Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Dial "M" For Murder DVD????


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
111 replies to this topic

#1 of 112 OFFLINE   Osato

Osato

    Screenwriter



  • 2,118 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 07 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 12:35 PM

Hello - Does anyone know the status of this title coming to DVD? A great film that deserves to be released. Is there an issue with getting the rest of the Hitchcock films released on DVD? Ownership, restoration, etc???

Thank you for posting.

#2 of 112 OFFLINE   GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor



  • 969 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted August 12 2003 - 01:20 PM

Warner Brothers stated in a previous forum chat that it was slated for an eventual DVD release in the flat format (no 3-D).

#3 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 02:30 PM

No 3D ... (to borrow from Rain) ... "no sale" Posted Image And I adore Grace Kelly, so that's a painful personal decision.
“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#4 of 112 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,480 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted August 12 2003 - 02:46 PM

Warner's stance on 3-D:
"As to 3D, we have seen many tests of our films using various 3D technologies. All
of them were unacceptable to us, gave us headaches and made us nauseous. Until
the technology is up to WB standards, we'll be content with excellent 2D versions."

It's likely that anaglyphic is a rotten way to do 3-D on DVD and field-sequential is pretty elite (and expensive), so are there any other alternatives?

#5 of 112 OFFLINE   Jeff_HR

Jeff_HR

    Producer



  • 3,596 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 02:59 PM

It is a sale with me 3d or not.
Cogito, Ergo Sum
My DVD Library / The BLOOD is the Life!
Pioneer Elite PRO PDP-111FD - 2/28/2009

#6 of 112 OFFLINE   John Alderson

John Alderson

    Supporting Actor



  • 563 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:14 PM

When I saw this for the first time on AMC (it was one of the first Hitchcock films I saw), I didn't even know it was originally 3D. I loved it anyway.

Several years later, I am a certified Hitchcock maniac Posted Image

I'll be getting this one no matter what.

#7 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:20 PM

Patrick (and all) --

With all due respect to Warner Bros.(and I mean that sincerely), they should reconsider the position they put forward in their chat. Fan response to the field sequential system available now from Slingshot has been very positive -- here are links to two boxed sets which contain the system, at DVDEmpire:

IMAX: The Ultimate 3-D Collection

Horror Collection 3D

Horror Collection 3D: Volume II

Note that costumer reports (see the thread linked below) indicate that the system, while using a composite video synchronization box, can be hooked up with SVHS or component as well -- one must hook a composite cable to the box to synchronize the shutter glasses, but may hook up the video feed one views to a monitor via any connection.

Also note that those same customers have found that the system often works poorly or not at all with progressive scan playback, and is best suited for interlaced playback.

A thread discussing such reaction can be found here:

http://www.hometheat....threadid=70448

WB and other studios could either offer their own, similar system or rely on customers to find their own field sequential equipment. The DVDs themselves would be compatible with either the existing product or any new, "high quality" field sequential viewing product the studios wished to release. Anaglyphic would not be compatible with this system (it requires only "cheap" red/blue glasses), and is by all account a much inferior format. Releases offered in field sequential should have a flat version of the film on side 2 for those who do not wish to pay for the viewing equipment, or who are unsatisfied with the results.

These films were made with the intent of field sequential projection in at least some venues, and to issue them solely as flat films is to rob them of at least some of their intended visual nature (reports suggest that certain filmmakers who dabbled in 3D were just as happy or more so with flat and were reportedly pushed into 3D by studios, but the films were still made as such, often with specific compositions designed to utilize the 3D process, and should be presented as such on home video; this is a new kind of OAR argument -- Original Axis Ratio, x to y to z, rather than Original Aspect Ratio, x to y -- but one about which I feel just as strongly).

The idea that Grace Kelly wouldn't sell in 3D offends me to my core. Posted Image The lack of studio support for 3D (the home technology for which has pleased fans on very low res VHS, for that matter!) remains one of a very few unnecessary sticking points on the way to truly optimizing the DVD format as a film delivery format for the home.

“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#8 of 112 OFFLINE   Thomas T

Thomas T

    Screenwriter



  • 2,338 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:20 PM

Hitchcock hated the 3D process and unlike other 3D films where things keep getting shoved in your face, Hitchcock keeps the 3D effects down to a minimum with only one standout use of it.

#9 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:28 PM

That's three boxed sets above, not two. Posted Image Also note that the reason any connection method may be used for the video in the Slingshot system is that most DVD players have multiple video outs which are simultaneously active.
“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#10 of 112 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter



  • 2,000 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:33 PM

Quote:
No 3D ... (to borrow from Rain) ... "no sale" And I adore Grace Kelly, so that's a painful personal decision.


Even on first release the film was not broadly seen in 3D - not too many 3D prints were made). It was filmed in 3D against the wishes of Hitch.

Very few items were projected towards the audience anyway.

So what sword (or scissors) are you falling on and why?

#11 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 03:50 PM

Rich wrote:
Quote:
Even on first release the film was not broadly seen in 3D - not too many 3D prints were made). It was filmed in 3D against the wishes of Hitch.

Very few items were projected towards the audience anyway.

So what sword (or scissors) are you falling on and why?

I wrote:
Quote:
These films were made with the intent of field sequential projection in at least some venues, and to issue them solely as flat films is to rob them of at least some of their intended visual nature (reports suggest that certain filmmakers who dabbled in 3D were just as happy or more so with flat and were reportedly pushed into 3D by studios, but the films were still made as such, often with specific compositions designed to utilize the 3D process, and should be presented as such on home video; this is a new kind of OAR argument -- Original Axis Ratio, x to y to z, rather than Original Aspect Ratio, x to y -- but one about which I feel just as strongly).

Also:
Quote:
The idea that Grace Kelly wouldn't sell in 3D offends me to my core. Posted Image

If WB delivers this without 3D, it'll be their third "major" release that ought to include it, but doesn't (after Kiss Me Kate and House of Wax); I won't say "three strikes and they're out," but this lack of 3D support is disheartening and unnecessary.

And if I'm going to fall on the sharpest corner of a Moviola for anyone, it's Grace Kelly. Posted Image This was her only 3D film, and she's no longer with us. That's reason enough for indignation in my (admittedly soft) heart. My technical objections to a "2D only" policy as a film fan are secondary, but they'll satisfy the academic in me while the sentimentalist weeps in the corner.

“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#12 of 112 OFFLINE   rich_d

rich_d

    Screenwriter



  • 2,000 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted August 12 2003 - 04:04 PM

Quote:
And if I'm going to fall on the sharpest corner of a Moviola for anyone, it's Grace Kelly. This was her only 3D film, and she's no longer with us. That's reason enough for indignation in my (admittedly soft) heart. My technical objections to a "2D only" policy as a film fan are secondary, but they'll satisfy the academic in me while the sentimentalist weeps in the corner.


Well admiring Grace Kelly just shows you have good taste in women.

#13 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 04:45 PM

Quote:
Well admiring Grace Kelly just shows you have good taste in women.

My admiration for great beauties who are no longer with us may also show why I'm single! Posted Image Such swords are double-edged. But thanks.

“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#14 of 112 OFFLINE   GregK

GregK

    Supporting Actor



  • 969 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 22 2000

Posted August 12 2003 - 04:56 PM

Quote:
Even on first release the film was not broadly seen in 3D - not too many 3D prints were made). It was filmed in 3D against the wishes of Hitch.


For me this is irrelevant. Many older films had stereo sound but had very few stereo sound engagements. Does this make it less important?

Hitchcock used the tools he was required to use and used them to enhance the story. From a stereoscopic standpoint it is well shot and is obviously staged for depth. To demean the 3-D version is revisionist history in my opinion.

Quote:
Very few items were projected towards the audience anyway.

I don't judge a 3-D film by how much crap is thrown at the audience.

Quote:
So what sword (or scissors) are you falling on and why?


Let's see.. It's certainly an alteration of it's original intended format. 3-D cost roughly TWICE as much as shooting a film flat. I thought I should mention it before some one calls 3-D a cheap gimmick. As for 3-D just being a gimmick, consider that most of history starting with the Civil War was photographed in depth, and is still used by scientist, military and doctors on a regular basis. It's as much a gimmick as surround sound or color is. Obviously the phrase gimmick is certainly subjective, but I wanted to put it in perspective before we even started down that road.

I'm obviously with Mr. Burns on this one, as with DVD's capacity it would be easy to include a 3-D field-sequential version as well as a flat version. To exclude a 3-D version is a waste of the DVD format. (All IMO of course!)



Edited to correct my sloppy grammer! Posted Image

#15 of 112 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,480 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted August 12 2003 - 05:09 PM

One solution for Warner is to do a 3-disc box set with Kiss Me Kate, House of Wax, and Dial "M" For Murder all in field-sequential 3-D.

That way, it's more practical. If they put the 3-D version on the regular DVD, they'd probably get a ton of complaints on why people have to buy a conversion box. Plus, since not everyone is going to want to spend the money for the glasses and sync unit, that'd be a lot of wasted layers.

Perhaps as an added bonus, WB can add Lumber Jack-Rabbit and Popeye: The Ace of Space as bonuses in field sequential.

Have both the single-releases in 2-D and then the box set with field sequential 3-D. (Warner, if you're reading...how about it? Posted Image)

#16 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 05:18 PM

That's a great idea, Patrick. Posted Image A 3D box of these titles would be a fine way to rectify the 3D situation, and an excellent opportunity to set a high water mark for other studios in joining the 3D bandwagon. If WB does this, I trust they'll include the two-strip Mystery of the Wax Museum found on the current House of Wax disc, so those of us who wish to own both films, but only want House of Wax in 3D, needn't buy both discs.
“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#17 of 112 OFFLINE   SteveP

SteveP

    Second Unit



  • 274 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 05:22 PM

Hitchcock on 3-D:

"A nine day wonder...and I came in on the ninth day."

#18 of 112 OFFLINE   Bill Burns

Bill Burns

    Supporting Actor



  • 747 posts
  • Join Date: May 12 2003

Posted August 12 2003 - 05:56 PM

There's a fundamental question here which may yield different answers from different film fans: is a filmmaker's dissatisfaction with a process after it has been used on a film which was released in or with that process sufficient reason to ignore the history of the film and keep it from being seen in or with that process thereafter?

Here's an example: Georges Stevens' son has reportedly said that his father was "forced" or pushed into making The Diary of Anne Frank in 2.35:1 'Scope. If this is true, if he was more comfortable in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, should we chop off the sides of the film he shot in 'Scope and present it in one of his "preferred" ratios?

The film was composed for and shot in 'Scope. To alter it now is to deprive the audience of today of the experience enjoyed by the audience of its original release, however unsatisfied the director was with the process. It is also to remake the film, because while Stevens may not have liked 'Scope, he knew he was using it and so he used it as best he could. The film would have been shot differently if it weren't made in 'Scope.

I consider 3D an animal of the same species. Hitchcock may have hated 3D to the deepest fibers of his being, but he knew he was shooting in it, the film was conceived with and shot with the process in mind, and it was exhibited, however limitedly, in the process. It should therefore be preserved in 3D for modern audiences, and perhaps in flat, too, if Hitchcock preferred this version.

The key, in other words, is not that he "came in(to the process) on the ninth day," but that he came into it at all. If the 3D version didn't survive (if the two "eyes" didn't survive), we'd all praise and be grateful for the 2D version. But the two field sequential components of this picture do survive, so far as I've heard, and the dissatisfaction of the filmmaker in a product he nevertheless made shouldn't serve as reason to bury that product (or a portion -- depth -- of that product seen to some extent upon its release, or with which the film was at least in part constructed).

Greg said it very well -- limited stereo engagements don't make stereo tracks irrelevant or undesireable for consumers, and filmmakers (such as Spielberg) who've fallen in love with surround tracks do not, by virtue of that newfound affection, negate the value of the original tracks in which the film was released. A director who loves 5.1 today, and only wants his or her 1980 film seen in it, is depriving an audience of the experience enjoyed in 1980 if they now make their "preferred" version the only available version.

This could also be related to Lucas' Star Wars alterations. The fact that he's unhappy with how the films came out originally doesn't negate the value of those original versions. Similarly, the value of those original versions does not negate the value of a new version approved by the film's makers. Both have intrinsic value and both should be available to the public.

Dial M for Murder was shot in 3D. When Hitchcock, a very powerful filmmaker by this time, said "okay" to 3D and agreed to conceive of and shoot his picture in it, he made a decision the home video market should respect, whatever his later thoughts. Robin Wood and other scholars may detail, and it's of great value to detail, the specific thoughts of a filmmaker before, during, and after a production, but the end result of that production okayed for release (or all results okayed for release if multiple versions were created) should be preserved as a representation of both what audiences at the time saw and what the filmmaker, at that time, thought they should see.

And even if Hitch were dragged kicking and screaming into 3D, cursing Warner Bros. six ways from Sunday for "making" him shoot in it, I doubt even such venom could, all these years later, lead him, were he still here, to say there's no lasting value in seeing his favorite leading lady in 3D. Posted Image

“That line was screwy.”

- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938

#19 of 112 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,480 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted August 12 2003 - 06:45 PM

Quote:
Here's an example: Georges Stevens' son has reportedly said that his father was "forced" or pushed into making The Diary of Anne Frank in 2.35:1 'Scope. If this is true, if he was more comfortable in 1.85:1 or 1.66:1, should we chop off the sides of the film he shot in 'Scope and present it in one of his "preferred" ratios?

The film was composed for and shot in 'Scope. To alter it now is to deprive the audience of today of the experience enjoyed by the audience of its original release, however unsatisfied the director was with the process. It is also to remake the film, because while Stevens may not have liked 'Scope, he knew he was using it and so he used it as best he could. The film would have been shot differently if it weren't made in 'Scope.

That's not really the point of what Stevens wanted.

#20 of 112 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer



  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted August 12 2003 - 10:32 PM

I've never seen this in 3D and would like too. However, I've seen it in 2D and it's a great film, and there's no way in hell I wouldn't buy this just because it wasn't available in 3D.
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow