Is "The Greatest Story Ever Told" BluRay a dissapointment? (1 Viewer)

[dana martin]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Honestly "The Greatest Story Ever Told" has to be the worst transfer to Blu-ray of a catalog title to date.

That would be debatable, the overly waxy Predator or Patton, Kansas City Confidential, which has been stated that if you can get the DVD, that is the way to go. All the studios have released some that just were not to standards just look at the glitch list at the top of the thread. But that is just it; there is no definite minimum set standard that is required. A lot of it is subjective, the transfer issue would be Fox, but the source MGM, and so they both have part of the blame then.

earlier i stated that this blu was servicable, let me explain, vhs is servicable, analog TV was servicable, if its the only thing avalible at that time,

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Matt's HTF review is up: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/310251/htf-blu-ray-review-the-greatest-story-ever-told

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /forum/thread/310207/is-the-greatest-story-ever-told-bluray-a-dissapointment/30#post_3796539


I watched King of Kings today and sampled The Greatest Story Ever Told. It was very obvious which of the two titles had the superior video presentation and it wasn't the latter. By the way, I found it amusing that prior to the beginning of The Greatest Story Ever Told, there is sort of a warning that this blu-ray presentation was derived from the best film elements currently available. Some people will ask, why bother releasing it all?



Next up, The Ten Commandments then I'll try to get to The Greatest Story Ever Told before Easter.













Crawdaddy





Robert that disclaimer is a joke.



I've been informed FOX knew the transfer was a dud but decided to release it to cash in on Easter (and give "The Ten Commandments" some competition) The transfer is eleven years old, long before blu-ray was on store shevles. ( I believe FOX released "Patton" and "Predator")



The elements are there to do a 70MM transfer - do they require restoration - that I do not know, can they be used at some point - probably but it will cost money and frankly GSET is not at the top of many want lists. Should the film look better than most catalog title - Yes, because of the high definiation of 70MM. Was this transfer form a 70MM element - probably not.





In the case of GSET I could have just watched the DVD and been equally satisfied, the blu-ray is not a "Blu-Ray" but an old DVD transfer slapped on a high def disc at 1080, which means all the seams will show



And Damn! even on my 52" set I still couldn't read the main titles!!!!!!

 

[GMpasqua]

Funny thing, in the Theaters "The Greatest Story Ever Told" looked better than "The Bible"

Now, "The Bible" looks even better on Blu-ray and GSET not at all.



Of course it will be years (if Ever) that we get a true and clean 70MM transfer in high def of "The Greatest Story Ever Told"



Wonder what happened at FOX? They would not let MGM use their old transfer for "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and a new one was made (thank Goodness). That blu-ray is stunning, if you don't own it, buy it, just for the wow factor. Once the credits end and the scene switches to the junk yard, you are as close to 70MM magic for 2 and a half hours as you can get at home, gorgeous on my 52" set

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

I've been informed FOX knew the transfer was a dud but decided to release it to cash in on Easter (and give "The Ten Commandments" some competition) The transfer is eleven years old, long before blu-ray was on store shevles.

As I suspected w/ the numbers crunchers pushing it through. Truly unfortunate for fans of the film. Compared to some of the other budget MGM titles this seems to be in a class by itself. I mean, Rain Man's not great, but it's definitely better than the descriptions in this thread of this release. IMO, if I loved this films but for some reason I did not have one of the DVDs and I could find the BD at a notable discount I would still be hesitant to purchase it simply by the descriptions adding up in this thread. I mean, even the other MGM budget titles are carrying over previously made special features, so why drop them here? That doesn't help you with the quick cash-in, MGM.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua



The elements are there to do a 70MM transfer - do they require restoration - that I do not know, can they be used at some point - probably but it will cost money and frankly GSET is not at the top of many want lists. Should the film look better than most catalog title - Yes, because of the high definiation of 70MM. Was this transfer form a 70MM element - probably not.

Apparently it was - because the 2001 DVD box says the DVD was restored from a 65mm HD video transfer.

 

[moovtune]

Rain Man was a terrible looking BLU, and so is Greatest Story Ever Told. I think Fox is rushing to release as many of the M-G-M titles they control before their rights turn over to Sony later this year. They're just grabbing whatever master is hanging around in the vaults and throwing it on a Blu-Ray to make a buck or two. For me, no more blind buys of Fox released M-G-M titles. in fact, probably no more blind buys of any studio's catalog releases. If it's not from restored elements it's turning out to be a waste of money and a real slap in the face to the movie collectors who would buy these classics. As the quality of everyone's TV's go up, the rush-job Blu-Ray releases become more obvious. I realize the studios don't have all the money in the world to spend on restoring every title, but don't bother releasing something that's subpar. The "Ten Commandments" and "King of Kings" were both filmed in 8 perf 35mm - but they both look considerably better than "Greatest Story Ever Told" which was filmed 65mm. What's that all about?

 

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by moovtune
Rain Man was a terrible looking BLU, and so is Greatest Story Ever Told. I think Fox is rushing to release as many of the M-G-M titles they control before their rights turn over to Sony later this year.

That rumour held water until it was revealed that the Fox deal with MGM is being renewed.

 

[OliverK]

Did it hold any water at all? I was under the impression that this was solely a distribution deal wherein MGM calls the shots with regard to masters used and what movies to be released.

Originally Posted by John Hodson

That rumour held water until it was revealed that the Fox deal with MGM is being renewed.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by moovtune
Rain Man was a terrible looking BLU, and so is Greatest Story Ever Told. I think Fox is rushing to release as many of the M-G-M titles they control before their rights turn over to Sony later this year. They're just grabbing whatever master is hanging around in the vaults and throwing it on a Blu-Ray to make a buck or two. For me, no more blind buys of Fox released M-G-M titles. in fact, probably no more blind buys of any studio's catalog releases. If it's not from restored elements it's turning out to be a waste of money and a real slap in the face to the movie collectors who would buy these classics. As the quality of everyone's TV's go up, the rush-job Blu-Ray releases become more obvious. I realize the studios don't have all the money in the world to spend on restoring every title, but don't bother releasing something that's subpar. The "Ten Commandments" and "King of Kings" were both filmed in 8 perf 35mm - but they both look considerably better than "Greatest Story Ever Told" which was filmed 65mm. What's that all about?

I thought King of Kings was 70mm?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by moovtune
Rain Man was a terrible looking BLU

I'd give it a 6/10 for video quality, which is neither terrible or great, but middle-of-the-road adequate. Reviews I've seen online generally agree with that assessment that I've seen. For me, "terrible" doesn't come into play until you hit a 4/10 or less (though, of course, such ratings are subjective).

A couple reviews can be found here: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rain-Man-Blu-ray/18961/#Review and here: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews53/rain_man_blu-ray.htm , and of course, here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/309276/htf-blu-ray-review-rain-man

 

[OliverK]

It was 35mm 8 perf shot with an anamorphic attachment (same as Technirama) and printed to 70mm for roadshow engagements - not quite as good as true 70mm, but still impressive. That's why the process was called Super Technirama 70.

Other famous Super Technirama 70 movies are Sleeping Beauty, Spartacus and El Cid.

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

I thought King of Kings was 70mm?

 

[Brianruns10]

And "the Leopard." The Criterion blu-ray was mastered from the original 8 perf negative, and I think it's the best demonstration of the Super Technirama process available in high def.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I agree that the "TGSET" blu-ray is pretty dreadful looking. Was really looking forward to it, too. I do think, though, that it will be hit or miss with these MGM blu-rays. I say that only because the recent Australian MGM blu-ray of "Taras Bulba" is quite gorgeous. Obviously, "Taras" has a small audience. But, they did manage an exceptional looking blu-ray. I wonder if blu-rays of "Kings of the Sun" and "Solomon and Sheba" would be of the same quality as they were all mastered and then released on standard DVD at the same time. For "TGSET", it is probably that they had this 11 year old master sitting around and thought that would suffice. A friend caught "The Egyptian" in a hi-def broadcast in England and told me it looked stunning. Why won't Fox just press that on blu-ray, as they already have a nice master? Won't hold my breath since it probably isn't "biblical" enough to entice the Christian audience.

 

[GMpasqua]

"The Greatest Story Never Sold"

With this film and "Teen Wolf" MGM is doing their best to bring blu-ray quality down to it's knees. If many of the MGM titles coming are going to be worthless of an upgrade, then this is not a good sign. Even if you do not buy them others will and soon Blu-ray will loss it's reputation as being better...sometimes it will be better, sometimes not...as a consumer do you want to take the chance?

MGM, please refrain from releasing these bad transfers and do not ruin the reputation of the blu-ray format.

 

[GMpasqua]

Brandon are you watching this disc of a large screen, if so you would notice many elements which appear and were not a part of the original film print.

The screen shot posted above happens to be the best of the screen shots over at B.u-ray.com. It's downhill from there

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10
And "the Leopard." The Criterion blu-ray was mastered from the original 8 perf negative, and I think it's the best demonstration of the Super Technirama process available in high def.

The Leopard from Criterion is a noisy mess. King of Kings puts it to shame.

However, there's a european disc that comes from a better scan and looks great.

 

[Scott Calvert]

The Leopard from Criterion is a noisy mess. King of Kings puts it to shame.

However, there's a european disc that comes from a much better scan and looks great.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua
Brandon are you watching this disc of a large screen, if so you would notice many elements which appear and were not a part of the original film print.

The screen shot posted above happens to be the best of the screen shots over at B.u-ray.com. It's downhill from there

I haven't seen one frame of TGSET in my life.

 

[OliverK]

What MGM has of Khartoum, IAMMMMW and Solomon and Sheba all is better than TGSET.
BUT: These are large format movies and I'd rather see them released in very good quality than in so-so transfers.

There are not that many of these movies and I would not want any more mediocre efforts but state of the art treatments. Give me 5 exceptional releases per year instead of 10 lesser ones and I will be much happier.

Originally Posted by Ed Lachmann
I agree that the "TGSET" blu-ray is pretty dreadful looking. Was really looking forward to it, too. I do think, though, that it will be hit or miss with these MGM blu-rays. I say that only because the recent Australian MGM blu-ray of "Taras Bulba" is quite gorgeous. Obviously, "Taras" has a small audience. But, they did manage an exceptional looking blu-ray. I wonder if blu-rays of "Kings of the Sun" and "Solomon and Sheba" would be of the same quality as they were all mastered and then released on standard DVD at the same time. For "TGSET", it is probably that they had this 11 year old master sitting around and thought that would suffice. A friend caught "The Egyptian" in a hi-def broadcast in England and told me it looked stunning. Why won't Fox just press that on blu-ray, as they already have a nice master? Won't hold my breath since it probably isn't "biblical" enough to entice the Christian audience.