A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray - Page 3

I can see why this release is going to be one of those divisive titles that people will either love or hate.

The disc looks quite "good" - that is to say, it's very detailed and very clean and is a clear upgrade over any other previous video version of the movie. But anyone who knows what projected 35mm film is supposed to look like will probably be disappointed.

This disc makes "It's a Wonderful Life" look like it was shot in HD video, not 35mm film.

Eric,

I don't mean to pick on you but your opinion seems to 
be in the minority here.

Very interested to know what your setup is.  For instance,
the kind and size of your display and the viewing distance.

Also, what is your previous knowledge of how this film 
should look?

For what it's worth, Bill Hunt seems pretty pleased with it too. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews111209.html

I know this review will stir up the vocal "I hate The Digital Bits" crowd and I'm not saying that he's right (or wrong) but it does seem like some people with reasonably well respected opinions are pleased with this release.

Sure, Ron. I am watching on a Sony Bravia KDLXBR5 52" LCD monitor, Blu Ray: Sony550. I have owned this film on every format since 1988. I know how bad the pd copies looked. I know that the 45th Anniversary Edition from Republic set the modern standard for this film (splices and audio dropouts notwithstanding.) The 1995 remastering effort from Republic was horrible. You can still see it every year on NBC. Frames were frozen to cover up damage, the image was soft and blurry...just a mess. The film looked good on SD in 2006, but I did a side by side comparison last night and the film looks beautiful. I found it to look very filmlike. The bright sections of the film (particularly in the early sections) sparkle without blown-out contrast, while the darker sections have the right amount of inky blacks in the darker areas. I did not see any DNR artifacts. There is minor damage on a few frames, but it is nowhere near the problem that it was on previous versions. I feel that if you are a fan of this film, then you should check this out for yourself. I have no agenda. I don't work for Paramount. I don't work for a rival studio. Anyone who reads my posts on the HTF know that I am a perfectionist (i.e. The Wizard of Oz Blu-ray). I don't say something looks great to me when it doesn't. My eyes are very sensitive to flaws. And I am saying without any reservations that if someone passes this up because they read bad reviews, then they are doing themselves a disservice where this release is concerned. They will miss out on a great looking (and sounding) presentation. Just my two cents.
Edited by eric scott richard - 11/12/09 at 10:09am

 (edits mine)

I don't think they are.  How can something show on 35mm film be scrubbed so clean, so as to look like it was shot last year on HD video, yet still retain a film-like look?  Even worse, it looks like a recent movie that was overly-dnr'd to the point that the crispness was forced and unnatural.

As a lark, I ventured into a video rental store for the first time in literally 10 years (other than to buy pre-owned discs), and dropped 2 bucks on a rental of this blu-ray, just so I wasn't "that guy" who complains about something without seeing it.  The comment about the forcefield pushing the grain away from the actors is spot-on.  It looks like everyone is suspended in a viscous liquid like oil, and any remaining grain particles are being shunted aside as they move through the world.

All of the joy of this film, sans the actual dialogue and plot, has been sucked out of it by way of over-processing.  It's a shame, really.  I can't see how any true lover of this film (or films in general) could accept this release at all, regardless of screen size.  Just watch the last dvd release up-converted.  It may not have the same level of detail, but at least it's honest.

Obviously nobody was able to enjoy the film in the 1980s or 1990s, either, since the film was presently so horribly. Alas, there was no joy in Bedford Falls then, nor is there any now.

Was it?  Really?  Was the processing so distracting on even the broadcast TV versions that all you could do stare in wonder at the train wreck in front of your eyes?  Really?  Really?

It's like that Farside comic with "Raymond's last day as the band's sound technician," where he's turning up the "suck" dial.  Someone consciously made a choice to do what was done with this release, and that, in my opinion, is worse than anything (short of colourization) I've seen in any other version of the film.  As I said, previous releases may not have been perfect, either, but at least they were honest.

Unfortunately that seems to be the choice people are positing, but it isn't what a careful reading of RAH's comments should lead you to.

I tried to strike the appropriate balance in the title of my HTF Review, when I said "not recommended". I didn't say "Do Not Buy!" I also made it clear in the body of the review that the Blu-ray has a lot of detail and that it's entirely possible to watch it and have a fine viewing experience.

But that doesn't mean it's everything it should be or could be, and sites like this one have long been devoted to demanding the best from visual media (audio too, but that's a whole different can of worms). We all know that images can look great and yet still not be accurate, and RAH has one of the best eyes for detecting inaccuracy that I've ever encountered. I knew something was off, and said so. He's the who figured out what and why.

Does this make the Blu-ray unwatchable? I don't think so. And if someone who didn't already own IaWL asked me what version to buy today, I'd say the Blu-ray, because, on balance, it's the best version currently available. But as I said in the conclusion of my review, if you're satisfied with your DVD, upconvert it and wait a while.

My point (made in the spirit of light humor) was that for 99.99999999% of viewers of this film for the last 30 years the story has trumped the presentation quality. I know the bar has been raised about 100 fold over what it was 10-20 years ago, but I find it hard to get the pitchforks out over these issues. I appreciate Mr. Harris' efforts to steer the industry into better standards, and his insight is quite valuable. However, given the choice between watching this new Blu-ray or any other previous home video release, I think the decision is hardly difficult. When the choice becomes available between this Blu-ray and a newer Blu-ray without this additional digital processing/manipulation I will gladly endorse the latter.

Because I don't have five hundred bucks for every movie I want. Nor the room to store prints.  But we shouldn't have to. As Martin Scorcese recently pointed out, a good Blu-ray is very, very close to a nice 35mm print. A classic film like this deserves to be released with the best possible transfer.

Indeed it isn't.  Pass on the current BD of "It's a Wonderful Life." :)

That's how I feel about the glitches on the new Oz set, along with the altered dialogue. I shouldn't, in five years or so, have to re-purchase the title again because the studio made errors on this release.

This is the RAH quote of the year.

Since I don't have a wall sized screen and have no plans to own one in the near future, I will be buying the blu-ray of Capra's classic after all. Thank you RAH.

I remember back in the early 80's when I recorded this film off the BBC in long play mode (all BW films were relegated to long play mode by foolish young Steve back then, even my favourite, Casablanca) the film looked fuzzy and I still enjoyed watching it in that condition. Never knowing that one day I'd consider not buying it because it was less than perfect.

It's not that. It's the altered Garland line. My point isn't just these particular mistakes, but it seems as if with every new release of a film, something is changed or a mistake is made in parts of the film that were never problematic to begin with. And I would take it back, were it not for the fact that stores won't do that.

So you weren't bothered by the fact that Oz is one of the most beautiful blu rays ever made?

Oz is one of the most beautiful Blu Rays ever made. But that doesn't take away from the fact. Again, give credit where due....Kudos to the studio for that. But how sad that a potentially permanent alteration was made because of an oversight. And how even sadder that the studio will take credit for the success but will not acknowledge the consumer when something goes wrong (my emails have been ignored.) And finally, how shocking that it has happened to some of the most prestigious titles in film history.

RAH, LOL. I love it! Maybe some elusive day, people who know what they are doing will approve only what they should be approving. And Clarence will tap his heels together three times and get his wings.

RAH, I just read Bill Hunt's take on this on Digital Bits, and you and him are normally in agreement and know what your talking about, but he loved the disc. I normally pay attention to both you and him when it comes to buying the discs. I find it intreasting that the bothe of you have a diffren't take. I still will not buy it, and I won'y but it even more so because there are 2 diffrent opinions. Don't know if you had a chance to read his yet in Digital Bits.

I agree. The technicians who were working on Oz obviously gave it an honest effort and I still applaud them (although I would cry with joy if they would correct the few minor issues.) Botching an entire movie is different.

I think what I found most troubling with The Digital Bits' review of this disc is that the video scored *the same* as the video for The Clone Wars: Season One, and

Is it possible for there to be two different transfers floating around? (I'm being serious here, since Bill Hunt is a great guy, and his reviews are generally spot-on)

At the risk of getting my backside kicked around...

Is this not a question of whether one's glass is half empty or half full?

The Blu-ray Disc is, on the one hand, substantially better than the DVD.  But on the other hand it's not as good as it could have been.

If someone loves the film, wants it in the best version available, and doesn't feel like the number of $s (or in my case £s) asked is too much, then surely 'better' is...well, better, even if it's not the best of all possible worlds.

If you're a bit skint, then fair enough.

But if money isn't an issue, why would anyone sit at home and watch the DVD when they know that it's not as good as the Blu-ray Disc - which, irrespective of any deficiencies, it most certainly is.  Isn't that almost a dictionary definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face?

How good it looks compared with how good it could look is a question we ask, and a reason we read RAH's excellent reviews.

Whether any improvement is worth it or not is not a matter for anyone else but ourselves and our wallets.  I may receive comments saying I'm settling for second best, but logically aren't all those saying they'll stick with the DVD settling for third best?

Okay, start the kicking...

Steve W