A Robert Harris Bits Extra - Lawrence of Arabia: Superbit (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Re: MFL, the DVD was fine for the time period in which it was released. I would look forward to a SE in the near future which would be able to take better advantage of the format.

Oh please, please let this come to pass! MFL (my copy) won't play past the layer change (DVD rot?) and I've been too lazy to call WB to demand a replacement (I did send two letters a while ago which went unanswered). And I don't want to pay $15 for a new-old DVD.

I would pretty much buy an MFL:SE DVD and coaster-ize my old one!

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I thought all Superbits had a DTS track? I'd want one. ~700 kilobits/sec is not going to make a hill of beans to the picture quality one way or the other.

Dan

 

[greg_t]

It will have DTS. All superbits do. It's part of the supberbit spec. the online ordering sites are listing it as having DTS.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

I can't wait for this release. Thanks for the hard work Mr. Harris!

What did you think of what was done to Giant? The edge enhancement was TERRIBLE!

Thanks for the link confirming DTS Greg, just make sure not to order it from DVD Planet though when you are purchasing it!

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Since From Here to Eternity, nearly 10 years older than Lawrence, had a DTS upmix, I'd be awfully surprised if Lawrence didn't too. But hopefully it's not as awkward as the one for Eternity.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

"Who are you?"

 

[Paul Drake]

Sorry for posting the incorrect info about DTS. I mistakenly mistook Mr. Harris' comment as meaning there was no DTS.

My apologies.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Thanks for answering my question, RAH. I thoroughly enjoyed your commentary on MFL and hope that it will be carried over to any new version.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Stephen_J_H,
I E-mailed Roger Ebert, about that quote.
Had to call him on the fact that Ebert & Roper, at the Movies, 'regularly' shows P&S clips for the movies they are reviewing.

Thank you Robert Harris,
For all your hard work on this cinema classic.
Looking forward too repurchasing this title.:b
Ugh!
Did I just say THAT?!?!?!?!

 

[Sven Lorenz]

Although there is some question as to whether the final compression will allow the first half of the film to run to completion on disc one

Any news on where the disc change will be ?
If I have to choose between colour errors that I don't notice and EE that doesn't bother me on the one DVD and having the disc change in the wrong place on the other then I'll keep the old version.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Any news on where the disc change will be ?
If I have to choose between colour errors that I don't notice and EE that doesn't bother me on the one DVD and having the disc change in the wrong place on the other then I'll keep the old version.

If you aren't bothered by the EE on the prior disc, and don't notice color errors etc, why bother anyway?

To not buy a disc that will clearly be better than the original simply because of where the disc change might be seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I'm but confused by those comments, too, Rob.

To me, this new edition of Lawrence is for people who LOVE the film - worship it - people like me!

I must have seen it 20 times over the years: Cinema; TV; VHS; DVD... and I know better now - I shout and scream and throw things when it comes on TV at Christmas in pan and scan with adverts!

Basically, it is nutters like myself who notice the anomalies of the current transfer and the new edition is to silence my pained screams at night as to not disturb the other patients.

If you don't notice those anomalies, then stick with that DVD and spend your cash on a DVD of a film you don't yet own, but have been thinking of getting.


Gordy

 

[Rob Tomlin]

To me, this new edition of Lawrence is for people who LOVE the film - worship it - people like me!

Perhaps we should place bets on who the bigger LoA worshipper is!?

Anyone who has seen this film in its 70mm glory (I have twice) will know that the DVD could be much better. They would also know that this film begs to be put in a high definition format!

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Well, I've seen it in 70mm sitting on camel in full T.E.W get-up!

It's a astounding piece of Cinema. It will never date, never wane and when ever people get tired of the modern 'big' movies, they can always go back to this and see how it's done.

No prisoners!


Gordy

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Perhaps we should place bets on who the bigger LoA worshipper is!?

You whippersnappers. I've felt that way about this film ever since I saw it in 70mm when it first came out.

I even have a Lee-Enfield No. 1 Mk. III, dated 1917, with an Arabic language unit disk in the stock. It could very well be an example of the "modern rifle for every man" actually carried by one of Lawrence's men. You have to hold the right rifle to get properly into the spirit of the attack on Aquaba.....

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Anyone who has seen this film in its 70mm glory (I have twice) will know that the DVD could be much better. They would also know that this film begs to be put in a high definition format!

70mm film is a pretty decent hi-definition format, come to think of it. No home video format is going to really do it justice regardless of definition. Even a 9-foot screen will seem pretty puny.

Regards,

 

[Sven Lorenz]

Okay here's my point:

An intermission is not a storytelling device - it's something that in a movie theater has to be done to allow people to watch a four hour movie.
On DVD movies that long have to be split up onto two DVDs, the natural point to do so is the intermission.
If you choose to put the break-point between the DVDs into another position in the movie then the intermission has no purpose anymore.
So either use the intermission to split the movies into two parts or move or cut the intermission.
Again - the intermission is not an artistic device - it's a technical device that has to serve a purpose (toilet break or DVD switch).
So moving or removing it does not alter the film.
I just think that it's highly disruptive to the flow of the film:
- you watch 110 minutes of the movie
- turn the lights on
- get up
- change the DVD
- sit down again
- turn the lights off
- watch another 25 minutes of the movie
- sit through (or fast forward through) 10 minutes of intermission
- watch the rest of the movie

In my opinion that hurts the entire 'experience' of watching the movie more than any slight colour problems or some EE.

I would love to have a perfect version of the movie - but if I have to choose between these two compromises I'll choose the old DVD.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

70mm film is a pretty decent hi-definition format, come to think of it. No home video format is going to really do it justice regardless of definition. Even a 9-foot screen will seem pretty puny.

I agree with that Ken!

How did you know I was getting a 9 foot wide screen?

Sven-

Fair enough.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I'm not bothered by the colors--the only place I've ever seen the film is on the DVD--(though I am bothered by the EE) but I'll be right in line for the new one because Mr Harris says the old one isn't right and the new one is. That's good enough for me.

 

[Damin J Toell]

An intermission is not a storytelling device - it's something that in a movie theater has to be done to allow people to watch a four hour movie.

An intermission can indeed be a storytelling device. It can create a break in the narrative at a specific moment in order to signify something, much like the breaking of a novel into parts or chapters can do the same for that medium. And, indeed, the intermission in Lawrence of Arabia does signify much with regard to Lawrence. The film purposely changes greatly in tone after the intermission; it is not some random point at which exhibitors wanted to let people go the bathroom. Maintaining the intermission, even if it no longer matches up with the disc break, seems important to me in maintaining the proper structure of the narrative. To have the film simply continue on and ignore the moment where intermission should be would be extremely awkward. Removing LoA's intermission would be like removing all chapter breaks in a novel and reducing it to a single unbroken chapter simply because all of the text can be fit into a single bound book - it would remove an important part of the intended structure of the work.

Personally, I don't see how an extra break in the flow of the film as necessitated by technology trumps the basic proper presentation of the film. Then again, I'm also not bothered by multiple disc changes on laserdisc (imagine watching Criterion's CAV LD of LoA on 4 discs with 8 sides). I'd rather have both a technologically necessary disc change and an intended intermission than see a film with incorrect color timing and a faulty soundtrack. While neither is the best of all possible presentations (we would need a new 70mm print and a proper cinema for that), I really don't even see a comparison between the two. One maintains the structural integrity of the film while making a single minor concession to technology, while the other is just an inexcusably wrong presentation. However, these are all personal judgments for us to make, and you're certainly free to purchase and view whichever release you prefer.

DJ