A Few Words About A few words about...™ Once Upon a Time in America - Extended Director's Cut -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[davidmatychuk]

...or my brain is working too slowly - actually I was released 1958

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Now that you meantion it, I noticed early on that I seemed to have an uncanny liking for films released in 1955, as I was. I first noticed it back in the Sixties with the two James Deans, "Mister Roberts", "The Night Of The Hunter", and "We're No Angels". There's lots more since that give me that odd little thrill when I find out that they're the same age as me. Obviously, it was something that at first I just noticed about a few films I liked. I've never seen something and had a "That MUST have been made in 1955!" reaction or anything. But I'm wondering: has anyone else out there ever felt that way about movies that share their own release years? Or to bring it back to the movie in question: are there any people turning 30 in 2014 who have any similar feelings about "Once Upon A Time In America"?[/SIZE]

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Another issue with the new (and old) BD is Warner's refusal to put a film this long on 2 discs, instead of cramming it all on one. The bit rate is 15 Mbit/s average and that is far from optimal. Given the new transfer is 4K I'm tempted to wait for the 4K BD even if the colours should be correct. I want a healthy bit rate and properly resolved fine detail.

 

[Worth]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Or to bring it back to the movie in question: are there any people turning 20 in 2014 who have any similar feelings about "Once Upon A Time In America"?[/SIZE]

They'd be turning 30.

 

[Eastmancolor]

It's odd that the extra footage would have had any fade issues. By 1984 the industry would have been using lowfade LPP print stock, which should look as good today as it did then. LPP has a shelf life of over 50 years stored at room temperature. I have LPP prints in my collection that are that old and they are still gorgeous.

If the extra footage was printed on Fuji, then there's the possibility of a problem. Fuji didn't go officially into lowfade stocks until 1984 and since ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA was a 1984 release, the work print could have been on 1983 stock which is prone to fading.

I haven't seen the new disc yet, but the screen shots of the extended scenes were posted at another site and they look pretty bleak.

I'm glad at least the DCP appears to have had a bit more care, so going forward theatrical screenings of the film will look nice.

 

[haineshisway]

It's odd that the extra footage would have had any fade issues. By 1984 the industry would have been using lowfade LPP print stock, which should look as good today as it did then. LPP has a shelf life of over 50 years stored at room temperature. I have LPP prints in my collection that are that old and they are still gorgeous.

If the extra footage was printed on Fuji, then there's the possibility of a problem. Fuji didn't go officially into lowfade stocks until 1984 and since ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA was a 1984 release, the work print could have been on 1983 stock which is prone to fading.

I haven't seen the new disc yet, but the screen shots of the extended scenes were posted at another site and they look pretty bleak.

I'm glad at least the DCP appears to have had a bit more care, so going forward theatrical screenings of the film will look nice.

The additional scenes, as far as I can tell, are from a work print - I doubt that would have been LPP.

 

[Vincent_P]

Given the dupey quality of the additional scenes, I'd wager they're not even original workprint, but probably a dupe of the workprint made for temp sound mixing purposes. Workprint shouldn't look dupey, since it would be contact printed direct from the original negative, fading or no fading.

Vincent

 

[davidmatychuk]

They'd be turning 30.

I used to be good at math! I edited my post, miserable.

 

[Robert Harris]

Given the dupey quality of the additional scenes, I'd wager they're not even original workprint, but probably a dupe of the workprint made for temp sound mixing purposes. Workprint shouldn't look dupey, since it would be contact printed direct from the original negative, fading or no fading.

Vincent

Brilliant minds think alike...

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

The additional scenes, as far as I can tell, are from a work print - I doubt that would have been LPP.

Very possible. LPP was available for mils more. SP, which preceded it, turned out to be Kodak's folly.

RAH

 

[Patrick Donahue]

Amazon dropped the non deluxe edition down to $13. Tempted to pick it up at that price to at least see the new footage.

 

[Vic Pardo]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Now that you meantion it, I noticed early on that I seemed to have an uncanny liking for films released in 1955, as I was. I first noticed it back in the Sixties with the two James Deans, "Mister Roberts", "The Night Of The Hunter", and "We're No Angels". There's lots more since that give me that odd little thrill when I find out that they're the same age as me. Obviously, it was something that at first I just noticed about a few films I liked. I've never seen something and had a "That MUST have been made in 1955!" reaction or anything. But I'm wondering: has anyone else out there ever felt that way about movies that share their own release years? Or to bring it back to the movie in question: are there any people turning 30 in 2014 who have any similar feelings about "Once Upon A Time In America"?[/SIZE]

I once did a breakdown of movies I've seen by year of release and the three years with the greatest number of films were: the year I was born, the year I turned 14 and the year I turned 19. The latter two years had a higher number because of all the Hong Kong films from those years that I've seen, mostly many years later, while I haven't seen any HK films from the year I was born. In terms of Hollywood films, my birth year definitely trumps all other years. I'm curious if others have gravitated to films from the year they were born. Fascinating question, David.

(P.S. And I actually have a list of films from my birth year that I haven't yet seen that I'd like to see before I die and the number is: 73!)

 

[Peter Neski]

There is simply no reason for this set ,the extended version is only worth watching for those extra scenes ,the rest makes the earlier BR look good
and wouldn't look good even on a 4k Blue Ray!! could that book be any thinner? or the extras any shorter ? the cover art and menu design tell you all you need to know

 

[Eastmancolor]

The additional scenes, as far as I can tell, are from a work print - I doubt that would have been LPP.

I made a film in 1984 and the work print was LPP. Kodak stopped making the old fading print stock in 1982, so it didn't matter what sort of print you got after that, work print or show print, if it was on Kodak stock, it was lowfade.

So I would assume the work print (or whatever this extended footage sourced from) wasn't on Kodak stock.

 

[haineshisway]

Got my copy today, but apparently I ordered the wrong thing - this ONLY has the extended cut and NOT the older transfer. Why do they do this crap? One set would have been fine. So, I'd love it if someone could confirm in an absolute that the 229 minute version is exactly the same as the previous Blu-ray and has not been authored anew.

 

[Dave H]

What's funny about all of this (well, really it's not) is I've read several reviews of the Blu-ray at other sites and some reviewers are assuming the color timing on the extended version is what Leone preferred.

 

[haineshisway]

What's funny about all of this (well, really it's not) is I've read several reviews of the Blu-ray at other sites and some reviewers are assuming the color timing on the extended version is what Leone preferred.

Those people are idiots, sorry. What Mr. Leone preferred was the timed prints of the long version that were released to theaters, one of which I owned. That color is perfectly represented on the previous US Blu-ray.

But I've now done comparisons of everything except the 229-minute version included in the two-disc set just released - I had no idea I was ordering some other disc with just the extended cut. Blechhh. I now have the two-disc version on its way and I'll know if the 229-minute version is exactly the same as the previous Blu in terms of authoring. So, what did I find?

The new extended Blu is NOT the same as the horrid Eyetalian Blu-ray, thank the Lord. Gone is the milky contrast and almost completely drained color. So, that's the good news. The bad news is the color is still not what it should be - better, yes, and certainly nothing like the travesty of the Italian thing, but too brown with no real color definition. Yes, there are three distinct looks to this film, but they are not as distinct as they should be thanks to this not being correct. This is most evident (well, it's evident everywhere, really, including the Ladd Company logo) in the scene at the mausoleum - skies should be blue there ("modern" look) and they are anything BUT blue and the skin tones are just completely off. Ladd Company tree should be really green and it's paler than necessary. But the apple when De Niro comes back to NY IS redder in this extended cut and the color IS better than the Italian. I then skimmed through the older Blu.

The older Blu's color is perfect. Period. The three distinct looks to the film are distinct and as they should be. If you watch the scene with Noodles and Deborah with the apples it is most apparent. In the new extended transfer there is literally almost no color in the scene. In the older correct Blu, the apples are very distinct from each other, the green of the plants is GREEN not a pale shadow of green, and the lighting and distinct and varied colors are just what they should be and were. In fact, I'm really not sure WHY the older Blu gets such a bad rap because it in fact looks just like a release print would have. Of course there is more detail in the new transfer, but detail like that was never seen in a release print of this film. So, if you want the experience of viewing this film as it was presented, the older Blu is the way to go (I'm still curious to know if that version in the new set has been reauthored or if it's the same - I'm fine either way). Those who complained that the older version should have been split over two discs will have the same complaint here because the extended version is on one disc and even longer. But it's nonsense, of course, because it's a BD 50, which easily holds that much running time. There's plenty of detail in the older transfer, BTW, just not as much as in the new extended transfer. But I will take perfect color any day of the week and I know I'm not in the majority about that, which is too bad since people get so up in arms about bit rates and lossless vs. lossy and all that stuff. Color doesn't seem to matter.

Finally, the new footage looks a tiny bit better than the Italian Blu but not so you would notice, especially in that horrible scene with Louise Fletcher at the mausoleum, which is the worst of it and which would have Mr. Leone and Mr. Delli Colli turning over in their graves. It should NEVER have been included and, in fact, I would have included none of it as the 229 was what Mr. Leone preferred back in the day. He made his edit and that was it. These other scenes were cut for a reason and he was only going to reinstate them for a TV miniseries thing in Italy - but I can guarantee you he would NOT have even done that if the quality was like this. Mr. Scorsese and everyone else should be ashamed of themselves for inserting these sub-standard sequences into a finished film and then trying to drain color so they seem not as bad as they are (if these were inserted into the previous Blu transfer they would stick out even more).

Bottom line: Better than the Italian, but still not right. Stick with the 229-minute version, which looks pretty damn good and has the correct color, that is presuming the 229-minute version uses the previous transfer as its basis.

 

[EddieLarkin]

For anyone wondering, Bruce isn't merely assuming that the 229 minute version is Leone's preferred version. Leone is on record:

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

 

[Felix Martinez]

Thanks for the comments, Bruce. I'm with you on the color of the old blu-ray.

I think that all around the old blu-ray looks very good up until about the middle of the film,

Spoiler

when the gang double crosses Joe

. At that point, thru the end credits, the image appears a bit more filtered, and if I recall correctly, the bitrate drops, compared to the first half.

I always thought that perhaps this was the layer change, and so that the special featues could share the space of the second layer of the single disc along with part 2 of the film, an authoring/compression decision was made to free up some real estate.

In any case, I wonder if the theatrical long version - as included in the new 2 disc set - is in fact the same old blu-ray, or a re-encode of the same transfer?

I suspect the former but would be pleasantly surprised if it's the latter and an improvement.

 

[Robert Harris]

I made a film in 1984 and the work print was LPP. Kodak stopped making the old fading print stock in 1982, so it didn't matter what sort of print you got after that, work print or show print, if it was on Kodak stock, it was lowfade. So I would assume the work print (or whatever this extended footage sourced from) wasn't on Kodak stock.

Work picture could be anything, including a dupe neg from a daily print, or possibly something struck via reversal. We have no idea what the purpose of the new scenes was in the editorial landscape. Could have been used to cut misc audio, where image quality would be of little import.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Well, if the new scenes have faded color, one wonders whether the color changes to the rest of the film are so they would match those more closely. Not having seen the film in any length (and I imagine the extra-short US theatrical version Roger Ebert called "a travesty" will never be seen again) I honestly thought that's what he was talking about.

I had the misfortune of seeing that version in 1984. The saving grace is that I didn't pay to see it. It was the grand opening of a new theater in Colorado and they let people in for free.

I loved the look of the film and there were some great scenes, but the cuts made the plot indecipherable.