-

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 and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

USHE Announcement: Far and Away (Blu-ray)

Universal

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

#1 of 22 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 39,208 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted December 19 2013 - 08:03 AM

Headline Date: TBA
Release Date: 3/4/2014
 
FAR AND AWAY
 
Product Source: Theatrical
Theatrical Studio: Universal
Theatrical Release: 5/22/1992
Synopsis: Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman star in the critically-acclaimed romantic adventure, Far and Away, from director Ron Howard. Joseph Donelly (Cruise), a poor tenant farmer, is determined to bring justice to an oppressive landlord, but soon finds himself running away with the man’s daughter (Kidman) to America in a quest for land. In the excitement of the Oklahoma land rush, they realize their dreams of land and life together in this breathtaking epic of love and freedom.
 
Blu-ray Widescreen (61131057) : Disc 1 (Side A) 
 Format:  Blu-ray  UPC:  0-2519-22260-4-5
 Unit Type:  Standard  Number of Media:  1
 Street Date:  3/4/2014  PreOrder Date:   
 Run Time (HH:MM):  2 Hours 20 Minutes    
 Language:  English  Disc Type:  BD-50 (Single Sided)
 Packaging:  Snap Case  Layers:  Single
 Audio: English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
French European DTS Digital Surround 2.0
 
 Subtitles:  English SDH
 
 Edition:  -  Picture:  Widescreen
 Version:  Blu-ray + DIGITAL HD with UltraViolet  Color/B&W COLOR 
 Rating:  PG-13  CARA Rating:  -
 Bonus Features:  • Digital Copy of Far and Away (Subject to expiration. Go to NBCUCodes.com for details.)
• Includes UltraViolet (Subject to expiration. Go to NBCUCodes.com for details.)
• Theatrical Trailer
 
DVD Widescreen (61020212) : Disc 1 (Side A) 
 Format:  DVD  UPC:  0-2519-20212-2-0
 Unit Type:  Standard  Number of Media:  -
 Street Date:  2/27/2007  PreOrder Date:  2/6/2007
 Run Time (HH:MM):  2 Hours 20 Minutes    
 Language:  English  Disc Type:  DVD-9 (Single Sided)
 Packaging:  Snap Case  Layers:  Single
 Audio: English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround
French Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo
Spanish Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo
 
 Subtitles:  English SDH
Spanish
 
 Edition:  -  Picture:  Anamorphic Widescreen
 Version:  -  Color/B&W COLOR 
 Rating:  PG-13  CARA Rating:  [deleted]Some Violence and Sensuality
 Bonus Features:  • Production Notes
• Cast and Filmmakers
• Theatrical Trailer
 
 

 


Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#2 of 22 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 39,208 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted December 19 2013 - 08:09 AM

Now Available For Preorder

 

Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below.  If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.
 
 
 

 


Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#3 of 22 Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,907 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted December 19 2013 - 08:33 AM

If they don't scan a 65mm element for this, it will be a travesty.


  • ahollis and benbess like this
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#4 of 22 RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter

  • 2,222 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted December 19 2013 - 08:35 AM

I'm remember seeing this projected in 70mm. Most of the movie was filmed using an ARRI765 65mm camera. A VistaVision camera for the helicopter shots and a Bell & Howell 35mm EYMO's with anamorphic lenses for some of the  scenes in the "land race".


  • benbess likes this

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#5 of 22 benbess

benbess

    Screenwriter

  • 1,822 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2009

Posted December 19 2013 - 10:05 AM

A very good film, imho. I think it might be my favorite out of all the movies that Ron Howard has done. But I haven't seen it in a very, very long time. I did see it at the opening in 70 mm, I thought it looked great.



#6 of 22 Ethan Riley

Ethan Riley

    Producer

  • 3,350 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2005

Posted December 19 2013 - 10:19 AM

Wasn't there a longer cut made for television?
 

 


#7 of 22 Escapay

Escapay

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 238 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2008
  • Real Name:Albert Gutierrez
  • LocationSomewhere in Time and Space

Posted December 19 2013 - 04:33 PM

Wasn't there a longer cut made for television?

Yes.  I still have it on VHS somewhere.  It was a two-night affair, which made me think it was a television miniseries, as I was 9 at the time.  I can't remember much of what was added, and unfortunately, I can't check, as the VHS is at my parents' home out-of-state.



#8 of 22 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,169 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted December 19 2013 - 08:11 PM

If they don't scan a 65mm element for this, it will be a travesty.

The currently available HD downloads are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio which would indicate that they were sourced from 35mm elements. I too am hoping that the Blu-ray will be scanned from 65/70mm elements in 2.20:1 AR.

 

2014 is looking to be another great year for catalog Blu-ray releases!



#9 of 22 ahollis

ahollis

    Producer

  • 5,594 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted December 19 2013 - 10:27 PM

Any information on if they are using the 65mm? I remember a Showwest Convention when Universal pushed this film. I still have a picture somewhere of Ron Howard, Tom Cruise, the lovely Nicole Kidman and myself from this event. Was more excited being in a pic with Ron Howard than the others at the time. And still am. Still it's a lovely film and if the reviews are good it will be a buy. Just don't Universal on their transfers.

#10 of 22 lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,126 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted December 20 2013 - 11:50 AM

Saw this theatrically in March of 1992 in full 70mm splendor...hope they did a 4k scan from the original camera negative as this movie's visual scope and craftsmanship deserves it!!!


  • ahollis likes this

#11 of 22 DP 70

DP 70

    Second Unit

  • 363 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2011

Posted December 21 2013 - 06:31 AM

I hope they include the Long 70mm trailer which shows Ron H talking about and showing 65mm.

I bet this ends up like Hamlet in 2.35:1.

#12 of 22 trajan

trajan

    Supporting Actor

  • 654 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2009

Posted December 21 2013 - 10:36 AM

Any information on if they are using the 65mm? I remember a Showwest Convention when Universal pushed this film. I still have a picture somewhere of Ron Howard, Tom Cruise, the lovely Nicole Kidman and myself from this event. Was more excited being in a pic with Ron Howard than the others at the time. And still am. Still it's a lovely film and if the reviews are good it will be a buy. Just don't Universal on their transfers.

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste  of the 65mm format.


  • Mark B likes this

#13 of 22 schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 13,157 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted December 21 2013 - 10:48 AM

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste of the 65mm format.


I'm glad somebody else said this sucked first.
  • Mark B likes this

#14 of 22 Paul Rossen

Paul Rossen

    Second Unit

  • 457 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2004

Posted December 21 2013 - 11:19 AM

There is no way they are going to use 65mm elements . They did'nt use them with AIRPORT. In addition, the film is not very good anyway and I believe did not make all that much money. A waste  of the 65mm format.

Waste of the 65mm format?  The cinematography in 70mm was quite good.  Most of the 70mm 'epics' were not so good either. Too numerous to list, LOA, WSS, MFL excepted.



#15 of 22 john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor

  • 596 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted December 21 2013 - 02:10 PM

Waste of the 65mm format?  The cinematography in 70mm was quite good.  Most of the 70mm 'epics' were not so good either. Too numerous to list, LOA, WSS, MFL excepted.

When compared to say, Ryan's Daughter, which exploited the format whatever you think of the film, it was a wasted opportunity to revive 70mm.There were also lots of problems with projection  where many theatre's had not updated their lenses from the 50's/60's and were unable to take advantage of the increased resolution of film stock and optics that had taken place in the intervening years. To most, it didn't look any better than a good 35mm presentation.



#16 of 22 Paul Rossen

Paul Rossen

    Second Unit

  • 457 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2004

Posted December 21 2013 - 09:13 PM

When compared to say, Ryan's Daughter, which exploited the format whatever you think of the film, it was a wasted opportunity to revive 70mm.There were also lots of problems with projection  where many theatre's had not updated their lenses from the 50's/60's and were unable to take advantage of the increased resolution of film stock and optics that had taken place in the intervening years. To most, it didn't look any better than a good 35mm presentation.

I saw Far&Away at the same theatre that played Ryan's Daughter.   F&A looked fine to me in 70mm.  As did Ryan's Daughter.  As  stated there were many, many 70mm films that were not only a waste of the 70mm format but a waste of time.  I don't agree that F&A wasn't worth it.  Unfortunately, it didn't become the hit many had hoped but it was still a good effort.



#17 of 22 DP 70

DP 70

    Second Unit

  • 363 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2011

Posted December 22 2013 - 02:41 AM

I think Ryans Daughter was the last film to make use of 65mm to it best. Hamlet I think was a waste of 65mm
format, Titanic looked excellent from the 35mm blow up.

At Bradford the 70mm on the curve looks really good on the curve screen, they use an Original D-150 lens which
is still ok. When they show 70mm 1.85 like Aliens they do not use the std 70mm lens for the flat screen they
use a different lens to get a big picture and it looks great.

When they projected Khartoum a few years ago they used an original Ultra Panavision and one side was slighty
soft due to the lens being foggy.

I have have seen lots of 70mm prints over the years one of the best being Hello Dolly at this years Bradford WSW

in 70mm DTS on the Cinerama screen it looked and sounded fantastic.

#18 of 22 john a hunter

john a hunter

    Supporting Actor

  • 596 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2005

Posted December 22 2013 - 12:01 PM

I saw Far&Away at the same theatre that played Ryan's Daughter.   F&A looked fine to me in 70mm.  As did Ryan's Daughter.  As  stated there were many, many 70mm films that were not only a waste of the 70mm format but a waste of time.  I don't agree that F&A wasn't worth it.  Unfortunately, it didn't become the hit many had hoped but it was still a good effort.

Then you were lucky. Many weren't as here in Sydney, it was shown in a relatively small theatre  that had trouble holding focus. Howard apparently here for the opening thought the presentation good. I and many did not. Projection problems plagued the release perhaps because the format had  not been used for so long  and many theatres  were using old equipment. F&A turned out to be a wasted opportunity which only did so so  and no where near as expected. Result : no more 70mm.



#19 of 22 DP 70

DP 70

    Second Unit

  • 363 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2011

Posted December 23 2013 - 12:52 AM

The last 70mm shown in Londons West End was The Master , when I walked in the foyer there was a notice that the reel 1 was scratched and

you could have your money back if this put you off.

 

The cert was even shown from a digital projector.



#20 of 22 Terry Watson

Terry Watson

    Auditioning

  • 10 posts
  • Join Date: May 04 2006

Posted January 02 2014 - 07:04 PM

Then you were lucky. Many weren't as here in Sydney, it was shown in a relatively small theatre that had trouble holding focus. Howard apparently here for the opening thought the presentation good. I and many did not. Projection problems plagued the release perhaps because the format had not been used for so long and many theatres were using old equipment. F&A turned out to be a wasted opportunity which only did so so and no where near as expected. Result : no more 70mm.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Universal

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users