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
- - - - -

Image Announcement: Phantom of the Opera (1925) Blu-ray


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 19 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 41,531 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted August 07 2011 - 11:59 PM


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#2 of 19 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer



  • 5,930 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted August 08 2011 - 04:53 AM

I find the release date of 11/1/11 to be a little funny.  I think if I was Image, I would have at least bumped it forward a couple of weeks to take advantage of Halloween.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#3 of 19 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,684 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 08 2011 - 08:03 PM

"16x9: YES" ???

#4 of 19 OFFLINE   Tom M

Tom M

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 216 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 06 1999

Posted August 09 2011 - 04:37 AM

Windowboxed in a 16x9 frame which is how all 1.33:1 material in HD is presented on blu-ray.
My crummy Deviant Art page. Read my epic poem The Pirate's Tale written in tribute to the Ozy & Millie comic strip.

http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/

#5 of 19 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    Lead Actor



  • 7,405 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted August 09 2011 - 06:53 AM



Originally Posted by Tom M 

Windowboxed in a 16x9 frame which is how all 1.33:1 material in HD is presented on blu-ray.


Pillarboxed, actually.



"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#6 of 19 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter



  • 1,684 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 09 2011 - 10:49 AM

I get ya. It threw me for a second.

#7 of 19 OFFLINE   dana martin

dana martin

    Screenwriter



  • 2,024 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted August 11 2011 - 02:40 AM

Not to take away from Images announcement for this title, but it is a little misleading, and here is the point the 25 version will be on DVD, the 29 re-edit, reissue is what is being presented on blu, I understand the differences, and well, the 25 version if possible for a proper presentation in 1080p would have made this an even better set. Yes I know its semantics at this point; but the world lately is full of surprises, from them finding a lost Hitchcock silent, so who knows some unsuspecting person may one day find the material to do a full proper HD version of the 25 version. I thought this would be waiting a lot longer before it made it to this format.    Thanks for the link, pre-ordered can’t wait to see the string holding up Chaney’s nose   
Playing at the Drive In

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

#8 of 19 OFFLINE   Brianruns10

Brianruns10

    Second Unit



  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2008

Posted August 11 2011 - 04:14 AM

The decision not to release the 25 version on blu-ray is due most likely to several variables. Primarily it's the quality of the materials. Universal's treatment of its silent film library is easily the most notorious and infamous of all the studios, since in the 1940s they intentionally purged practically all of the materials relating to their silent library at that time. The '25 version and many silent films of the period from that studio survive thanks to 16mm show-at-home prints made for the consumer market. However, the quality of these prints are quite abysmal, and for what would be gained by transferring and presenting them in 1080p, is not worth the expense. Another issue is that all the extant copies of the "25 version" are highly corrupt, with no two being identical. The copy regarded as the definitive version of the 25 cut is a Frankenstein print, cobbled from many sources, including shots from the 29 sonorized version and is rather dubious in its authoritativeness. Some have suggested using the 29 version as a basic for recreating the '25, and splicing in scenes from the 16mm print where necessary. This too is problematic, not only because of the issues of marrying the two disparate sources, but also because they each come from different negatives. And you will recall in the silent days different negatives meant different cameras, since there was no quality dupe stock for making protection masters. Different cameras meant different angles, and often different takes. It now seems apparent that the 16mm prints derive from the domestic or "A camera" negative, and the higher quality '29 version derives from a combination of "B-camera" alternate angles and/or A-camera second-best takes. So it is not a matter of simply matching shots, because there are no shots to be matched. Ultimately, for all intents and purposes the 25 version is a lost film, and what today is presented at the '25 version is really more of a best guess, an approximation based on surviving bits and pieces, and the script continuity. But with all the new discoveries of previously lost films, there is always the chance, however slim, that something new could be found, perhaps a copy of the lost sound version from 1929, with its additional technicolor scenes, or perhaps even a 35mm nitrate of the original '25 cut. Anything is possible.

#9 of 19 OFFLINE   MattPeriolat

MattPeriolat

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2004

Posted August 11 2011 - 10:55 PM

I'm confused, I thought Image released a version of the 1925 print on DVD a while ago that has gone out of print. I get why that version will not be THE version, but will a copy of what exists as the 1925 print be available in this release or not? Hate to be a hardnose, but that is the version (or at least, as close as we can get) that I want.
So much TV... So little money! Please visit my blog at: http://tvhistoryondvd.blogspot.com/

#10 of 19 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted August 12 2011 - 06:02 AM

The '25 cut (or what remains of it) will be on the Image Blu in SD. Image released two editions - one from Film Preservation Associates and one from Milestone. The FPA version has only the '29 cut. Milestone's uses the Photoplay Production edition of the '29 cut, the '25 cut from 16mm, and the 1929 soundtrack as an option on the '29 cut.

#11 of 19 OFFLINE   Brianruns10

Brianruns10

    Second Unit



  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2008

Posted August 12 2011 - 06:20 AM

I'm confused, .

And if you REALLY want confusing, try to piece together the history of the so-called "'29 version" which really isn't the 29 at all. The '29 proper, with scenes reshot for sound, and soundtrack on disc, is likewise a lost film, though the discs survive. What is popularly known as the '29 version, apparently struck from a camera negative (likely the B-neg) has been the subject of controversy, as there is no consensus on why it exists, or what its purpose is. Some scenes are at silent speed, others at 24 FPS, yet it does not sync with the surviving sound discs from the sonorized version. There are three basic theories: 1) It was produced at the same time as the sound version, to be released to theatres in the U.S. that did not yet have sound capability. Yet it was struck not from the domestic negative, but either the b-camera neg for foreign markets, as well as second best takes (notably, there is a blooper during the unmasking scene where a stagehand can be seen walking in front of a light, which is not present in the '25 cut). It also lacks the technicolor inserts which were definitely present in the sound version (the technicolor scene that survives was found separately, and exists in black-and-white in the complete '29 print), and there is question as to whether a silent re-release was ever made at all. 2) The print was made for foreign release. The problem here is that it has English intertitles, and there is, as yet, no record that Phantom was re-released over seas at the same time as the domestic re-release. 3) It was assembled by the studio from second best takes for a silent release which was later aborted. The film, however, was retained as a reference print, which would explain why it is so pristine, when if it had actually been shown, or was struck from the domestic negative, it would surely show signs of wear. Wheewww!

#12 of 19 OFFLINE   jaaguir

jaaguir

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 75 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2011

Posted August 15 2011 - 04:37 AM

And if you REALLY want confusing, try to piece together the history of the so-called "'29 version" which really isn't the 29 at all. The '29 proper, with scenes reshot for sound, and soundtrack on disc, is likewise a lost film, though the discs survive. What is popularly known as the '29 version, apparently struck from a camera negative (likely the B-neg) has been the subject of controversy, as there is no consensus on why it exists, or what its purpose is. Some scenes are at silent speed, others at 24 FPS, yet it does not sync with the surviving sound discs from the sonorized version. There are three basic theories: 1) It was produced at the same time as the sound version, to be released to theatres in the U.S. that did not yet have sound capability. Yet it was struck not from the domestic negative, but either the b-camera neg for foreign markets, as well as second best takes (notably, there is a blooper during the unmasking scene where a stagehand can be seen walking in front of a light, which is not present in the '25 cut). It also lacks the technicolor inserts which were definitely present in the sound version (the technicolor scene that survives was found separately, and exists in black-and-white in the complete '29 print), and there is question as to whether a silent re-release was ever made at all. 2) The print was made for foreign release. The problem here is that it has English intertitles, and there is, as yet, no record that Phantom was re-released over seas at the same time as the domestic re-release. 3) It was assembled by the studio from second best takes for a silent release which was later aborted. The film, however, was retained as a reference print, which would explain why it is so pristine, when if it had actually been shown, or was struck from the domestic negative, it would surely show signs of wear. Wheewww!

Wheewww indeed. I wonder, will the extra features go into this? It'd make for a docu probably more fascinating than the movie itself... I already pre-ordered this and it will be an interesting watch, since I've never seen it before.

#13 of 19 OFFLINE   Brianruns10

Brianruns10

    Second Unit



  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2008

Posted August 15 2011 - 03:08 PM

Hard to say. Scott MacQueen gives an excellent commentary on the Milestone edition, in which he discusses all the different versions. Phantom was a very troubled production, with several botched previews that resulted in retakes. There were at least 3 cuts of the 25 version in addition to the later, sonorized version. I don't think the new edition has a commentary at all, unfortunately.

#14 of 19 OFFLINE   Keith Paynter

Keith Paynter

    Screenwriter



  • 1,830 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted August 15 2011 - 03:39 PM

(notably, there is a blooper during the unmasking scene where a stagehand can be seen walking in front of a light, which is not present in the '25 cut).

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but I'm afraid that remark, based Scott MacQueen's commentary on the Image/Photoplay DVD, is incorrect (I even corrosponded with him about the error, and he was gracious in acknowledgement). It is in both versions - the same take from 2 different cameras. I am responsible for creating the 1925/1929 A/B comparison edit for Mark Roth's 4-disc 'Phantom' set, available from his reelclassicdvd website. The supplement to 2 separate Griggs-Moviedrome 16mm releases in the set (with the Bal Masque in both B&W and color, with organ score by Lee Erwin) is a definitive comparison of sequences and shots common to both versions, and I am proud that it has been singled out as a defining supplement by Barrie Maxwell at The Digital Bits, The Silent Era, and other reviewers, despite the sources being exclusively 16mm materials. If you really want to get to the bottom of which takes/cameras were responsible for the two films, I urge you to look at it. Even the Bal Masque has major differences in costume and set designs where footage with Chaney is involved: The harlequin wears a red and white checkered oufit in the color footage, and a solid color outfit with white trims in the b&w footage; also, the balcony escape footage is fully redecorated in the color footage, but very plain in the b&w footage. There are other differences in Chaney-related footage...every scene with his involvement uses different takes between b&w and color footage. David Shepard/FPA's version by Image is supposed to have the film presented at 24fps with the Gaylord Carter LD score, and at 20fps with score by Gabriel Thibaudoux from the 1997 DVD/LD release (both in 1080 HD), plus the 1925 version in SD, as well as the script as issued on the original Image LD. That's the one I'm putting money on...not the Photoplay revamp. There is supposed to be a THIRD 'Phantom' BD coming, but I forget from whom...and I'll pass.
I don't like SPAM!

#15 of 19 ONLINE   Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Producer



  • 4,332 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted August 15 2011 - 03:54 PM

Wow!  Thanks for that information -- I'm sorry to say I wasn't aware of reelclassicdvd.com.

#16 of 19 OFFLINE   montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

    Supporting Actor



  • 541 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 17 2011

Posted August 15 2011 - 04:19 PM

With all this information you fellas are providing here,this would have been all terrific for my pal, who recently had the pleasure of seeing it on a big screen here at the Fantasia festival,with of course great piano accompaniment by the excellent Gabriel Thibaudeau. Incidentally,Phantom was the first time he wrote a score for a film. A short fascinating bio and a small Phantom clip to watch. http://www.gabrielth...ographie_en.php http://www.gabrielth.../videos/FDO.mov

#17 of 19 OFFLINE   Brianruns10

Brianruns10

    Second Unit



  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2008

Posted August 17 2011 - 06:33 AM

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but I'm afraid that remark, based Scott MacQueen's commentary on the Image/Photoplay DVD, is incorrect

[falls to knees] MaCQUEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#18 of 19 OFFLINE   jaaguir

jaaguir

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 75 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2011

Posted September 21 2011 - 06:10 AM

Hard to say. Scott MacQueen gives an excellent commentary on the Milestone edition, in which he discusses all the different versions. Phantom was a very troubled production, with several botched previews that resulted in retakes. There were at least 3 cuts of the 25 version in addition to the later, sonorized version. I don't think the new edition has a commentary at all, unfortunately.

According to wikipedia (I guess you mean this) Edgar Sedwyck re-shot the bulk of the movie after the preview of Rupert Julian's version failed, and then his preview was badly received too, and the final release, was... whatever. We're mostly getting the '29 version anyway, which makes "authorship" issue even more convoluted. Now that we know the extras of the upcoming Image edition (which are next to nothing), has anyone here made up their minds whether to buy this one or wait for the Milestione edition? Is there any reason why they would use different masters?

#19 of 19 OFFLINE   Dick

Dick

    Producer



  • 4,379 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted December 06 2011 - 05:22 AM

Has anyone else had a problem with freeze-ups during playback of the 92-minute 1929 version?