Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The World at War (1 Viewer)

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Russell G /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751612

With "World At War", we're lucky in that we still have the option to buy it in it's original OAR, just not in Blu. 
 

The reason that the A&E set is so cheap is because they're clearing out old stock for the new and not improved cropped DVD. We aren't going to have the choice for long... But the review doesn't mention that either.There are a million ways a video release can be botched- a third of the frame can be cropped off, widescreen can be pan and scanned, original soundtracks can be replaced by dubs, there can be no subtitles in a foreign movie, DNR can smooth over all the film grain and textures, scenes can be missing from the print, the video distributor can censor dialogue, format conversions can alter the playback speed, liner notes or supplements can give incorrect info, color balances can be off, a transfer can be washed out or blown out in the highlights, sound can be distorted, disk navigation can be unnecessarily difficult, the image can be grainy/fuzzy/over sharpened/etc... It's a wide wonderful world of incompetence out there.I am fully aware that people who have never seen the film before might not know what they're missing. But I'm not reading a review to find out if a release is "good enough" or whether the reviewer cares that it isn't presented properly. In fact, i would hope that a reviewer would care more than I do about the film. I would also hope he would state it clearly when a video distributor doesn't care and craps out an inferior product.The reason I read a review is to find out if this is a set that does justice to the film. The fact is, this bluray fails on just about every level. I think everyone agrees on that. Why then do I have to go to Amazon and read the reviews there to get the straight dope told without equivocation? Why didn't the reviewer compare the bluray to the two DVD releases and make a recommendation on which version was best to buy? The amateur reviewers at Amazon did that. That's the kind of info I am looking for in a review, not whether the totally unnecessary cropping was handled well under the circumstances.There is a definite apologetic tone to this review. I believe that reviewers don't have to apologize for the mistakes of the video companies. On the contrary, they should be taking the side of the consumer and demanding that the video companies produce a quality product. Call a spade a spade. You're working for the consumer not the video company.To quote a great American, "You don't get quality by accepting mediocrity."

 

[Richard Gallagher]

If the bluray isn't even as good as the 2004 DVD release, why isn't he giving it no stars and recommending readers purchase the DVDs that are not only superior in every way, but one third the price?

I don't see it as my job to advise readers on what they should do. My job is to fairly and accurately report and what I see and hear. I'm also not a fan of assigning stars, which strike me as arbitrary and often inconsistently applied. The members of this forum are an intelligent lot, and the review tells them exactly what they are getting if they buy the Blu-ray set. They can then make up their own minds.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't see it as my job to advise readers on what they should do. My job is to fairly and accurately report and what I see and hear. I'm also not a fan of assigning stars, which strike me as arbitrary and often inconsistently applied. The members of this forum are an intelligent lot, and the review tells them exactly what they are getting if they buy the Blu-ray set. They can then make up their own minds.

Thank you. How other people choose to spend their money on is their business. If you don't want to buy this boxset due to the noted issues then that's fine and if you want to buy it despite those issues, that's fine too. It's none of our business regarding this individual purchasing chose and if that's not good enough for some to accept then that's their problem.






Crawdaddy

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by Russell G
Also, I don't know how anyone who has actually read this review can consider it a wholesale approval of this set, even if you ignore the cropping.

Thank you for that. You obviously appreciate the fact that not finding something to be objectionable is not the same as endorsing it.

It is apparent that there are some people who wanted me to describe the Blu-ray as a pile of dung and call for the producers of it to be drawn and quartered. Instead of doing that, I tried to give a fair appraisal of how it looks and sounds. In comparing the newsreel and combat footage, I found that the zooming and cropping was done in such a way as to retain the essential information seen in the original footage. I fully understand why many people will still object, but it's a far cry from cropping LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

I don't believe that anything in the review is misleading. Anyone who was interested in getting it can read the review and know just what to expect.

 

[bigshot]

I'm not reading a review to find out whether unnecessary cropping is done in a way that pleases you. I want to know if this is the set to buy or if there are better ones. I had to go to Amazon to find out that the A&E set didn't have any of the problems that the bluray has. The best thing about DVD Beaver is that all releases are presented side by side. That's more useful to me in making a decision what to buy than opinions on whether a set taken in isolation is "good enough". If you would like to see one of the A&E disks to compare and can't find it at your local public library, I would be happy to send you a copy.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I had to go to Amazon to find out that the A&E set didn't have any of the problems that the bluray has. The best thing about DVD Beaver is that all releases are presented side by side. That's more useful to me in making a decision what to buy than opinions on whether a set taken in isolation is "good enough". If you would like to see one of the A&E disks to compare and can't find it at your local public library, I would be happy to send you a copy.

You had to go to Amazon to find out that discs you already own don't suffer from problems that are clearly described in the review?

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751669

I fully understand why many people will still object, but it's a far cry from cropping LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.

The World at War is one of the most acclaimed documentary programs in the history of television. It most certainly *is* deserving of the same sort of respect as Lawrence of Arabia.We all have different tastes, and that is fine. This comment makes it clear that you don't have the appreciation and perhaps experience in documentary film to be qualified to review this set. I'm sure you would do a fine job on feature films. It would probably have been better if someone who has seen the series and appreciates its importance had written this review.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by bigshot
The reason that the A&E set is so cheap is because they're clearing out old stock for the new and not improved cropped DVD. We aren't going to have the choice for long... But the review doesn't mention that either.There are a million ways a video release can be botched- a third of the frame can be cropped off, widescreen can be pan and scanned, original soundtracks can be replaced by dubs, there can be no subtitles in a foreign movie, DNR can smooth over all the film grain and textures, scenes can be missing from the print, the video distributor can censor dialogue, format conversions can alter the playback speed, liner notes or supplements can give incorrect info, color balances can be off, a transfer can be washed out or blown out in the highlights, sound can be distorted, disk navigation can be unnecessarily difficult, the image can be grainy/fuzzy/over sharpened/etc... It's a wide wonderful world of incompetence out there.I am fully aware that people who have never seen the film before might not know what they're missing. But I'm not reading a review to find out if a release is "good enough" or whether the reviewer cares that it isn't presented properly. In fact, i would hope that a reviewer would care more than I do about the film. I would also hope he would state it clearly when a video distributor doesn't care and craps out an inferior product.The reason I read a review is to find out if this is a set that does justice to the film. The fact is, this bluray fails on just about every level. I think everyone agrees on that. Why then do I have to go to Amazon and read the reviews there to get the straight dope told without equivocation? Why didn't the reviewer compare the bluray to the two DVD releases and make a recommendation on which version was best to buy? The amateur reviewers at Amazon did that. That's the kind of info I am looking for in a review, not whether the totally unnecessary cropping was handled well under the circumstances.There is a definite apologetic tone to this review. I believe that reviewers don't have to apologize for the mistakes of the video companies. On the contrary, they should be taking the side of the consumer and demanding that the video companies produce a quality product. Call a spade a spade. You're working for the consumer not the video company.To quote a great American, "You don't get quality by accepting mediocrity."

I don't know where you get your information, but I have not seen any announcement that the 30th Anniversary DVD is going to be withdrawn and replaced. Have you seen one? Is a new DVD set up for preorder anywhere? I am supposed to mention something which I don't know to be true?

Your idea of an "apologetic tone" is my idea of making an honest assessment. The one thing that is clear from your rants is that you didn't need a review at all. I could have written one sentence - "This Blu-ray presentation has zoomed and cropped the original 4:3 image" - and you would have had all the information that you needed to know. In fact, by your standards there is no reason for a reviewer to even look at the Blu-ray. Most of those Amazon reviewers that you praise haven't seen it.

And just to clarify, we HTF reviewers do not take marching orders from the studios, nor do we try to appease them. I doubt that the people at A&E are thrilled by my review, which is far from an endorsement. But that is irrelevant. No studio has ever tried to influence one of my reviews or asked me to revise a review, and if they did try I would not do it (although I would correct any factual errors).

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751680
That you've done so is demonstrated by the fact that all (or nearly all) of the posters condemning the set haven't seen it.

I think it is a safe bet that those here who have no objections to the alteration of this documentary have never actually sat down and viewed the 26 episodes that make up this series.

 

[bigshot]

Re: DVD release
There's a photo of the packaging of the new DVD release of this series on the homepage of theworldatwar.com

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by bigshot
This comment makes it clear that you don't have the appreciation and perhaps experience in documentary film to be qualified to review this set. I'm sure you would do a fine job on feature films. It would probably have been better if someone who has seen the series and appreciates its importance had written this review.

And with that, condescension rears its ugly head.

It is impossible to crop LAWRENCE OF ARABIA without removing essential information or destroying the magnificent, expansive shots of the desert. To equate newsreel footage to the cinematography of Freddie Young strikes me as a perfect example of false equivalence.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by bigshot
Re: DVD release
There's a photo of the packaging of the new DVD release of this series on the homepage of theworldatwar.com

Available in the U.K. only. No indication that the 30th Anniversary DVD set is being withdrawn in the U.S.

 

[Michael Reuben]

/forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751684
This comment makes it clear that you don't have the appreciation and perhaps experience in documentary film to be qualified to review this set. I'm sure you would do a fine job on feature films. It would probably have been better if someone who has seen the series and appreciates its importance had written this review.

You're making a lot of assumptions about someone you don't know. As it happens, I know Rich personally, and there aren't many people whose judgment I would trust as much as his when it comes to a documentary on this subject.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Russell G

No where in the review does he express a preference for the cropping, or give it an absolute "This is OK."

No, he doesn't give it an "absolute" okay. He doesn't actually use the word, "okay." But he says he's okay with it. He says it's not objectionable. Yes, he said lots of other things, some of them negative, about the set. But I was responding to a specific claim you made--that no one was okay with the cropping. That claim is incorrect. Some folks are okay with the cropping (which is not the same thing as endorsing it or feeling it's the ideal way of presenting the program).

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Richard Gallagher /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751695




It is impossible to crop LAWRENCE OF ARABIA without removing essential information or destroying the magnificent, expansive shots of the desert. To equate newsreel footage to the cinematography of Freddie Young strikes me as a perfect example of false equivalence.

Here is just one example...In The World at War there is some amazing footage of Hitler making a trip to Paris immediately following the fall of France. There are scenes of his motorcade going through the streets of Paris which are lined with German troops. Some footage is shot from a high angle, and at the top of the frame you can see the landmarks of Paris... and normally busy boulevards that are empty and as quiet as a ghost town.Cropped, this is just another Nazi parade. Full frame, it depicts the impact of the Nazi invasion of one of the world's cultural centers.By the way, do you know what Freddie Young did during WW2? He was a cameraman in the Army. Alfred Hitchcock worked on a film on the liberation of the death camps. Frank Capra directed Why We Fight. Chuck Jones did training cartoons for the Army Navy Screen Magazine. Even Russ Meyer was a cameraman during the war. The people you admire in feature films are the same people behind the historical footage in The World at War.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by cafink forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751699
No, he doesn't give it an "absolute" okay. He doesn't actually use the word, "okay." But he says he's okay with it. He says it's not objectionable. Yes, he said lots of other things, some of them negative, about the set. But I was responding to a specific claim you made--that no one was okay with the cropping. That claim is incorrect. Some folks are okay with the cropping (which is not the same thing as endorsing it or feeling it's the ideal way of presenting the program).

I've been responding to the review as a whole since I don't agree with pedantically nit picking single lines taken out of context. Gallagher mentions the OAR issue numerous times, and then critiques the final result in a fair way. He does it so well, that many on here definitely know that this is not the release for them. The way I read the ENTIRE review, is that based on the cropping, it's isn't terrible. It didn't ruin the experience for him. Nowhere does he suppose that this will hold true to everyone, he mentions that a couple of times to. It's like describing a polished turd. It's a nice turd, it's not as bad as it can be, but it's still a bit of a turd, you might get something out of it. Hell, even the producers in their explanation for doing so are hedging their bets instead of endorsing this as correct by explaining that it was commercial pressures that was behind it and that the entire 4:3 frame was restored and scanned. I stand by my "Not everyone is all that OK with it", since it's clear he's describing the best of a bad situation. Similar to describing how a broken leg is better to death in a car accident if you want an extreme example.

So I'll politely agree to disagree with you as far as Gallagher's supposed endorsement of cropping over OAR is concenered since I just don't see it in this review.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by bigshot forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751707
A
Here is just one example...In The World at War there is some amazing footage of Hitler making a trip to Paris immediately following the fall of France. There are scenes of his motorcade going through the streets of Paris which are lined with German troops. Some footage is shot from a high angle, and at the top of the frame you can see the landmarks of Paris... and normally busy boulevards that are empty and as quiet as a ghost town.Cropped, this is just another Nazi parade. Full frame, it depicts the impact of the Nazi invasion of one of the world's cultural centers.

Care to confirm? If the producers went through shot for shot, that information might of remained. Your tone is one of assurance, despite not having seen this version.

And I'm playing devil's advocate since this is exactly the reason why someone should be concerned with the choices of the producers, as I stated previously in this thread before I was so re-soundly jumped on by certain members and got all defensive.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Russell G

So I'll politely agree to disagree with you as far as Gallagher's supposed endorsement of cropping over OAR is concenered since I just don't see it in this review.

Are you even reading what I write? I explicitly said that being okay with the cropping is not the same as endorsing it over OAR.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Russell G /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751710

  Care to confirm?  If the producers went through shot for shot, that information might of remained.

What I was describing wasn't just information. It was a composition that used the entire frame. Good cameramen, whether working on newsreels or features, compose to use the entire frame to tell the story. They don't just point the camera in the direction of the action and hope for the best or center one subject at a time dead center in the frame. If you think that composition isn't a part of newsreel photography, all I can say is that you don't know much about newsreel photography.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by bigshot forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/60#post_3751716
A

What I was describing wasn't just information. It was a composition that used the entire frame. Good cameramen, whether working on newsreels or features, compose to use the entire frame to tell the story. They don't just point the camera in the direction of the action and hope for the best or center one subject at a time dead center in the frame. If you think that composition isn't a part of newsreel photography, all I can say is that you don't know much about newsreel photography.

I absolutely understand that. I also understand that it's up to the documentary film makers, wither it's this series, or Ken Burns, to use that footage AS THEY SEEM FIT. What you are asking for in this documentary is the equivalent of that old state department series that used to be available to libraries that just ran silent war footage after a title card (and if you think that series would be awesome, I challenge any of you to sit through the 2 hours of liberated concentration camp footage in one sitting without feeling soul crushed). That wasn't the mandate of World At War, or Ken Burns, or 99% of most documentaries.

My issue with WAW is that it's not in it's original 4:3 aspect ratio. I do not give a S**T about the cropping or the manipulation of the actual footage used in the documentary, I just want the documentary as it was originally broadcast. I can guarantee you that you are not seeing raw news reel footage in every instance of WAW in it's OAR, that the producers framed different instances of different film stocks to give the series a uniform look and to tell the story of WW2 as they wanted to tell it. The unfortunate, misguided, commercially pressured additional cropping on this Blu ray is just an added (unnecessary) cropping of footage that has already been undoubtedly manipulated in the 70's into the series we all love. And it was apparently done with much more care then some releases, as I've also shown. Is that good enough for everyone? nope. Should it be? Nope. It's up to the individual to judge that, and they can't if the review was "Not OAR, sucks, don't buy."

This is why I find this review is a fair review of what to expect, and why i think it's unfair to jump on the reviewer for not stating "Not OAR! No sale!". It's easy to think black and white, but there is never black and white standards in film making. It's always about compromise. This is another compromise that is unfortunately too compromised since it risks that the series might suffer for those viewers familiar with it, as stated in the review.