Search results

Yes. Indeed, I've seen terrible looking transfers that look quite decent in a screenshot as well as good transfers that look less than stellar in a screenshot. We're watching motion pictures not screenshots and it's the moving image that's to be trusted.

I take exception to that. I am not nice! I'm wicked! :emoji_smiling_imp:

All this Summertime talk makes me wish someone would take a chance on a film version of Do I Hear A Waltz? with songs by Richard Rodgers (music) and Stephen Sondheim (lyrics), a musical version of Summertime.

Ginger is due to be replaced in a couple days by another actress. She has bangs too but they look more natural and not so artificial.

But they are, Noel, they are! :D

The first time I ever saw Gone With The Wind was in 1967 when the 1.37 film was reformatted for a 70 millimeter blow up for roadshow engagements. The movie was a hit all over again but boy, did it look hideous. Fortunately, no one attempted to release that version in any physical media format.

I can't help but be reminded of another 1955 film in a similar situation. For years, the Oscar winning Marty was released in the Academy ratio on physical media as well as TV showings instead of wide screen with the same argument of that's how it's supposed to be seen. KL's July 19th release of...

Pure speculation without any documentation about Lean's mindset. In 1955, several "intimate" loves stories were released (like Summertime) in wide screen including The End Of The Affair, All That Heaven Allows and Love Is A Many Splendored Thing. In 1970, Lean himself took an intimate love story...

"Our production team believes that 1,37:1 is the best way to present this film". Wow! In other words, We don't give a rat's arse what the intended theatrical ratio is. We think it looks better in the Academy ratio! So there! Arrogance, indeed! What next? Jettisoning Max Steiner's score to King...

You forgot Cyrano De Bergerac, Quintus Arrius and Lucas Cross! And the answer is still no. Maybe if they'd cast June Allyson as Lawrence's mother :D

Yes, I did. A Freudian slip as alas, I'm not a fan of the film. I don't hate it by any means and I can see what others admire and why they think highly of it. I can appreciate it without fully embracing it.

re: it being (allegedly) Lean's preference. Why would a film maker intentionally compose a film for 1.37 when he knew it would never be seen that way theatrically. Film makers are very much concerned of how their film would look when projected in theatres and for Lean to ignore that seems...

So what could Criterion's justification for the 1.37 be? They were the pioneers of assuring films were shown in their correct aspect ratio during the laser disc era. I suppose the discs are already authored and it's too late to correct this but who knows .....

And about time! Still, I'm disappointed in the 1.37 aspect ratio. Surely in 1955, it would have been 1.66 at least.