Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ High Noon -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

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

#41 of 312 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,311 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 18 2012 - 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford 

Alright, after watching this BRD in its entirety, I can see why RAH would crap over the video presentation knowing his standards and expertise.  With that said, I thought the opening credit sequence with Tex Ritter singing was mediocre at best and I'm being kind there.  However, I thought the rest of the BRD wasn't as mediocre and in some sequences, it looked quite good for the most part.  No way, should Olive or Paramount be proud with this video presentation as it could've been much better, so instead of getting the highest grade of 5 video-wise, I would give it a 3.5 on my scale.  My grade is more forgiving than RAH's, but I think many folks would be satisfied with this BRD, but those of us that want the best possible HD presentations made available to us will not be satisfied with it.  The fight to keep pushing these home video companies into giving us their best efforts with the product they're releasing for sale is far from over and I'm afraid we'll never get there in the disc era.  Next up, the pod BRD.


Crawdaddy


Robert,


Let's look at it this way.  So  much money has been made on High Noon, that...


1.  It deserves to have top quality asset protection.


2.  It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray


This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.


And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?


It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so.  Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.


That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.


All in perspective.


RAH


"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


#42 of 312 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,034 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted July 18 2012 - 01:13 PM

Quote: MisterLime
They're working on the restoration of THE QUIET MAN right now, so there's a chance it could be released this year.

The Paramount/Olive restoration is a new one and has nothing to do with the failed UCLA attempt.

http://www.hometheat...80#post_3940621


By "failed" he means incomplete, which he mentions earlier in that thread.


"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


#43 of 312 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,034 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted July 18 2012 - 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 


Robert,


Let's look at it this way.  So  much money has been made on High Noon, that...


1.  It deserves to have top quality asset protection.


2.  It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray


This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.


And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?


It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so.  Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.


That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.


All in perspective.


RAH


To be fair to Paramount, they have had the film for less than a decade. Other entities made most of that money.


Not an excuse, just an observation.


"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


#44 of 312 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted July 18 2012 - 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway 


To be fair to Paramount, they have had the film for less than a decade. Other entities made most of that money.


Not an excuse, just an observation.


I think there is a good chance Kinowelt in Germany will release this sometime in the future and do it justice.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#45 of 312 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,103 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted July 18 2012 - 02:24 PM

http://www.hometheat...80#post_3940621 By "failed" he means incomplete, which he mentions earlier in that thread.

The UCLA restoration of THE QUIET MAN (from the original 35mm nitrate YCM elements) has been completed and publicly screened for years. This is the most recent: http://www.ifi.ie/film/the-quiet-man/ Here are the materials in the archive: - The complete 35mm safety film three-strip negatives - The complete 35mm safety film optical soundtrack negatives - Complete 3-strip preservation positives of each color record (two sets each) - Two 35mm preservation positives (made from the original 3-strip negatives and optical soundtrack negative) - Original picture and optical soundtrack negatives for the theatrical trailer - 35mm composite sample reel with dye-transfer clips compared against faded Eastmancolor If it's not utilized for a Blu-ray master, I suspect the cost of licensing the restoration from UCLA is most likely the reason.

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com

 

From Daily Variety, four days before the start of principal photography. This listing would remain

for over two months until the film wrapped production in late November 1954.

 

f75e4e81-ad94-4afd-8b61-5ad8ca634c18_zps


#46 of 312 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,311 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 18 2012 - 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder 


I think there is a good chance Kinowelt in Germany will release this sometime in the future and do it justice.

Once again, we're not discussion large sums to do this correctly.


If they'd go back to the OCN and begin with a 4k scan, I bet that a profit could still be made.  And the film would be properly protected, which it obviously is not.


RAH


"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


#47 of 312 DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter

  • 2,425 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted July 18 2012 - 03:33 PM

None taken, as that's what its all about. An electronic look, sticky or crawling grain, has nothing to do with budget.

I am pretty forgiving of most transfer issues, but not this.

#48 of 312 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,943 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 18 2012 - 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 


Robert,


Let's look at it this way.  So  much money has been made on High Noon, that...


1.  It deserves to have top quality asset protection.


2.  It deserves to be, and can easily be, a top quality Blu-ray


This film has been run to death for decades on TV, then VHS, laserdisc (even Criterion), multiple DVD releases, now Blu-ray.


And they still neither respect their asset nor treat it correctly?


It constantly seems to be how much can we bring on if we do thus and so.  Not look at our cash cow, and how it's been treated.


That said, High Noon is a thousand times the quality of My Fair Lady and Spartacus.


All in perspective.


RAH


You're preaching to the HTF choir as the companies that own these assets should take your advice.  However, the bean-counters that make those company decisions just aren't listening to you or those of us that agree with your position.









Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#49 of 312 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,943 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 18 2012 - 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

Once again, we're not discussion large sums to do this correctly.


If they'd go back to the OCN and begin with a 4k scan, I bet that a profit could still be made.  And the film would be properly protected, which it obviously is not.


RAH


How much money are you talking about?  You really think Olive which is just the distributer can make enough profit to justify that investment?  IMO, it would have to be Paramount to make that investment as it's their long-term asset right now.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#50 of 312 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,311 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted July 18 2012 - 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford 


How much money are you talking about?  You really think Olive which is just the distributer can make enough profit to justify that investment?  IMO, it would have to be Paramount to make that investment as it's their long-term asset right now.

A reasonable question, for which I've run a quick budget.


A full 4k scan and digital clean-up and repair, WITH a record out to a new 35mm archival negative and check print, and inclusive of an HD master, would run, at my cost, under $150,000.  That would be inclusive of archival data files.


And yes, it would be Paramount, Viacom, or whomever, that should be covering that cost.  Not Olive, which only holds a limited license.


That investment would cover the studio world-wide in each and every format in perpetuity.


The embarrassment, is NOT making that investment for a film like High Noon.


Let me be as simplistic as possible.


If the studio would like to sell me the copyright, and all elements, the first thing that I'd do, and I'd guarantee that it would be done immediately, would be to to find the money to do just that.


Day ONE!


By the way, if one really wanted to scrimp in the budget, one could hold the data files, and allow the film to bring in some income before recording back out to 35mm as a 4k archival element.  If that were to occur, the budget would come down to an immediate cost of

110k, which is still inclusive of my standard 5% contingency.


Food for thought?


RAH


"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


#51 of 312 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

  • 922 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted July 18 2012 - 10:59 PM

You're preaching to the HTF choir as the companies that own these assets should take your advice.  However, the bean-counters that make those company decisions just aren't listening to you or those of us that agree with your position


That's alas true, but you gotta keep in mind that bean counters should have no, or minor position, in any company. They are not productive people. It's interesting thought, that in the current scheme, bean counters rule companies, whereas all the creative people without whom the companies would have no assets to sell, have zero or next to zero power.


It's a huge problem especially in DVD / Blu-ray companies, that needs to be adressed.


#52 of 312 Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,194 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted July 18 2012 - 11:43 PM

A reasonable question, for which I've run a quick budget. A full 4k scan and digital clean-up and repair, WITH a record out to a new 35mm archival negative and check print, and inclusive of an HD master, would run, at my cost, under $150,000.  That would be inclusive of archival data files. And yes, it would be Paramount, Viacom, or whomever, that should be covering that cost.  Not Olive, which only holds a limited license. That investment would cover the studio world-wide in each and every format in perpetuity. The embarrassment, is NOT making that investment for a film like High Noon. Let me be as simplistic as possible. If the studio would like to sell me the copyright, and all elements, the first thing that I'd do, and I'd guarantee that it would be done immediately, would be to to find the money to do just that. Day ONE! By the way, if one really wanted to scrimp in the budget, one could hold the data files, and allow the film to bring in some income before recording back out to 35mm as a 4k archival element.  If that were to occur, the budget would come down to an immediate cost of 110k, which is still inclusive of my standard 5% contingency. Food for thought? RAH

Thanks for the info. $150,000 still sounds like a fair few bob to me, but then again we're talking about High Noon, for crying out loud. Does anyone know much about the other side of the accounts ledger. Okay, it'd cost $150k. But how much would they get from, for example, sales of rights to use the end product for Cable/satellite TV in the US, or UK, or Germany? In other words, how long would it take to see that $150k come back? Steve W
Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#53 of 312 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted July 19 2012 - 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Yorkshire 


Thanks for the info.
$150,000 still sounds like a fair few bob to me, but then again we're talking about High Noon, for crying out loud.
Does anyone know much about the other side of the accounts ledger. Okay, it'd cost $150k. But how much would they get from, for example, sales of rights to use the end product for Cable/satellite TV in the US, or UK, or Germany?
In other words, how long would it take to see that $150k come back?
Steve W


$150,000 sounds cheap to me when you consider how much some of their movies make them on Blu ray, for example, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made $29.51 million dollars on it's Blu ray debut, now also take into account that the Mission Impossible trilogy boxset made $3.1 million dollars just over this week, these are large numbers and yet Paramount didn't even bother striking new improved transfers for the first two Mission Impossible films despite the fact they are making big money on the set, getting away from the point here, my point is that lots of money is being made by new films released on Blu ray, huge sums of money, i would suggest they use a portion of the income from the new releases to strike new 4K transfers for some of their classic titles which will not only improve the quality but allow them to archive the classics for future generations.


The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.


I'm actually annoyed when i see the figures and how much money is being generated for these companies and yet they are not investing it in their back catalog and in some cases as noted above they are not even investing it in more modern blockbuster fare from just twenty to thirty years ago,


They should be using money made off current releases to fund their back catalog, it just makes sense to protect their old movies and at the same time we as consumers will get a better deal.


P.S. The above figures are USA only and do not include DVD, imagine worldwide Blu ray and DVD sales for some of these titles and you will see the market is now huge, a film can flop at the cinema but make money back on the home market and they should spend some of the rewards on the back catalog.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#54 of 312 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,368 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:03 AM

The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.

In all fairness, the masses that you're looking down on most likely don't have your setup or knowledge (and probably make up about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world) so it may not be as simple as people just accepting whatever is given to them and more that it does look great to them based on their equipment and eyes.

#55 of 312 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by TravisR 

In all fairness, the masses that you're looking down on most likely don't have your setup or knowledge (and probably make up about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the entire world) so it may not be as simple as people just accepting whatever is given to them and more that it does look great to them. That's not to say that studios shouldn't try to aim as high as possible but if someone thinks that something looks good, it might be attributed to more than that person being part of the unwashed masses.


Well i'm not looking down on them, i'm actually looking down on the studio's who make the decisions, i still see no reason why they cannot use a portion of the profit from newer films for archiving and indeed restoration on older classics, it's their history and they should be preserving it for future generations.


I do think in the modern world that hired spin doctors or PR folks tell us things and we do tend to accept what is told to us far too much, be it Blu ray info or political nonsense which i will not get into here since we know it's banned and i want to play nice, scientific research tells us something, we accept it, it must be true, let's not question it, well i question everything, i'm not a trusting sort of soul unless i know someone well, i try to keep an open mind though on most things.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#56 of 312 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,943 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder 


$150,000 sounds cheap to me when you consider how much some of their movies make them on Blu ray, for example, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol made $29.51 million dollars on it's Blu ray debut, now also take into account that the Mission Impossible trilogy boxset made $3.1 million dollars just over this week, these are large numbers and yet Paramount didn't even bother striking new improved transfers for the first two Mission Impossible films despite the fact they are making big money on the set, getting away from the point here, my point is that lots of money is being made by new films released on Blu ray, huge sums of money, i would suggest they use a portion of the income from the new releases to strike new 4K transfers for some of their classic titles which will not only improve the quality but allow them to archive the classics for future generations.


The Star Wars boxset made over $100 million very quickly, yet George Lucas didn't bother to give us brand new 4K film scans of the original trilogy, he gave us old transfers, he is doing the same thing for two of the Indiana Jones films, it's "good enough" the masses will eat it up, sure they will, another boxset which will make them huge money, why not spend some on new improved transfers, because the reviews will give the boxset five stars outta five ( including this site ) and the people will buy regardless of a few complaints that it could have been better.


I'm actually annoyed when i see the figures and how much money is being generated for these companies and yet they are not investing it in their back catalog and in some cases as noted above they are not even investing it in more modern blockbuster fare from just twenty to thirty years ago,


They should be using money made off current releases to fund their back catalog, it just makes sense to protect their old movies and at the same time we as consumers will get a better deal.


P.S. The above figures are USA only and do not include DVD, imagine worldwide Blu ray and DVD sales for some of these titles and you will see the market is now huge, a film can flop at the cinema but make money back on the home market and they should spend some of the rewards on the back catalog.

It's not cheap for many of these catalog titles who's units sold won't even come close to the titles you mentioned in your post.

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#57 of 312 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,943 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder 


Well i'm not looking down on them, i'm actually looking down on the studio's who make the decisions, i still see no reason why they cannot use a portion of the profit from newer films for archiving and indeed restoration on older classics, it's their history and they should be preserving it for future generations.


I do think in the modern world that hired spin doctors or PR folks tell us things and we do tend to accept what is told to us far too much, be it Blu ray info or political nonsense which i will not get into here since we know it's banned and i want to play nice, scientific research tells us something, we accept it, it must be true, let's not question it, well i question everything, i'm not a trusting sort of soul unless i know someone well, i try to keep an open mind though on most things.


Because they have stockholders that say otherwise.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#58 of 312 JamesNelson

JamesNelson

    Second Unit

  • 276 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2008

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:28 AM

It's not cheap for many of these catalog titles who's units sold won't even come close to the titles you mentioned in your post. 

There is more than one way to model a business. One can try to make a profit on each and every item sold, or one can assume losses on given items with the goal of building a happier and larger overall customer base.

#59 of 312 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted July 19 2012 - 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford 


Because they have stockholders that say otherwise.


Someone at the studio needs to explain to stockholders that they have shares in a studio that has a history and back catalog to maintain, the final say is surely with those in charge and not the stockholder.  It doesn't matter if a catalog title sells 3000 units, spend the $150,000 on it and look on it as a long term investment, look to recoup the money long term, at the moment it's short term thinking and the need to have an impressive debut that is damaging the film industry, ( in my opinion )

I would also add that some of these films have earned their profit, no matter how old they are, the studio should also take that into account.


I think it's perfectly reasonable to fund your preservation of the catalog titles by using the huge money made off of the newer movies, use part of that profit and ensure your history is saved with the highest standards currently possible, they will still make a profit overall, just slightly less using that business model.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#60 of 312 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 23,943 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 19 2012 - 04:08 AM

Well, I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion on what Paramount does with their profits as I have no knowledge of it and neither do any of you.

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users