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
- - - - -

PHE Press Release: Hondo (Blu-ray)


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

#41 of 68 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 42,673 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted March 09 2012 - 10:04 AM




3D is a gimmick only in the hands of unimaginative or hack filmmakers (or studios who want to squeeze the last drop of revenue out of a title by applying it after the fact). When one sees something as expertly made as Hugo in 3D, the 2D version is just an adequate substitute but a different and, I think, a lesser experience.

 



Matt,


Been following this thread closely.  That was very well said.


I agree that, in the proper hands, 3D is outstanding technology

that really allows viewers to immerse themselves in the film

experience like never before.

I am rather saddened that Paramount didn't do the right thing

here and offer a 3D release of this film.  I would really like to

see the floodgates open on classic 3D fare -- especially since

I have not had the opportunity to experience what audiences

did back in that era.  I am very curious about these films, as

I suspect most of the public is who have recently brought this

technology into their homes.


 

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


#42 of 68 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 8,052 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted March 09 2012 - 10:33 AM



Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein 

Matt,


Been following this thread closely.  That was very well said.


I agree that, in the proper hands, 3D is outstanding technology

that really allows viewers to immerse themselves in the film

experience like never before.

I am rather saddened that Paramount didn't do the right thing

here and offer a 3D release of this film.  I would really like to

see the floodgates open on classic 3D fare -- especially since

I have not had the opportunity to experience what audiences

did back in that era.  I am very curious about these films, as

I suspect most of the public is who have recently brought this

technology into their homes.


Hondo was restored in 3D, and beautifully, I might add, by the Wayne family.  I attended a screening at the Goldwyn in 3D, and it almost brought the original days of 3D back again.



"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#43 of 68 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,550 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted March 09 2012 - 10:36 AM

Ron, of the classic 3D movies from the 50's, I have seen House of Wax and Dial M for Murder. Both use 3D effectively. Both of these, and Hondo, would be instant buys for me if they were released on 3D blu-ray.

#44 of 68 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,731 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 09 2012 - 11:18 AM

Maybe its a marketing ploy? Get people to buy the Blu-ray version then, a year later come out with the 3D version and some will buy it again? I'll wait.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#45 of 68 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg



  • 7,695 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted March 09 2012 - 11:21 AM

Occam's Razor: they probably don't see a cost/profit benefit to the 3D version at this time. I'm sure the fact that it's a film title licensed to Paramount from the Wayne Estate only complicates matters, too.

"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


#46 of 68 OFFLINE   Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor



  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted March 09 2012 - 11:35 AM

I agree that in many cases, 3D is a worthless gimmick. I haven't seen Hondo, and so I don't have any opinion on whether it in particular would benefit from a 3D presentation. But it was originally shot and released in 3D, so why isn't it being released that way on Blu-ray? Why arbitrarily leave off a part of the movie, when the Blu-ray format is perfectly capable of reproducing it? I'm more bothered by the fact that the studio doesn't see 3D as a necessary part of the Blu-ray release of a 3D film than by the actual effect of its omission.

Especially since the industry is currently desperately pushing 3D right now. This would seem like a no-brainer...

#47 of 68 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,731 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 09 2012 - 03:48 PM

Occam's Razor: they probably don't see a cost/profit benefit to the 3D version at this time. I'm sure the fact that it's a film title licensed to Paramount from the Wayne Estate only complicates matters, too.

Well, if its from the Wayne Estate, I wonder why they didn't push for a 3D release? Also, the screen shots of the DVD at dvdbeaver look fine to me. Whether its 1.33 or 1.85 I don't care. http://www.dvdbeaver..._dvd_review.htm

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#48 of 68 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,156 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 10 2012 - 03:05 AM

When you get statements like this:

One of the problems with HONDO was that it was one of the original productions done in 3-D; as with most of the 3-D films, the color processing was erratic (it was not in Technicolor, but in some alternative process) and the colors were faded even in the negative. So a full color restoration had to occur before the film could be reissued. (The only two 3-D films which were preserved with some degree of care were DIAL M FOR MURDER and KISS ME KATE; most of the others, such as HOUSE OF WAX, were very faded.)

It's clear the reviewer hasn't done his homework... Bob

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#49 of 68 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,731 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 10 2012 - 03:12 AM

Amazon says its 1.85:1: http://www.amazon.co...&pf_rd_i=507846 Of course Amazon has a lot of bad info.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#50 of 68 OFFLINE   theonemacduff

theonemacduff

    Second Unit



  • 360 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2010
  • Real Name:Jon Paul
  • Locationthe wet coast

Posted March 10 2012 - 08:28 AM

Amazon says its 1.85:1: http://www.amazon.co...&pf_rd_i=507846 Of course Amazon has a lot of bad info.

I think Amazon has probably just copied info over from IMDb, which lists it as 1.85:1. The DVDBeaver screenshots show a lot of headroom, and the title shot at the head of the review been cropped to roughly 1.73:1. As to whether a 1.37:1 image will have more or less detail than a 1.85, if we are talking about cinema screenings rather than DVDs or (heavens) VHS, the detail should be the same. My somewhat dated memory is that the projectionist has to (1) use the correct aperture plate to cut off parts of the image not intended to be seen and then (2) make sure the image is properly framed in the gate of the projector. I once attended a screening of Saving Private Ryan (shot open matte) where the projectionist was using the correct aperture plate, but he hadn't properly lined the image up in the gate, so that on several occasions mike booms were visible at the top of the image, and for the entire film, the bottom of the image was cut off. About a half hour into the presentation, I went into the lobby to complain to management, but they said they couldn't do anything about it – poor as he was, the projectionist was apparently the only one on duty that night who even had an idea about how to do things – so they gave me a voucher for another showing. I declined, as I figured the chances were good that the same low-skills individual would be running the projector.

#51 of 68 OFFLINE   John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer



  • 4,495 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted March 10 2012 - 09:15 AM

Just for info, Paramount is releasing The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance on Blu in Germany come June.
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#52 of 68 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,731 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 12 2012 - 05:18 AM

I think Amazon has probably just copied info over from IMDb, which lists it as 1.85:1. The DVDBeaver screenshots show a lot of headroom, and the title shot at the head of the review been cropped to roughly 1.73:1.

1.33 and about 1.85:1 Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#53 of 68 OFFLINE   jim_falconer

jim_falconer

    Supporting Actor



  • 534 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2004

Posted March 13 2012 - 02:24 AM

Hmm, looking at those screen shots, I'll take 1.33 please (and while we're at it, 1.33 of Jet Pilot too).

#54 of 68 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,603 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted March 13 2012 - 02:35 AM

Hmm, looking at those screen shots, I'll take 1.33 please (and while we're at it, 1.33 of Jet Pilot too). :)

And I'm the opposite - every one of the 1.85 shots is more dynamic and focused as that's what the director and cameraman were framing for. It's amazing to me how many people do not understand framing and where the director and cameraman want the focus. Watch any real 1.33 film and you will see cut off heads and hats in a closer shot - they don't care about the top of the head they care about where the eyes of the actor are in the frame. And why bring up Jet Pilot as if it had something to do with Hondo? One film (Hondo) was framed for widescreen by its filmmakers, and one film (Jet Pilot) was shot before widescreen but held back for release for years and then show incorrectly in widescreen. One has nothing to do with the other.

#55 of 68 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 26,019 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted March 13 2012 - 02:43 AM

I don't see the widescreen shots being more dynamic and focused here. Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#56 of 68 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter



  • 2,603 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted March 13 2012 - 02:49 AM

I don't see the widescreen shots being more dynamic and focused here.   Crawdaddy

Well, then that's what makes horse racing. :) Just look at the closeup of the Duke. In one, my eye is drawn to his hat, in the other my eye is drawn to where it should be - his face and eyes. If Mr. Farrow were framing that shot for Academy he would have framed it the same way he framed the 1.85 version and the proof is in any Farrow film shot in Academy.

#57 of 68 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 4,156 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted March 13 2012 - 04:42 AM

This can be debated shot by shot, but I'll go with what Duke said to Jack Warner about the lens on the camera: Posted Image

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


 


#58 of 68 OFFLINE   jim_falconer

jim_falconer

    Supporting Actor



  • 534 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2004

Posted March 13 2012 - 05:27 AM



Originally Posted by haineshisway 


And why bring up Jet Pilot as if it had something to do with Hondo? One film (Hondo) was framed for widescreen by its filmmakers, and one film (Jet Pilot) was shot before widescreen but held back for release for years and then show incorrectly in widescreen. One has nothing to do with the other.


I bring it up because the only release of the film on DVD currently, has the incorrect aspect ratio.  I'm hoping when it comes out on blu (if ever), that the studio would release the correct version.




#59 of 68 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,493 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted March 13 2012 - 06:02 AM

It's likely that the 4x3 version is cropped on the sides. A lot of open matte transfers still have a degree of re-framing, despite opening up the vertical area. If anyone had a 35mm frame from Hondo handy, we would be able to check out the degree.

#60 of 68 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,731 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted March 13 2012 - 07:06 AM

When I saw Dial M for Murder at the NYC Film Forum in dual projection 3D is was 1.33:1. You would lose objects in the foreground that would lessen the 3D effect if it was 1.85:1. I don't know how the 1.85:1 would affect the 3-D in Hondo. I noticed the same thing in House of Wax. I had a 3D field sequential VHS tape of House of Was that was masked to 1.85:1 to cover the Japanese subtitles. Later I obtained a 1.33:1 version of the movie and the 3-D was a lot better as again, the objects in the foreground that were covered by the masking were now visible and enhanced the 3-D effect.

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users