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...™ The Man Who Knew Too Much -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

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

#41 of 331 Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer

  • 10,632 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted October 27 2012 - 10:27 PM

I more than concur with RAH on this.  This title, unfortunately, was unwatchable.  This isn't just a matter of needing to recall the disc.  It's a matter of needing to actually do the work to preserve the movie while there is still time to do so.  In this condition, I don't know how anyone could watch the movie for five minutes without being knocked completely out of the experience.

This is utterly and thoroughly horrible. The worst news I've read in a long time.

#42 of 331 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,120 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 28 2012 - 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

I more than concur with RAH on this.  This title, unfortunately, was unwatchable.

This isn't just a matter of needing to recall the disc.  It's a matter of needing to actually do the work to preserve the movie while there is still time to do so.  In this condition, I don't know how anyone could watch the movie for five minutes without being knocked completely out of the experience.

Looks like this title is first in line for my personal viewing.









Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#43 of 331 David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member

  • 1,421 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted October 28 2012 - 03:19 AM

As the Blu has been deemed 'unwatchable', I have to ask: is there a 'watchable' version of this title on home video? It's not a huge favorite of mine, which is why I don't have a version of it. It seems all the previous versions have been criticized. Is the Blu worse, or the same? I'd like to have a version that is at least watchable.

#44 of 331 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,120 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 28 2012 - 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by David_B_K 

As the Blu has been deemed 'unwatchable', I have to ask: is there a 'watchable' version of this title on home video? It's not a huge favorite of mine, which is why I don't have a version of it. It seems all the previous versions have been criticized. Is the Blu worse, or the same? I'd like to have a version that is at least watchable.

What may be unwatchable to some, but might not be so with you.







Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#45 of 331 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 28 2012 - 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by David_B_K 

As the Blu has been deemed 'unwatchable', I have to ask: is there a 'watchable' version of this title on home video? It's not a huge favorite of mine, which is why I don't have a version of it. It seems all the previous versions have been criticized. Is the Blu worse, or the same? I'd like to have a version that is at least watchable.

The Blu-ray is the worst incarnation of the film on video.


Better to have left it.


Biggest problem is that we could lose the film.


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


#46 of 331 David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member

  • 1,421 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted October 28 2012 - 03:40 AM

Wow. So this film is in danger of ending up like THE ALAMO?

#47 of 331 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer

  • 3,073 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted October 28 2012 - 04:03 AM

How does this happen?  How can something unwatchable get as far as actually being released?  This is terrible news, especially the potential of losing the film, which is obviously far more urgent than a bad blu-ray.  That would be inexcusable.



#48 of 331 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 28 2012 - 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by JohnMor 

How does this happen?  How can something unwatchable get as far as actually being released?  This is terrible news, especially the potential of losing the film, which is obviously far more urgent than a bad blu-ray.  That would be inexcusable.

I can only give you my feeling.


Corporate constraints as opposed to the desires of those doing the technical work.  Keep in mind that Universal is not a segregated entity, but a part of a larger group of corporations, inclusive of General Electric and Comcast.


One would have to know who is pulling the budgetary strings for an accurate answer.


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


#49 of 331 Douglas R

Douglas R

    Screenwriter

  • 1,769 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2000
  • Real Name:Doug
  • LocationLondon, United Kingdom

Posted October 28 2012 - 04:43 AM

What may be unwatchable to some, but might not be so with you. Crawdaddy

I've got a broadcast HD version and I don't consider it unwatchable.

#50 of 331 rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor

  • 771 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted October 28 2012 - 04:47 AM

The best version of TMWKTM that I have seen is the 1985-86 LD from Universal when the 5 Hitchcocks were released. This version is far more watchable than the more recent DVD's IMHO, which have some of the worst EE that I have ever seen. I will be comparing the new Blu-ray to the LD.

#51 of 331 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,120 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 28 2012 - 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

I can only give you my feeling.


Corporate constraints as opposed to the desires of those doing the technical work.  Keep in mind that Universal is not a segregated entity, but a part of a larger group of corporations, inclusive of General Electric and Comcast.


One would have to know who is pulling the budgetary strings for an accurate answer.


RAH


Excellent point.  If it was up to the people in direct control of the elements, every title would be done right as these people love film and generally respect film history.  However, in the corporate setting, you have those pushing down their budget goals who have little regard to film and its history.







Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#52 of 331 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer

  • 3,073 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted October 28 2012 - 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Harris 

I can only give you my feeling.


Corporate constraints as opposed to the desires of those doing the technical work.  Keep in mind that Universal is not a segregated entity, but a part of a larger group of corporations, inclusive of General Electric and Comcast.


One would have to know who is pulling the budgetary strings for an accurate answer.


RAH


Originally Posted by Robert Crawford 


Excellent point.  If it was up to the people in direct control of the elements, every title would be done right as these people love film and generally respect film history.  However, in the corporate setting, you have those pushing down their budget goals who have little regard to film and its history.







Crawdaddy


I understand that point to a degree, but this was taken further into something that makes no business sense at any level.  The order comes from corporate that they want to do a blu-ray set of "The Masterpiece Collection."   The people in charge of the elements should have responded (and possibly did), "Family Plot and The Man Who Knew Too Much cannot be done as they would be unwatchable.  Recommend only releasing the remaining "top 3" i.e. Rear Window, Vertigo and The Birds instead. Save X amount of dollars by not preparing and releasing the others."  Or, "Spend Y amount of dollars to make the 2 titles acceptable on blu-ray and add that to the budget for the boxset."  Instead they spent Z amount of money to put out 2 titles that are unwatchable and will make no purchaser happy.  It makes no business sense to spend money on a product that can't be watched.   Either save the money and forgo the releases or spend the extra to make it a valid product.  But to spend anything and produce nothing is never good business.  (Of course, by "nothing" I'm referring to only the 2 worst titles here, not the entire set.)


#53 of 331 Spencer Draper

Spencer Draper

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 82 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 2011
  • Real Name:Spencer Draper
  • LocationTN

Posted October 28 2012 - 05:56 AM

Damn. And to think I thought that Uni might have actually taken a step or two to help the condition of what is unfairly becoming a lesser regarded film. This looks like similar color as was on the master used for the atrocious 2005 MC DVD. (Which I hated.) The original 2001 DVD seems to be from the old master and must have come directly from one of those "lost Hitchcock" prints due to the extreme amount of wear. But then again, that's the best I've ever seen the film look on video sadly.

#54 of 331 Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor

  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted October 28 2012 - 08:45 AM

I just finished this and it's far more than watchable. I'm at a loss to understand the ire directed at this one. It's not as good as Vertigo but it's not that much worse. What exactly is so wrong with the color? There is some wavering but 90% of the time it looks really good. There's occasional dirt but I don't really see it as that big a deal. There are dupey looking shots but they've always been that way. Resolution is great and it's obviously a newer transfer. I can understand having issues with the film elements from an asset protection perspective but as a piece of home entertainment software this BD is quite nice.

#55 of 331 Robin9

Robin9

    Screenwriter

  • 1,725 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 13 2006

Posted October 28 2012 - 09:24 AM

I just finished this and it's far more than watchable. I'm at a loss to understand the ire directed at this one. It's not as good as Vertigo but it's not that much worse. What exactly is so wrong with the color? There is some wavering but 90% of the time it looks really good. There's occasional dirt but I don't really see it as that big a deal. There are dupey looking shots but they've always been that way. Resolution is great and it's obviously a newer transfer. I can understand having issues with the film elements from an asset protection perspective but as a piece of home entertainment software this BD is quite nice.

Thank you for that. Judging by some of your other posts, you are much fussier, much more demanding about picture quality than I am. If this BRD is good enough for you, then it will probably be good enough for me too. I think I'll buy it when it is available individually. In the days, long ago, when quite a few of Hitchcock's films were not available for public viewing, there was an "underground" circuit of movie theaters which occasionally showed films in breach of copyright. The prints were, of course, usually in very poor condition. I saw The Man Who Knew Too Much in this way in the early 1980s. The print was excellent with beautiful color! I couldn't believe my eyes.

#56 of 331 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,120 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 28 2012 - 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by JohnMor 



I understand that point to a degree, but this was taken further into something that makes no business sense at any level.  The order comes from corporate that they want to do a blu-ray set of "The Masterpiece Collection."   The people in charge of the elements should have responded (and possibly did), "Family Plot and The Man Who Knew Too Much cannot be done as they would be unwatchable.  Recommend only releasing the remaining "top 3" i.e. Rear Window, Vertigo and The Birds instead. Save X amount of dollars by not preparing and releasing the others."  Or, "Spend Y amount of dollars to make the 2 titles acceptable on blu-ray and add that to the budget for the boxset."  Instead they spent Z amount of money to put out 2 titles that are unwatchable and will make no purchaser happy.  It makes no business sense to spend money on a product that can't be watched.   Either save the money and forgo the releases or spend the extra to make it a valid product.  But to spend anything and produce nothing is never good business.  (Of course, by "nothing" I'm referring to only the 2 worst titles here, not the entire set.)

I hate to say this, but it's true in my opinion.  Most people will probably be happy with these two titles in question and most likely don't even know some are questioning the quality of them.  People are going to judge the watcheability of these discs with their own eyes and on their HT equipment which is quite different than RAH or Kevin.








Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#57 of 331 Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,134 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted October 28 2012 - 11:12 AM

Just out of curiosity, Crawdaddy, is there ever a disc that you found unacceptable?
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#58 of 331 JohnMor

JohnMor

    Producer

  • 3,073 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2004
  • Real Name:John Moreland
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted October 28 2012 - 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert 

I just finished this and it's far more than watchable. I'm at a loss to understand the ire directed at this one. It's not as good as Vertigo but it's not that much worse. What exactly is so wrong with the color? There is some wavering but 90% of the time it looks really good. There's occasional dirt but I don't really see it as that big a deal. There are dupey looking shots but they've always been that way. Resolution is great and it's obviously a newer transfer.
I can understand having issues with the film elements from an asset protection perspective but as a piece of home entertainment software this BD is quite nice.


Originally Posted by Robert Crawford 

I hate to say this, but it's true in my opinion.  Most people will probably be happy with these two titles in question and most likely don't even know some are questioning the quality of them.  People are going to judge the watcheability of these discs with their own eyes and on their HT equipment which is quite different than RAH or Kevin.








Crawdaddy



Well, actually, both of these posts are somewhat encouraging to me on a personal level re: TMWKTM.  I only have a 50" display and I'm a bit more forgiving about most things (i.e. I could actually watch The Longest Day and not be bothered by the scrubbing.  I saw it, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the dic.)  But it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be this way at all, period.    Plus, even Scott found Family Plot awful.  That's another Hitch I enjoy revisiting fairly often.  Actually I enjoy revisiting all the titles in this set at least annually except for Topaz.


Scott how would you compare TMWKTM blu to the FP blu?



#59 of 331 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted October 28 2012 - 12:11 PM

Sorry, but anyone who can accept (or enjoy) the Blu-ray of MWKTM is a candidate for aged fish and three week-old milk.


Watching this film and enjoying it, is rather like taking a walk on a spring day, being attached by wasps,

and continuing to enjoy the spring breeze.


This is not what one pays for with currency of the realm and enjoys doing so.


Two hogs for MWKTM.  Don't think so.


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


#60 of 331 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,023 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted October 28 2012 - 12:18 PM

It's easy to like something when you don't know what it should really look like - that's been my experience. From Mr. Harris's description, the color seems to be off quite a bit, but if you don't know what that color should be then sure it's easy to enjoy it. To me color that's off is as bad as grain scrubbing, edge enhancement, wrong aspect ratios, and any other things that people on boards are usually up in arms about. But the color is usually the first thing that gets a pass - The Searchers being a prime example. Wow, look how sharp that is, they said, and they were right. They just forgot the part about "look how yucky yellow that is." I get it, though - unless you know what the color is supposed to look like then the response is always, "It's not so bad, it looks good, what's wrong with the color?" Someone posted her about the skies being all brown in the marketplace scene and how that seemed accurate to them. I don't think so and I'm sure Mr. Harris would agree.





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