HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Sound of Music (Combo Pack) - Page 3

Rob, I see...sorry if I misunderstood....too bad for Strudel. It was her one big chance, darnit!! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard 

Rob, I see...sorry if I misunderstood....too bad for Strudel. It was her one big chance, darnit!! :)

Fraulein Strudel. Love it! 

I thought Fräulein Strudel was very sweet. Heard she was a tart, though.

And you don't want to know what was in those strudels…

In New York City a 35mm print of The Sound of Music is being screened at the Ziegfeld through tomorrow (Tuesday, 12/21) at 2:00 & 8:00.  I saw it last night and it was disappointing.  It was advertised as a new 35mm print, but it sure didn't *look* new.  The earlier reels in particular had many scratches and other visual blemishes; the color was very faded and the contrast was too low making everything look washed out (don't know if this is the print's fault, or a problem with the projector at the Ziegfeld).  However, once I adjusted to the less than optimal print quality I had a great time (there were no splices -- every frame was there).  The sound was quite acceptable: despite the condition of the print, the sound (which was directional stereo across the front) had no crackles or glitches.  The "apron slap" was NOT there, which made me wonder if they took a different mix and slapped it on to an old print (is this possible?), hence the "new print" advert.

One bizarre anomaly:  the credits (minus the Todd-AO card) looked exactly as they always have except for the card containing the credits for the original stage production -- the font for this card was much larger and bolder than on recent blu-ray or earlier DVD editions.  This made me wonder if the credits were made "fresh" for home video, or whether for some oddball reason a different card was used for these credits when preparing anamorphic 35mm prints as opposed to the original 70mm Todd-AO.  I don't think there was any difference in the text used, but of course, I don't have it memorized either.

This was not the Sing-A-Long version I should note, and the modest sized crowd was respectful (no inappropriate laughter) but had a good time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamMcK 

In New York City a 35mm print of The Sound of Music is being screened at the Ziegfeld through tomorrow (Tuesday, 12/21) at 2:00 & 8:00.  I saw it last night and it was disappointing.  It was advertised as a new 35mm print, but it sure didn't *look* new.  The earlier reels in particular had many scratches and other visual blemishes; the color was very faded and the contrast was too low making everything look washed out (don't know if this is the print's fault, or a problem with the projector at the Ziegfeld).  However, once I adjusted to the less than optimal print quality I had a great time (there were no splices -- every frame was there).  The sound was quite acceptable: despite the condition of the print, the sound (which was directional stereo across the front) had no crackles or glitches.  The "apron slap" was NOT there, which made me wonder if they took a different mix and slapped it on to an old print (is this possible?), hence the "new print" advert.

 

One bizarre anomaly:  the credits (minus the Todd-AO card) looked exactly as they always have except for the card containing the credits for the original stage production -- the font for this card was much larger and bolder than on recent blu-ray or earlier DVD editions.  This made me wonder if the credits were made "fresh" for home video, or whether for some oddball reason a different card was used for these credits when preparing anamorphic 35mm prints as opposed to the original 70mm Todd-AO.  I don't think there was any difference in the text used, but of course, I don't have it memorized either.

 

This was not the Sing-A-Long version I should note, and the modest sized crowd was respectful (no inappropriate laughter) but had a good time.

When I saw the film in 70mm, the credit "with the partial use of ideas by Georg Hurdalek" (the screenwriter of the German film Die Trapp Familie) was not there, and the credits for the original stage show were in a different font as well.

I am disappointed they are not making new prints for the restoration in any gauge (I'm sure theaters that cannot show 70mm would love a decent print), but then again Fox seems to have always treated repertory screenings as an afterthought. They don't even do their own repertory bookings; they farm it out to a company called Criterion Pictures, and the print quality is a crap shoot (to their credit, they did have a decent 35mm print of Leave Her to Heaven which played at the Castro in San Francisco this summer).

I've grown quite accustomed to the Blu-ray now and I have to say that viewing the disc is an absolute delight. I have never seen it look so brown/yellow, but the sharpness and clarity are fantastic. I also believe the sound to be better than the 40th anniversary edition, which I know some disagree with. I used headphones and compared them and the new mix is much more clear. Still, since the soundtracks are SO different, why didn't they offer a 5.1 lossless mix of the 40th anniversary edition mix (which some feel is closer to the theatrical mix) in addition to their "new" mix, and also, if they were finally able to use the original orchestral stems, which they say were in such bad condition, with new technology, then why no new isolated music track? And finally, if there was to be a CD added to the set like there was, why didn't they use the new mix and give us the complete underscore as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel 

I've grown quite accustomed to the Blu-ray now and I have to say that viewing the disc is an absolute delight. I have never seen it look so brown/yellow, but the sharpness and clarity are fantastic. I also believe the sound to be better than the 40th anniversary edition, which I know some disagree with. I used headphones and compared them and the new mix is much more clear. Still, since the soundtracks are SO different, why didn't they offer a 5.1 lossless mix of the 40th anniversary edition mix (which some feel is closer to the theatrical mix) in addition to their "new" mix, and also, if they were finally able to use the original orchestral stems, which they say were in such bad condition, with new technology, then why no new isolated music track? And finally, if there was to be a CD added to the set like there was, why didn't they use the new mix and give us the complete underscore as well?

I agree with that. If there are no rights issues, then what's up? I'm surprised they didn't at least include the Gold CD from the laserdisc box.

I also would have liked to see them recreate the still section from the laserdisc box in HD, or at least incorporate its contents. They had access to Ernest Lehman's correspondence, and included his telegrams—I'm sure Liesl would have approved—where one learns, among other things, that Christopher Plummer disliked "Edelweiss" and suggested another song be written to replace it.

On the plus side, the transfer seems to be closer to the 2.20:1 ratio of Todd-AO. IIRC, the DVDs were 2.35:1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatthewA 

 

I also would have liked to see them recreate the still section from the laserdisc box in HD, or at least incorporate its contents. They had access to Ernest Lehman's correspondence, and included his telegrams—I'm sure Liesl would have approved—where one learns, among other things, that Christopher Plummer disliked "Edelweiss" and suggested another song be written to replace it.

 

 That still-step section from the 1994 laserdisc box set is still the best bonus extra there is on this film.  It's recreation on DVD was a blurry mess, so I would love to see it reach BluRay someday looking as it did (and still does in my house!) on laserdisc.

I haven't run through the whole film on BD yet, but my impression is that while the extras are great, the res on the film itself is almost too good!!  Also, as someone else has said, the whole interactive menu thing is overdone; yes, it's fun the first couple times, but it certainly does get tedious after a while.  And what about all the un-tech-savvy viewers out there who just won't be able to make it work at all??

Most fascinating for me are the videos about each of the songs and the coverage of how well-loved the story is around the world, followed by the stuff shot with the real Von Trapps, the restoration features and the Salzburg: Sight & Sound clips in that order.  I also love the Your Favorite Things options, but frustratingly enough, can't get the film to play without video choppiness when watching the trivia one (anyone have a fix for that?).

BOTTOM LINE: Only buy this edition if for some reason you don't already own the 45th Anniversary copy.  Like some of you, I've also owned various formats, really just three: VHS, DVD and now this BD, and it might just be the power of suggestion, but for now I'm standing by the assessment that the cost of adding a BD version to your collection could be better spent buying something shot in HD in the first place.  After all, the warm feelings the story has brought up all my life aren't tied in any way to screen res.  In fact, I only prioritize getting the BD of something if I know it was originally shot in HD, and it's also the type of content I consider eye candy (like astronomy stuff based on the latest actual images taken from Cassini, Messenger & their ilk -- either that or (like in this case) it's just content I love so much I'm just automatically going to want the best I can get.  That strategy doesn't always pay off, though, as here, where I wish I'd just saved my money for something else.  It would have been a whole $60, too, 'cuz @ the same time I also got the Fantasia 2-pack (BDs and DVDs of both films).  Oh well.  Needless to say, lossless audio is never a bad thing, so I guess from that PoV it WAS worth it after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenCam91 

In fact, I only prioritize getting the BD of something if I know it was originally shot in HD.

As long as a movie was shot on 35mm film (like The Sound Of Music was), the increase in resolution of Blu-ray will be as beneficial as it would be for a movie that was shot on HD cameras.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenCam91 

In fact, I only prioritize getting the BD of something if I know it was originally shot in HD.

As long as a movie was shot on 35mm film (like The Sound Of Music was), the increase in resolution of Blu-ray will be as beneficial as it would be for a movie that was shot on HD cameras.

The Sound of Music was shot in 65mm Todd-AO, which is about as HD as you can get.  I can't understand how anyone who likes this film can question the sharpness of the image.  Question the color choices (which I think are pretty accurate), the overall brightness (too dark) or the sound remix (certainly debatable), but if HD source material is your primary concern when buying a BluRay, The Sound of Music should be at the top of your want list.  I personally find it far superior to the 40th anniversary DVD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_Ray 

The Sound of Music was shot in 65mm Todd-AO.

You're completely right. Apparently I got a lobotomy for Christmas.

If you can't clearly see the differences between the relativly poor transfer of the 45th edition with it's obvious color fringing issues (look at the scene when Maria is about to open the iron gate for one of the more obvious examples) then I would think your system could be seriously under performing as a HD media playback system. At any rate, something is out of whack, too small an image, to great a viewing distance, etc etc.

I found the 45th anniversary DVD to be one of Fox less stellar achievements.  Not "Patton" bad, but certainly not a well done transfer from 65mm sources.

Vern

I'm confused, you guys keep referring to the 45th Anniversary edition which is what the Blu-ray is. Are you actually referring to the 40th Anniversary edition?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vern Dias 

 

Quote:

 BOTTOM LINE: Only buy this edition if for some reason you don't already own the 45th Anniversary copy

I found the 45th anniversary DVD to be one of Fox less stellar achievements. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vern Dias 

 

Quote:

 BOTTOM LINE: Only buy this edition if for some reason you don't already own the 45th Anniversary copy

If you can't clearly see the differences between the relativly poor transfer of the 45th edition with it's obvious color fringing issues (look at the scene when Maria is about to open the iron gate for one of the more obvious examples) then I would think your system could be seriously under performing as a HD media playback system. At any rate, something is out of whack, too small an image, to great a viewing distance, etc etc.

 

I found the 45th anniversary DVD to be one of Fox less stellar achievements.  Not "Patton" bad, but certainly not a well done transfer from 65mm sources.

 

Vern

Yes, I can see it, and yes, it looks great.  I just have this thing about buying BDs that weren't shot in HD, but if what you and others are saying on here is right, I guess I shouldn't.  Still don't see exactly how something that was shot in 480 can be made to look like 1080, though, unless it's just a matter of adding lines in the same ratios as the original.

 

Originally Posted by BenCam91 

Yes, I can see it, and yes, it looks great.  I just have this thing about buying BDs that weren't shot in HD, but if what you and others are saying on here is right, I guess I shouldn't.  Still don't see exactly how something that was shot in 480 can be made to look like 1080, though, unless it's just a matter of adding lines in the same ratios as the original.

When you mention 480, you're referring to standard definition video, like DVDs. You're right that anything shot in standard definition video can't be made to look like 1080. See the season five BD release for It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia for an example of how disappointing upconverted standard def video looks. But while lots of television has been shot in standard def video, hardly any feature films have been. Most are shot on film, which is an organic process that doesn't neatly fall into a numerical resolution. But it's all greater than 1080.

And it doesn't get any more HD than The Sound of Music. Nothing shot today is captured with the same resolution as 70mm Todd-AO. Current generation HD video cameras don't come close. Neither does 35mm film. Most HD video shot today is between 1920 and 2000 lines of horizontal resolution, or roughly half the horizontal resolution of 35mm film. And 70mm film is double the horizontal resolution of 35mm film.

The upcoming Spider-Man film is being shot with the brand spanking new RED Epic digital video cameras, which have 5000 lines of horizontal resolution, or roughly 125 percent of the horizontal resolution of 35mm film. For this restoration, The Sound of Music was scanned in at 8000 lines of horizontal resolution to preserve the full functional resolution of the source material. That means that The Sound of Music has roughly 60 percent greater functional resolution than the latest and greatest HD video cameras in mainstream use!

EDIT: A diagram to put it into perspective:

nm. Adam wrote a great response.

Nice description Adam. As you pointed out any movie will look better on Blu-ray, but unfortunately we have to rely on how it is transferred, there are the incredible jobs (South Pacific, Sound of Music, How the West was Won, The Searchers) and the not so good (Gigi, is one that comes to mind), it will all depend on the time and effort spent in the transfer process and as far as classics, the elements that remain.  So far I think the studios have done a fine job of restoring the pre-1970 movies, apart from a few mistakes like Patton where they remove all the grain.

The Sound of Music is STILL, after 5 weeks on the top 10 best selling Blu-ray charts, in the top 10. It made it's debut at number 2 and probably would have been #1 had it not been for the release of Toy Story 3 the same day. It was in the top 4 best selling discs the first week (that chart which includes DVD's).....Chitty Chitty Bang Bang debuted on the top 10 and Bridge on the River Kwai on the top 15 for the Blu-ray charts.  This was the best news to us classic fans, showing that there is now a market for these older treasured films. I predict nothing but great things to come now. EXCITED!!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertSiegel 

Nice description Adam. As you pointed out any movie will look better on Blu-ray, but unfortunately we have to rely on how it is transferred, there are the incredible jobs (South Pacific, Sound of Music, How the West was Won, The Searchers) and the not so good (Gigi, is one that comes to mind), it will all depend on the time and effort spent in the transfer process and as far as classics, the elements that remain.  So far I think the studios have done a fine job of restoring the pre-1970 movies, apart from a few mistakes like Patton where they remove all the grain.

Absolutely. Garbage in, garbage out. My post above basically lays out the best case scenario. The poorer the condition of the surviving elements, the lower the effective resolution. Dr. Strangelove is an example of a film that looks far better on Blu than it ever has before on home video, but probably far worse than it did during its original run because the elements the studio had to work from just weren't the best.

Thanks, Adam, now it all makes sense.

And now, unfortunately, I'll have to abandon my wrong-headed notion that older films can't possibly look great on BD, and start buyin' em all up as I'm a fan of everything from the 60's on.  But you're still saying that it depends on the skill and attention of the restoration team?  Are there, then, any pre-release clues (other than just knowing the reputations of the people involved) one can look for to get an advance indication of whether or not it'll be worth it to go BD on any given upcoming title?  I guess that's where visiting here comes in, huh?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenCam91 

Thanks, Adam, now it all makes sense.

 

And now, unfortunately, I'll have to abandon my wrong-headed notion that older films can't possibly look great on BD, and start buyin' em all up as I'm a fan of everything from the 60's on.  But you're still saying that it depends on the skill and attention of the restoration team?  Are there, then, any pre-release clues (other than just knowing the reputations of the people involved) one can look for to get an advance indication of whether or not it'll be worth it to go BD on any given upcoming title?  I guess that's where visiting here comes in, huh?!

What I do is watch 4 or 5 web sites for user reviews. I don't always go by the web site reviewers but do take their opinion into consideration. What I find helpful is what other people who purchased the disc feel about it, and that witrh the formal website review, along with threads and forums like this are the best way to find out what is quality and what was done poorly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenCam91 

Thanks, Adam, now it all makes sense.

Glad I could clear things up for you!

There's a few factors that can lead a transfer of an older movie astray. One, as previously mentioned, is that the surviving elements for the film just might not be very good. If the original camera negative is carefully maintained, it's going to result in a significantly better picture than any other source material. But many times the original negative was not carefully maintained, if it was indeed kept at all. At that point, the home video people have to decide what surviving film element is in the best shape, or -- in severe cases -- cobble together and try to match the best pieces of a few different surviving prints. Between traditional film restoration tools and today's cutting edge digital tools, it's amazing what they can accomplish to bring films back from the dead. But if the film elements they have to work with are flawed, the final presentation is going to be flawed.

Another issue is the recycling of old masters. When DVD was taking off, studios made digital masters of the vast majority of their catalog titles, for use in HD TV broadcasts and for down converting to 480i DVDs. The technology used to make these masters is now a decade or so old, and many of them were never intended to be used for 1080P presentations. For big titles, like The Sound of Music, the studios will take on the time and expense to make a brand new, ultra-high definition master to source the Blu-Ray from. But for less prominent titles and for many early BD releases, they just used the old master. Any flaws in the old master will obviously show up in the products sourced from it. These titles will still look better than the DVD, since there is more resolution, but they won't look as good as they would have looked with a brand new master in 4k resolution.

And finally, there's just plain poorly made masters; this can affect brand new movies as well as old movies. Sometimes the pros at the studio just screw up. Sometimes they cater to market forces to the detriment of picture quality, like the push to remove all evidence of grain which also removes a significant amount of detail.

But that's the great thing about the internet. As Robert said in the post before this one, if there's a serious issue you'll hear about it, either through the reviews on BD review websites, or from the comments and posters on the message board. Even when there's not a consensus about some aspect of a release, such as the color timing and sound mixing for this title, you'll find plenty of debate and can make your own call as to whether the issue in question is something that's going to bother you, or something that's not. Usually the reviews will start popping up a day or two before the release date, and many users seemed to find titles before their release date as well. The reviewers here at HTF do a generally thorough and excellent job, and sites like DVDBeaver.com provide screenshots (along with comparisons with prior DVD releases) from the BD discs to let you make your own judgment calls.

Got a question or two.

If one has the BD, the 40th anniversary DVD set, and the 30th anniversary LD box set...  is there any noteworthy special feature (documentary, commentary, whatever) worth having, that isn't included in one of these three editions?  I'm not aiming to be a "completist" beyond this, but if there's something else of quality, in someone's opinion, then I might like knowing about it.

How about other info on the making of the film?  I found "The Making of America's Favorite Movie" by Julia Antopol Hirsch on my shelf -- apparently nabbed secondhand at some point and promptly forgotten about.  What books or articles, etc., do people value for any particular reason?

Answering my own question, it certainly looks like "The Sound of Music Companion" by Maslon and Lloyd Webber is one to have.  Also perhaps "Forever Liesl" by Charmian Carr.

Other essential books related to the Trapps' story in general include Maria von Trapp's 1949 autobiography "The Story of the Trapp Family Singers" the first third of which covers the real story of the period of The Sound of Music, with Maria von Trapp's leaving Nonnberg Abbey to marry George von Trapp and become a new mother to his children and how it all came about.  The book is filled with rich detail on life in Austria before the war and takes a sometimes blackly humorous look at the dark days after the Anschloss.  Some of the most operetta-like aspects of the story were largely true.  For instance, the Captain wasn't engaged to just a Baroness.  In real life, she was a princess!

Her much later book, from the 1970s, entitled "Maria" covers the same ground from the perspective of an older woman looking back over the whole of her life, including one chapter on The Sound of Music and the impact it had on their lives.

A very recent book by the recently departed eldest daughter, Agathe von Trapp, entitled "Memories Before and After The Sound of Music" tries to point the spotlight on the long-forgotten first Baroness von Trapp, Agathe Whitehead von Trapp, the mother of the seven oldest children, as well as depict the Captain as the warm and loving father he always was from the outset, even before Maria's arrival.  One gets the sense that the some of the children sometimes resented the real Maria for her insistence that they put aside their personal lives for the sake of their group singing career.  The real Maria was a force of nature, as Christopher Plummer notes in several interviews.

There are also several (3) books about Julie Andrews that have quite a bit of information on this title (and fun info on Poppins, Millie, ect). I find these are really good books.

Folks,   a die question here.

Two friends of mine told me they  saw on the net that Charmian Carr who played liesl in the film has passes away. 

I looked everywhere on the net and found nothing.   Does anyone know abut this?

Joe, it was the real "Liesl" that died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12093316

Some of the headlines were way too easy to misread.  And Joe's post just caught me off guard again.