Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › The Man Who Knew Too Much (Paramount, 1956)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Man Who Knew Too Much (Paramount, 1956)

post #1 of 25
2/18/12 at 12:52pm
Thread Starter 
466

I saw the 1983 re-release many times, and it looked raggedy then. Each time Universal remasters this film for DVD -- in 2001, 2005, and 2006 -- there seems to be additional quality loss. It appears to be in the worst shape of all Hitchcock films of the 1950s. Can someone speak knowledgeably about the elements for this film? and the prospects of restoring it or properly remastering it for Blu-ray? Evidently Universal has plans to issue some Hitchcock titles in the fall of 2012.
Reply
post #2 of 25
2/18/12 at 1:26pm
I too would like to see this one. Doesn't seem that we have a man here who knows too much about it though...smile.gif
Reply
post #3 of 25
2/18/12 at 2:05pm

I really love it, too. Frankly, I'd rather have it than The Birds if I was choosing what to release.

Reply
post #4 of 25
2/18/12 at 2:25pm
I can't speak for the elements, but I ran Universal's prime 35mm print of this a couple of years ago and it was gorgeous. No Universal logo at the front, either. It was on 2006 or 2007 film stock, so it was newly struck. Definitely had the clarity of a large format source as well.
Reply
post #5 of 25
2/18/12 at 2:26pm

Damn, I'm sorry I missed that!

Reply
post #6 of 25
2/18/12 at 4:09pm

TMWKTM

Hopefully he'll chime in for an authoritiative answer, but I seem to recall reading Robert Harris stating that the elements exist (OCN, separation masters) to do bring this film back to life, but it needs a full restoration do it.
Reply
post #7 of 25
2/18/12 at 4:25pm
Acronyms are only useful after the title has been established. Starting a thread with an obscure acronym leaves everybody wondering what you are talking about.
Reply
post #8 of 25
2/18/12 at 4:26pm
I have no idea what your abbreviation means.
Reply
post #9 of 25
2/18/12 at 4:33pm
The Man Who Knew Too Much. He is referring, of course, to the Jimmy Stewart VistaVision version. Another thread on this was started earlier today.
Reply
post #10 of 25
2/18/12 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianruns10 View Post

Hopefully he'll chime in for an authoritiative answer, but I seem to recall reading Robert Harris stating that the elements exist (OCN, separation masters) to do bring this film back to life, but it needs a full restoration do it.

If that's true I hope they put RAH on it asap....There's probably still time to get it out for the 100th anniversary!
Reply
post #11 of 25
2/18/12 at 5:30pm
I think I saw that print under excellent conditions and, frankly, it did not compare to the original Vista Vision/Technicolor prints. I remember running an original print in the 1964 release (on a double bill with Vertigo), and had already seen it during original release.
Reply
post #12 of 25
2/18/12 at 6:16pm
The VistaVision negative should be fine, just as The Ten Commandments was fine and To Catch a Thief was fine. They just have to go back to it and do it. The 80s prints of all these films were a joke, none of them taken from the camera negatives.
Reply
post #13 of 25
2/18/12 at 6:18pm
I simply do not understand this need in the Internet age to initials like this, especially when the title hasn't been established. Honestly, it would take me longer to type out the initials than The Man Who Knew Too Much.
Reply
post #14 of 25
2/18/12 at 6:23pm

There is no need for two threads especially with a thread title with nothing, but acronyms.

Reply
post #15 of 25
2/18/12 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

The VistaVision negative should be fine, just as The Ten Commandments was fine and To Catch a Thief was fine. They just have to go back to it and do it. The 80s prints of all these films were a joke, none of them taken from the camera negatives.

Yeah, but going back and doing it does cost money. Doesn't it typically cost a few hundred thousand dollars to scan these and digitally clean then up? And I think that's if they are in good shape....I sure hope they do just do it...
Reply
post #16 of 25
2/18/12 at 7:08pm

All 5248 OCNs beginning around 1955 through 1960 are faded to different degrees.  All totally fixable, however.

 

RAH

Reply
post #17 of 25
2/18/12 at 7:22pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for your responses.
I guess I have my answer.

It's just that the print I saw run in 1983 was raggedy, and the DVDs are less than stellar, which suggested that something might be wrong with the elements. I have no way of knowing what the 1983 prints and the DVDs were taken from, do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmithjr View Post

I think I saw that print under excellent conditions and, frankly, it did not compare to the original Vista Vision/Technicolor prints. I remember running an original print in the 1964 release (on a double bill with Vertigo), and had already seen it during original release.

Recognize these? Double-feature re-releases from 1963, following a hit re-release of Rear Window in 1962.

700
700

I would not be surprised if the print I saw of The Man Who Knew Too Much in 1983 derived from the 1963 prints. Poor quality though it was, it was not so poor that audiences could not enjoy it. In fact it held audiences enthralled, as did all the 1983 re-releases. Each of the five films filled auditoriums as long as 2 or 3 months in some venues. Most new movies don't even run that long today.

Let's hope a proper transfer of The Man Who Knew Too Much is on Universal's slate for this fall.
Edited by Richard--W - 2/18/12 at 7:34pm
Reply
post #18 of 25
2/18/12 at 7:46pm
I believe (Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong) that the 1983 Universal/Hitchcock prints were all derived from fading internegatives - I don't believe any of them were taken from camera negatives or anything close to a camera negative. Having owned Tech prints of all those color films, seeing those 1983 prints made me want to vomit on the ground smile.gif
Reply
post #19 of 25
2/19/12 at 6:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I believe (Mr. Harris can correct me if I'm wrong) that the 1983 Universal/Hitchcock prints were all derived from fading internegatives - I don't believe any of them were taken from camera negatives or anything close to a camera negative. Having owned Tech prints of all those color films, seeing those 1983 prints made me want to vomit on the ground smile.gif


In general, the 1983 prints were horrendous.  Vertigo possibly the worst, with the other VVLA shows not far behind.  I don't recall whether they were made from new dupes derived from older IPs, or simply used whatever dupes were available at the time.  Jim Katz was behind the release via Universal Classics, and he did a test from the Vertigo neg, striking a dual system reel one, which was unfortunately too faded for commercial use.  Even then, and this was13 years before our restoration, he was desirous of doing something special with the film.

 

RAH

 

Reply
post #20 of 25
2/19/12 at 6:57am

I went to see those 1983 rereleases, and I also remember clearly going to see Verttigo after its restoration, and the theater I went to was also packed.

Reply
post #21 of 25
2/19/12 at 8:05am

I was never so excited as when those 1983 re-releases were announced.  Kept a full-page ad from the L.A. Times tacked on my wall for a while.  First one I went to was Rear Window and that theater was packed with starving Hitchcock/Paramount fans and newbies alike (there was plenty of satisfying reaction to the buildup of suspense).  Sat through that and Vertigo a few times each, and bought the LDs which were full-screen and even then seemed a bit "blah".  But the thrill of the films outweighed whatever I thought I was seeing at the time, except that from day one I was put off by a screw-up of the impact of the opening music -- probably a casualty of the studio logo replacement, though I could never figure out why that would have had to cause an audio mess.  I guess that was among the least of the problems!

 

Reply
post #22 of 25
2/19/12 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post



In general, the 1983 prints were horrendous.  Vertigo possibly the worst, with the other VVLA shows not far behind.  I don't recall whether they were made from new dupes derived from older IPs, or simply used whatever dupes were available at the time.  Jim Katz was behind the release via Universal Classics, and he did a test from the Vertigo neg, striking a dual system reel one, which was unfortunately too faded for commercial use.  Even then, and this was13 years before our restoration, he was desirous of doing something special with the film.

RAH

I remember seeing all of these films during the 1983 release at the Bridge Theater in SFO (a nice arte moderne house that has survived thanks to Landmark) and feeling that the people watching them could not possibly appreciate these films given the prints we were seeing. Except for Rope and Rear Window, these films were photographed in VistaVision, and they looked lousy!

The later "restoration" of Rear Window (so it was tagged sorry RAH) was better but no where near the 1956 prints.
Reply
post #23 of 25
2/19/12 at 11:24pm
Thread Starter 
I always observe the audience. In 1983, movie-goers were not as well-informed or as sophisticated about picture quality as they are now. Everyone understood they were watching old films that were not in the best shape. They accepted that and paid the money. They went to be entertained, and were not judging the re-releases technically. Nobody had a 35mm IB tech print nor a blu-ray to compare it to. To see a classic Hitchcock film screened was an event. The movie-going public in 1983 were not 35mm collectors, archivists, historians, conservationists, preservationists, or cinematographers. As entertainment, the re-releases were a complete and unqualified financial success. The old films were a new hit with audiences. The studios knew they could get away with poor quality then just as they do now. I do not dispute that the prints went from faded to horrendous, I am merely pointing that audiences enjoyed them regardless of faded and horrendous prints.

I saw each of the five films at least nine times. Each time, each film played to a full house and an enthusiastic, participating audience. After decades of being off the screen, Hitchcock's magic still worked. To get a national and then international re-release of five films that were accepted everywhere regardless of picture quality, is unprecedented and remarkable, and a testament to Hitchcock's power as a filmmaker and storyteller.

700
700
700
700
700
Edited by Richard--W - 2/19/12 at 11:45pm
Reply
post #24 of 25
2/20/12 at 5:26am

Agree.  It was an unparalleled event, and those audiences were completely involved in watching the movies, not the prints.

Reply
post #25 of 25
2/20/12 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas in CT View Post

Agree.  It was an unparalleled event, and those audiences were completely involved in watching the movies, not the prints.

Hmm. Yes, I loved the movies, but I also knew what the prints should have looked like.

I still have the 5 LD's made from the 1983 release. Wonderful to have at the time.

I always knew we would have HD and quality would be improved.

One of my best film-going experiences was seeing Vertigo in 70mm at the Castro in SFO on the opening of the restoration. Kim Novak, Patricia Hitchcock, Herbert Coleman, Harris and Katz, and numerous film luminaries such as George Lucas were all there. What a night that was when Vertigo, my favorite film, pretty much exceeded the quality of the original prints. [There are qualifications.] Happily, the Castro plays Vertigo about once a year in 70mm.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › The Man Who Knew Too Much (Paramount, 1956)