Annie Hall and Manhattan on Blu (1 Viewer)

[kagemusha98]

MGM will release ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN on Blu-ray on Jan 24

 

[lukejosephchung]

Just ordered both of these from Amazon.com for $17.49 each...

 

[Mark-P]

La-di-da

 

[Dick]

Just ordered both of these from Amazon.com for $17.49 each...

You do mean Amazon.ca, right? I don't see it up for the U.S.

 

[Mark-P]

They are right here on Amazon.com

You do mean Amazon.ca, right? I don't see it up for the U.S.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Please get the subtitles on Annie Hall right for this release. Make them look like they are part of the film if they're going to be player generated, and please, please, please, please get rid of "[thinking]". This managed to ruin one of the films more clever moments and doesn't seem to have ever been fixed on DVD.

 

[StephenAlto]

Please get the subtitles on Annie Hall right for this release.  Make them look like they are part of the film if they're going to be player generated, and please, please, please, please get rid of "[thinking]".  This managed to ruin one of the films more clever moments and doesn't seem to have ever been fixed on DVD.

So true. This has bugged me about the DVD for eons. I even wrote about it at length here: http://peelslowlynsee.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/great-annie-hall-gag-dumbed-down/

 

[Robert Harris]

A potential problem rears its ugly head with these releases, as although he could have been consulted, neither film has been approved by the Director of Photography, and especially on Manhattan, that does not bode well.


I will never understand this. Especially, as it has become standard operating procedure for some studio releases, especially anything produced by Columbia's Grover Crisp.


RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

A potential problem rears its ugly head with these releases, as although he could have been consulted, neither film has been approved by the Director of Photography, and especially on Manhattan, that does not bode well.


I will never understand this. Especially, as it has become standard operating procedure for some studio releases, especially anything produced by Columbia's Grover Crisp.


RAH

RAH,


Aren't these MGM releases through Fox or does Columbia now have the distribution rights?







Crawdaddy

 

[JoHud]

Fox co-distributes these, but do they have any other control over the restoration or transfers used?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford



RAH,


Aren't these MGM releases through Fox or does Columbia now have the distribution rights?



Crawdaddy

These are MGM. My point was that if they were a Columbia release, the DP would have been given his due.


RAH

 

[Dick]

A potential problem rears its ugly head with these releases, as although he could have been consulted, neither film has been approved by the Director of Photography, and especially on Manhattan, that does not bode well. I will never understand this.  Especially, as it has become standard operating procedure for some studio releases, especially anything produced by Columbia's Grover Crisp. RAH

Is it not possible, given the fact that Gordon Willis is 80 years, he was indisposed for this sort of approval?

 

[nealg]

Fox co-distributes these, but do they have any other control over the restoration or transfers used?

I doubt any restoration is necessary, as RAH has explained for other films. As to transfers, I watched Manhattan on MGMHD a few months back. Since it looked exactly like the DVD, except being in HD, I doubt new transfers (scans) have been done. I suspect the same HD masters that were used for the DVD release will be used here. Especially since we're talking about MGM, here. If masters are reused, there's nothing for Gordon Willis to do, anyway. I posted in another thread that I believed the DVD of Manhattan had excessive cropping compared to the widescreen laserdisc. Then someone posted that the laserdisc was in error, revealing areas that should have been cropped. Some of the DVD (and therefore the HD cablecast) framings seem compromised to me, so maybe the correct AR lies somewhere between the two. I'm not expecting this to be addressed for the Blu-ray. The subtitling issue on the Annie Hall DVD made me scream the first time I saw it. Idiotic. How that ever got classified as a "subtitle" boggles the mind. And the fact that nobody caught it. Obviously, the individuals in charge of transfers and video releases have an unparalleled sense of humor.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


These are MGM. My point was that if they were a Columbia release, the DP would have been given his due.


RAH

Gotcha, I misunderstood your comment.

 

[Yorkshire]

Does anyone know if MGM are planning to follow these up with other Woody Allen films? Steve W

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire

Does anyone know if MGM are planning to follow these up with other Woody Allen films?
Steve W

I have a feeling sales figures for these first releases will tell the tale. Since MGM owns rights to most of the Allen movies that I'd want, I hope sales are good.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Willis was interviewed for the Woody Allen doc that PBS aired, in good spirits if not looking too well.

 

[MartEvans]

Reviews are up @ DVDBeaver. Both look v.impressive

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I doubt any restoration is necessary, as RAH has explained for other films. As to transfers, I watched Manhattan on MGMHD a few months back. Since it looked exactly like the DVD, except being in HD, I doubt new transfers (scans) have been done. I suspect the same HD masters that were used for the DVD release will be used here. Especially since we're talking about MGM, here. If masters are reused, there's nothing for Gordon Willis to do, anyway. I posted in another thread that I believed the DVD of Manhattan had excessive cropping compared to the widescreen laserdisc. Then someone posted that the laserdisc was in error, revealing areas that should have been cropped. Some of the DVD (and therefore the HD cablecast) framings seem compromised to me, so maybe the correct AR lies somewhere between the two. I'm not expecting this to be addressed for the Blu-ray.

My recollection is that there was a huge uproar when the DVD was first released because the framing was different from the laserdisc. If my memory serves me correctly, Gordon Willis confirmed that the DVD was the correct framing and that the LD was wrong. I looked through the archives here but couldn't find the original thread which contained the exact quote from Gordon Willis.

 

[Yorkshire]

Very interesting. For the moment I'm going to take DVD Beaver at its word (some might consider this a dodgy decision, but it's just until we hear anything else). Manhattan appears to be substantially improved over the DVD, with Annie Hall perhaps less so. I'll make another presumption (ah well, in for a penny...) that the work done creating these two Blu-ray discs was fairly similar. I don't think MGM would have spent a fortune and an age on one, and a few bob and five minutes on the other (had the two films been Annie Hall and Bananas it might have been different, with more spent on the OSCAR winner). If that's the case, then it really goes to underline just how the source material, and how a film was shot impact on how 'good' it can look on Blu-ray Disc. I suspect that, if Annie Hall had been a stand-alone release it might have got a lot of criticism from some quarters, whereas many people will be more likely to say 'it probably looks as good as it could' due to the quality of Manhattan. Steve W