What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Man Who Knew Too Much -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,598
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Originally Posted by benbess /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/210#post_3997877
That's very good news. But then the mystery remains as to why this classic title is not out on blu-ray. Perhaps an HD master already exists?
Because the general public isn't exactly buying these classic release like hot cakes. If people want more classic films released on BD then we the general public needs to show the studios there is a healthy market for them.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/210#post_3997878
Does it matter if The Tin Star is a black and white film?
From any number of perspectives.

Yes.

RAH
 

mikeyhitchfan

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 6, 2012
Messages
530
Location
Costa Mesa CA
Real Name
Mike
The British Film Institute accepted donations to help them pay for the restorations of the Hitchcock 9 silent films recently. They had corporate sponsorship as well.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/210#post_3997874
Don't assume that Spielberg and Lucas don't contribute to film restoration projects. Many individuals make charitable contributions, but choose to remain anonymous. It happens more than you think.

Crawdaddy

Spielberg and Lucas aren't my clients, but some of their contemporaries are, and I can tell you first hand, this is absolutely true.

But, to all those suggesting fundraising or donations for TMWKTM, the fact remains that the major studios do NOT need funds raised or donated for restoration. They can afford it. Don't get me wrong, if that's the only way they'll agree to do it, then fine. But the donated and sponsored funds really should be saved for films that have no major corporation controlling them. There's a lot of orphan films that desperately need those funds.
 

rsmithjr

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,228
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Real Name
Robert Smith
TMWKTM is also not in extreme condition with respect to survival. The current Blu-ray is not so bad that it does not give the viewer a pretty good idea of what the film was like.
Many films that attract sponsorship are in very serious condition as well as having no interested corporate sponsors.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
rsmithjr said:
TMWKTM is also not in extreme condition with respect to survival. The current Blu-ray is not so bad that it does not give the viewer a pretty good idea of what the film was like.
Many films that attract sponsorship are in very serious condition as well as having no interested corporate sponsors.
Pleased to have your expert opinion
RAH
 

rsmithjr

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,228
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Real Name
Robert Smith
Robert Harris said:
Pleased to have your expert opinion
RAH
Sorry, I didn't mean to be flip. I am very disappointed with the Blu-ray of this title but also resigned to it.
I simply was referring to the idea of getting private sponsorship to do something about TMWKTM/ From that perspective, I would guess that individuals and foundations would want to put their money someplace else.
For example, I do know David Packard pretty well. He is a big lover of Hitchcock and has given a lot to film preservation. I suspect (without asking him!) that he would think that TMWKTM was not something he wanted to get into supporting.
 

FanboyZ

Second Unit
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
283
Real Name
Zolly Shoah Ben-Becker
The fact that they didn't even attempt to do color corrections on the most upsetting shots is disturbing to me.
Although if Universal actually attempted something like that they'd probably make it worse...
 

KlausK

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
4
Real Name
Klaus K
I just discovered the trailer to the blur-ray set on Youtube. A lot of film clips from the better transferred movies and if you blink you will miss it - one single scene from TMWKTM. The length is abour 1 second or so. I just stopped the video and the color settings are terrible. Yellow tinted scene and Jemes Stewart and Doris Day with a very unhealthy color in their faces. The point is I have the 1985 Trailer for the five Hitchcock movies - introduced by Jimmy Stewart - as a super 8 mm copy. That trailer is build on TMWKTM. The whole trailer is concentrated on that movie. In the new trailer one second. That gives you an answer what the movie means to universal executives.
Of course I cancelled my preorder on amazon.uk. :eek:

Klaus
 

Mikey1969

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
343
Location
Kitchener, Ontario
Real Name
M. Fox
A revealing trailer indeed...poor editing, flash cuts to hide the ugliness of some of the footage, unsychronized vocal tracks, music taken from Cape Fear (?!). The contempt Universal seems to have for these films (and their customers) is astounding.
 

Douglas R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
2,947
Location
London, United Kingdom
Real Name
Doug
Mikey1969 said:
A revealing trailer indeed...poor editing, flash cuts to hide the ugliness of some of the footage, unsychronized vocal tracks, music taken from Cape Fear (?!). The contempt Universal seems to have for these films (and their customers) is astounding.
Actually it's very well done.
 

Persianimmortal

Screenwriter
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
1,376
Location
Canberra, Australia
Real Name
Koroush Ghazi
If it makes anyone feel better, the Australian version of the Hitchcock set trailer is better, and uses appropriate background music. It also has several scenes from The Man Who Knew Too Much which look OK at a casual glance:

Either way, it's just a trailer - a marketing gimmick, and not something most intelligent people should pay much attention to.
 

PSPFilmbuff

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2
Real Name
Peter Perakos
Robert Crawford said:
Excellent point.  If it was up to the people in direct control of the elements, every title would be done right as these people love film and generally respect film history.  However, in the corporate setting, you have those pushing down their budget goals who have little regard to film and its history.
Crawdaddy
This is a sore point with me, since my livelihood is in tax/accounting, and I am an investor in several media companies and have had good responses in my communication with the executives of those corporations.
However, I do not own Comcast stock. I am communicating in this fashion because I sent a private message yesterday to KevinEK and since I just joined this site, but have been following the conversation, I learn, even though I sent the message yesterday,
You have reached your daily allotment of 2 private messages per day. Note that multiple recipients of the same message each count toward your limit.
I sent a most diplomatic and passionate e-mail to the highest executive level within Comcast, but since I've not had permission to discuss publicly, I cannot reveal who it is, and of course that is secondary to preventing the loss of the film. For a person who doesn't work in this industry, and this aspect in particular, film preservation, the concepts presented may be as arcane as GAAP, FASB's, and Private Letter Rulings would be to you; however, I impressed on him my concern on the impending loss of the film, and wrote,
As to the specifics of the Hitchcock films, which are part of America’s unique cultural heritage, and one in particular is in danger of being lost, I think you will find this imperative and also helpful. The Man Who Knew Too Much, which is part of the collection, was not restored properly; the details are in the link I’m providing below. Universal has its own in-house expert, Robert O’Neill, but he may not have been consulted because, it is assumed, budgetary or time restraints decisions made “from several levels above Mr. O'Neil, who has done preservation work on this title in the past. And his work is always beautiful,” quoting from the Rembrandt of film restoration, Robert A. Harris, whose recent restoration of Lawrence of Arabia for its Fiftieth anniversary was recently screened at the Academy of Motion Picture Artists and Sciences. Work needs to be done, at a nominal cost in 2012 dollars, to preserve the film and make a VistaVision film archival negative. Again, details are provided in the link below.
I don’t believe either accountants, and indirectly...should be impugned as people “who care only about the bottom line” and “little or no appreciation of the art treasure under control”. I think that’s false, and you and your team can do much to rectify this situation.
My own [e-mail] correspondence, after making your customer relations contact at Deluxe aware of this situation, was this reply that stated in part, “We hope that you will keep an open mind regarding our upcoming Blu-ray release of "Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection (Limited Edition)” which is frankly unacceptable.
(email: [email protected])
Since Universal has so much of our heritage and is celebrating its One Hundredth Anniversary this year, I think involvement by senior executives such as yourself, who are concerned at the legacy they leave and the goodwill generated in the international community, will take the necessary measures. As Harris noted, and coincidentally I did in my e-mail, the tax exempt Film Foundation could help with funding, if necessary.
His first response to me on Monday November 5 included this statement:
I will reach out to our Universal colleagues and ask them to respond. I can assure you that the criticisms were by no means "budget related" by our corporate or finance teams.
The follow-up response forwarded from Universal, which was forwarded to me 11:21 p.m. EDT this past Thursday included,
Rest assured, none of the studio’s films are in danger of being lost as you suggest. Going forward, Universal continues to be wholly committed to preserving its unparalleled heritage and in fact plans to continue such restorative efforts as possible through next year and beyond with the goal of also making more of its catalog available to consumers in the most pristine Blu-ray offerings possible.
Coincidentally, thinking it was a financial issue, I provided data on Film Foundation, prior to reading posts here with similar recommendations.
Kevin is concerned there is still "a failure to communicate" and inside sources within Universal are not confirming new work to be done. I did follow up with the Executive, but I am not assured of any reply. Therefore, it is certainly possible that as a member of the press, Kevin can reach out and gain clarification. It is possible we have received good news or that further misunderstanding is possible.
But I think Comcast's intentions are honorable in this regard, it's not a budgetary issue. And Kevin EK informed me that the Hitchcock family owns the films involved; they are not Universal property.
The situation is complex and fluid, but perhaps the door is not closed. I hoped I've helped open it a little.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
Originally Posted by PSPFilmbuff /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/210#post_3999761
This is a sore point with me, since my livelihood is in tax/accounting, and I am an investor in several media companies and have had good responses in my communication with the executives of those corporations.
However, I do not own Comcast stock. I am communicating in this fashion because I sent a private message yesterday to KevinEK and since I just joined this site, but have been following the conversation, I learn, even though I sent the message yesterday,
I sent a most diplomatic and passionate e-mail to the highest executive level within Comcast, but since I've not had permission to discuss publicly, I cannot reveal who it is, and of course that is secondary to preventing the loss of the film. For a person who doesn't work in this industry, and this aspect in particular, film preservation, the concepts presented may be as arcane as GAAP, FASB's, and Private Letter Rulings would be to you; however, I impressed on him my concern on the impending loss of the film, and wrote,
His first response to me on Monday November 5 included this statement:
The follow-up response forwarded from Universal, which was forwarded to me 11:21 p.m. EDT this past Thursday included,
Coincidentally, thinking it was a financial issue, I provided data on Film Foundation, prior to reading posts here with similar recommendations.
Kevin is concerned there is still "a failure to communicate" and inside sources within Universal are not confirming new work to be done. I did follow up with the Executive, but I am not assured of any reply. Therefore, it is certainly possible that as a member of the press, Kevin can reach out and gain clarification. It is possible we have received good news or that further misunderstanding is possible.
But I think Comcast's intentions are honorable in this regard, it's not a budgetary issue. And Kevin EK informed me that the Hitchcock family owns the films involved; they are not Universal property.
The situation is complex and fluid, but perhaps the door is not closed. I hoped I've helped open it a little.

I believe that the more points of this sort are pressed, the closer wagons will circle.

Please understand that if there were a problem, we would have dealt with it. At this time there is no problem.

BTW, have you actually screened the disc?

RAH
 

PSPFilmbuff

Auditioning
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2
Real Name
Peter Perakos
Robert Harris said:
I believe that the more points of this sort are pressed, the closer wagons will circle.
Please understand that if there were a problem, we would have dealt with it.  At this time there is no problem.
BTW, have you actually screened the disc?
RAH
I do not understand what you are saying. Are you withdrawing your statements, made on this thread, that there is a danger of losing the film? Did you not post the following?
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/30#post_3994310
Biggest problem is that we could lose the film.
RAH
And Kevin wrote me:
Five of the movies (Rope, Rear Window, The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Vertigo) are essentially on lease from the Hitchcock family. Universal does not own them. To my eye, three of the transfers were very good and not ones I would complain about. Rope has a registration error that will annoy purists but not the casual viewer. The Man Who Knew Too Much, on the other hand has a massive yellow pulse running through much of the movie, which is the sign of a transfer made from a badly deteriorated negative. It is also a sign that this wasn't checked before the discs were pressed. Fixing this will require a new transfer, and more seriously, a lot of work with the negative to rescue this movie before the OCN is lost.
No, I've not viewed the Blu-ray but I did trust the judgement of the reviewers on this site, including yours, and Kevin, and also provided links to other critical reviews, such as:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/7997/hitchcock_masterpiece_man_too_much.html
I truly believed that the film was in jeopardy; if that is not so, please advise and I'll inform the Comcast executive accordingly.
In addition, you have recently restored a film part of whose subtext is the quest for human liberty and have an interest in another film also on that topic. Surely you'd not challenge my expressing my concern at the potential for loss of the negative of a work of art that may be Hitchcock family property, but should still exist and be seen by generations to come. If I'm in error that there is no danger, please advise.
And be cognizant that my time is limited and I've done my best to rectify a situation, which may not even exist. If this is all about just a bad Blu-ray, I am mortified!
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
PSPFilmbuff said:
I do not understand what you are saying. Are you withdrawing your statements, made on this thread, that there is a danger of losing the film? Did you not post the following?
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/30#post_3994310
And Kevin wrote me:
No, I've not viewed the Blu-ray but I did trust the judgement of the reviewers on this site, including yours, and Kevin, and also provided links to other critical reviews, such as:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/7997/hitchcock_masterpiece_man_too_much.html
I truly believed that the film was in jeopardy; if that is not so, please advise and I'll inform the Comcast executive accordingly.
In addition, you have recently restored a film part of whose subtext is the quest for human liberty and have an interest in another film also on that topic. Surely you'd not challenge my expressing my concern at the potential for loss of the negative of a work of art that may be Hitchcock family property, but should still exist and be seen by generations to come. If I'm in error that there is no danger, please advise.
And be cognizant that my time is limited and I've done my best to rectify a situation, which may not even exist. If this is all about just a bad Blu-ray, I am mortified!
Mr. Perakos,
I presume that you have a relationship with the Comcast exec you're contacting, but regardless, hopefully by education, great corporate gears may be brought to turn.
I'm a great believer in Liberty, Freedom, and the saving of our film heritage for future generations. I believe in America. It would be wonderful if your efforts lead to something positive.
As to TMWKTM, I've not seen the negative in many years, but would hope that the film can still be saved in its full quality and resolution. I have no idea if this is still possible, which may be why the Blu-ray looks as it does.
RAH.
 

Brianruns10

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
278
Real Name
Brian Rose
If those five films still belong to the Hitchcock family, I would surely hope they would be induced to take them somewhere where they might be treated better. Bring them to the Film Foundation, or Warners, or Criterion...
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,561
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Robert Harris said:
Mr. Perakos,
I presume that you have a relationship with the Comcast exec you're contacting, but regardless, hopefully by education, great corporate gears may be brought to turn.
I'm a great believer in Liberty, Freedom, and the saving of our film heritage for future generations. I believe in America. It would be wonderful if your efforts lead to something positive.
As to TMWKTM, I've not seen the negative in many years, but would hope that the film can still be saved in its full quality and resolution. I have no idea if this is still possible, which may be why the Blu-ray looks as it does.
RAH.
And while you're at it, save Rope, which is one of the sorriest-looking Blu-ray transfers I've ever seen - worse that The Man Who Knew Too Much, really. Horrendous would be too kind.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,310
Real Name
Robert Harris
Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/210#post_3999870
And while you're at it, save Rope, which is one of the sorriest-looking Blu-ray transfers I've ever seen - worse that The Man Who Knew Too Much, really. Horrendous would be too kind.

Who was it that said "Rope is easy, comedy is hard...?"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,535
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top