
  6. anthony

    GDS Guest

    "anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......
    >


    LOL

    G.
    GDS, Dec 21, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <2go.com>,
    says...
    > anthony wrote on [20 Dec 2005 17:48:17 -0800]:
    > > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > > widescreen.
    > > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > > shades of white, grey and black.
    > > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......

    >
    > I really hope you're a dumb troll and not stupidly serious.
    >



    Actually it was an excellent Troll.
    --

    "Cocaine's a hell of a drug" - Rick James
    Fish! - of Arcadia., Dec 21, 2005
    #7
  8. anthony

    Apple68 Guest

    On 20 Dec 2005 17:48:17 -0800, "anthony"
    <> wrote:

    >My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    >Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    >For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    >widescreen.
    >And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    >shades of white, grey and black.
    >And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    >transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    >under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    >packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    >Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......




    Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer.....
    Apple68, Dec 21, 2005
    #8
  9. anthony

    Highlandish Guest

    Quoth The Raven; anthony <> in
    <>
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's
    > intended widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for
    > just under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround
    > system's packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......


    snort, you bought a handycam screener!

    --
    Remove the _CURSEING to reply to me

    No word in the English language rhymes with "MONTH."
    Highlandish, Dec 21, 2005
    #9
  10. anthony

    Highlandish Guest

    Quoth The Raven; Highlandish <> in
    <43a8d899$0$3273$>
    > Quoth The Raven; anthony <> in
    > <>
    >> My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    >> Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    >> For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's
    >> intended widescreen.
    >> And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    >> shades of white, grey and black.
    >> And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    >> transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for
    >> just under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround
    >> system's packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    >> Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......

    >
    > snort, you bought a handycam screener!


    my bad, you got the '33

    --
    Remove the _CURSEING to reply to me

    Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of
    getting laid.
    Highlandish, Dec 21, 2005
    #10
  11. anthony

    anthony Guest

    Sorry all, I just checked and it does say it was shot in 1933 on a
    hand-cranked camera.
    Still don't know why they've put it out in pan-and-scan though.
    Apparently the ape isn't even real.
    anthony, Dec 21, 2005
    #11
  12. anthony wrote:
    > Sorry all, I just checked and it does say it was shot in 1933 on a
    > hand-cranked camera.
    > Still don't know why they've put it out in pan-and-scan though.
    > Apparently the ape isn't even real.
    >

    Lol, good one.

    Mark
    Mark Bedingfield, Dec 21, 2005
    #12
  13. anthony

    Large Farva Guest

    "anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......



    Yeah, how about those special effects though? They are killer!
    Large Farva, Dec 21, 2005
    #13
  14. anthony

    Biz Guest

    SO are you trolling, or just not up on teh terms to describe this? If its
    the 1933 original then shouldnt it be new transfer of the original King
    Kong? ANd since the one is from 33 it is almost definitely acadedmy
    ratio(1.37:1) since widescreen didnt come into wide use until about
    1954....new King Kong is very misleading since a new movie just came out as
    well...


    "anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sorry all, I just checked and it does say it was shot in 1933 on a
    > hand-cranked camera.
    > Still don't know why they've put it out in pan-and-scan though.
    > Apparently the ape isn't even real.
    >
    Biz, Dec 21, 2005
    #14
  15. anthony

    Fred At Home Guest

    "anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My copy of the new King Kong arrived last week from Amazon.com
    > Got to say it's one of the most pathetic transfers I've ever seen.
    > For a start, it's a pan-and-scan transfer instead of Jackson's intended
    > widescreen.
    > And all the colour's bleached-out. On my screen it looks just like
    > shades of white, grey and black.
    > And I read that Jackson had let his movie run over three hours. This
    > transfer must have been censored and cut to ribbons -- it runs for just
    > under 90 minutes! And as for the audio -- either my Surround system's
    > packed it in or I've gone deaf!
    > Got to say though that Naomi Watts has never looked lovelier ......
    >


    Yeah and the part I liked the best was when the Kerrigans all sit down for
    tea and dad says "and what's this called love"?
    Fred At Home, Dec 21, 2005
    #15
  16. anthony

    jayembee Guest

    "Biz" <> wrote:

    > SO are you trolling, or just not up on teh terms to describe this? If its
    > the 1933 original then shouldnt it be new transfer of the original King
    > Kong? ANd since the one is from 33 it is almost definitely acadedmy
    > ratio(1.37:1) since widescreen didnt come into wide use until about
    > 1954....new King Kong is very misleading since a new movie just came out as
    > well...


    You might want to take out a loan and buy a sense of humor.

    -- jayembee
    jayembee, Dec 21, 2005
    #16
  17. anthony

    anthony Guest

    Isn't that "'what is this thing called love?"
    anthony, Dec 21, 2005
    #17
  18. anthony

    Fred At Home Guest

    "anthony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Isn't that "'what is this thing called love?"
    >


    I might have got it confused with "what is that on the road, a head?".
    Fred At Home, Dec 21, 2005
    #18
  19. anthony

    anthony Guest

    Too good. Too too good. Can't top that one (though someone did)
    anthony, Dec 21, 2005
    #19
  20. anthony

    FatKat Guest

    I hear the new stop-motion Kongs looks about as realistic.
    FatKat, Dec 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Scot Gardner

    King Kong (1933): Region 2.

    Scot Gardner, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,116
    jayembee
    Jan 22, 2004
  2. Brian
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    350
    Peter Briggs
    Feb 11, 2004
  3. One-Shot Scot

    King Kong (1933): Best Region 0 DVD?

    One-Shot Scot, Nov 15, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,209
    Bill Coleman
    Nov 16, 2004
  4. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    553
    Evelyn C. Leeper
    Jan 31, 2006
  5. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    599
    jayembee
    Feb 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page