Marty (1955) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[ROclockCK]

In fairness Koroush, Olive's output was like Gump's chocolates; you never knew what you would get*. Some of their Blu-rays were sublime, albeit with minor, intermittent film artefacts, especially their black and white titles...while others were awash with crud and scratches, or simply transferred from elements too far down the celluloid food chain to reproduce acceptable colour and detail.

I suspect that will be our luck-of-the-draw with these Kino releases too. Some will be just fine, even good to very good, with others merely okay-ish...while a handful (too often the rarest and most eagerly anticipated) will be outright wince-inducing.

Nevertheless, I'm still not willing to write off this series. It's just unfortunate that one of the earliest lightning rods for the [sic] 'Tarzi touch' will be an award-winning classic like Marty.

* Sorry for my lapse in judgment there; I detest that silly platitude. I mean, with a box of chocolates you always know what you're going to get...it has a legend!

 

[Robert Crawford]

How people spend their own personal monies is their business. However, from my perspective, I'm thankful that Olive is around as I enjoyed their releases for the most part. They're not up to Sony or Warner's PQ, but many of their titles had little chance of ever being released on BD in the near future. As to Kino, I am interested in several of their titles and will give them a chance on a title by title basis.

That being said, I didn't like how they handled this Marty issue nor their FB reaction to Bob Furmanek. I thought it was an unprofessional display on their part. I hope the next time when there is a similar issue with another title which there will be, that they handled it in a different way that doesn't piss off some of their potential customers base.

 

[FoxyMulder]

[*]Kino Lorber Studio Classics Your last sentence is very puzzling and it proves that film school has nothing to do with knowledge of aspect ratios and or intended ratios – zoomed in? The original negative of this film is 1.33:1, as the title was shot open aperture, some say the bottom and top parts of the original image should be cropped off to create the intended 1.85:1 and others disagree. We tried to create the 1.85:1 master, but realized that we were loosing too much of the film and decided to go with the preferred aspect ratio of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the studio. An employee made an erroneous listing on HTF and we're sorry if that was misleading to anyone, but in no way that was our goal since this title has not been released yet. Making false claims about what this proves is a waste of everyone’s time, we’re proud to release these studio classics and will be re-mastering the non-HD titles to create an HD master.
June 17 at 7:12pm

[color=rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;background-color:rgb(240,241,243);]Kino Lorber Studio Classics This article went up after our erroneous listing on HTF [/color]http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/.../furmanek.../
Furmanek Influence Leads To Sliced-Down Marty - Hollywood Elsewhere
www.hollywood-elsewhere.comFurmanek Influence Leads To Sliced-Down MartyA Bluray of Delbert Mann and PaddyChayefsky‘s Oscar-winning Marty (1955) will be released on 7.29. It gives me no comfort or satisfaction to report that the Bluray’s aspect ratio will be in the dreaded 1.85 with the tops and bottoms of the protected 1.37…
[/list]

That's what confuses me, 1.33:1 is a television aspect ratio, 1.37:1 would be a cinema aspect ratio, also i'm confused when they say they will be re-mastering the non HD titles to make them HD, how are they going to actually do that, that's my question.

 

[Mark Pytel]

What's funny is that Kino keeps editing the response that the replied to me when I first questioned on their FB page. I had never seen where they responded to me that it would appear that film school has no knowledge of aspect ratios. Hmm wow, I'm glad I didn't see that until now because that is pretty rude. Gosh, I did spend over 80,000 for film school, so I would hope that I learned that most flat widescreen films 1:85 were soft matted in the theaters, meaning that they are shot full aperture and then matted down to the proper aspecf ratio during theatrical exhibition. Clearly what may be unknown to them where I think the confusion may lie is that yes, if they went to the original negative and upon cropping for 1:85 it was "too tight" then I wouldn't mind.
However, they are using a master. Masters are not on film usually. A master is made from film elements like the negative or positive, or 35 mm release prints if others are lost or too expensive to get.
If they went from a 35mm print or the neg that's one thing. If the film truly was composed for 1:85 then if they truly went to film elements, it "should" have looked ok matted. I can't imagine that a film would be presented in theaters in 1955 with heads cut off or just looking bad. That wouldn't make sense. Sometimes, when a master is made for tv release or home video release, if a mistake is made, or the telecine guy doesn't do his job correctly, a title that is thought to be full frame may be zoomed in on all sides a little bit. THIS could be the issue as to why it wouldn't matte for widescreen properly. What i'm confused is that when we are trying to explain this on here and FB, the Kino people make angry remarks or talk down to us.
To me it sounds like they are trying to avoid saying, we don't want to use the negative and create a new master as that would be too expensive. I refuse to make any speculation and I won't put words in someone's mouth. I do still however feel that some of the things said about my education and me on FB were out of line. The big problem is that I'm a film lover and most of the titles they announced are on my want list. If I had half a mind, I would cancel all pre-orders and never buy anything from them since I was talked to poorly.
Their argument could be that I sounded like I was attacking them on FB or they were attacked on here. Now throughout college and even now int he summers, I work retail. Customers come up and get mad ALL the time. As a business it is our job to stop the frustration and help them understand. Even though they are nuts and yelling, yes we still want their business. As terrible as it sounds, at one point or another, all of us have probably been frustrated when the lines are too long or when a store is out of the one thing we need. Is it nice to go venting on someone that probably has nothing to do with any of the decisions being made. At the grocery store, I get yelled at for a product being discontinued. I didn't make that decision, nor do I own the company that did, however I can't go say to the customer, what are you an idiot, I don't make those decisions, You don't know what you are talking about. Now is it true I'd love to say that? Of course it is...however if I did, we would lose a lot of business and I probably wouldn't have a job. No matter how irritating a customer can be, they do allow your business to stay afloat.
Now to the people from Kino/Olive that get angry and fight back when comments are made on here or on FB, I remember when some people questioned a few of Olive's releases and the same negative responses came out. I for one do feel that will put a bad spin/ image on the company and that sort of stuff should be stopped right away. This is a movie forum, we can either like or dislike something, and then we can either disagree or agree. There is no rule that says we have to love everything that comes out. The only rule, which IMO should be a rule for life is that you must be cordial and respectful which I think I always try to be. I'm sure in a few heated discussions I may say things that aren't always the most polite, but who doesn't.
Now I hear that this version will truly be complete. So while it won't be in the correct ratio, I am intrigued to see what is missing from the prior dvd. I am too young to have seen this in the theaters, so the dvd was my first viewing of the film.

 

[Vahan_Nisanain]

Just curious. Does this version of Marty have the missing scene that was intact on the 1983 CBS/Fox Video print?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Just curious. Does this version of Marty have the missing scene that was intact on the 1983 CBS/Fox Video print?

If you mean the bedroom talk scene with the parents, i believe Mister Lime said in the Kino thread that it was going to be there.

 

[Douglas R]

So how come Kino Lorber's website states that the aspect ratio of MARTY is 1.66:1?

 

[FoxyMulder]

So how come Kino Lorber's website states that the aspect ratio of MARTY is 1.66:1?

The plot thickens.

Honestly..................... I don't think they have a clue.

 

[haineshisway]

Re heads cut off: I sometimes wonder if anyone actually watches a 1.85 film that's made these days. There are tons of shots where heads are "cut off" because that's the way they were framed. I can point to such shots in any movie ever made in any ratio because that's the way cameramen and directors framed their shots. But the funny thing is when people are involved in the MOVIE they don't even notice because they're involved in the movie. When people are suddenly looking for things to think are incorrect, this problem happens. The real fact with Marty is simple - it was composed for 1.85. End of story. There are only two scenarios after that fact - one, the film would matte perfectly for the ratio in which it was composed, or two, the transfer that Kino has been given is zoomed in. There are no other scenarios. It's hilarious to think that anyone would say that Delbert Mann was from television and therefore insisted his film be Academy. Are you joking? Delbert Mann? Delbert Mann would have been told what the ratio of the film was and probably not even known what that meant. His cameraman, on the other hand, would have and would have done his job because if he hadn't he would have been fired.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

I, for one, will be giving MARTY a chance. If the image is crisp and sharp and the viewing experience is enjoyable, I'm in. I doubt that Kino conspired to put out a sub-standard product. You want a REAL villain, go after the idiots at Universal who continue to release a hideous debacle of the beloved SPARTACUS. Many of us saw the film restoration in theater pretty recently, and that BD is the ugliest of unforgivable embarrassments.

 

[Jari K]

"That's what confuses me, 1.33:1 is a television aspect ratio, 1.37:1 would be a cinema aspect ratio."For many people it means the same thing. It's just listed 1.33:1, even when it can actually be 1.37:1. Or 1.35:1. Or 1.36:1. It doesn't really have to mean anything "suspicious".

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Re heads cut off: I sometimes wonder if anyone actually watches a 1.85 film that's made these days. There are tons of shots where heads are "cut off" because that's the way they were framed. I can point to such shots in any movie ever made in any ratio because that's the way cameramen and directors framed their shots. But the funny thing is when people are involved in the MOVIE they don't even notice because they're involved in the movie. When people are suddenly looking for things to think are incorrect, this problem happens. The real fact with Marty is simple - it was composed for 1.85. End of story. There are only two scenarios after that fact - one, the film would matte perfectly for the ratio in which it was composed, or two, the transfer that Kino has been given is zoomed in. There are no other scenarios. It's hilarious to think that anyone would say that Delbert Mann was from television and therefore insisted his film be Academy. Are you joking? Delbert Mann? Delbert Mann would have been told what the ratio of the film was and probably not even known what that meant. His cameraman, on the other hand, would have and would have done his job because if he hadn't he would have been fired.

The DP was Joseph LaShelle , a man who certainly knew his way around a camera. He won the Academy Award in 1945 for his work on LAURA. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005766/awards?ref_=nm_awd

In the widescreen era, he had previously lensed RIVER OF NO RETURN and four CinemaScope shorts, including the twice Oscar-nominated JET CARRIER.

He certainly would have known how to compose MARTY for widescreen while protecting the compositions for 1.37:1.

 

[FoxyMulder]

"That's what confuses me, 1.33:1 is a television aspect ratio, 1.37:1 would be a cinema aspect ratio."For many people it means the same thing. It's just listed 1.33:1, even when it can actually be 1.37:1. Or 1.35:1. Or 1.36:1. It doesn't really have to mean anything "suspicious".

Sorry to have to disagree with you again Jari, especially since we found a few things to agree on yesterday but what it tends to show is that the label releasing this film does not have a clue, when they mention 1.33:1 it makes you think of television and, then you start thinking wait a second, have they got a television master that has been zoomed in, now if they had just said 1.37:1 they would have come across as technically competent to me even if it's not the original aspect ratio.

 

[Worth]

I've been working in film and television for two decades and I don't think I've once heard anyone refer to 1.37 or 2.39 - it's always 1.33 or 2.35.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I've been working in film and television for two decades and I don't think I've once heard anyone refer to 1.37 or 2.39 - it's always 1.33 or 2.35.

Well 2.35:1 has a history and changes during the seventies but 1.33:1 has always meant television to me.

In some ways that may be part of the problem and why the aspect ratio thread is so informative and good, we need to start using the correct terms and we need sites like IMDB to stop using 1.33:1 and start using 1.37:1, we also need the labels and their "insiders" who frequent Home Theater Forum to use the correct terms otherwise confusion reigns and we jump to conclusions.

I mean if the Kino insider says Marty will be 1.33:1 it immediately gets me thinking television aspect ratio, it's zoomed in, if he had said 1.37:1 i might have thought it's just unmatted and the full frame, see what i mean, i'm jumping to conclusions.

 

[Darren Gross]

Just curious. Does this version of Marty have the missing scene that was intact on the 1983 CBS/Fox Video print?

Yes, it does.

 

[Jari K]

"I've been working in film and television for two decades and I don't think I've once heard anyone refer to 1.37 or 2.39 - it's always 1.33 or 2.35."Yes, this was basically my point. And often people just talk about 4:3 - meaning 1.33:1-1.37:1.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Agreed, 1.33 has come to just mean pre widescreen and pre HDTV in the business. The 1.33/7 and 1.78/85 differences are so minor as to be irrelevant

 

[FoxyMulder]

"I've been working in film and television for two decades and I don't think I've once heard anyone refer to 1.37 or 2.39 - it's always 1.33 or 2.35."Yes, this was basically my point. And often people just talk about 4:3 - meaning 1.33:1-1.37:1.

Agreed, 1.33 has come to just mean pre widescreen and pre HDTV in the business.The 1.33/7 and 1.78/85 differences are so minor as to be irrelevant

I don't disagree, they are minor differences, no argument from me about that but at a site where we have an aspect ratio thread we should be striving for accuracy in our discussions, 1.33:1 for Marty could mean zoomed in or it could be that the Kino insider views these things the same way as Worth, Jari and yourself and when they talk about 1.33:1 they mean 1.37:1 and unmatted, in my opinion to avoid confusion it's better to be highly accurate even if the differences are small.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I agree WE should be accurate - but you can't read that level of accuracy into general industry communications, and you shouldn't expect to hear anything but 1.33 generally from industry types - that's the gist of what I was trying to say. There's no hidden meaning you should take from them saying that over 1.37