I don't know any of this stuff from Adam and frankly, just reading technical posts makes my head spin so I just trust my eyes (and even that can be problematic). If it looks good then I'm good with it whether it's Technicolor, Pathe, Vista Vision or the dozen other processes that are used. Yeah, I'd like to have the best version possible but honestly, at this point I don't know how much time I have left so I'm not gonna sweat it. I do appreciate your opinions on what films get it right so keep 'em coming!
EVOLVIST, our Naval Air Station was even CLOSER to Tokyo than Camp Zama. On days off I’d often take a short walk to the train station in the adjacent town and make the short, cheap trip into Tokyo and The Ginza. One day I was walking around and three young students approached wanting to follow me EVERYWHERE so they could practice their English; it took me about 5 minutes to teach one of them to pronounce “Opthalmology,” which he was going to the US to study! An interesting day, and I had free tour guides! I saw “Woodstock” in a Tokyo theater too, though they put bright green “squiggles” over all the pubic areas in the “skinny dipping” scenes to satisfy Japan’s law (!) Also saw “Easy Rider” there which was all the rage at the time. I went to a theater in the next town over from our base and had an amusing experience: they had a double bill with “The Illustrated Man” and “The Brain” starring David Niven, no problem, right? Both subtitled in Japanese, okay - BUT: it seems “The Brain” was filmed in two versions, one in English and one in French, so I was watching a film starring David Niven with dialogue in French and Japanese subtitles!
I don't know what the problem is there. Forbidden Planet is another one where -- for whatever reason -- it's never been released in the correct 2.55 CinemaScope format. In the case of Music Man, IMDB says it was shot in horizontal Technirama (a weird format), but released in 2.39 Panavision. Is that not correct? I'm the first to say, "just because the aspect of what you see on a video release is correct doesn't mean they're not cutting something off due to bad framing." Me, I try to get the image all the way to the edge, so 2 pixels further and we fall into the camera gate area. Usually WB is more careful than that, but crap happens. Ah, so you're saying if they scanned from the original Technirama horizontal camera negative -- which should still exist for a film this successful -- there's more information there we're not seeing. The studio argument is often "well, almost none of the original 1962 audience saw anything but the 2.39 Panavision prints, so we want to be faithful to that release." I always argue back, "trust me, nobody is going to complain as long as the picture is well composed and shows a little more." Where it gets political is if the DP comes in and says, "I know there's information outside the edges, but we never intended for anybody to see it." But with a 1962 movie, I'm guessing everybody's now dead (DP Robert Burks and director Morton DaCosta). Hell, Ronny Howard and Shirley Jones may be the only people still alive. Nowadays, we could get Howard to come in and supervise, but he might want to loop his singing in the film... ("Thumpthin' thpecial!")
I was told, by someone who worked at WB (and of course shall be nameless) that there is only one usuable good element which is optically cropped to begin with. So, true or not, it would explain things..
The plot thickens (?): at the top of the MUSIC MAN review from 2010 at the blu-ray site, it says Original aspect ratio 2.35:1 [Disc] aspect ratio 2.42:1 Make of it what you will!
Yeah, it's stretched too long (that's what she said.) But it's like watching BEN HUR on Blu-ray, it's the Cinemascope ratio and it shouldn't be. Too long and not high enough...
The Blu-ray is 2.76:1? Maybe I'm crazy. I was told the 35mm reduction negative was used and is a natural crop of the top and bottom because the 70 neg is just red. I don't feel like pulling it out but take a look. Does it say "TECHNICOLOR" in the credits? If so, at least that part is from a 35mm element and probably all of it, I'm bettin'..
Wow, so that means the optically-reduced anamorphic scope 35mm IP (or a dupe neg) is all that survives, and they trashed the horizontal Technirama camera negative! You wonder why the hell anybody would ever do that, especially for a film as important (and profitable) as Music Man. I was part of restoration efforts for lesser-known films where pieces of it were lost and/or forgotten, but generally with the big, visible hit films (like Music Man), they hold on to everything.
Here's an interesting exception... The Robe (1953) - The first CinemaScope film. Shot on Kodak's new panchromatic stock. Herbert Kalmus was so unnerved by the distorted and extra grainy look of the IB prints, that he approved to have backup Eastmancolor prints rushed out to theaters to replace his dye transfer prints. Those Eastmancolor backups had "Color by Technicolor" in the credits, as they were never meant to be displayed, yet it was the boss' call, and that's the way it went down. Interestingly enough, The Robe was also filmed flat, 1.33:1, simultaneously, with the 'scope version. IB prints were made from that negative and shipped to movie houses that weren't equipped to play CinemaScope. That must of have been quite a lot of theaters, because many theaters initially balked at the extra outlay to project CinemaScope. I've looked, but I cannot find what happened to the 1.33 version. Every home media release that I know of has been in CinemaScope. That falls into what you guys were just talking about. "Whatever happened to..." Im not a big fan of The Robe, but damn, I'd love to see the flat version...if it still exists. Three films in 1953 were shot simultaneously in 'scope and flat.
Who here has seen the UHD release of Singin' In the Rain that was released last month? It's been mentioned, but if you've seen it, what did you think?
4K really brings out the source limitations, doesn't it? That's my take. I would expect An American in Paris would look so much better. So far there are only 4 UHDs of three-strip films: The Wizard of Oz The Red Shoes Singin' In the Rain The Ladykillers (1955) Word on the horizon is that the next major UHD releases would be: Gone with the Wind The Adventures of Robin Hood (either of which might be eligible for WAC's first "official" 4K title, but I think GWtW is more likely a straight WB release) The Black Narcissus I saw Gone With the Wind last weekend, after not seeing it in 20+ years. It would look amazing in 4K.
Did you notice in The Red Shoes that several reels were obviously dupes? I guess there were some unusable sections of the original. Looking forward to GWTW and Robin Hood.
Yeah, I noticed that there were some hinky elements in The Red Shoes, but nothing too distracting. Really, that's a damn good release, all in all, give or take. Don't be too shaken, though. I haven't seen the UHD of Double Indemnity (1944), but other studios have some really nice ones. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) - Paramount Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) - Sony Anatomy of a Murder (1959) - Sony Shadow of a Doubt (1943) - Universal You get the picture. I doubt WB is going to screw them up. Singin' In the Rain simply suffers because of the M-G-M fire.
Now that I have a keyboard instead of my phone, let me just say that SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is fine. It's just like the Blu-ray which is also fine. I've seen a Technicolor print projected and this 4K HD disk actually looks better in many ways. My only concern is that when something is reissued in 4K, I hope it's not like in audiophileland when MoFi used to re-release classic albums and felt the need to bump up the treble, kill the midrange and goose the bass so the consumer could hear a difference. I hate that stuff. Haven't seen SHADOW OF A DOUBT yet, looking forward to it.
Steve, I’m still wondering if you tried, as someone suggested, turning OFF the HDR on your player and having another look at DOUBLE INDEMNITY? Also, were you saying you also disliked the Criterion BLU-RAYS of their other recent B&W titles like SWING TIME and BRINGING UP BABY?
I will when I get around to it, sure. I feel that BABY, SWING TIME, etc. are super unflattering in the Criterion versions, BABY most of all. It's not Criterion's fault, there is no negative. But, the grain and contrast look boosted to me but I have nothing to compare it to. BABY is a wonderful movie, a total FLOP when it was first released, believe it or not. Only during the TV era did it start to get a following..
Bob, remember watching TV as a kid and seeing those RKO films rebadged at C&C Television films with original title cards removed? Those safety dupes are (I believe) the source for all things RKO that have been reissued with some hunting for original credits. No films were spared, not KING KONG, KANE, etc. But, if it wasn't for C&C there would be NOTHING left for RKO. Some reissue results are better than others though, "The Thing" was pretty good, if you can ignore the grainy opticals and the reinserted cut scenes from 16mm..
Yeah, SO MUCH lost, I think we still have to be grateful for what we DO have, and the near miracle restorations that ARE being done. Also still MIA on blu-ray another great one starring Barbara Stanwyck, BALL OF FIRE, I hope THOSE original elements survive! One other thing I was thinking of this morning the whole family watched on L.A. area tv station KTLA: SPADE COOLEY, notwithstanding what I later learned about his personal life, an amazing story! I was ENTRANCED watching his steel guitar player, I STILL love that sound …
