Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Need Advice: KING OF KINGS: Theatrical Or Blu Ray?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 of 47 Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 23 2011 - 07:32 AM

This is just a quick thread which will fade soon enough, but I didn't want to pose this dilemma in an already existing thread because I didn't think anyone would see it in time for me to make a decision.  Any advice will be most appreciated.


I'm trying to decide whether it would be worth it to go see the Nicholas Ray KING OF KINGS in a theater for the first time on Easter night or to save my money and instead buy the Blu Ray. Why not do both? Well because money is very tight right now and I can't really justify spending over $25 for one movie, which is just about what it would entail.


Admission to the movie is $11 plus the cost of gas to drive to the theater.  The Blu Ray is currently $14.99 at Amazon.


The theatrical version being shown will not be in 70mm, but 35mm, and according to the theater website, it is about four minutes shorter than the Blu Ray running time, leading me to believe it will probably be missing the Overture or the Entr'acte or Exit music, maybe all three?  Adding to this concern is that there is no information at all about the print being shown. I have had mixed experiences in this venue regarding print quality, but reigning in my mind are an absolute horrible print of EL CID I saw there a few years ago and an equally bad ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST  I have to admit that if it were in 70mm, there would be no hesitation in going even if the print was worn.


I guess I could go see it and then hold off on getting the Blu until I had more money or it gets reduced in price.


What would you do?



#2 of 47 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted April 23 2011 - 07:41 AM

Given the iffy question of the print, I'd get the blu ray, which is gorgeous.  Then you'll always have it forever.  And on the off chance you don't like the film, you can always sell the blu ray and get some of your money back, which you can't do on a screening.  At least, that's what I'd do of the two choices.


#3 of 47 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,177 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 23 2011 - 08:34 AM

I would go with the Blu-ray too.







Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#4 of 47 Mark B

Mark B

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 711 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2003
  • Real Name:Mark
  • LocationLake Placid, NY

Posted April 23 2011 - 08:41 AM

See it in the theater. Good print or bad print it's an experience that can't be replicated at home.



#5 of 47 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,930 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted April 23 2011 - 08:48 AM

You don't mention anything about your home setup. If you have a 1080p projector and decent sound system, then of course buy the Blu-ray. But... if you have a smallish screen, I'd say drive to the theater.



#6 of 47 benbess

benbess

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2009

Posted April 23 2011 - 08:53 AM

If it was a new 70mm print, I'd say the theater. But given that it sounds like a bad 35mm, I'd say take the blu-ray.


Also, for me the beautiful and majestic music by Miklos Rozsa is the best part of this whole film. Even if you end up feeling only so-so about the film (as I did) you'll still have the great music to enjoy. And one of the biggest examples of pure music in the film is the Overture, and so if they cut that...? I think it's an easy choice, but that's just my 2 cents.



#7 of 47 Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 23 2011 - 08:54 AM

Thanks for the recommendations, so far. I appreciate the input and am still considering.


Mark, my luck I bought my set just before everything went 1080p. My setup at home is a relatively small room with a 62 inch DLP, 1080i and a nice 5.1 surround system with Klipsch speakers. The latter brings up another point: The theatrical print is in 35mm so it may be mono.



#8 of 47 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Join Date: --

Posted April 23 2011 - 09:02 AM

Well, how many chances do you get to see this in the theatre? You can always buy the blu-ray later on.



#9 of 47 GMpasqua

GMpasqua

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 2010

Posted April 23 2011 - 09:04 AM

Maybe you should just try to win a VHS copy on ebay for .99 cents




#10 of 47 Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 23 2011 - 09:57 AM



Originally Posted by GMpasqua 

Maybe you should just try to win a VHS copy on ebay for .99 cents



 Is this some kind of slur on my not having as much money for spending on a movie as you might have? If so, nice classy move, Greg. Your advice is noted and discarded with the same respect you have shown someone who may not be as financially independent as you apparently are. Threadcrapping alive and well from the elite who deign to mingle with us low lifes.




#11 of 47 marcco00

marcco00

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 14 2010
  • Real Name:marc
  • LocationLos Angeles, California

Posted April 23 2011 - 10:58 AM

i would go to the movie, it would be a very nice way to commerate the easter holiday. watching a film on the big screen with an audience is a unique experience. and if you really, really like the movie you can get it later..... it's well known to be a very beautiful transfer.



#12 of 47 TravisR

TravisR

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 20,763 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted April 23 2011 - 11:46 AM

I'm a big proponent of seeing movies in a movie theater but, if money's tight and you spend the cash on the Blu-ray, you've got it forever.



#13 of 47 benbess

benbess

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,512 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2009

Posted April 23 2011 - 11:52 AM

And the PQ and AQ of the blu-ray are pretty close to perfect...



#14 of 47 dana martin

dana martin

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted April 23 2011 - 01:45 PM

KoK in a theater on Easter, is the way to go, then order the blu, any chance to see a film in theater is the way to go

Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision
 

 


#15 of 47 GMpasqua

GMpasqua

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 2010

Posted April 23 2011 - 01:51 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Echo 




 Is this some kind of slur on my not having as much money for spending on a movie as you might have? If so, nice classy move, Greg. Your advice is noted and discarded with the same respect you have shown someone who may not be as financially independent as you apparently are. Threadcrapping alive and well from the elite who deign to mingle with us low lifes.



I always choose seeing a film in the theater whenever possible  - that's how they were meant to be seen. (my slur had nothing do to with money (sorry if it offended you) My point was "VHS"  is lacking in quality (which is also why it would only sell for .99 cents)

Though, I believe the Egyptian Theater is screening "Kings of Kings" $11.00 and the Blu-ray is selling for &19.99.



For me there would be no choice, I would see the film in the theater, as others have said, you can always buy the blu-ray later if you like the film that much (and it will probably drop to $9.99 on Amazon after Easter) How often is a good print of "King of Kings" screened?



#16 of 47 GMpasqua

GMpasqua

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 2010

Posted April 23 2011 - 01:58 PM




Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Echo 


The theatrical version being shown will not be in 70mm, but 35mm, and according to the theater website, it is about four minutes shorter than the Blu Ray running time, leading me to believe it will probably be missing the Overture or the Entr'acte or Exit music, maybe all three?  Adding to this concern is that there is no information at all about the print being shown. I have had mixed experiences in this venue regarding print quality, but reigning in my mind are an absolute horrible print of EL CID I saw there a few years ago and an equally bad ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST  I have to admit that if it were in 70mm, there would be no hesitation in going even if the print was worn.


(sorry, I gave up before reading your last pharagaph)  The Egyptian & Aero Theaters usually gets very good prints and I believe the one they are showing was the one WB would have struck when the pre-pared "King of Kings" for Blu-ray (they struck incredible looking prints of "Doctor Zhivago" and "The Wizard of Oz" when the blu-rays came out. I'm guessing this is the screening your are referring to


don't go by the shorter running time - some do not include the overture even if it will be screened with one.


#17 of 47 dana martin

dana martin

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted April 23 2011 - 02:08 PM




Originally Posted by GMpasqua 




I always choose seeing a film in the theater whenever possible  - that's how they were meant to be seen. (my slur had nothing do to with money (sorry if it offended you) My point was "VHS"  is lacking in quality (which is also why it would only sell for .99 cents)

Though, I believe the Egyptian Theater is screening "Kings of Kings" $11.00 and the Blu-ray is selling for &19.99.



For me there would be no choice, I would see the film in the theater, as others have said, you can always buy the blu-ray later if you like the film that much (and it will probably drop to $9.99 on Amazon after Easter) How often is a good print of "King of Kings" screened?



that is what i was thinkings as well, and was checking if any of the independent theaters had anything this weekend,nothing, but i saw that it is at the Egyptian Theater , where it premiered, but it say's 35 mm print   where ww


Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision
 

 


#18 of 47 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted April 23 2011 - 02:13 PM

Glen, your home setup is better than mine, and while I usually advocate seeing films in a theatre first, given that's 35mm and lacking the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit music, and the venue has a history of terrible prints, I honestly think you'd have a better visual/aural experience with the blu.  A faded, beat-up old print can affect one's opinion of a film.  I say go with the guaranteed quality and complete blu.  Whichever you choose, I hope you enjoy and feel it was worth it.   


#19 of 47 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,763 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted April 23 2011 - 02:53 PM

Sadly, most Blu-Rays are taken from elements that exceed the quality of some of the best 35mm prints out there. I say sadly because I love the theatrical experience. Given the nominal difference in price between the BD and the theatrical experience (which would likely be eaten up in transportation costs anyhoo), I would go with the BD.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#20 of 47 MatthewA

MatthewA

    Advanced Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted April 23 2011 - 04:46 PM



Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

Sadly, most Blu-Rays are taken from elements that exceed the quality of some of the best 35mm prints out there. I say sadly because I love the theatrical experience. Given the nominal difference in price between the BD and the theatrical experience (which would likely be eaten up in transportation costs anyhoo), I would go with the BD.


Some studios have repertory divisions that still try to keep popular titles available with good prints. Sony Repertory, which I assume is still run by Michael Schlesinger, is probably the best. On the other hand, Warner Bros. is hit or miss. I, too, love the theatrical experience, but I have my limits.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users