A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Man Who Knew Too Much -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) is a problem negative, but with today's technology, should not have been a problematic Blu-ray.

It should have, and could have, looked exactly as it did in 1956.

To me, there was a chance here to make everything perfect, and to be blunt, it was blown.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of quality by looking at the occasionally superb resolution.

It's the color and densities, that for much of the film, make it a failure of a Blu-ray.

Image - 2

Audio - 4.5

I would suggest a recall on this title, which needs to go back to square one.

RAH

Oh dear. O K. I won't buy it. But I'm very disappointed.

Along with Rope, this is one of my favourites. This set is a pass for me until it hits rock bottom prices or a new set get's released.

Not a deal breaker..plus you're a much harsher critic than me. Not anything wrong with that!

Are they still using the reduction elements from the early 80s for this one? IIRC, the "tell" is the old Universal logo in place of Paramount's.

Originally Posted by Andy_G /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray#post_3993147
Are they still using the reduction elements from the early 80s for this one? IIRC, the "tell" is the old Universal logo in place of Paramount's.

Click to expand...

VistaVision IP from faded OCN.

RAH

robert, i was wondering......why is it that the universal monsters set has such a spectacular image quality (i believe no original negatives were
used there), yet the hitchcock set is so problematic? are different techniques being used? more money/labor spent on one set and not the other?
why is the image quality of classic films released on blu ray all over the map like this?

Thanks. It's along the lines of what Warner and Lowry did with NxNW over ten years ago for the DVD. I recall that it looked pretty good, but who knows?
Didn't you say that there is no yellow layer left on the negative?

Originally Posted by marcco00 /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray#post_3993166
robert, i was wondering......why is it that the universal monsters set has such a spectacular image quality (i believe no original negatives were
used there), yet the hitchcock set is so problematic? are different techniques being used? more money/labor spent on one set and not the other?
why is the image quality of classic films released on blu ray all over the map like this?

Click to expand...

Available budgeted funds, cost per title, and passion.

RAH

Very sorry about this. Do the separation masters exist? I wonder if someone like Criterion could take over this title?

Strange that Paramount's To Catch A Thief and Warner's North by Northwest look so spectacular while Universal seems incapable of bringing these to market looking as they should.

I marvel to think what RAH could do with this one given todays digital toolbox and the appropriate funding and support.

How disappointing. I had such moderate hopes.

What a shame... one of my most anticipated.

Does it has the same horrible level of EE that the DVD had in the Masterpiece Collection?

Reading these threads on the Hitchcock films is beginning to sour my mood.

benbess said:

Very sorry about this. Do the separation masters exist? I wonder if someone like Criterion could take over this title?

Click to expand...

It would be very cool if they had rights on both versions.

Robert Harris said:

Available budgeted funds, cost per title, and passion.
RAH

Click to expand...

What I don't understand is how/why anyone would be more passionate or have more money for the old Universal monsters than Hitchcock.
Don't get me wrong, I love the monsters as much as the next man, but I'd have thought they could make more money back from The Man Who Knew Too Much than say The Mummy, or The Invisible Man.
Steve W

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/324714/a-few-words-about-the-man-who-knew-too-much-in-blu-ray#post_3993556
What I don't understand is how/why anyone would be more passionate or have more money for the old Universal monsters than Hitchcock.
Don't get me wrong, I love the monsters as much as the next man, but I'd have thought they could make more money back from The Man Who Knew Too Much than say The Mummy, or The Invisible Man.
Steve W

Click to expand...

Possibly because they aren't Universal films.

RAH

Robert Harris said:

Possibly because they aren't Universal films.
RAH

Click to expand...

I was almost going to ask that myself. The Monsters collection is pretty awesome.