Dial "M" For Murder DVD???? (1 Viewer)

Osato · Aug 12, 2003

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.

GregK · Aug 12, 2003

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

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

No 3D ... (to borrow from Rain) ... "no sale"

And I adore Grace Kelly, so that's a painful personal decision.

Patrick McCart · Aug 12, 2003

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?

Jeff_HR · Aug 12, 2003

It is a sale with me 3d or not.

John Alderson · Aug 12, 2003

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

I'll be getting this one no matter what.

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

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.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...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.

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.

Thomas T · Aug 12, 2003

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.

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

That's three boxed sets above, not two.

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.

rich_d · Aug 12, 2003

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?

Click to expand...

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

Rich wrote:

The idea that Grace Kelly wouldn't sell in 3D offends me to my core.

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. 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.

Click to expand...

rich_d · Aug 12, 2003

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.

Click to expand...

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

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! Such swords are double-edged. But thanks.

Click to expand...

GregK · Aug 12, 2003

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!

Click to expand...

Patrick McCart · Aug 12, 2003

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?

)

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

That's a great idea, Patrick.

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.

SteveP · Aug 12, 2003

Hitchcock on 3-D:

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

Bill Burns · Aug 12, 2003

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.

Patrick McCart · Aug 12, 2003

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.

Click to expand...

george kaplan · Aug 13, 2003

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.

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

Dial "M" For Murder DVD???? (1 Viewer)

Screenwriter

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Screenwriter

Supporting Actor

Second Unit

Supporting Actor

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics