A Few Words About A few words about...™ Spartacus (Take 2) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[turtledove]

I doubt that. There's always been and always will be who sit there saying how the new movies, music, TV shows, books, comics, whatever are bad but in the past, everything was good. It's just human nature.

I was around then too and things of the past often can be better but its certainly not always the case.

The 3 films mentioned were always good from when they were made and through today. Nobody would have said that older films were better because they weren't.

There came a point when the technology reached a level that movies ( and recorded music) moved on so far from what had gone before that they stand up to this day. Movies from the 30's and 40's generally don't.


The only reason people will say it today is because as primitive as some of the effects in Guns of Navarone and Lost Ark were compared to today they still looked better than the fake obviously CGI that we see today. Real constructed sets and models look real - albeit not as sophisticated as CGI but the fact you can tell the rolling ball in Raiders is real makes it much more effective than a similar CGI version would look today


Similarly for Journey to the Centre of the Earth- the real sets and models in the 1959 version more than make up for the fake creatures and back projection whereas the remake is one fake CGI scene after another - and it looks it.

In 3D I enjoy the remake but in 2D I find the original far more thrilling


I collect old tv shows from the 50's to the 80's but I wouldn't say for a second that there's ever been a tv show to match 24 for sheer thrills and while I can switch to 1960's mode when watching old shows in order to give them some leeway I wouldn't try and say something from the 1960's matches tv today.

But thank heavens for cable and the fragmentation of the network tv audience

 

[Robin9]

I doubt that. There's always been and always will be who sit there saying how the new movies, music, TV shows, books, comics, whatever are bad but in the past, everything was good. It's just human nature.

On any subject under the sun, there is a handful of cranks and eccentrics who will hold a perverse opinion. On that basis I suppose there were one or two people with their heads in the sand who insisted that things were better in their day. But that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about the consensus, the general opinion of the general public; and that general public in 1961 recognised that The Guns Of Navarone in widescreen and Technicolor, and with a rather sour view of war, was different and better than gung ho war films made during the 1940s.


It should be remembered that when it first came out The Guns Of Navarone looked far better than it does today on blu-ray disc. It should also be borne it mind that the weaknesses of the film - "speechifying author's messages", plot points that go nowhere, a casual disregard for the value of German life - were not as irritating to filmgoers in the early 1960s as they are today.

 

[JoHud]

It should be remembered that when it first came out The Guns Of Navarone looked far better than it does today on blu-ray disc. It should also be borne it mind that the weaknesses of the film - "speechifying author's messages", plot points that go nowhere, a casual disregard for the value of German life - were not as irritating to filmgoers in the early 1960s as they are today.

I watched it about a year ago and I didn't find those things an issue and enjoyed the film immensely. Then again, I wasn't expecting a flawless masterpiece, but and entertaining, dramatic 60s war flick.


You don't even have to go that for back, these days even 90s movies and early 2000 movies get the same sort of hindsight criticism. That always happens. Movies today still have scripting flaws, ham-handedness that a fair amount of movies had in the old days. Just a new flavor of hackwork and hamminess. And some people prefer the newer flavor or the older flavor.

 

[Alan Tully]

Well I finally watched this & have to echo all the reviews...stunning! After a short while you take the perfect picture for granted & just enjoy the film (I can still remember being taken to see this in 1961 aged 10). Just the one shot, right near the end, of Crassus & Caesar riding into Rome after the final fight between Spartacus & Antoninus which looks a wee bit magenta (one shot in a film over three hours long, how's that for nit-picking!). I look forward to the next special release from Universal.

 

[Cineman]

I was around at the time and I can assure you that people did NOT say that about The Guns Of Navarone.

I'm with you on this. Sure, there will always be the stray contrarian against anything and everything new, as pointed out. But I don't remember nearly enough people to register a significant statistic asserting in those days that the better movies of The Guns of Navarone era or soon afterwards weren't as good as movies of the previous decades. Neither my parents, grandparents nor any of their age group peers sat around after a night out at the movies to see, say, The Guns of Navarone, Spartacus, West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Sound of Music, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, The Lion in Winter, The Godfather, Cabaret, et al, and said, "meh. It was okay. But movies today just aren't as good as they were in the 1930s, 40s and 50s."


I'm not saying everybody agreed movies were better in those days than Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Ben-Hur, or any other individual proven classics. But nobody that I can remember was saying movies hadn't gotten much better overall well into the early 1970s.


I didn't start hearing that kind of thing expressed about "new" movies not being as good as movies of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and, by then, the 60s in a more widespread manner until the late 1970s/early 1980s and beyond. That was when I began to hear my elders repeat such a sentiment. And, frankly, by then I couldn't launch a successful argument that they were wrong.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I'm with you on this. Sure, there will always be the stray contrarian against anything and everything new, as pointed out. But I don't remember nearly enough people to register a significant statistic asserting in those days that the better movies of The Guns of Navarone era or soon afterwards weren't as good as movies of the previous decades. Neither my parents, grandparents nor any of their age group peers sat around after a night out at the movies to see, say, The Guns of Navarone, Spartacus, West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Sound of Music, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, The Lion in Winter, The Godfather, Cabaret, et al, and said, "meh. It was okay. But movies today just aren't as good as they were in the 1930s, 40s and 50s."


I'm not saying everybody agreed movies were better in those days than Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Ben-Hur, or any other individual proven classics. But nobody that I can remember was saying movies hadn't gotten much better overall well into the early 1970s.


I didn't start hearing that kind of thing expressed about "new" movies not being as good as movies of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and, by then, the 60s in a more widespread manner until the late 1970s/early 1980s and beyond. That was when I began to hear my elders repeat such a sentiment. And, frankly, by then I couldn't launch a successful argument that they were wrong.

Boy, I remember many a Sunday afternoon after seeing some bloated overlong sixties movie, listening to my parents, my grandparents and all their friends of that generation bemoan the fact that movies weren't nearly as entertaining as they had been in the 1930s and 1940s. There were wistful comments about how the bill used to change every three days back in "the good old days"; whereas by the 1960s, one movie would monopolize a given theater for months. And way back when one would get a cartoon and a short and a newsreel, or perhaps a double-feature, all for 25 cents. I'd hear complaints about how long and loud movies had become. Where were all those great comedies that Laurel and Hardy and The Marx Brothers used to make? And all those wonderful romantic comedies with "real stars" like Carole Lombard. And I'd listen to complaints about the language and the rampant sex. And this was around 1966, before the production code was a distant memory.


It's only natural for older folks to complain about change of any kind. As I approach sixty, I can relate more and more.

 

[Oblivion138]

That's one of the reasons I get frustrated at all the flame wars about Amazon, based on the premise that we should all just be going to Best Buy, Target, etc.


Amazon is a dream come true for me -- infinite selection on classic catalog titles. When someone tells me they're all about brick and mortar (perhaps mentioning "slipcover" or something), it breaks my heart because I know they're overlooking 99% of the great movie content that is out there.

Indeed. My Prime membership means getting any DVD or BD I want, whenever I want it. Which is more important than ever, with most brick-and-mortar stores barely stocking catalog releases.

 

[turtledove]

It's only natural for older folks to complain about change of any kind.

Only if they lack common sense or can't think for themselves.

I'm 53 and I look back and can see that some things change for the better and some things change for the worse.

Things ALWAYS change , there's no escaping that but it's far from natural to complain about ALL changes.

Not only referring to movies of course

 

[Alan Tully]

I think we tend to like films from a certain age of our lives. For me it's the sixties, my teen years, mind you, that decade had its share of bad movies & most of the films released then have been totally forgotten. I'm thinking that the big difference between then & now is that good cheap films still got a full release then, no chance these days, with multiplexes only showing the big stuff that have cost the studios a fortune. Oh, & films were better then, well I am 65!

 

[cinemiracle]

I'm with you on this. Sure, there will always be the stray contrarian against anything and everything new, as pointed out. But I don't remember nearly enough people to register a significant statistic asserting in those days that the better movies of The Guns of Navarone era or soon afterwards weren't as good as movies of the previous decades. Neither my parents, grandparents nor any of their age group peers sat around after a night out at the movies to see, say, The Guns of Navarone, Spartacus, West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Sound of Music, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, The Lion in Winter, The Godfather, Cabaret, et al, and said, "meh. It was okay. But movies today just aren't as good as they were in the 1930s, 40s and 50s."


I'm not saying everybody agreed movies were better in those days than Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Ben-Hur, or any other individual proven classics. But nobody that I can remember was saying movies hadn't gotten much better overall well into the early 1970s.


I didn't start hearing that kind of thing expressed about "new" movies not being as good as movies of the 1930s, 40s, 50s and, by then, the 60s in a more widespread manner until the late 1970s/early 1980s and beyond. That was when I began to hear my elders repeat such a sentiment. And, frankly, by then I couldn't launch a successful argument that they were wrong.

I never heard anyone in the fifties/sixties, say that movies were not as good as those from past decades. Movies were going through a revolution in the fifties. Cinemascope, 3-D ,Cinerama, Todd-AO, Superscope, Vista-vision ,stereophonic sound,etc. We were too excited about all these new wide screen and other new processes, to even think about movies from past decades.I worked in cinemas from the fifties until the late sixties as did my parents in the forties through to the sixties. I witnessed the installations of Cinemascope, Todd-AO, and Cinerama. We also screened 3-D and Superscope (on a reduced cinemascope screen).The short lived SHOWSCAN was another much loved screen system of mine.Films didn't just run for months but more than a year on numerous occasions. The much loved SOUTH PACIFIC and THE SOUND OF MUSIC each ran for 3 1/2 years at the same cinema in Sydney. In London SOUTH PACIFIC ran for 4 years at the same cinema and THE SOUND OF MUSIC ran for 3 years. Other films such as CABARET, THE GRADUATE,WEST SIDE STORY,CAN-CAN, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA,MY FAIR LADY and the French film A MAN AND A WOMAN, each ran for over a year at the same cinema In Sydney. Even EXODUS ran for a year. TO SIR WITH LOVE ran for over a year at one Perth (Australian) cinema .A world record for this film?The Japanese film ONIBABA ran for over a year at one Canadian cinema.There were many other films that ran over a year at the same cinema. People returned to the cinema again and again to see many of the same films on the huge screens. They were that popular.Most city cinemas had 70mm installations. You could often see half a dozen or more films showing in the city in 70mm ,at the same time. Not all films were great. I hated BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, and THE GUNS OF NAVARONE. They both had very long runs locally. We never complained about all the sex, language and violence. There was none in the fifties.The sixties saw a revolution as far as sex and language went. Finally we were being treated as mature adults rather than children and could see/hear life on film as it really was. So why would we complain? The sex and violence were tame compared with today's films. We often had to protest in the streets (in Sydney) in order to have our out-dated censorship laws overturned. It worked! Would you believe that horror films used to be banned in Australia in the sixties? The theatre also underwent a change in the late sixties with frontal nudity appearing. Who could forget the summer of love in the USA in mid 1967. I was fortunate to be there at the time. We didn't complain about all the sex, language and violence as we had fought for it by protesting in the streets.

 

[Oblivion138]

There's also the fact that as many years and decades have gone by, people tend to remember primarily the films that were the "cream of the crop." I'm sure there were many, many terrible films from bygone years that have simply fallen by the wayside due to a severe lack of interest. And of course, we can see the dregs of any decade just in what's readily available on home video. But nostalgia colors perception and makes it seem like the '40s was a decade simply bursting with Casablancas and Citizen Kanes, when the truth is that these are notable exceptions to what has always been an industry and an artform that is frequently mediocre, often great, and just as often terrible. And many years from now, when people have forgotten all the terrible Adam Sandler movies and Tranformerses, they will look back at the great films of today as if they were the norm, and opine that the quality of entertainment has plummeted in the interim.


I grew up in the 1980s, and during my formative years, spent as much time with Humphrey Bogart as I did with Harrison Ford. I was maybe nine or ten when I first saw The Third Man, and I was riveted. It's a Wonderful Life (a classic that, like many, was not particularly hailed upon its initial release) was as much a part of my childhood as A Christmas Story. To me, great films are timeless. There are eras that I love just for what they brought to the cinema...and sometimes I get nostalgic about noir, or the French New Wave, or the film school revolution that occurred in late '60s & '70s Hollywood. But I won't say that, on the whole, films of any particular era are "better" than films of any other era. There has always been disposable crap, and there always will be. But there has also always been, and will always be, great films, as well.

 

[Cineman]

Spartacus was released the same year as Psycho, The Magnificent Seven, The Apartment, and La Dolce Vita. Those 5 films were among the top 10 biggest box-office hits of the year. Could probably cite a notable 5 more from the top 20 biggest box-office hits of that year. Yes, I realize there was a lot of junk released into theaters in 1960 as well. But does anyone really think there will be anything much worth talking about with regard to theme, character, plot, cinematic methods, and viewer response to any 5 of the top 10 grossing films of 2015 in 55 years? If so, what on earth will there be to talk about? Cinematically, I mean. I know there will be much to talk about with regard to how many millions a particular movie made on its opening weekend or how many billions it made since then. But what about the filmmakers' methods and results with regard to audience response and emotions?


I think you could go back and find 5 of the top box-office hits of just about any year prior to the late 1970s/early 1980s that one could show in a hypothetical "revival" theater of today with an audience of today and see and hear actual audience response to what the filmmakers intended; genuine suspense, fright, laughter, tears, etc. No, not exactly as it was when the movies were initially released probably. But significant amounts. However, you would have a hard time finding so many from subsequent years that would generate much response at all and there would be precious little to talk about in terms of cinema rather than blockbuster box office success.


Just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Alan Tully]

I recognised George Kennedy as one of the slave soldiers shouting "I'm Spartacus", I think he was only in it for that one shot.

 

[Steve Christou]

I watched Spartacus at Xmas and I'm pretty sure you can also see George Kennedy, quite clearly, during the breakout from the gladiatorial school. (or someone that looked like him)


The newly remastered Blu-ray was excellent.



Edit - about 56mins in when the gladiators are holding up the gate and Spartacus climbs over it.

 

[TravisR]

Spartacus was released the same year as Psycho, The Magnificent Seven, The Apartment, and La Dolce Vita. Those 5 films were among the top 10 biggest box-office hits of the year. Could probably cite a notable 5 more from the top 20 biggest box-office hits of that year. Yes, I realize there was a lot of junk released into theaters in 1960 as well. But does anyone really think there will be anything much worth talking about with regard to theme, character, plot, cinematic methods, and viewer response to any 5 of the top 10 grossing films of 2015 in 55 years?

You're changing the topic. If you're saying that audiences are getting dumber, I'd probably agree but the amount of money that a movie makes is completely irrelevant to this discussion because a movie's box office has nothing to do with its artistic merit. In 2070, movies fans will still be watching the good movies from 2015.

 

[Cineman]

You're changing the topic. If you're saying that audiences are getting dumber, I'd probably agree but the amount of money that a movie makes is completely irrelevant to this discussion because a movie's box office has nothing to do with its artistic merit. In 2070, movies fans will still be watching the good movies from 2015.

But I don't believe I am changing the subject. The filmmakers of those days were involved in precisely the same business of putting butts in seats that they are today. Those were the movies getting studio support and distribution into theaters. Whether it is because audiences are dumber/less demanding, because the studios are less interested in supporting quality beyond special effects spectaculars or because the greatest filmmakers of all time are dead, the point is one can easily screen 5 studio supported and widely distributed films from 1960 that, 55 years later, could each eat up hours of discussion about their cinematic merit and still barely scratch the surface.


Hell, John Sturges (The Magnificent Seven) is the least noteworthy director in the group I cited and HIS work is far and away more stimulating on a cinematic level than anything I can cite from 2015, even the low-budget, so-called art house personal statement movies of 2015. Of course, I realize those kinds of movies in 2015 were not given the kind of quality production support The Magnificent Seven got, which is why I talked about those kinds of movies from 1960. Unfortunately, that kind of stuff matters in the final product. The kind of cameras, lighting, wardrobe, actors, music, editing know-how, etc. afforded a production are all unavoidable factors in producing better results except for a tiny number of product throughout the decades.


But I am willing to change my mind about this. What were the half dozen or so good movies of 2015 that one could likely entertain at least an hour or two of discussion each on its cinematic merits after a screening 55 years from now?

 

[TravisR]

But I am willing to change my mind about this. What were the half dozen or so good movies of 2015 that one could likely entertain at least an hour or two of discussion each on its cinematic merits after a screening 55 years from now?

I know it's not going to change your mind but I think there's some fine lists of excellent movies over in the 'Your Top 10 Movies For 2015' thread over in the Movies section.


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/344928-your-top-10-movies-for-2015/

 

[Spencer Draper]

I've been revisiting several titles since redoing my sound setup. Not only is this absolutely staggering in terms of what the new 6K scan has drawn out of the negative-but equally how amazing the discreet sound panning has been preserved and accurately utilized in the 7.1 field.
Out of curiosity I pulled out all my old copies and compared at how the sound fared from Laserdisc to DVD to the 5.1 mix. With each successive revisit the panning improves, but this new 7.1 mix truly nails it in ways that other presentations of films mixed this way do not. For an issue that rarely gets addressed I'm beyond pleased that the restoration accurately achieved this. Far too many other films have had their sound panning eliminated as it is either deemed a "mistake" or inappropriate to modern systems. Even 2001 had its panning removed. (Though it was far more minor due to there being less dialogue-it certainly was there and is present on all pre-WB video copies.)

Seeing the film again brings back many memories. I saw it growing up in the 90's when I was first discovering Kubrick, I believe right after I saw Strangelove and Paths of Glory. First I had the lovely double VHS edition that I had to save up for but was unfortunately pan and scanned. Then came the first non-anamorphic DVD, then the stupendous Criterion that I've watched all these years but now becomes mandatory only for the wealth of extras and last the Laserdisc out of curiosity and my love of researching that format.

Never did I think this level of quality would be available. Certainly not after the awful first go round in HD.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've been revisiting several titles since redoing my sound setup. Not only is this absolutely staggering in terms of what the new 6K scan has drawn out of the negative-but equally how amazing the discreet sound panning has been preserved and accurately utilized in the 7.1 field.
Out of curiosity I pulled out all my old copies and compared at how the sound fared from Laserdisc to DVD to the 5.1 mix. With each successive revisit the panning improves, but this new 7.1 mix truly nails it in ways that other presentations of films mixed this way do not. For an issue that rarely gets addressed I'm beyond pleased that the restoration accurately achieved this. Far too many other films have had their sound panning eliminated as it is either deemed a "mistake" or inappropriate to modern systems. Even 2001 had its panning removed. (Though it was far more minor due to there being less dialogue-it certainly was there and is present on all pre-WB video copies.)

Seeing the film again brings back many memories. I saw it growing up in the 90's when I was first discovering Kubrick, I believe right after I saw Strangelove and Paths of Glory. First I had the lovely double VHS edition that I had to save up for but was unfortunately pan and scanned. Then came the first non-anamorphic DVD, then the stupendous Criterion that I've watched all these years but now becomes mandatory only for the wealth of extras and last the Laserdisc out of curiosity and my love of researching that format.

Never did I think this level of quality would be available. Certainly not after the awful first go round in HD.

The audio has not changed since we completed the work in April of 1990.

There were two totally different dubs. One 6-track discreet, and the other oriented more toward home video of the era, which was 3-channels behind the screen, with ghosts at 2,and 4, baby booms, and mono surround.

Only the methodology of transmission, which is now discreet.

 

[Dick]

I'm not saying everybody agreed movies were better in those days than Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Ben-Hur, or any other individual proven classics. But nobody that I can remember was saying movies hadn't gotten much better overall well into the early 1970s

Well, the current generation would disagree because of its limited exposure to older films, added to its Twittering, Tweeting, Texting ADD, but I do believe movies in the general sense -- perhaps with the exception of some foreign-language stuff -- have taken a huge nosedive in terms of script quality, pacing, editing, etc. Hollywood, at least, is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator (in other words, young viewers who can't sit still if there isn't a big action sequence happening, or really crude humor, or just about anything that is the antithesis of intelligence and character development).

True, I am a cynic, politically, religiously, socially, and -- when it comes to movies -- artistically. We're simply dumbed-down. Back in the 30's and 40's, even most comedies were well-scripted and acted and had a social message attached. Now? Think about it.

People born after, say, 1970, probably will not agree that movies being made today aren't as good as those made many decades ago. I get it. It's what you are exposed to. It's what you seek out based upon generational preferences. But what happened to open minds? Critical thinking?