Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Jack Theakston]

I'm not sure I understand what the disconnect is here. The studios had a problem, resolved it, and documented it.

The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb), and some people are doing mental gymnastics to justify it.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm not sure I understand what the disconnect is here. The studios had a problem, resolved it, and documented it.

The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb), and some people are doing mental gymnastics to justify it.

Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

The film is protected for the bottom of the frame in many instances, while centered in others.

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd. From the bottom, same situation. In many long shots, the top of the frame is wide open, which tells us it was meant to be the cropped area if run at 1.33. But do that, and the titles are off balance.

I’m still interested in your thoughts shot to shot comparing ratios, based upon fully centered 1.33 vs 1.19.

As an aside, I doubt that anyone at WB uses IMDb as the end reference for aspect ratios. From my experience they are far more likely to follow Mr. Feiner’s advice and allow the film to guide them. Not corporate memos. And not a website.

 

[Will Krupp]

The underlying problem is that someone at WB was misinformed (probably by IMDb)

Pardon me for saying so, but if the Warner team is relying on IMDb for their technical information then we should all just give up. I can't actually believe that's true, however, lol.

I will say (to save you the trouble) that this is just a layman's perspective, but I would hope they wouldn't need to do that.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see Mr. Harris' response before posting.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

The film is protected for the bottom of the frame in many instances, while centered in others.

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd. From the bottom, same situation. In many long shots, the top of the frame is wide open, which tells us it was meant to be the cropped area if run at 1.33. But do that, and the titles are off balance.

I’m still interested in your thoughts shot to shot comparing ratios, based upon fully centered 1.33 vs 1.19.

As an aside, I doubt that anyone at WB uses IMDb as the end reference for aspect ratios. From my experience they are far more likely to follow Mr. Feiner’s advice and allow the film to guide them. Not corporate memos. And not a website.

We are talking about subjectivity versus objectivity at this point. We're not talking about random memoranda in a dusty corner of a studio vault. We're talking about forgotten history that was widely reported and accepted at the time.

Some people love watching open matte 1.85 films. They're wrong too.

 

[Robert Harris]

We are talking about subjectivity versus objectivity at this point. We're not talking about random memoranda in a dusty corner of a studio vault. We're talking about forgotten history that was widely reported and accepted at the time.

Some people love watching open matte 1.85 films. They're wrong too.

Please don’t get metaphysical.

Have you actually watched the film and seen the potential problems of running 1.33 centered?

 

[Robert Harris]

What theaters were doing is immaterial.

What the studios did was pertinent and explained in the article. Paramount was never shooting for Movietone even before the mandate and did NOT protect for that ratio as I've already said.

If studio execs and tech people weren‘t protecting for a ratio they KNEW would be used outside of their direct control I would hope they’re no longer in their positions.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I’ve read, and I’ve heard. Studios are run by people.

That's a dirty, filthy lie!

 

[Robert Saccone]

I’ve only seen stills from this version in some of the classic monster movie books I have. I am so looking forward to getting my hands on this disc. Maybe I will make a set of mats so I can view it both ways

Sorry couldn’t resist.

 

[aPhil]

Sorry, but the studios didn‘t resolve the problem except in memos.

Have you viewed the new disc, and compared 1.19 vs 1.33, and how each plays from shot to shot?

If one were to do a 1.33 extraction from the center, some shots would look odd.

I do not know much about the 1.19 early sound frame.

My question:

Was the 1.19 area the entire frame with the entire recorded image ?
or
Was the frame still 1.33 and the camera operator framed for the 1.19 area ?

I simply don't know.

 

[Robert Harris]

I do not know much about the 1.19 early sound frame.

My question:

Was the 1.19 area the entire frame with the entire recorded image ?
or
Was the frame still 1.33 and the camera operator framed for the 1.19 area ?

I simply don't know.

The actual picture area was probably full silent 1.33:1, which is S35. The viewfinder would have been marked for
either 1.19 or a 1.33 with different parallax, or both, ignoring the area that would be covered by the optical track.

 

[RobertMG]

The actual picture area was probably full silent 1.33:1, which is S35. The viewfinder would have been marked for
either 1.19 or a 1.33 with different parallax, or both, ignoring the area that would be covered by the optical track.

What a tough crowd! But I fully expect Mr F and team know every inch of these films have access to files letter documents -- bravo to them bravo to RAH for his explaining history - but from what I hear here WAC pulled off another miracle on this disc!

 

[B-ROLL]

I’ve only seen stills from this version in some of the classic monster movie books I have. I am so looking forward to getting my hands on this disc. Maybe I will make a set of mats so I can view it both ways

Sorry couldn’t resist.

Mats ... now you've crossed the lion !

I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.

I'm sure Dr J.(& Mr H) was projected @ 1:19,1:33, and 1:37 and at 10, 2 and 4

... But what was it meant to be shown at?

This might be the perfect time how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (assuming the pin is registered -- at Bonwits 'natch)? I'm asking for a friend ?

 

[Robert Harris]

Mats ... now you've crossed the lion !
View attachment 156968
I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.

I'm sure Dr J.(& Mr H) was projected @ 1:19,1:33, and 1:37 and at 10, 2 and 4 View attachment 156963 ... But what was it meant to be shown at?

This might be the perfect time how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (assuming the pin is registered -- at Bonwits 'natch)? I'm asking for a friend ?

The reality is that in 1931, especially in larger venues, the film would have been projected as an inverted trapezoid, then matted to appear more akin to a rectangle.

What we’re seeing in this disc is probably the most accurate the film has looked - including at its premiere in 1931.

 

[Mark-P]

I can assure you I've seen improper framing of films including a version of LoA on GET-TV that in the tent scene all you saw was the tip Obi Wan's nose & the tip of Dumbledore's nose and tent in between the two (that's all I watched). I'm sure that's not how Mr. Lean intended for it to be shown.

I know there have been three different actors who have played Dumbledore, but pray tell, which one of them was in Lawrence of Arabia?

 

[Gerani53]

All I can say is, I'm one happy classic movie collector this Halloween season. The amazing new version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE Mr. Harris has been describing, along with an OCN release of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE? Wow. Add to that a Technicolor three-negative recombine for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '43, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON scanned from the original negative. I mean, screw the bank account... this stuff is irresistible!

 

[B-ROLL]

I know there have been three different actors who have played Dumbledore, but pray tell, which one of them was in Lawrence of Arabia?

None -- but who could tell there was only the tip of his nose !

 

[RobertMG]

All I can say is, I'm one happy classic movie collector this Halloween season. The amazing new version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE Mr. Harris has been describing, along with an OCN release of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE? Wow. Add to that a Technicolor three-negative recombine for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA '43, and CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON scanned from the original negative. I mean, screw the bank account... this stuff is irresistible!

Got rave reviews from the NY Times ---- unusual for a Horror film Compared to this

JAMES WHALE AND "FRANKENSTEIN"; Mr. Clive's Tenacity. Not for Children.​

 

[jbirdp]

Boys, boys! You’re killing’ my buzz with all this bickering about aspect ratios!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Boys, boys! You’re killing’ my buzz with all this bickering about aspect ratios!

Not me brother, as all this bickering is above my pay grade.

 

[Robert Harris]

Not me brother, as all this bickering is above my pay grade.

You’re in a better place.