WHV Announcement: Hatari, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and El Dorado (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Have you ever watched Gunfight at the OK Corral?

Yup. Bought that too. That's a classic! Looking forward to
seeing it again.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I actually watched El Dorado in a movie theater back in 67. I didn't miss any John Wayne films back then playing at my local theater.

 

[Robert George]

I never was impressed with any release of HATARI!, from the first VHS to Laser to DVD. The HATARI! Blu-ray is still far from perfect but it is clear, bright and better than any of the past releases. I am disappointed with Paramount but also wonder what the condition of the elements are or were? Anybody have information? I also wonder if filming on location in Africa gave problems to the original negative. I was to young to see this in Theatres so I would like to hear what some members that did see it in Theatres thought.

Yes, Hatari! is getting ripped by all the usual suspects, but I feel you have touched on the real issue here, which is more about the film element that Paramount has rather than a poorly done transfer.

I'm not denying the transfer is comparatively unattractive, but I don't think this is that old of a transfer. Rather, a modern transfer of a less than ideal film element. Certainly the Blu-ray looks better than anything I have seen before, but it is clearly not a scan of any early generation element, either negative or IP.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

"I see a tin star with a drunk pinned to it"Wow. Loved El Dorado. Magnificent western.

...even more impressive was the transfer. It was beautiful.

Funny. The moment I saw Nelson Riddle's name in the credits
I kept hearing Batman music throughout the film.

Really enjoyed this one.

 

[Brandon Conway]

I only saw Hatari! once (on DVD) about ten years ago and I can't recall if they used stock footage of the wildlife from time to time or if it was all new material shot for the film. If it was the former, would perhaps some attempt to match the color grading/quality of the stock footage be a root of the issue?

 

[John Hermes]

"I see a tin star with a drunk pinned to it"Wow. Loved El Dorado. Magnificent western.

...even more impressive was the transfer. It was beautiful.

Funny. The moment I saw Nelson Riddle's name in the credits
I kept hearing Batman music throughout the film.

Really enjoyed this one.

The Sons Of Katie Elder is my favorite JW film (let's get a Blu-ray!), this is next. Glad you liked it.

 

[Richard V]

Ron,

Have you ever watched Gunfight at the OK Corral?

Loved the Bluray, excellent transfer. Also can't help but humming the Frankie Laine theme song, "O.K. Corral, O.K. Corral, Gunfight at O.K. Corral".

 

[Keith Cobby]

No review for Gunfight? The best of the three films.

 

[davidHartzog]

I thought Hour of the Gun was a vast improvement on Gunfight, and hope to see that on BD someday. I remember El Dorado from the sixties, and it holds up pretty well on BD.

 

[haineshisway]

Yes, Hatari! is getting ripped by all the usual suspects, but I feel you have touched on the real issue here, which is more about the film element that Paramount has rather than a poorly done transfer.

I'm not denying the transfer is comparatively unattractive, but I don't think this is that old of a transfer. Rather, a modern transfer of a less than ideal film element. Certainly the Blu-ray looks better than anything I have seen before, but it is clearly not a scan of any early generation element, either negative or IP.

Well, a lot of supposing, and I suppose you're supposing I'm one of the "usual suspects." Let me just say it clearly - it's a TERRIBLE transfer of a film that should look great. I saw it many times in theaters and owned a pristine 35mm print in IB Technicolor. If you think that film print resembled this Blu-ray transfer in any way, shape, or form I don't know what to tell you. I should think if they went back to the camera negative, which they clearly did not, they could make something quite beautiful, at least if they had someone knowledgeable doing the transfer and color grading. There is nothing wrong with the way this film was shot, nor its "elements." There is only a badly done transfer and while it may look better than a VHS or the previous DVD, that is hardly a reason to give this film a pass, while MY usual suspects rag on perfectly fine transfers all the time.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, a lot of supposing, and I suppose you're supposing I'm one of the "usual suspects." Let me just say it clearly - it's a TERRIBLE transfer of a film that should look great. I saw it many times in theaters and owned a pristine 35mm print in IB Technicolor. If you think that film print resembled this Blu-ray transfer in any way, shape, or form I don't know what to tell you. I should think if they went back to the camera negative, which they clearly did not, they could make something quite beautiful, at least if they had someone knowledgeable doing the transfer and color grading. There is nothing wrong with the way this film was shot, nor its "elements." There is only a badly done transfer and while it may look better than a VHS or the previous DVD, that is hardly a reason to give this film a pass, while MY usual suspects rag on perfectly fine transfers all the time.

Why are you supposing he was referring to you? He didn't quote any of your comments.

 

[John Hermes]

I thought Hour of the Gun was a vast improvement on Gunfight, and hope to see that on BD someday. I remember El Dorado from the sixties, and it holds up pretty well on BD.

I like Gunfight At The OK Corral much more than Hour Of The Gun. Anyway, there is a region-free Australian BD of the latter which I have. It is okay, a little more debris is on display than I would like to see. It also has dupe opticals, with subsequent softer picture, where they don't change back to the OCN until the next shot begins - sometimes a rather long period of time. Gunfight at the OK Corral uses A/B rolls or auto-select for seemless original fades and dissolves.

 

[ahollis]

Well, a lot of supposing, and I suppose you're supposing I'm one of the "usual suspects." Let me just say it clearly - it's a TERRIBLE transfer of a film that should look great. I saw it many times in theaters and owned a pristine 35mm print in IB Technicolor. If you think that film print resembled this Blu-ray transfer in any way, shape, or form I don't know what to tell you. I should think if they went back to the camera negative, which they clearly did not, they could make something quite beautiful, at least if they had someone knowledgeable doing the transfer and color grading. There is nothing wrong with the way this film was shot, nor its "elements." There is only a badly done transfer and while it may look better than a VHS or the previous DVD, that is hardly a reason to give this film a pass, while MY usual suspects rag on perfectly fine transfers all the time.

Thanks Bruce, you answered my questions on the elements. No pass here.

 

[John Hermes]

Thanks Bruce, you answered my questions on the elements. No pass here.

RAH thinks Paramount used the separations to make the Blu-ray and Bruce says they didn't use the OCN. So, why wasn't the original negative used? Does is exist anymore? Is it usable? It seems we need someone from Paramount to answer these questions.

 

[haineshisway]

Why are you supposing he was referring to you? He didn't quote any of your comments.

He didn't quote any of the "usual suspects" comments - he just referred in general to those who have stated they think this transfer is far less than it should be. So, since I'm one of those people I guess I would fall into the usual suspect category, no? Not too hard to make that leap really.

 

[Robert George]

He didn't quote any of the "usual suspects" comments - he just referred in general to those who have stated they think this transfer is far less than it should be. So, since I'm one of those people I guess I would fall into the usual suspect category, no? Not too hard to make that leap really.

Careful where you leap, Mr.Kimmel. The drop can be precipitous.

For the record, I was referring to a group on a different forum. I generally less informed forum, I will add.

Actually, I usually read your comments with interest. I appreciate anyone with that sort of passion for film,even if I don't always agree with everything said. Indeed, reading only that with which one agrees gets boring quickly. I came to this thread late and, frankly, did not read any other comments before responding to the couple of posts just before mine. I don't spend the time here that I once did, though I think that should change. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss other mutually interesting topics soon.

 

[Robert Crawford]

He didn't quote any of the "usual suspects" comments - he just referred in general to those who have stated they think this transfer is far less than it should be. So, since I'm one of those people I guess I would fall into the usual suspect category, no? Not too hard to make that leap really.

As Obi stated before me, I think you took a leap in which he wasn't talking about you, but that other forum you know so well.

 

[haineshisway]

Careful where you leap, Mr.Kimmel. The drop can be precipitous.

For the record, I was referring to a group on a different forum. I generally less informed forum, I will add.

Actually, I usually read your comments with interest. I appreciate anyone with that sort of passion for film,even if I don't always agree with everything said. Indeed, reading only that with which one agrees gets boring quickly. I came to this thread late and, frankly, did not read any other comments before responding to the couple of posts just before mine. I don't spend the time here that I once did, though I think that should change. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss other mutually interesting topics soon.

My mistake then, sorry

 

[davidHartzog]

Watched Gunight at the OK Corral BD, very nice transfer. Nevertheless, I'll stick with Hour of the Gun as the better film, with its cast and more literate and accurate script.