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

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/150#post_3997455
Interesting point for reflection, is it not?
From my perspective, when an entity not version in film end up owning that stuff with the little holes on the side, things do not go we'll. Sony is an exception to that premise.
RAH

It is good thing a guy like Jeff Baker is in control at Warner and whomever is at Sony.






Crawdaddy

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/150#post_3997445
In my thinking about this I always come back to the legacy of Hitchcock himself. When I moved to L.A. and first took the Universal tour in 1972, Hitchcock was the man. Not only in casual conversation among The People ("when will his next film come out?" "what will it BE?"), and about town, but at Universal itself. Whatever there was involving Hitchcock to point out on tours, they made sure to point it out. One hoped for a glance of him entering or leaving a building.

As late as 1998, nearly two decades after his death, they were hosting an entire building and attraction in Orlando.

I was pleasantly surprised to find a building or two still named after him while there with HTF folks a couple of weeks ago. But there it was, in all its glory, that marvelous profile proudly displayed, high, for all to see. For a few moments, it was 1972 again, and Frenzy was opening at the Dome.

While it may seem so when discussing several unfortunate discs, I don't think Universal has "forgotten" Mr. Hitchcock. There are just a few areas of the business in which the legacy must now be tweaked -- and according to RAH, without delay.

It costs next to nothing to put a sign on a building. What matters is the treatment of the films. One grows weary of them paying lip service to the Hitchcock legacy, while allowing the basis of the legacy, the man's actual work he (and Alma) devoted their entire lives to, get short shrift at best and become unsavable at worst. In my opinion, why even call it "The Masterpiece Collection" if you aren't going to treat them as masterpieces? I'd love to see them put their money where their mouth is where Hickcock is concerned. They did it with the classic Monsters, it's time to do it with their other crown jewel.

 

[Robert Harris]

It is good thing a guy like Jeff Baker is in control at Warner and whomever is at Sony.
Crawdaddy

I'm certain that if Mr. Baker were behind this set, those responsible for creating the masters would have had the requisite funds to hit the proper quality levels. I also don't believe that either Mr. Price, and since you mention Sony, Mr. Crisp would permit this to be seen in its current state. It also wouldn't come out from Fox.
RAH

 

[Yorkshire]

Just for fun, I ran a rough budget on this film, to put things in perspective.
The cost for all restoration and preservation in 4k by the best post house in the business, would run far less than 600k.
That number includes pristine restoration, with a final result looking as it did in 1956, inclusive of a 4k DCP, HD video master, restored audio, archived data files, and one more item.
A record of the data out to a new VistaVision 8-perf negative, as well as a Vista check print.
This is not a matter of millions of dollars.
RAH

Many thanks for that.
So, I suppose the big questioon is this. How long would it take Universal to re-coup that $0.6 million? For that I suppose it needs to be the difference between the number of (and amount paid for) copies/seats/tv deals they'd sell of a properly restored version vs this version.
Steve W

 

[Andy_G]

One grows weary of them paying lip service to the Hitchcock legacy, while allowing the basis of the legacy, the man's actual work he (and Alma) devoted their entire lives to, get short shrift at best and become unsavable at worst. 

I like these movies a lot and think they deserve better, but this strikes me as a bit overwrought. After all, it was the master himself who allowed the films to deteriorate as they did in the first place (though it does not seem that anyone else who made a color film during the period was able to do much better).
These films will be saved; it's just going to require some pressure. If you're going to write a letter, I suggest sending it to Brian Roberts.

 

[David Weicker]

David,
When we did our work on Vertigo, the elements were 41 years old old, and those of Man were 42-3. They were in virtually identical condition. Very clean, as VVLA elements are only run to create dupes, and reasonably stabilized since they got into Universal's vaults, which is a good place to be.
Digital work is less time consuming, as well as far less expensive than analogue. I've not run a budget on Man, but it would not be terribly expensive, as beyond color timing, the major expense is clean-up, which should not be a problem.
Two other points come into play here. First, the studio has spent funds to scan an element that should not have been scanned, even at 2k. What it yields is unacceptabe. Funds would also have been used toward color and clean-up. More important, this film has been a major source of income for all involved since Mr. Katz persuaded the studio to license it, with the other four family-owned films, in 1983. The elements were problematic then, and have not gotten better.

Just for fun, I ran a rough budget on this film, to put things in perspective.
The cost for all restoration and preservation in 4k by the best post house in the business, would run far less than 600k.
That number includes pristine restoration, with a final result looking as it did in 1956, inclusive of a 4k DCP, HD video master, restored audio, archived data files, and one more item.
A record of the data out to a new VistaVision 8-perf negative, as well as a Vista check print.
This is not a matter of millions of dollars.
RAH

I'm still a bit confused by some of the things you've said.
In past posts you said:

This is derived from a horribly faded element, that is fully oxidized.

The problem is totally based upon a lack of restorative efforts. The problems cannot be handled with the current element in any realm. Irrelevant of mastering. The film needs to return to its foundation.
RAH

The.problem is that the Blu-ray is based upon a dupe of a very heavily faded and damaged original.

Given what you said was the condition of the scanned print, And that digital is not really an option, would it really cost so little?
How does the 600k figure compare to your budget on Vertigo?
I just find it hard to believe, based on your prior posts, that it is all so simple and easy
David

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm still a bit confused by some of the things you've said.
In past posts you said:
Given what you said was the condition of the scanned print, And that digital is not really an option, would it really cost so little?
How does the 600k figure compare to your budget on Vertigo?
I just find it hard to believe, based on your prior posts, that it is all so simple and easy
David

Neither simple nor easy, but approachable and, with the proper planning and tools...
RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

I like these movies a lot and think they deserve better, but this strikes me as a bit overwrought. After all, it was the master himself who allowed the films to deteriorate as they did in the first place (though it does not seem that anyone else who made a color film during the period was able to do much better).
These films will be saved; it's just going to require some pressure. If you're going to write a letter, I suggest sending it to Brian Roberts.

Mr. Hitchcock is not responsible for the condition of the elements. Others in his organization took care of these things, and the care that was received between the time that rights reverted from Paramount up until 1983, was actually not far from the median norm. It was what it was.
RAH

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/180#post_3997467
Many thanks for that.
So, I suppose the big questioon is this. How long would it take Universal to re-coup that $0.6 million? For that I suppose it needs to be the difference between the number of (and amount paid for) copies/seats/tv deals they'd sell of a properly restored version vs this version.
Steve W

I'm typically not a fan of this current trend- especially when a massive corporation is involved, but I would have no problem dropping $250-$300 into a Kickstarter to have the problem films restored with the reward being a replacement Masterpiece Collection.

It's pretty apparent that unless the films has "Steven Spielberg" attached then the money isn't going to be there for the restoration. Maybe with the fans kicking in it will send the message to the suits to get off their wallets and invest in their own future.

Probably not though.

 

[benbess]

I'm typically not a fan of this current trend- especially when a massive corporation is involved, but I would have no problem dropping $250-$300 into a Kickstarter to have the problem films restored with the reward being a replacement Masterpiece Collection.
It's pretty apparent that unless the films has "Steven Spielberg" attached then the money isn't going to be there for the restoration. Maybe with the fans kicking in it will send the message to the suits to get off their wallets and invest in their own future.
Probably not though.

I wish people like Spielberg and Lucas would be more actively involved in funding the restoration of films. They have the love of Hollywood history—as well as the resources and clout—to make more happen in this area. Lucas has $4 billion, which he plans to spend mostly on charity, and so what about devoting just a little of that to restoring at least a few dozen of the thousands of films that need work?
A restored Hitchcock title like Man2 would make back the money it takes to fix it up in a few years. I have no doubt about that. But there are many other great titles that aren't such famous crowd pleasers with such big names attached (Hitchcock, Stewart, and Doris Day!) that are also in need of salvation before it's too late.

 

[Andy_G]

Mr. Hitchcock is not responsible for the condition of the elements. Others in his organization took care of these things, and the care that was received between the time that rights reverted from Paramount up until 1983, was actually not far from the median norm. It was what it was.
RAH

Well, that depends on what you mean by "responsible." Presumably someone would have noticed something was wrong if they had bothered to check sooner.
That actually leads me to a related question: suppose you had been placed in the lab at Paramount in about 1958, just as Hitch was departing. Given the technology at the time, what would you have done to preserve the elements?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Andy_G /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/180#post_3997494
Well, that depends on what you mean by "responsible." Presumably someone would have noticed something was wrong if they had bothered to check sooner.
That actually leads me to a related question: suppose you had been placed in the lab at Paramount in about 1958, just as Hitch was departing. Given the technology at the time, what would you have done to preserve the elements?

I would probably have left them at either Technicolor or Paramount, where conditions would have been more controlled.

But you have to keep in mind, that these films weren't fading in 1958. The film stock had no track history, and was then only four years old.

Very difficult to say that you'd have done something else other than leave them where they were, if there was no knowledge regarding the potential for a problem.

RAH

 

[Andy_G]

I appreciate the response. I was actually thinking along the lines of "if you didn't trust the dye stability." Do we even know for sure that freezing the stock would have preserved the yellow layer?
I think you've said that London processed negatives survived much better. I presume that there is (or once was) a Ph.D. in Rochester who had a pretty good understand of what happened and why.

 

[JohnMor]

/t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/180#post_3997494
Well, that depends on what you mean by "responsible." Presumably someone would have noticed something was wrong if they had bothered to check sooner.

So am I to understand that the deterioration of the elements to their current state happened in toto during the 20 or so years Hitchcock had them and none of it during the 29 years that Universal has had them? That seems to strain credibility that they have stopped aging. If that's the case, then RAH is incorrect when he says the film will be unsavable in its original glory soon. We obviously have a great deal more time to get around to this one.

 

[FanboyZ]

Lets not kid ourselves, Lucas and Spielberg don't guarantee quality.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Andy_G /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/180#post_3997539
I appreciate the response. I was actually thinking along the lines of "if you didn't trust the dye stability." Do we even know for sure that freezing the stock would have preserved the yellow layer?
I think you've said that London processed negatives survived much better. I presume that there is (or once was) a Ph.D. in Rochester who had a pretty good understand of what happened and why.

Always presumed it to be Thames water.

RAH

 

[Andy_G]

So am I to understand that the deterioration of the elements to their current state happened in toto during the 20 or so years Hitchcock had them and none of it during the 29 years that Universal has had them? 

I suspect it's pretty close to that, yes. RAH can say if it's otherwise.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by JohnMor /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray/180#post_3997552


So am I to understand that the deterioration of the elements to their current state happened in toto during the 20 or so years Hitchcock had them and none of it during the 29 years that Universal has had them? That seems to strain credibility that they have stopped aging. If that's the case, then RAH is incorrect when he says the film will be unsavable in its original glory soon. We obviously have a great deal more time to get around to this one.

I'd be interested in your definition of "a great deal more time."

The elements, all elements from that era, were extremely susceptible to fade, and less than stellar storage conditions didn't help. Better storage conditions slow future deterioration, but there is already enough dye fade and shrinkage in those particular elements to be problematic. One also runs into ye olde vinegar syndrome, as the base of the film deteriorates. My attitude, especially with film of importance, is that waiting only exacerbates the situation. No one needs more problems.

RAH

 

[JohnMor]

Thanks. Your earlier posts in this thread certainly made it sound pretty urgent. I didn't think it was quite possible for them to be frozen in in time in 1983 condition with all the time in the world to get around to them.

 

[JoshZ]

Lucas has $4 billion, which he plans to spend mostly on charity, and so what about devoting just a little of that to restoring at least a few dozen of the thousands of films that need work?

Would be nice if he'd spend a little of that to restore his own movies, but he doesn't seem so interested in that.