Blu-ray Review Marty Blu-ray Review

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Matt Hough, Jul 9, 2014.

  1. Jari K

    Jari K Producer

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    249
    Nice one, Robert.
     
  2. bruceames

    bruceames Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    269
    Real Name:
    Bruce Ames
    So is this movie cropped on the sides, or is there just extra information on the top and bottom?
     
  3. nedinme

    nedinme Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kennebunk, Maine
    Real Name:
    Ned
    Right up front: I buy a movie FOR THE MOVIE. The technical aspects of the transfer come second. I am not much for the tech aspects anyway. Aspect ratio, etc. are not what I look for (although "pan and scan" was a disaster!!) I want to see the movie. Granted some movies that have been transferred to Blu-Ray have not lived up to the Blu-Ray quality that the Blu-Ray creators brag about. Some are quite good (i.e. Lawrence of Arabia) and some are horrible. NONE of the transfers will be perfect simply because the movie is being transferred to a different media. I ordered "Marty" when it was first announced. I liked the film and wanted it in my library. I don't have the luxury of waiting until the studios decide to make a perfect transfer to some new future media. I 'm approaching 70 so I want to enjoy the film. When I go to the local IMAX, I go to see a film and not to analyze the film's aspect ratio, etc. I go to a movie to enjoy the story, acting, etc. Considering what a movie costs at your local Cineplex, the cost of the Blu-Ray is a bargain. Just enjoy the film for the story!! ..and that's my "aspect ratio" on "Marty"!! ;)
     
    bruceames likes this.
  4. David Weicker

    David Weicker Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,360
    Likes Received:
    631
    Real Name:
    David
    Just to be logically accurate, the first statement does not prove the second statement.The first statement says that once they switched. It doesn't mean (or even imply) that all (or even most) theaters switched. Or when.Now I don't know what is true about the actual situation. But given the kind of financial burden the theaters would face, it might have taken a lot longer than a year and a half to switch over. Sure, New York and L.A. would move quickly, but there is a whole lot more to this country than just those two cities.
     
  5. bruceames

    bruceames Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    269
    Real Name:
    Bruce Ames
    If the movie is not cropped then I might reconsider ordering it. Zooming to 1.66 would reduce the effective resolution (compared to it being framed at 1.66) about 20%, but it's still much better than any other version out there and not too likely they'll remaster this anytime soon, IMO.
     
  6. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    5,129
    Major theaters began installing the new screens in the summer of 1953. A December 5, 1953 survey of 16,753 operating indoor domestic theaters showed that 80% of downtown theaters and 69% of neighborhood theaters had installed widescreens. In total, 58% of all U.S. theaters had gone widescreen by the end of 1953. The conversion was slow in the Southern and North central parts of the country and that’s why the films were still protected during photography for the standard Academy ratio.
    The use of various wide screen aspect ratios would continue for several more years but one thing was certain: 1.37:1 - the standard production and exhibition ratio since 1932 - was abandoned. In September 1954, Merle Chamberlin (Director of Projection at MGM) stated, "All of the studios are convinced that the old 3/4 picture is gone and the wider aspect ratio is here to stay."
    Robert A. Mitchell was a leading authority on all aspects of motion picture projection and technology. His monthly technical papers for International Projectionist led to the 1957 publication of “Manual of Practical Projection,” an essential book containing the very best of his extremely detailed articles.
    In June 1956, he stated the following: “The trend toward wider-than-normal theatre screens is now so well established that the conventional 4:3-proportioned screen has become a rarity. Only a few theatres have retained the normal screen when wide screens are used for CinemaScope projection, and almost none have changed back to the standard aspect ratio after giving non-anamorphic widescreen pictures a fair trial.”

    By September 1956, increasing demands from exhibitors for standardization would finally result in 1.85:1 becoming the accepted non-anamorphic industry standard for widescreen production in the United States.

    More information and documentation can be found in these two articles:

    http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

    http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation
     
    Will Krupp and David Weicker like this.
  7. Keith Cobby

    Keith Cobby Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    781
    Location:
    Kent "The Garden of England", UK
    Real Name:
    Keith Cobby
    The AR's in the trade press would have been the recommended ratios. I would imagine theatre goers in the mid 1950's would have seen all sorts of films in different ratios. I have the same film on DVD in different ratios (eg While the City Sleeps) in 1.77 and 1.33, and The Monolith Monsters blu-ray has both ratios on the disc. I presume theatres would have shown these two films in both ratios, I prefer the full frame versions, others will prefer widescreen. Same with Marty.
     
    bruceames likes this.
  8. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,613
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    So is this uncut, does it contain the scene below as asked by another member. ?

     
  9. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    5,129
    Once theaters converted in 1953/54, they would not have shown these films in 1.37:1. The ratio was abandoned and exhibitors did not purchase new lenses and aperture plates to continue presenting films in the old ratio once widescreen was introduced.

    That's why the filmmakers composed them for widescreen and only protected for the standard ratio.
     
    Will Krupp and ahollis like this.
  10. Jari K

    Jari K Producer

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,288
    Likes Received:
    249
    Best thing right now would be that Kino would provide some additional info about the transfer/source. I know that they don't have to and I'm only asking (not demanding), but that could clean the air. You know, "this was the only master that MGM got at the moment".
     
  11. Dave B Ferris

    Dave B Ferris Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2000
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    121
    Judging from this sentence in Matt's stellar review, the answer is yes:

    In expanding his teleplay for the big screen, Paddy Chayefsky retains every scene from his TV version but adds interesting backstory for Clara (we even meet her parents in a crucial scene that’s sometimes omitted from prints of the movie; it is present in this release)
     
  12. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    14,556
    Likes Received:
    2,955
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough
    Thank you, Dave. And you're right. The scene asked about is there, and it's wonderful. I'm not sure I had seen it before I reviewed the disc.
     
  13. Dick

    Dick Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 1999
    Messages:
    5,473
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    Real Name:
    Rick
    Disney's LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) was photographed twice, once at 2.55:1, and then re-framed (not cropped) to 4:3 for theaters that were not yet CinemaScope-equipped. There was a laser disc release containing both versions that was quite instructive. They didn't re-frame for 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, it was for Academy ratio. Therefore, 1955 was not the year when no further films were shot in Academy...but I'm ready to be proven wrong. :)
     
  14. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    5,129
    Theatrically, 1.37:1 was a dying presentation format by time it was released in June 1955.

    However, Walt Disney entered the television arena when he signed a contract with ABC on March 29, 1954. The show DISNEYLAND premiered on October 27, 1954. Disney extensively promoted the upcoming film on his TV series and showed many clips before it was released.

    The film was first announced in June of 1953 and was marked for CinemaScope production from day one. There is no reference whatsoever to the film being available for booking to exhibitors in the standard ratio. If it had been available, there would have been some mention in the trades and I can find nothing to support that theory. If anybody has some documentation, please share.

    Even with his vision, I'm sure he did not anticipate the day when a full 2.55:1 image could be seen properly on the small screen. For those reasons, I strongly suspect that's why he produced a 1.37:1 version as well. It was certainly not intended for theatrical.
     
    Will Krupp likes this.
  15. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,030
    Likes Received:
    893
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    But what I'll bet you didn't know is that the specially-prepared Academy format version lay unused in the vaults for years until it was finally unveiled in that 1998 Laserdisc release. Believe it or not the earlier home video releases were of a pan-and-scan of the CinemaScope elements, not the Academy version!
     
  16. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    5,129
    That's very funny but not too surprising.

    Fox aired a pan and scan of THE ROBE on TV for many years - including the network premiere - when they had a perfectly fine 1.37:1-filmed version in the vaults!
     
  17. DavidJ

    DavidJ Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    231
    Real Name:
    David
    Interesting stuff.
     
  18. Josh Steinberg

    Josh Steinberg Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    3,470
    Real Name:
    Josh Steinberg
    Does the "Lady And The Tramp" Blu-ray include both versions? How about "The Robe"?
     
  19. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,030
    Likes Received:
    893
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    Nope. The laserdisc is the only way the Academy version of Lady has been released on video. The Robe Blu-ray features the Academy version as a picture-in-picture feature, but even there it's not the whole movie.
     
    Josh Steinberg likes this.
  20. Josh Steinberg

    Josh Steinberg Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    3,470
    Real Name:
    Josh Steinberg
    That's too bad, I would have loved to have checked them out... I love looking at movies that have different versions in circulation (looking forward to checking out the two versions of Oklahoma soon, I've never actually seen it.)
     

Share This Page