PHE Press Release: Hondo (Blu-ray)

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Mar 6, 2012.

  1. jim_falconer

    jim_falconer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    216

    That's interesting. Seeing as the framing has always looked correct on video and DVD, I wonder if Hondo was shot like Rio Bravo. That is, standard 4:3 aspect lens with an open frame, and then matted to 1.75:1 when shown in theaters.
     
  2. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    769
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    That's how nearly all non-'scope widescreen films are shot.
     
  3. benbess

    benbess Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,148
    Likes Received:
    443
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    Wouldn't an aspect ratio 1.33 have higher resolution in this case?
     
  4. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,163
    Likes Received:
    2,215
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Why? The film was shot and designed to be shown in 1.85. 90% of 1.85 movies were and are shot open matte - it does not mean they should be shown that way, as it is a subversion of the artist's intentions. Why this is so hard to understand, I know not. :)
     
  5. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    At least Paramount gets the color right. [​IMG]
     
  6. Guest

    On a screen with the same height, the 1.33 (1.37) will appear sharper with finer grain, because there is less magnification. As has been said, however, after the widescreen era began most spherical films were meant to be shown at 1.85.
     
  7. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    5,145
    And remember: the widescreen era began months before THE ROBE premiered in September, 1953. But 1.85 did not become the standard for several years. Each studio had their own house ratio. Paramount: 1.66 MGM: 1.75 Columbia: 1.85 Universal: 1.85 and 2.1 Warner Bros: 1.66, 1.75 and 1.85 20th Century Fox: 1.66 RKO: 1.75 and 1.85 In documenting this often mis-understood period of technical change, it's important to establish when each studio converted to widescreen cinematography. By going through the trades and studio files from 1953-1955 in my 3-D research, I've been able to document these early widescreen productions as well. Many theaters around the country began installing widescreens in the summer of 1953 and that's why quite a few academy ratio titles (Shane, War of the Worlds, etc) were shown wide although not composed for that ratio. In determining which is correct, it's most important to document the dates of principal photography in relation to the studio policy. Case in point, the 3 Stooges short GOOF ON THE ROOF. Although filmed November 17-20, 1952 and meant for 1.37, it sat on the shelf until December 3, 1953 and was then shown 1.85 which is not correct.
     
  8. jim_falconer

    jim_falconer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    216

    Again, very interesting. I believe they made this very same mistake with John Wayne's 'Jet Pilot'. It was filmed in 1949 using 1:37, but sat on the shelf till 1957. When finally shown in theaters, it was matted to 1.85:1, which obviously cut off the top and bottom of the image. Unfortunately, this is also how Universal has the current release on DVD looking. Hopefully if it ever comes out on Bluray, that mistake will be corrected.
     
  9. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,383
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    No 3-D, no sale. They spent all this time and money to restore it digitially for 3-D and release it flat. I don't care about the aspect ratio. Some of these 3D films from the 1950's look better in 1.33:1 as you can see more information in the foreground which enhances the 3-D.
     
  10. Mark-P

    Mark-P Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    897
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    Believe it or not the 1957 release of "Jet Pilot" was actually presented in SuperScope with an aspect ratio of 2.00:1. The DVD is a compromise between its filmed-ratio and its theatrical ratio.
     
  11. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,269
    Likes Received:
    5,155
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris


    The film should be 1.37. Add to this odd bit of history, and wide-screen modification, that the film was directed by Sternberg, whose earlier works include some of the most sumptuous and beautiful set-pieces on film.


    RAH
     
  12. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    769
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Do you think that the original elements survive which would allow an eventual 1.37 release?
     
  13. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    I know you're not asking me, but yes, the elements survive in excellent if not near-perfect condition. Hondo has been projected for industry screenings, at the Academy and at the Director's Guild, and again more recently. It could be re-released theatrically today, either on 35mm or on digital, and it would look better than every new film playing. The flat scenes add up to a matter of seconds -- perhaps less than a minute in total -- and few people notice them. The Wayne family placed Michael's widow Gretchen Wayne in charge of Hondo. She wanted a theatrical re-release in 2007.
     
  14. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    769
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Actually, I was asking about Jet Pilot's elements since they came up in the discussion . I know Hondo survives as I tried - unsuccessfully - to book it in 35mm and 3-D a few years ago.
     
  15. jim_falconer

    jim_falconer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    216


    I can't say for sure, but Universal released a beautiful 1.37:1 version onto laserdisc back in the 1990s. Hopefully they still have those same elements, if they ever decide to do a bluray release.
     
  16. SAM33

    SAM33 Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    60
    Real Name:
    Stewart
    Ditto for me - NO 3D, NO SALE. SAM33
     
  17. Rick Thompson

    Rick Thompson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    382
    For me, no 3-D is no problem. Never liked it. Thought it was just a gimmick that added nothing to, and in fact subtracted from, the movie experience. But, to each his own.
     
  18. cafink

    cafink Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    36
    Real Name:
    Carl Fink
    I agree that in many cases, 3D is a worthless gimmick. I haven't seen Hondo, and so I don't have any opinion on whether it in particular would benefit from a 3D presentation. But it was originally shot and released in 3D, so why isn't it being released that way on Blu-ray? Why arbitrarily leave off a part of the movie, when the Blu-ray format is perfectly capable of reproducing it? I'm more bothered by the fact that the studio doesn't see 3D as a necessary part of the Blu-ray release of a 3D film than by the actual effect of its omission.
     
  19. Matt Hough

    Matt Hough Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    14,566
    Likes Received:
    2,964
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Real Name:
    Matt Hough

    3D is a gimmick only in the hands of unimaginative or hack filmmakers (or studios who want to squeeze the last drop of revenue out of a title by applying it after the fact). When one sees something as expertly made as Hugo in 3D, the 2D version is just an adequate substitute but a different and, I think, a lesser experience.


    Still, I applaud your argument about Hondo. It was made for 3D presentation and deserves to be seen that way since it can be presented that way with no compromises to the original intentions.
     
  20. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,383
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Paramount has released Hugo, Puss in Boots, Thor, Transformers, etc. in 3D so they know how to do it. Don't know why they decided to skip 3D for Hondo.
     

Share This Page