A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Great Escape -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

John,

Just remember it takes two to argue a point to death. If that's the way you feel about this BD then so be it and move on, as others that disagree with you will not change their minds either. For me, I'm done arguing about this BD, I'm happy with it and that's all that matters to me now. You can only argue so much before it becomes fruitless.

 

[John Hermes]

John,

Just remember it takes two to argue a point to death. If that's the way you feel then so be it and move on, as others that disagree with you will not change their minds either.

Good enough, thanks.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Good enough, thanks.

By the way, though, I disagree with you about this BD, I respect your contrary opinion.

 

[haineshisway]

I watched several minutes into each chapter. Like I said, I know about dissolves and fades. I know enough to get past the optical to begin to judge quality. I'm 61 years old and have been actively into film for over 40 years. Can't someone disagree politely here or is that not permitted? If you're open-minded, read his updated review, sir. You're being your usual overbearing self.

Of course you can disagree and I would have no problem with that at all, which is what I said in my last post. I don't see the overbearing part you're referring to - I have just pointed out what needs to be pointed out - you originally condemned an entire transfer as being way too soft even though you'd only spot-checked it. That's just not fair - you don't have to agree with me, but that's the way I feel. Mr. Harris above has said that 80% of the transfer is of the quality of the motorcycle sequence and that if you're chapter-hopping you'll be going from optical to optical and even if you watch a couple of minutes into those chapters, the opticals go on for that period of time. All I'm respectfully suggesting is that you watch the transfer in its entirety. Then post whatever you like and that's your opinion and while some may agree or disagree, everyone will at least know you've given it a fair shake.

 

[atfree]

Just finished watching my copy of this great, classic film. I've seen this movie over 40 times since I first saw it on TV in 1974 at age 11. I've watched it at least once per year since, many times on the old TBS/TNT Memorial Day "Operation TNT" war movie marathon. I've owned both DVD editions which were subpar at best. This film is in my pantheon on great "old-fashioned" escapist WWII films, including "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", etc. Here's my take on the Blu-Ray:

What I saw was an improvement over the DVD versions, but marginally. There were snippets that made me aware of what could have been, with the other 130 minutes (give or take) alternating between good and atrocious. Some of both the good and the atrocious, I know, have always been problematic (4th of July sequence, murkiness during the execution of "the fifty" towards the end, etc. But a large majority of the "good and atrocious" could have been better, had more care been taken for this release.

I think we all had great expectations for this release, with it being the 50th Anniversary and all. I was expecting, on the high end, a revelatory experience like many other catalog releases we've seen or, at a minimum, a "best we could do considering the condition of the available elements" experience similar to "The Guns of Navarone". I truly didn't expect that this one would be so mediocre. This is, at least IMO, an iconic film. One of the greatest WWII films ever made. It deserved one to meet one of the above two expectations, not for my own selfish interest, but because of its place in film history. It deserved a TRUE 50th Anniversary release, complete with a best effort at restoration, a 2-disc (movie on one, extras on the other) release, with some type of commemorative packing. That's what it deserved.

What it got was a "by the numbers" transfer from mediocre source elements, with apparently minimal effort placed upon restoring the film to somewhere near its original condition, along with 1-disc crammed with both film and extras, and a crappy bargain-bin package at a bargain bin price.

And I scooped it up, thinking (like most of us) that this will be the best we'll ever get. I'm the film-buff equivalent of Oliver Twist, scarfing down some lukewarm, mediocre porridge and then asking "Can I get some more please" from studios that don't give a crap about film history or film lovers.

That's all I have time for. I need to go scan Amazon for more upcoming pre-orders of classic films. Based on the last 5 years of experience, I have about a 1 in 4 chance of a studio getting it right.

 

[John Hermes]

Just finished watching my copy of this great, classic film. I've seen this movie over 40 times since I first saw it on TV in 1974 at age 11. I've watched it at least once per year since, many times on the old TBS/TNT Memorial Day "Operation TNT" war movie marathon. I've owned both DVD editions which were subpar at best. This film is in my pantheon on great "old-fashioned" escapist WWII films, including "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", etc. Here's my take on the Blu-Ray:

What I saw was an improvement over the DVD versions, but marginally. There were snippets that made me aware of what could have been, with the other 130 minutes (give or take) alternating between good and atrocious. Some of both the good and the atrocious, I know, have always been problematic (4th of July sequence, murkiness during the execution of "the fifty" towards the end, etc. But a large majority of the "good and atrocious" could have been better, had more care been taken for this release.

I think we all had great expectations for this release, with it being the 50th Anniversary and all. I was expecting, on the high end, a revelatory experience like many other catalog releases we've seen or, at a minimum, a "best we could do considering the condition of the available elements" experience similar to "The Guns of Navarone". I truly didn't expect that this one would be so mediocre. This is, at least IMO, an iconic film. One of the greatest WWII films ever made. It deserved one to meet one of the above two expectations, not for my own selfish interest, but because of its place in film history. It deserved a TRUE 50th Anniversary release, complete with a best effort at restoration, a 2-disc (movie on one, extras on the other) release, with some type of commemorative packing. That's what it deserved.

What it got was a "by the numbers" transfer from mediocre source elements, with apparently minimal effort placed upon restoring the film to somewhere near its original condition, along with 1-disc crammed with both film and extras, and a crappy bargain-bin package at a bargain bin price.

And I scooped it up, thinking (like most of us) that this will be the best we'll ever get. I'm the film-buff equivalent of Oliver Twist, scarfing down some lukewarm, mediocre porridge and then asking "Can I get some more please" from studios that don't give a crap about film history or film lovers.

That's all I have time for. I need to go scan Amazon for more upcoming pre-orders of classic films. Based on the last 5 years of experience, I have about a 1 in 4 chance of a studio getting it right.

Glad to see I'm not the only "delusional" one around here.

 

[Matt Hough]

I just watched this one this afternoon. I found the transfer above average in quality knowing how problematic the title has always been on home video. Sparkling and lustrous? Not on your life, but I always get so immersed in the movie that the quality of the transfer seems less important and apart from a few shots, never took me out of the movie. 3.5/5 from me on video quality.

 

[atfree]

I know as well of TGE's problematic history on home video. What I'd love to know is if those problems are just the result of pedestrian efforts by the studio, or with the condition of the film itself. I read (maybe on this forum) that the OCN still exists and is in decent condition. If true, then we've been deprived of seeing this film in its best possible light on all home video editions, including this Blu Ray. That is the true disappointment. After all, this isn't some B-level movie, its an undisputed classic. According to WSJ, catalog titles were a fairly large and growing percentage of Blu Ray sales last year. I would have bet money that a true 50th anniversary release, with complete restoration, decent packaging, etc., priced in the $25-30 range would have made the studio more $ than this edition will (although the bargain prices I'm seeing will skew that some). Plus, it wouldn't have pissed me off! And that's gotta be worth something!

 

[Robert Harris]

I know as well of TGE's problematic history on home video. What I'd love to know is if those problems are just the result of pedestrian efforts by the studio, or with the condition of the film itself. I read (maybe on this forum) that the OCN still exists and is in decent condition. If true, then we've been deprived of seeing this film in its best possible light on all home video editions, including this Blu Ray. That is the true disappointment. After all, this isn't some B-level movie, its an undisputed classic.According to WSJ, catalog titles were a fairly large and growing percentage of Blu Ray sales last year. I would have bet money that a true 50th anniversary release, with complete restoration, decent packaging, etc., priced in the $25-30 range would have made the studio more $ than this edition will (although the bargain prices I'm seeing will skew that some). Plus, it wouldn't have pissed me off! And that's gotta be worth something!

The singer. Not the song.

RAH

 

[atfree]

I know as well of TGE's problematic history on home video. What I'd love to know is if those problems are just the result of pedestrian efforts by the studio, or with the condition of the film itself. I read (maybe on this forum) that the OCN still exists and is in decent condition. If true, then we've been deprived of seeing this film in its best possible light on all home video editions, including this Blu Ray. That is the true disappointment. After all, this isn't some B-level movie, its an undisputed classic.According to WSJ, catalog titles were a fairly large and growing percentage of Blu Ray sales last year. I would have bet money that a true 50th anniversary release, with complete restoration, decent packaging, etc., priced in the $25-30 range would have made the studio more $ than this edition will (although the bargain prices I'm seeing will skew that some). Plus, it wouldn't have pissed me off! And that's gotta be worth something!

The singer. Not the song. RAH

If that means what I think it means, it's what I figured.TGE on Blu Ray defines the difference between sadness and disappointment- when best efforts are made but the source is troubled, it is sad. When the trouble isn't the source but rather the indifferent efforts of the studio, it is disappointing.Thanks for the response, Mr. Harris.

 

[Robert Crawford]

One man's disappointment can be another man's satisfaction.

 

[revgen]

One of my favorite movies. Good to see it on bluray.

 

[Mark Stenroos]

Just finished watching my copy of this great, classic film. I've seen this movie over 40 times since I first saw it on TV in 1974 at age 11. I've watched it at least once per year since, many times on the old TBS/TNT Memorial Day "Operation TNT" war movie marathon. I've owned both DVD editions which were subpar at best. This film is in my pantheon on great "old-fashioned" escapist WWII films, including "Where Eagles Dare", "The Guns of Navarone", etc. Here's my take on the Blu-Ray:

What I saw was an improvement over the DVD versions, but marginally. There were snippets that made me aware of what could have been, with the other 130 minutes (give or take) alternating between good and atrocious. Some of both the good and the atrocious, I know, have always been problematic (4th of July sequence, murkiness during the execution of "the fifty" towards the end, etc. But a large majority of the "good and atrocious" could have been better, had more care been taken for this release.

I think we all had great expectations for this release, with it being the 50th Anniversary and all. I was expecting, on the high end, a revelatory experience like many other catalog releases we've seen or, at a minimum, a "best we could do considering the condition of the available elements" experience similar to "The Guns of Navarone". I truly didn't expect that this one would be so mediocre. This is, at least IMO, an iconic film. One of the greatest WWII films ever made. It deserved one to meet one of the above two expectations, not for my own selfish interest, but because of its place in film history. It deserved a TRUE 50th Anniversary release, complete with a best effort at restoration, a 2-disc (movie on one, extras on the other) release, with some type of commemorative packing. That's what it deserved.

What it got was a "by the numbers" transfer from mediocre source elements, with apparently minimal effort placed upon restoring the film to somewhere near its original condition, along with 1-disc crammed with both film and extras, and a crappy bargain-bin package at a bargain bin price.

And I scooped it up, thinking (like most of us) that this will be the best we'll ever get. I'm the film-buff equivalent of Oliver Twist, scarfing down some lukewarm, mediocre porridge and then asking "Can I get some more please" from studios that don't give a crap about film history or film lovers.

That's all I have time for. I need to go scan Amazon for more upcoming pre-orders of classic films. Based on the last 5 years of experience, I have about a 1 in 4 chance of a studio getting it right.

Well, here I go with my first post:

I agree entirely with these sentiments. I posted a review at Amazon back on May 6, stating that I agreed in large measure with the review posted at blu-ray.com (now revised). To be honest, I was quite surprised to read RAH's initial review of this BD. That said, I am happy to see RAH moderating and revising his view of this BD into something that seems more in line with the viewing experience one gets from the BD that we've all purchased.

I don't have the expertise of many who post here but I do have eyes. They may be 58-year-old eyes, but with corrective lenses I'm seeing 20/20. And my eyes just weren't at all happy with this transfer. Sound is great. Video, not so much.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Lest we forget, MGM also gave us The Big Country - Vertically distorted special edition and On Her Majesty's Secret Service - The watch with sunglasses contrast boosted special edition, Taking into account and considering the great effort they put into their 50th anniversary boxset of the James Bond films, well i'm sure i have nothing to fear from watching The Great Escape on a 100+ inch screen, i'm sure it will look just as good if not better than those other two movies.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, here I go with my first post:

I agree entirely with these sentiments. I posted a review at Amazon back on May 6, stating that I agreed in large measure with the review posted at blu-ray.com (now revised). To be honest, I was quite surprised to read RAH's initial review of this BD. That said, I am happy to see RAH moderating and revising his view of this BD into something that seems more in line with the viewing experience one gets from the BD that we've all purchased.

I don't have the expertise of many who post here but I do have eyes. They may be 58-year-old eyes, but with corrective lenses I'm seeing 20/20. And my eyes just weren't at all happy with this transfer. Sound is great. Video, not so much.

Welcome to HTF and I hope you continue to post here.

I'm not sure that's what he's doing except he's trying to explain his grade as well as being fair to both sides of this PQ argument. IMO, the vocal minority is having their say in this PQ matter while the majority is just enjoying the disc for what it is and moving on to other BD titles.

 

[Robert Harris]

Welcome to HTF and I hope you continue to post here. I'm not sure that's what he's doing except he's trying to explain his grade as well as being fair to both sides of this PQ argument. IMO, the vocal minority is having their say in this PQ matter while the majority is just enjoying the disc for what it is and moving on to other BD titles.

Thank you, Robert. Precisely.RAH

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

One rather important question I have is how many people that are writing reviews of this film or that have purchased this film actually know what this film looked like when it was first "minted" and shown on a big screen? I can say in all honestly I don't. So are all of these people using for comparison of "how this film should look" other digital presentations of other films? I mean I really doubt anybody is actually sitting down and watching a pristine version from projected film and then plopping their blu-ray in and saying "Nope, that just doesn't cut it!"

I saw this shown on a big screen once, outdoors on a summer night many years ago now. My recollection of the film from that night many years ago is a bit hazy (honestly I can't believe anybody has a perfect recollection of a film they might have seen back in 1963) but I do recall much of the film looked a bit soft. It was film I was watching that night which was I believe back in the 1980s.

Most of my viewings of this film were as a child on a tube television obviously in the wrong aspect ratio and given to the limitations of the equipment in those days. Hell, what made me watch the film every year when it was on tv was that it was a great story that was wonderfully told with fantastic actors.

I'm not Robert Harris, nor do I play him on tv, so I can't even really give a good explanation of how much or how little this actually looks like the actual projected film. I certainly enjoy reading his thoughts on the film and with his credentials I take him at his word but in the end he watches the film with his eyes and all of his baggage and I watch it with my eyes and all of my baggage and the only real assessment I can give is that this is the best I've ever seen The Great Escape look and I watched the thing as enraptured as I was the first time I saw it as a little boy on a tube television.

I'm never going to own canisters containing the actual film or the projector to show them on but I can put this disc in my blu-ray player and watch it knowing it is the best version of it I have ever seen including the projected film I saw that summer evening many years ago. It is my best guess, with no special knowledge of this film to qualify this, that portions of this film always looked soft and that from scene to scene even on film when it was new these variations were noticeable.

I guess my bottom line here is I don't really see much point in comparing the digital presentation of this film to the digital presentations of other films to gauge the quality of this blu-ray disc. Isn't that apples and oranges?

 

[Robert Harris]

One rather important question I have is how many people that are writing reviews of this film or that have purchased this film actually know what this film looked like when it was first "minted" and shown on a big screen? I can say in all honestly I don't. So are all of these people using for comparison of "how this film should look" other digital presentations of other films? I mean I really doubt anybody is actually sitting down and watching a pristine version from projected film and then plopping their blu-ray in and saying "Nope, that just doesn't cut it!" I saw this shown on a big screen once, outdoors on a summer night many years ago now. My recollection of the film from that night many years ago is a bit hazy (honestly I can't believe anybody has a perfect recollection of a film they might have seen back in 1963) but I do recall much of the film looked a bit soft. It was film I was watching that night which was I believe back in the 1980s. Most of my viewings of this film were as a child on a tube television obviously in the wrong aspect ratio and given to the limitations of the equipment in those days. Hell, what made me watch the film every year when it was on tv was that it was a great story that was wonderfully told with fantastic actors. I'm not Robert Harris, nor do I play him on tv, so I can't even really give a good explanation of how much or how little this actually looks like the actual projected film. I certainly enjoy reading his thoughts on the film and with his credentials I take him at his word but in the end he watches the film with his eyes and all of his baggage and I watch it with my eyes and all of my baggage and the only real assessment I can give is that this is the best I've ever seen The Great Escape look and I watched the thing as enraptured as I was the first time I saw it as a little boy on a tube television. I'm never going to own canisters containing the actual film or the projector to show them on but I can put this disc in my blu-ray player and watch it knowing it is the best version of it I have ever seen including the projected film I saw that summer evening many years ago. It is my best guess, with no special knowledge of this film to qualify this, that portions of this film always looked soft and that from scene to scene even on film when it was new these variations were noticeable. I guess my bottom line here is I don't really see much point in comparing the digital presentation of this film to the digital presentations of other films to gauge the quality of this blu-ray disc. Isn't that apples and oranges?

With a film like TGE one can only go by era, film stock, printing history, etc, as unlike Eastman films printed via dye transfer, any original print with orig color timing would be magenta.Knowing this, one must give those performing the work a bit of leeway toward a final image. But not too much.RAH

 

[Douglas R]

One rather important question I have is how many people that are writing reviews of this film or that have purchased this film actually know what this film looked like when it was first "minted" and shown on a big screen? I can say in all honestly I don't. So are all of these people using for comparison of "how this film should look" other digital presentations of other films? I mean I really doubt anybody is actually sitting down and watching a pristine version from projected film and then plopping their blu-ray in and saying "Nope, that just doesn't cut it!"

Yes indeed - can anyone really remember with a high degree of accuracy what any film looked like when they saw it when screened 50 years ago? The only thing I do seem to recall of films from that era is if a film looked especially better than the average in terms of sharpness and colour. I remember thinking, for example, how great HIGH SOCIETY and RICHARD III looked – but of course they were wide frame VistaVision films. I saw THE GREAT ESCAPE in 1963 but don’t remember what it looked like (I do remember an intermission though), so I assume it looked just like the majority of every other anamorphic Panavision film of that era. I must admit that I haven’t had any great enthusiasm for getting the film on Blu-ray because despite enjoying the film hugely when I first saw it, it’s one of those films which I’ve seen too many times. I’ve had it on VHS and DVD and it turns up with monotonous regularity on British TV. Nevertheless this controversy as to what it looks like has piqued my interest so I’ll probably get it when it’s released in the UK next month.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes indeed - can anyone really remember with a high degree of accuracy what any film looked like when they saw it when screened 50 years ago? The only thing I do seem to recall of films from that era is if a film looked especially better than the average in terms of sharpness and colour. I remember thinking, for example, how great HIGH SOCIETY and RICHARD III looked – but of course they were wide frame VistaVision films. I saw THE GREAT ESCAPE in 1963 but don’t remember what it looked like (I do remember an intermission though), so I assume it looked just like the majority of every other anamorphic Panavision film of that era. I must admit that I haven’t had any great enthusiasm for getting the film on Blu-ray because despite enjoying the film hugely when I first saw it, it’s one of those films which I’ve seen too many times. I’ve had it on VHS and DVD and it turns up with monotonous regularity on British TV. Nevertheless this controversy as to what it looks like has piqued my interest so I’ll probably get it when it’s released in the UK next month.

Just in time for Round 10 in this BD debate.