Marty (1955) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

Instead of using finicky aspect ratios, may I suggest that we follow Kino and Jeffrey Wells' lead and just use terms like "beautifully boxy" or "the full image" for 1.33/1.37:1, and "Cropped", "sliced-down" or "only part of the image" for all of the widescreen ratios.

 

[Jari K]

"Jari and yourself and when they talk about 1.33:1 they mean 1.37:1."I would say that when people talk about 1.33:1, they could also mean 1.37.1. I mean are you sure that you know the exact aspect ratio of every release that you own?

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I was horrified. HORRIFIED. when I got my recent Mary Poppins and found it had been sliced top and bottom.
I'm just hoping the 'La Dolce Vita' I've just ordered (Italian edition) has the proper look I remember from the days of black and white televison.
And that reminds me .. was Mary Poppins colourised for the latest issue? I distinctly remember it was B & W on television back in 1970.

 

[FoxyMulder]

"Jari and yourself and when they talk about 1.33:1 they mean 1.37:1."I would say that when people talk about 1.33:1, they could also mean 1.37.1. I mean are you sure that you know the exact aspect ratio of every release that you own?

I know most of them and for the ones i don't know i'll just ask Bob Furmanek in the aspect ratio thread.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Please see this post for updated information and documents on MARTY: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/?p=4110690

 

[Brian McP]

And this on the second anniversary of us losing Ernest, aged 95.....

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Do the original 35mm film negatives for Marty still exist? Are the strictly prohibited to Kino? Or have they been lost to the ravages of time?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I believe in most cases Kino is working with existing masters. They would have to decide to pay for (and be allowed to make) a new scan and cleanup work to be done.There is no indication of any problem with the original elements, just seems to be one with the transfer Kino is using.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Matt Hough's OFFICIAL HTF review of this blu-ray is posted at the website's DVD/blu-ray review section...he seems quite happy with it overall, btw...

 

[Mike Frezon]

Matt Hough's OFFICIAL HTF review of this blu-ray is posted at the website's DVD/blu-ray review section...he seems quite happy with it overall, btw...

That review can be found HERE.

 

[haineshisway]

Matt Hough's OFFICIAL HTF review of this blu-ray is posted at the website's DVD/blu-ray review section...he seems quite happy with it overall, btw...

While he may be happy, he has quite a few criticisms within the happiness - and window boxed credits and opening scene? When's the last time we saw THAT on a Blu-ray? They were doing that sort of thing over a decade ago, not now. One can only imagine that if they'd matted down the window boxed credits AND opening scene to 1.85 what that must have looked like. Therefore, we may now know the reason they HAD to go full frame. So, the only question that remains is whether on top of the window boxing if it's also zoomed in - and frankly my GUESS would be yes because that's the only thing that would really explain window boxing the credits and opening scene (which probably comes directly out of the credits). We've seen that all too often in films on DVD - window boxing then zooming in afterwards.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Bruce, until someone from either MGM or Kino comes clean with definitive info on why this visual presentation was used with the compromised aspect ratio, we're essentially spinning our wheels speculating about this matter...for me, getting "Marty" on blu-ray is going to have to suffice until/unless a NEW transfer from superior source material comes along. I'm not fully satisfied about this situation either, but am a realist too...

 

[Jari K]

Based on the review, the transfer is not "zoomed". So if that's true, we dodged the most deadliest bullet.

 

[ahollis]

Not getting this on Blu-ray and that is based on the review.

 

[haineshisway]

Based on the review, the transfer is not "zoomed". So if that's true, we dodged the most deadliest bullet.

Actually, this is what Matt said: "the image does not appear to be zoomed in (but I state up front I’m no expert on these matters), and I did completely rewatch the film zoomed to 1.66:1"

If he'd watched at 1.85 then we'd know a bit more about what Kino actually saw when they tried doing that. My point is that they could not have matted to 1.85 with this transfer when the credits and first scene were window boxed and if, like mostly every DVD with window boxed credits and first scene, the transfer then zooms in, which is why they window boxed in the first place. But I'm happy to watch the Blu-ray and then comment after actually seeing it.

 

[Mark B]

I watched the master of MARTY, recently broadcast on television, this morning. The title sequence was windowboxed and the scene with Betsy Blair and her parents was present so it could be the same source as the Blu-Ray. Cropped to 1.85:1 the film looked awfully good. It's quite obvious based on the compositions it should not be projected or viewed in any way other than widescreen.In my opinion, one of the most overused phrases in aspect ratio debates is "composed in but projected for..." I feel that a lot fewer films than some would like to believe were actually prepared for potential academy ratio projection. It is silly to rely on perceived "open matte" video masters to conclude this, as no films are truly open matte for home video. Just look at the academy ratio films that have received numerous reissues. Each time a new master is created the information on all four sides of the image changes slightly. Besides, a true open matte transfer would have round corners. Look at the "full frame" home video releases that eventually received a widescreen release. Isn't there always more information on the right and left unseen in full frame?As a photographer I understand well the emotional impact of composition. Films, similarly, rely heavily on framing to subliminally reach the audience. For instance, in the ballroom dance scene of MARTY the tightly composed shot of the two principals emphasizes the fact that within a crowd they are in a world of their own; an emotional exchange is happening between them. Without the cropping too much of their surroundings can be viewed, distracting the viewer and infringing on the impact of the scene.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Does anyone know what the chances are that Marty will be licensed overseas and released properly?

 

[lukejosephchung]

Does anyone know what the chances are that Marty will be licensed overseas and released properly?

Considering that the owners of the film are MGM/UA, the same studio that's screwing movie fans over with their stonewalling on "The Alamo", I'd say the chances are virtually nil...

 

[revgen]

According to IMDB, Marty was distributed in Austria and Denmark in 1956. Does an overseas negative still exist in a European archive?

I suppose if a overseas distributor really wanted to, they could look into using an overseas negative to make a new transfer. Kinda like what happened with 55 Days at Peking. Otherwise, they'd probably have to use MGM's existing video master.

 

[bgart13]

Oh boy... I don't have a horse in this race, but how could anyone at Kino look at MARTY and not see that it was able to be matted in its OAR?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Marty-Blu-ray/56980/#Screenshots