UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Casablanca -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[sbjork]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly here. You didn't get the 4K Lawrence release because of the cover art, but you DID buy 4K 2001 and may never watch it??? Huh????

 

[RobertMG]

For the record, SteelBooks added about $4 to production costs last time I checked. Not an insignificant amount.

Mr H do you think the MOMA FGM is what was used?
As with all studio productions during the glory days of the great Hollywood studios, when a picture was completed, the original camera negative (the film in the camera at the time of the on-set shooting) was “protected” by making two fine-grain master (master positive) copies. In this case, Casablanca was made during the nitrate film era, and each fine-grain master (FGM) was deposited in the dedicated Warner Bros. film labs on the East and West coasts. The vintage 35mm FGM held in West Coast storage currently resides at the UCLA Film and Television Archive, but now only three reels exist due to nitrate decomposition. The best, earliest surviving and complete material for this iconic film is the 35mm nitrate FGM in the MoMA Department of Film collection.

The MoMA FGM of Casablanca was produced 70 years ago on 1942 Kodak nitrate film stock and printed from the original negatives, with the exception of an inserted tail section of reel #5, which reflects inferior 1950s footage. (There is a slight bouncing motion in the image that was printed in from this mid-century source material.) But overall, the MoMA FGM is a luminous vision of the black-and-white feature and truly the closest material to the original that was shot when Bogart and Bergman walked on the set.

 

[uncledougie]

“…You didn't get the 4K Lawrence release because of the cover art, but you DID buy 4K 2001 and may never watch it??? Huh????”
I guess this discussion evolved (devolved?) from criticism of the Casablanca slipcover and case cover art, which are the same (who says they have to be?), and while rather appealing with a silver and blue color scheme, was created with a shot of Bogart that looks unlike he appears in the film (possibly circa late 30s). I’ve seen lots of newly created DVD and Blu-ray artwork that looks rather abysmal, so I wouldn’t put this rendering in that category by any means. Maybe since earlier DVD releases had covers more in line with original poster and advertising art, Warner just wanted to differentiate the UHD release. But I’ve never considered not buying any release because of what cover art was used. As far as watching the films, hardly any experience is going to approach replicating seeing it in an actual theater setting (I guess unless you live in a mansion with a true home theater projection, and even then unless you gather dozens of your closest friends and relatives, the feeling of shared experience isn’t going to be the same). The upside is we can put together the best system we as aficionados of film can muster, control the environment in which we view the films (not too hot, not drafty, no other patrons loudly munching popcorn or slurping Coke, or worse yet using their cellphones or gabbing about the latest political cataclysms that befall nation and world). We can pause for a restroom interruption without missing one second of the movie (regarding which I would burst before allowing that to happen in my many decades of moviegoing) or having to concern ourselves with babysitters or pet sitters for that matter. I agree that the steelbook artwork for Lawrence of Arabia was rather odd, but these redesigned disc covers I remind myself are giving someone employment to utilize their artistic creativity, and fortunately don’t affect the real reason we acquired the copy in the first place: that it’s something we like (or love), or associate with a time or place in our lives that is meaningful, or is in some other way edifying and fulfilling.

 

[roxy1927]

Saved by a bad cover.
Never got the Criterion Rules of the Game because I hated the cover so much. The heavy heavy hand on the wrong note. Now I see a 4k print will be released probably to theaters first. With artwork far superior to the travesty of the Criterion cover. Almost like players in a play like you might have seen as the artwork outside a first run theater of the period. Whoever designed this hit a bullseye.

 

[Garysb]

The 4K version is part of a 2 for $32 sale at GRUV and is currently listed as their top seller. It makes me feel good that this film still sells so well.

 

[Garysb]

Now $16.99 at Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, and GRUV. About $13.60 at GRUV if you can get coupon to work. All seem to be matching Best Buy. GRUV also includes it on their ebay site as part of their buy 2 or more 4K discs get 20% off.

See on Amazon

 

[Garysb]

Inside 'Casablanca's 80th Anniversary Restoration: 'The Difference Is Nothing Short of Miraculous' (Exclusive) | A.frame

Colorist Sheri Eisenberg discusses the Oscar-winning classic's update to 4K UHD.

aframe.oscars.org

 

[Robin9]

Inside 'Casablanca's 80th Anniversary Restoration: 'The Difference Is Nothing Short of Miraculous' (Exclusive) | A.frame

Colorist Sheri Eisenberg discusses the Oscar-winning classic's update to 4K UHD.

aframe.oscars.org

Thanks for that link. Going off topic for a moment - and apologies in advance to the moderators - one of my Blu-ray disc regrets is that Gilda does not have the glossy sheen that I once saw in a theater. It seems that I'm not alone in wanting that. I'm now much more interested in this 4K presentation of Casablanca than I was.