A Few Words About A few words about...™ On the Beach -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[atfree]

I think that taste changes as we age. When I was a teenager, I wasn't particularly fond of Frank Sinatra or 1950s musicals.

Yes, but our generation (or my generation, not sure of your age) was at least exposed to classic films on TV, etc. This generation is rarely exposed to them.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I think that taste changes as we age. When I was a teenager, I wasn't particularly fond of Frank Sinatra or 1950s musicals.

Exactly and as those people get older they may want to view the classics, the problem may be that some of those classics won't be available in HD quality, never mind UHD quality, for future generations, unless the studio's invest now and save the negatives from deterioration, the televisions/projectors/holodecks of the future are not going to be 1080p and film fans will want higher quality, doesn't matter if it's streaming or disc based they will want higher quality.

It costs money and right now some titles may not be seen as viable, i think they should consult the tax accountants who do such a great job of making a $150m dollar production appear to be $200m dollars and invest in the catalog and make that money work for them, it's not just about the present or about blu ray, networks and labels will need higher quality versions of all types of films, streaming companies too and i'd like a long term strategy and approach to catalog titles, not just this make a quick buck as fast as possible thing, i think that's why Sony is investing in it's catalog and making sure the assets are protected for the future.

 

[Reed Grele]

Yes, but our generation (or my generation, not sure of your age) was at least exposed to classic films on TV, etc. This generation is rarely exposed to them.

They're young. Give them some time, and a little credit. They will discover them just as I have.Btw, I'm 58.

 

[JohnMor]

The reality is we can't put the cart before the horse: these transfer are already done. If they don't sell on blu or we don't watch on download or TV, MGM isn't suddenly going to do a 180 and invest money in their catalogue titles. Why would they invest more money in a losing proposition? Even if we all refuse to buy these blus and write in to explain why, the major broadcast and streaming outlets will probably still license these. The average person who watches Marty on TCM, like my mother, doesn't give a shit if it's an older transfer or MAR. They don't know; don't care.

The studios that get it, like Warners and Sony, get it and are doing some great things with their catalogue titles, even when the middling economy and the parent companies may be tightening the budgets compared to years past. MGM does not get it. They are not somehow unaware of the quality of their work versus the other companies. They don't care. NOTHING is going to change that short of a complete top-tier executive change.

 

[Worth]

Yes, but our generation (or my generation, not sure of your age) was at least exposed to classic films on TV, etc. This generation is rarely exposed to them.

The irony is, they're more widely available now than they've ever been.

 

[JoshZ]

MGM isn't suddenly going to do a 360 and invest money in their catalogue titles.

A 360 would be a complete circle back to where they started. I believe you mean a 180.

 

[haineshisway]

Once again, I'm glad you received this, Robert, since it was also requested for me but didn't arrive. Sorry to read it's not as good as it could have been. It's such an important, if somber, movie.

Perhaps they don't send these to you because you are honest and will not give things an automatic pass, as is happening on some other sites where these have been reviewed. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[bruceames]

I'm not seeing that Kino gets a pass any more than Criterion or Twilight Time does. Lots of Criterion releases uses VERY sub-par elements and this is always taken into account in reviews and the score adjusted accordingly (for example, it gets 4 stars for video instead of 2 because they "did the best they could" with bad source materials). For the few releases where there were known problems, Kino has been "tarred and feathered".

 

[JohnMor]

A 360 would be a complete circle back to where they started. I believe you mean a 180.

LOL. You are right! My bad.

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

Sadly, I'm not sure there will be a big consumer base watching "classic" movies (defined as pre-1970 for me) in any format in 20 years. My generation (I'm 51) may be the last that truly appreciates or is interested in these catalog titles. Just anecdotal, but I rarely meet anyone under the age of 30 that's even remotely interested in these films. I hear a lot of younger folks complaining about Netflix streaming ("all they have is bunch of old movies"). It may be a generalization, but for the current under-30 generation film history began the day they were born.

I beg to differ. Try and have a look at the blogosphere (you'd be surprised at how many blogs devoted to classics are authored by relatively young people) and at cinephile forums.

There are many people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are lovers of the classic canon. They may be hard to find in your neighborhood. You probably won't bump into them in your work. I actually don't know ANYBODY who loves movies, old or new, in real life. The internet is another matter. We, film enthusiasts, are much more visible here in this virtual world. Not just a few hundred, but thousands.

I'm 27, have been discussing film in the internet since the age of 11-12, been a member of countless message boards, cinephile groups and a specialised sites reader ever since. Most of my DVD collection is made of Hollywood oldies. Never have I felt special or alone for being interested in "old" and foreign-language titles. People over 50 aren't necessarily more aware or nostalgic of the Golden Age of Cinema. Not If they don't love movies in the first place. It has little to do with age, but with cinephillia!

 

[ROclockCK]

I'm not seeing that Kino gets a pass any more than Criterion or Twilight Time does. Lots of Criterion releases uses VERY sub-par elements and this is always taken into account in reviews and the score adjusted accordingly (for example, it gets 4 stars for video instead of 2 because they "did the best they could" with bad source materials). For the few releases where there were known problems, Kino has been "tarred and feathered".

Good point. Recently, I popped in René Clair's I Married a Witch, and the image instability throughout was...shall we say...a tad noticeable. And they stubbornly went out with an open frame Riot in Cell Block 11 when all of Bob F.'s documentation, plus the otherwise pointless tilting within each shot, confirms that this film was composed for widescreen exhibition.

So yes, Criterion does receive a lot of autopilot 5 star passes from some reviewers (especially elsewhere), in part because so much of what they do tends to take the high(er) road, including additional clean-up wherever practical, plus their generally admirable retrospective features and other presentational details.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Sadly, I'm not sure there will be a big consumer base watching "classic" movies (defined as pre-1970 for me) in any format in 20 years.

I agree, which is why I said that the main audience for classics now and into the future will be us, or people like us. I'm not suggesting it will be a large audience, but whatever that audience will be, we're pretty much it. If we accept poor transfers, then we're guaranteeing that we and future generations only get poor transfers for the most part. Companies have no incentive to change if what they're currently putting out sells. We don't have to demand perfection, but we also don't have to settle so easily for low-grade stuff either.

Anyway I think I've done my point to death now, so I'll stop. For me this all started with Kino, and Olive before them, and their blatant, unashamed agenda to churn out whatever they can get their hands on, whether it's good or bad, as fast as possible, just to make a quick buck.

 

[atfree]

I beg to differ. Try and have a look at the blogosphere (you'd be surprised at how many blogs devoted to classics are authored by relatively young people) and at cinephile forums.There are many people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who are lovers of the classic canon. They may be hard to find in your neighborhood. You probably won't bump into them in your work. I actually don't know ANYBODY who loves movies, old or new, in real life. The internet is another matter. We, film enthusiasts, are much more visible here in this virtual world. Not just a few hundred, but thousands.I'm 27, have been discussing film in the internet since the age of 11-12, been a member of countless message boards, cinephile groups and a specialised sites reader ever since. Most of my DVD collection is made of Hollywood oldies. Never have I felt special or alone for being interested in "old" and foreign-language titles. People over 50 aren't necessarily more aware or nostalgic of the Golden Age of Cinema. Not If they don't love movies in the first place. It has little to do with age, but with cinephillia!

But more catalog releases, and better ones with better, updated transfers, are based on sales (whether it be physical or streaming/downloads), not forums like ours or blogs. And by all accounts I've seen, catalog sales are a miniscule part of the overall total sadly. Classic film lovers are but a niche market. I'm proud to be part of that niche but also a realist.

 

[JohnMor]

We don't have to demand perfection, but we also don't have to settle so easily for low-grade stuff either.

For me this all started with Kino, and Olive before them, and their blatant, unashamed agenda to churn out whatever they can get their hands on, whether it's good or bad, as fast as possible, just to make a quick buck.

You really find all the Kino titles that bad? The vast majority of the ones I've purchased have been pretty good, imo. Paris Blues, Witness for the Prosecution, Separate Tables are excellent. The Children's Hour, The Unforgiven and A Funny Thing... are pretty good. The only less than stellar ones I've seen were Marty, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and On The Beach, which, while imperfect, I would rate quite a bit higher than Robert Harris did. And all 3 of those were still big improvements over their dvds. To me, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is by far the worst. Print damage, faded color, poor contrast. Only the improved detail makes it better than the dvd to me. But it's certainly NOT indicative of the entire series.You found them all low grade?

 

[haineshisway]

You really find all the Kino titles that bad? The vast majority of the ones I've purchased have been pretty good, imo. Paris Blues, Witness for the Prosecution, Separate Tables are excellent. The Children's Hour, The Unforgiven and A Funny Thing... are pretty good. The only less than stellar ones I've seen were Marty, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and On The Beach, which, while imperfect, I would rate quite a bit higher than Robert Harris did. And all 3 of those were still big improvements over their dvds. To me, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is by far the worst. Print damage, faded color, poor contrast. Only the improved detail makes it better than the dvd to me. But it's certainly NOT indicative of the entire series.You found them all low grade?

I don't know that I've seen people making blanket statements, but maybe I've missed those posts. Of the ones I've viewed, Marty is a miss, On the Beach is a miss, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a four-star disaster and Witness for the Prosecution looked very nice. I have Separate Tables here to view and several more on their way.

 

[atfree]

So far the KLSC releases I have would be rated:

Witness for the Prosecution: 4/5
Mr. Majestyk: 3/5
Breakheart Pass: 3/5
The Unforgiven: 3.5/5

Most TT titles I have (about 16 in all) I would rate, on average, from 3.5 to 4.5 (with a couple very close to a 5). Right now, IMO, KLSC releases are, overall, a notch above Olive releases and a notch below TT which is about what I expected. And I try to remember most of these titles, while they may have significant inherent value to individuals, are not A-list titles and are below the radar of the masses. So I don't expect, based on past experience, to see these films given the TLC that other catalog releases get. Now, in a perfect world where each film is treated as a valuable piece of cinema history, all these would get "A" level transfers. But looking back at how many studios have treated their catalog assets, we certainly don't live in a perfect world.

Bottomline, I can live with a "3" level BD of Breakheart Pass, Mr. Majestyk, etc as I feel confident this is the best these films will EVER look and sound on home video. When I get upset is when a high profile film like "Spartacus" or "The Great Escape" gets a "3" level BD (or worse). While I can hope for perfection, and be thrilled when I get it, I try not to go through life expecting it. To paraphrase something my wife says, it is better to live life with disappointment in an "average" BD that to live with regret that I missed the opportunity to own it at all.

 

[Jon Hertzberg]

So far the KLSC releases I have would be rated:

Witness for the Prosecution: 4/5
Mr. Majestyk: 3/5
Breakheart Pass: 3/5
The Unforgiven: 3.5/5

Most TT titles I have (about 16 in all) I would rate, on average, from 3.5 to 4.5 (with a couple very close to a 5). Right now, IMO, KLSC releases are, overall, a notch above Olive releases and a notch below TT which is about what I expected. And I try to remember most of these titles, while they may have significant inherent value to individuals, are not A-list titles and are below the radar of the masses. So I don't expect, based on past experience, to see these films given the TLC that other catalog releases get. Now, in a perfect world where each film is treated as a valuable piece of cinema history, all these would get "A" level transfers. But looking back at how many studios have treated their catalog assets, we certainly don't live in a perfect world.

The above Twilight Time "ratings" might reflect the fact that they also release Sony titles, all, or most, of which look great--thanks in large part to Grover Crisp and his team. KL Studio Classics is, at this point, restricted to MGM's HD catalog, which, as we can see, is far less consistent than Sony's.

 

[atfree]

The above Twilight Time "ratings" might reflect the fact that they also release Sony titles, all, or most, of which look great--thanks in large part to Grover Crisp and his team. KL Studio Classics is, at this point, restricted to MGM's HD catalog, which, as we can see, is far less consistent than Sony's.

Excellent Point! Breaking it down, TT's Sony releases are the one's I'd rate highest in my TT collection (The Man from Laramie, etc), and the MGM/UA releases are among the most mediocre (The Mechanic, Rollerball).

 

[ahollis]

Excellent Point! Breaking it down, TT's Sony releases are the one's I'd rate highest in my TT collection (The Man from Laramie, etc), and the MGM/UA releases are among the most mediocre (The Mechanic, Rollerball).

I have several FOX Twilight Time titles that I would rate 4.5 to 5. Even the MGM titles from them rank a 4 to 4.5 rating from me.

 

[Randy Korstick]

True but because there are now 200+ channels on TV, discs to rent or buy and all the streaming their choices are endless and when they see something old they just keep on looking for something newer. It was different in the 60's, 70's and 80's because we didn't have all these choices so we gave older movies and TV shows a chance and were able to discover them. The newer generations do not need to give older Movies and TV a chance because they have too many options and prefer newer movies first.

The irony is, they're more widely available now than they've ever been.