Blu-ray Review Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959) Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

The Blu-ray is pretty weak though, IMO. Only a modest step up from DVD. I probably would have saved my money for other things had I known this beforehand.

Check out this comparison . They are using Blu-ray.com screen shot which looks worse than what I am seeing on my TV. I can see Edinburgh on the newspaper very clearly on my TV while its still a bit of a blur on the Blu-ray.com screen shot.

 

[John Hermes]

Check out this comparison . They are using Blu-ray.com screen shot which looks worse than what I am seeing on my TV. I can see Edinburgh on the newspaper very clearly on my TV while its still a bit of a blur on the Blu-ray.com screen shot.

All I know is this title looks soft and near DVD-like on my 42" LCD let alone my 120" 2.35 projector screen. After Bob Furmanek's news on its origins, it makes more sense.

 

[Radioman970]

Well... that's disappointing. I've always been happy with the DVD and felt it maybe was a little TOO clear in some bits. Cave walls becoming canvas suddenly. Still, I'll get this eventually. Just need a price reduction after I have more $$$ (if both things happen at the same time!).

 

[MichaelEl]

I wonder if TT will release a DVD version of JOURNEY, as they did for THE EGYPTIAN. If they don't, then that would be a good indication there wouldn't be much of a difference between the Blu-Ray and a downrezzed DVD of the new HD transfer.
It's actually my suspicion there wouldn't be much of a difference between a Blu-Ray and a high quality DVD for many older films which have a lot of optical effects and/or less than ideal surviving elements. This would explain why the studios are hesitant to release titles like JOURNEY and MYSTERIOUS ISLAND on Blu-Ray. The DVD releases of these sorts of films often go back to the 90s or early 2000s, and need to be updated, but the studios obviously don't want to be releasing new DVDs in the Blu-Ray era. On the other hand, a Blu-Ray release would cost them a lot of money, and would offer little improvement over a DVD.

 

[Alan Tully]

I wouldn't be surprised if TT has given up on DVD's. They didn't release a DVD of Desiree. They know their sales figures, how well the DVD of The Egyptian has sold. Maybe it's Blu-ray all the way now.

 

[rsmithjr]

I wonder if TT will release a DVD version of JOURNEY, as they did for THE EGYPTIAN. If they don't, then that would be a good indication there wouldn't be much of a difference between the Blu-Ray and a downrezzed DVD of the new HD transfer.
It's actually my suspicion there wouldn't be much of a difference between a Blu-Ray and a high quality DVD for many older films which have a lot of optical effects and/or less than ideal surviving elements. This would explain why the studios are hesitant to release titles like JOURNEY and MYSTERIOUS ISLAND on Blu-Ray. The DVD releases of these sorts of films often go back to the 90s or early 2000s, and need to be updated, but the studios obviously don't want to be releasing new DVDs in the Blu-Ray era. On the other hand, a Blu-Ray release would cost them a lot of money, and would offer little improvement over a DVD.

You suggest that the reason for giving up on DVD's is that the Blu-ray is not that much better than the DVD.
I suspect that they have given up on DVD but for a very different reason than your suggestion.
The reason simply is that their prospective customers for these products are discriminating and want the very best quality. Why would I want a DVD of a title if a Blu-ray were available?

 

[TonyD]

All I know is this title looks soft and near DVD-like on my 42" LCD let alone my 120" 2.35 projector screen. After Bob Furmanek's news on its origins, it makes more sense.

I received mine today. While the color and contrast are good, the sharpness leaves something to be desired in my opinion.

The first thing that struck me was how "soft" the transfer looked compared to other films from the 50's. If you were to show the film to someone and ask them what they thought they were watching, a DVD or a Blu-ray, I think most people would say DVD. Nevertheless, I'm glad to have added this film to my collection.

I thought it looked very soft too. Just finished watching on my 73" Mits.
Enjoyed it and glad I bought it but I think the fake/real lizards have always taken me out of the allusion even when I was a kid watching on Saturday afternoon tv.
Also, and it may have been a result of the lens that was used but I thought There was a couple of shots that looked stretched. I noticed during the scene when they are about to blow the volcano and at the speech near the very end.
What I was seeing looked like fat faces or stretched a tad but it was just in the middle of the screen.

 

[Jon Lidolt]

I thought it looked very soft too. Just finished watching on my 73" Mits.
Enjoyed it and glad I bought it but I think the fake/real lizards have always taken me out of the allusion even when I was a kid watching on Saturday afternoon tv.
Also, and it may have been a result of the lens that was used but I thought There was a couple of shots that looked stretched. I noticed during the scene when they are about to blow the volcano and at the speech near the very end.
What I was seeing looked like fat faces or stretched a tad but it was just in the middle of the screen.

You're quite right about the distortion. This was caused by 20th Century-Fox's anamorphic (trade name CinemaScope) lenses in use at that time. By the early to mid 60's most scope (2.35:1 ratio) feature films were being photographed with higher quality lenses manufactured by the Panavision company.

 

[MichaelEl]

You suggest that the reason for giving up on DVD's is that the Blu-ray is not that much better than the DVD.
I suspect that they have given up on DVD but for a very different reason than your suggestion.
The reason simply is that their prospective customers for these products are discriminating and want the very best quality. Why would I want a DVD of a title if a Blu-ray were available?

Why would you pay $30+ for a Blu-Ray if the DVD version gives you more or less the same image quality at half the price? In fact, for some films, a DVD might even offer better perceived image quality than a Blu-Ray, as it could have better contrast and less visible grain. Simply increasing the number of pixels doesn't guarantee that image quality will be better. The studios know this, and again, that is probably one of the reasons they have been hesitant to release older films on Blu-Ray.
Like you, most people expect a Blu-Ray to be a vast improvement in image quality over a DVD, and when word gets out that a particular Blu-Ray release doesn't offer much improvement, sales of that title are not going to be good. Given the comments in this thread, for example, how many people here would be clamoring for the JOURNEY Blu-Ray if it were a standard studio release being sold on Amazon for $27.99? It obviously wouldn't sell well, and then three months later, Amazon would reduce the price to $9.99, which means the studio would be losing a lot of money on it.

 

[JoeDoakes]

I spoke with my friend who does work with Fox materials.
This was a straight out optical 35mm film job. It was not a frame by frame 4K scan with digital clean-up.

I think I understand "frame by frame 4K scan," but can you tell me what is a "straight out optical film job"? Thanks

 

[rsmithjr]

Why would you pay $30+ for a Blu-Ray if the DVD version gives you more or less the same image quality at half the price? In fact, for some films, a DVD might even offer better perceived image quality than a Blu-Ray, as it could have better contrast and less visible grain. Simply increasing the number of pixels doesn't guarantee that image quality will be better. The studios know this, and again, that is probably one of the reasons they have been hesitant to release older films on Blu-Ray.
Like you, most people expect a Blu-Ray to be a vast improvement in image quality over a DVD, and when word gets out that a particular Blu-Ray release doesn't offer much improvement, sales of that title are not going to be good. Given the comments in this thread, for example, how many people here would be clamoring for the JOURNEY Blu-Ray if it were a standard studio release being sold on Amazon for $27.99? It obviously wouldn't sell well, and then three months later, Amazon would reduce the price to $9.99, which means the studio would be losing a lot of money on it.

If you like the DVD as much or better than the Blu-ray, buy all means by the DVD. This is a personal choice.
I have seen a number of Blu-rays that are not sufficiently better than the DVD to merit a repurchase ("double-dip"), but I have seen virtually no Blu-rays that are not not sufficiently better to merit purchasing the Blu-ray when I don't have the title.
In particular reference to Twilight Time, there is no way that I would consider having the DVD version of any of their titles, and I have bought almost all of their Blu-rays to date. I suspect that part of their selection process is to pick titles that will look better on Blu-ray.
If I were running a high-end packaged media operation for discriminating clients, I would only sell Blu-ray's. If a title were in such bad shape that Blu-ray offered no benefits, I would probably pass on the title.
To me, DVD is a legacy format that I have no strong interest in collecting.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Done entirely in the film realm by utilizing a 35mm wetgate opticial printer, the way it was done for decades prior to the advent of digital scanning.
Bob

 

[David_B_K]

Count me among the small minority who liked the lizards/dinosaurs in the movie. I thought they were a rather ingenious way to add creatures to a film. As a kid, I found them very scary. They looked more real than the usual jerky monsters of the time.
I also think the Blu-ray looked much better than the DVD.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Quote:

Count me among the small minority who liked the lizards/dinosaurs in the movie.

David,

I am with you.

Even today, just having watched this film on Blu-ray, I was
oddly creeped out by the use of real lizards.

I think the reason is that their realism (since they are real)
just adds to the scare factor.

I don't think your opinion is in the minority here.

 

[Bob Cashill]

The nice thing about the lizards is that it's new footage, and not the usual repurposed scenes from 1940's ONE MILLION B.C. (which, granted, would not have worked in this color/widescreen context. But you can see them again in VALLEY OF THE DRAGONS, made two years later).
And their appearance is fairly brief, with that creepy music. The dolled-up lizards in THE LOST WORLD (60) just look silly after a few scenes.
Give me Ray Harryhausen any day...but I'll give you this one instance where regular lizards did OK by thunder lizards.

 

[Douglas R]

Count me among the small minority who liked the lizards/dinosaurs in the movie. I thought they were a rather ingenious way to add creatures to a film. As a kid, I found them very scary. They looked more real than the usual jerky monsters of the time.
I also think the Blu-ray looked much better than the DVD.

I was 14 when I saw the film on its first release and I didn't like the use of real lizards at all. To me they just looked like what they were - magnified lizards, acting badly! I remember discussing it with my older brother and his wife who had also seen the film and who said they preferred the use of stop-motion figures. I didn't like the treatment of the lizards either. At the time, animal societies expressed concern.

 

[Alan Tully]

Yep, give me some Ray Harryhausen creations, but I have to admit that the lizards really worked in this film, as much as they didn't work in The Lost World. In fact think of Journey done badly, & you have...The Lost World, a bad movie, but I have to admit a bit of a guilty pleasure.

 

Not far from the top of this webpage:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/index.html
are links to a three-part interview Dick Dinman had with Arlene Dahl and Pat Boone (separately). Lots of good stories about JOURNEY are told here.

 

[haineshisway]

I've now seen it and have to agree with MattH on his assessment of this transfer and to vehemently disagree with the people who say it's not much of a step-up from the DVD - it's a HUGE step-up from the DVD. Considering that an internegative was used, this transfer has lots of detail and is sharp, with the exception of certain opticals and lens problems. The color is great, the sound is great (and YES, it's directional because I followed the voices from left to center to right). Thankfully no one on this board has gone on about "edge enhancement" - the other boards are rife with that bushwa - there is no edge enhancement on view - even if they used it, which I doubt, it's not visible. They talk about huge haloes and force fields and its just nonsense. I sat here and stupidly freeze-framed the image looking for such things in the scenes they call out. Nothing - not in motion and not freeze-framed. I went up to my TV and pressed my nose against the screen - nothing. The fact that I took the time to do that shows how this idiocy is causing people to do everything but watch the damn movie. They give examples (all based on screen caps) they use arrows to point out the parts, but none of that is visible on the screen - isn't that funny? They say there's an outline against Arlene Dahl's cape on the mountaintop - I say it's light hitting her from behind and I think it's quite obvious when one looks at the rest of the frame and there is not one other instance of such a thing. Do we honestly think Fox spent the money to do a frame by frame edge enhancement pass, because I can assure you they did not. And they certainly didn't apply it to two or three scenes and no others, and yet that's all these experts can point out.
In short, a pretty wonderful transfer.

 

[David Weicker]

...shows how this idiocy is causing people to do everything but watch the damn movie.
...
In short, a pretty wonderful transfer.

Funny, I stated a similar opinion about West Side Story, and Chinatown, and Jurassic Park, and Lord Of The Rings. And I got nothing but derision from fellow HTFers for saying so.
I'll probably feel the same way about The Sting (which is already generating typical over-reaction)
David.