Dial "M" For Murder DVD???? (1 Viewer)

[GregK]

I am all for consistency Thomas.

I would like to think that all of those Home theater forum members who were so upset that Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory was presented full frame (ie: no cropping) should be just as upset that movies that are considered 3-D classics are not even being released with the option to view the original 3-D version along with a flat version.

Consistency is a two way street.

 

[rich_d]

Consistency is a two way street.

I get your point but ...Yogi would be proud of that one!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re: "..... or just have a bias toward the process"

Re: As opposed to having a "blind obsession toward the process"?

Not at all. It's about respecting the directors vision, as well as an appreciation of the cinematographers original stereoscopic compositions. What is there about this that you don't understand?

Re: "People that are criticizing these films have not seen them in true 3-D"

Re: I've seen many films in 3-D theatrically including Dial M For Murder, Kiss Me Kate, House Of Wax and Miss Sadie Thompson.

That's good for you. I've seen 32 of the 50 3-D features from the 1950's, and I know what I've seen. There are some great films, some mediocre films, and some gimmick-driven films. However, every single one of them was greatly improved with the 3-D photography.

Re: Audiences disliked 3-D in the 50's which is why it died a mercifully quick death and directors disliked it too!

Oh really. What documentation can you present to back up that statement? What directors are quoted on record as disliking 3-D? I spoke with Jack Arnold (It Came from Outer Space, The Glass Web, Creature from the Black Lagoon and Revenge of the Creature,) Herbert L. Strock (Gog) and Roy Ward Baker (Inferno). Each of them was very interested in the cinematic potentials of stereo photography, and were very proud of their individual achievements in the field. Which directors have you spoken with on this issue?

Also, audiences were turned against 3-D because of poor quality presentations, with out-of-sync projectors and improperly balanced lamphouses. By 9/53 when the Polaroid Corporation developed methods of insuring frame-accurate, in-phase projection, the damage had already been done.

Re: A small but vocal HTF group insist we are being denied seeing these films in their true splendor but the truth is that it is you 3-D fanboys are the ones being denied, not the rest of us. I truly wish the studios would issue limited issues of this gimmicky format to make you guys happy, really I do. If the studios don't think this is cost effective, have them charge more for the 3-D sets as I'm sure fans would be willing to pay thru the nose for the chance to own them in 3-D.

You have a very interesting attitude. Just because your world view does not contain an appreciation for a certain theatrical presentation format, you decide that the "fanboys" who do enjoy it should "pay thru the nose" in order to experience the films in the way they were meant to be seen.

Thank goodness everybody isn't as close-minded.

 

[Bill Burns]

Without any name calling or undue taunting ("what dimension do you live in?" is about the best I can come up with, and that sounds too much like Marvin the Martian), the issue remains very simple for me, as expressed to great length earlier:

If it's shot in 3D, it should be presented in 3D. This is artistic fidelity and fidelity to the history of the film's production.

If it was presented very widely in 2D, it should also be available in 2D, as this is fidelity to the history of its release and the nature of its impact on the film world. Home video marketing concerns also suggest a valid purpose to the preservation and presentation of a 2D version.

Of the two, the 3D version is the "true" or "truest" simply because this is how it was shot. Any director who goes on record saying they hated the process and wish the 3D version would never again be shown -- tough (okay, so such rebukes are not exactly Shakespeare ). It was shown, and I'm never in favor of subjugating history to artistic temperament. But most directors, it seems from Bob's comments, were enthusiastic about the potential of the format, which makes all of the "3D was thrust upon their weary shoulders by a cold and uncaring studio" tales appear rather tall.

I've heard at least one director (I've forgotten whom now) comment that he enjoys seeing many of his B&W films from the classic era in colorized versions. He doesn't seem to understand why so many people feel differently. That's all well and good (he's no less entitled to his view than any of his fans), but I'd continue to say that colorizing even his films is false to the history of each film as presented to audiences, false to its production, and gives fans of the films short shrift. If the director feels a colorized version is better, and particularly if his cinematographer concurs or doesn't care one way or the other, then hey, fine, include a colorized version on the flipside of the DVD. But the B&W version is the truest version, not because someone likes it or someone else doesn't, but because that is how it was made.

And to clarify my earlier comments about gimmicks: I say with a certain definite fervor that 3D is not a gimmick in the same way I say color is not a gimmick, editorial technique is not a gimmick, film itself is not a gimmick, the phonograph, the printing press, Impressionism ... etc. (a mishmash of arts and their various tools and disciplines). What do I mean? I certainly don't mean these things cannot be used as gimmicks -- I mean they are not, themselves, gimmicks. They are tools. And any tool of expression is only as worthwhile as the folks expressing themselves with it, and the nature of what they choose to express.

The Edison Manufacturing Company's Blacksmithing Scene (1893) is a gimmick to emphasize motion. It was staged. Reportedly, those are not real blacksmiths. It doesn't tell a story. It uses the motion picture medium to elicit smiles and admiration from an audience, not emotional involvement. It's a thrill ride for an audience new to the technology, much like shots of moving trains and other staged motion of this period ("manufacturing" in Edison's company name may serve as an advanced clue to this fact). But motion pictures are not, then, a gimmick. That doesn't follow. They've been used as a gimmick. This fact does not diminish their value as a medium of artistic expression, as a tool for artists. The components of film (tinting, color, contrast, editorial technique, lighting, performance art, etc.) exist on the same plain of validity -- they're inherently good, inherently valid, because they can be used in a good, artistically valid manner.

3D is exactly the same. It's as good, or as silly, as the filmmakers using it. Its limits are not defined by those who use it most poorly or with the least thought. I've seen it used in a truly breathtaking and deeply emotive fashion, and that it can be so artistically valid means that it is artistically valid. Criticize the filmmaker who uses it poorly, not the technology he or she uses poorly.

Or such is my input, at any rate. Now where are the 3D discs from major studios already?

 

[Osato]

The great WB has no plans to release this title soon then? I would really like to own this one. I think both versions should be made available for the viewer. I saw it on VHS and was unaware that a 3-D version was available.
Is the 3-D aspect holding things up?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Any screen can show a letterboxed film. Only those with special boxes and glasses can view the 3-D versions of films.

It's NOT a good comparison.

 

[Mike DB]

I've been wondering why no-one has taken more advantage of the field-sequential technology for DVD. The only really decent stuff i have seen are the 3 IMAX films that you get in the Ultimate box set from slingshot. Are there any others available in the US?

Is it expensive to generate a field sequential version of a film for DVD?
When you say it's elite and expensive, it surely is not , at least not for the DVD consumer/viewer. The little decoder box and 2 sets of glasses are not very expensive at all. The potential quality of the 3-d in this format surpasses any other 3D projection/viewing system that I have ever seen....and I've seen just about all of them. The only thing that beats it is this same process but on a real IMAX theater screen.


(BTW there's been a handful of what i assume are P.D. old titles like some of the Flash Gordon serials released in field sequential 3D. Well these were NOT shot in 3D and they are using some kind of computer process to create a 3D effect on some scenes. Take it from me, the result is poor at best. The 3D only works when there is motion in the scene. If there are no moving elements like when 2 people are standing still and talking with no camera movement, the image becomes flat. Even when it does work, sometimes the 3D is reversed so that things in the background seem to float in front. Worse than that, these "fake 3D" titles are likely to lead people to conclude that the field sequential technology sucks, which it does not. Field sequential technology on DVD can be fantastic with a good source like the IMAX films.)

 

[Steve Phillips]

Well, since 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtracks can only be listened to by those who have special receivers, extra speakers and sub-woofers, should they should just down mix the sound to 2.0 so it can be heard on any TV?

Didn't think so.

As for SlingShot's "fake 3-D" titles, I've been very vocal in expressing my outrage at this scam in the past. Avoid that junk at all costs. It hasn't been converted to 3-D, no matter what they claim.

Funny. We can't 3-D versions of classic 3-D movies but we have plenty of people wanting to sell us flat movies that you need 3-D glasses to view!

 

[Damin J Toell]

should they should just down mix the sound to 2.0 so it can be heard on any TV?

Didn't think so.

The fact of the matter is that a special aspect of the DD spec is that it allows for any 5.1 track to be downmixed to 2.0 on-the-fly for play on any system. A 5.1 track can be heard by everyone with any TV and any DVD player.

DJ

 

[Steve Phillips]

That's what I meant. The 5.1 is there, but you can't hear it in 5.1 if you don't have the equipment, you hear a 2.0 downmix.

The argument still holds water because any potential 3-D DVD would also include a modified flat version which could be viewed without any special equipment, just as those without 5.1 set-ups can still hear a 2.0 downmix. Both are modifications of the original presented as concessions to those who either don't care about the original or don't have the facilities to see/hear it.

Remember, there will always be a flat version for those who don't care about the original. So what is the problem with the 3-D being there as well? No one is making you watch it.

I guess it doesn't seem as important as that matted version of POLICE ACADEMY 6. What a travesty to the original art that is, having to see extra headroom. With shocking alterations like that, how could we "fanboys" be so stupidly concerned with trivial 3-D matters? (In a world when Starbuck has been changed to WOMAN?) (In a world where some DVDs don't come with inserts?!)

Please immediately change the mission statement of the forum to show that we stand for the original version of all films, EXCEPT for that silly 3-D thing.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The argument still holds water because any potential 3-D DVD would also include a modified flat version which could be viewed without any special equipment, just as those without 5.1 set-ups can still hear a 2.0 downmix.

That's simply a big assumption. Compatability isn't an inherent part of 3-D DVD transfers, unlike DD 5.1. A single DD 5.1 track can be listened to by everyone no matter their equipment. A single 3-D transfer cannot be watched by everyone no matter their equipment (at least, not in a particularly enjoyable or coherent fashion). For 3-D, you simply have to hope (or, in your case, assume) that a flat version will be included. Your comparsion still doesn't work.

DJ

 

[Steve Phillips]

:rolleyes

 

[Damin J Toell]

Oh, now I see you were right all along. Thanks for the intelligent discussion.

DJ

 

[Steve Phillips]

As I said, I've dropped the issue to campaign for inserts.

Seriously, there isn't much more to be said. I am for always having the original version of a film available, whether we are talking about B/W, widescreen, 3-D, or anything else. It doesn't bother me if a colorized, panned and scanned, or flat version is out there as well. It's that simple.

We've gotten way off track. This is a discussion of a potential DIAL M FOR MURDER DVD. I'd love to see one. I fully expect the DVD will include a flat version. That's Ok with me. However, I'd also like the disc to include a 3-D option for those who have the equipment and care to see the film in stereoscopic form.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Intelligent enough?

 

[Patrick McCart]

The 3-D version should still be a separate version, perhaps in a box set. WB would be wasting a lot of layers since most people who buy the DVDs would not want to shell out the nearly $100 for the glasses and box.

It's not quite the same thing, but consider how discs with both widescreen and fullscreen are done. Most people are only going to watch one of the two versions. It's a waste of disc space to those who have no use for the unwatched version.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I don't care if they put the 3-D version in cereal boxes as long as I can get it!

The box set idea is probably the best idea from a marketing standpoint anyway. SlingShot is already doing that with success (and without any major titles).

Warner and Universal have some high profile titles in their libraries that would make great fodder for such a set. Columbia has quite a lot of 3-D stuff too, but not as many titles that would be of a much appeal to the masses today.

Overall, you'd think the studios would want to sell these to fans instead of continuing to watch bootleggers make a fortune doing it for them.

 

[DeeF]

Bob,

Since you're the expert around here (and obviously very erudite about these things), what can you tell us about Top Banana? Out of the list of 3D movies you posted, this one popped out. Is it the Phil Silvers vehicle, where they simply filmed the play right on the stage? I had no idea this was 3D. Why would they do that? I wonder if this could ever be restored in 3D.

 

[Steve Phillips]

I don't think they ever did 3-D prints on TOP BANANA, but Bob will know for sure!

 

[SteveP]

I recently took a friend to see the 3-D version of KISS ME KATE at the Film Forum in Manhattan.

She LOVED it and couldn't understand why the process went so quickly out of style.

I think there would be a large home theater audience willing to see these films as originally produced.

 

[Conrad_SSS]

I remember reading several years ago that the 3-D Orig. negs to TOP BANANA are long gone, and the film was only released 2-D.

I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain this is the (sad) truth.