TT doesn't have that kind of money, John Doe. And botched is a word I would sincerely use to describe a lot of the Fox product being pumped through Kino Lorber - NOT Moby Dick! In a perfect world we might all hope for millions to be spent on single deep catalog titles, but give your head a shake and let reality set in for just a moment or two. TT is a third party licencee and distributor. The 'MGM' situation Robert Harris spoke about earlier should have been your first clue where to lay your blame and disgust. Poor management at a bankrupted studio and bad asset management over the generations have conspired against Moby Dick.
Nothing more or else. Given the odds against the film, and the considerable - if not perfect - digital tinkering applied to ease and/or counteract these setbacks, it is a small wonder we have Moby Dick at all and in a manner that will, if not win any awards, then, essentially retard some of the ravages of time and mask the limited ability of MGM to do right by their deep catalog. They've done their best.
You may still see it as 'half-hearted' (I was going to use another word here). In point of fact, it's a little bit of both, but leaning far more toward the acceptable spectrum of digital clean-ups. I could wish for more or better. Realistically, I am satisfied - marginally - to see some work was done, particularly when I see a good many movies merely slapped to disc with ZERO attention paid to them. Moby Dick isn't a disaster. It's not even a middling effort. It's a valiant attempt to do what can be done with limited resources; the juggling act yielding far better than anticipated results. That consideration at all or of any kind was given to Moby Dick is a miracle; especially since we are talking about MGM; the studio that 'botched' the Blu-ray release of Marty (1955) - one of their best movies yet to receive a better than dreck transfer!
Nothing more or else. Given the odds against the film, and the considerable - if not perfect - digital tinkering applied to ease and/or counteract these setbacks, it is a small wonder we have Moby Dick at all and in a manner that will, if not win any awards, then, essentially retard some of the ravages of time and mask the limited ability of MGM to do right by their deep catalog. They've done their best.
You may still see it as 'half-hearted' (I was going to use another word here). In point of fact, it's a little bit of both, but leaning far more toward the acceptable spectrum of digital clean-ups. I could wish for more or better. Realistically, I am satisfied - marginally - to see some work was done, particularly when I see a good many movies merely slapped to disc with ZERO attention paid to them. Moby Dick isn't a disaster. It's not even a middling effort. It's a valiant attempt to do what can be done with limited resources; the juggling act yielding far better than anticipated results. That consideration at all or of any kind was given to Moby Dick is a miracle; especially since we are talking about MGM; the studio that 'botched' the Blu-ray release of Marty (1955) - one of their best movies yet to receive a better than dreck transfer!
