UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Kent K H]

Did he learn that trick from the Sony guy who pretended to be a movie critic to give Rob Schneider crap good ad copy?

 

[JoshZ]

Seemed for aeons. And no one over there caught on. It was only after Mr. Crisp blew his cover that the site shut things down, and backed away with tail between legs for supporting him.

I notice that he was never banned there, though his insider status was "retired."

I suspect that others at Sony (including his neighbor friend) were aware of his antics and allowed him tacit permission to continue so long as it served their interests, until the ruse was uncovered.

 

[PovertyRowFan]

Hello,

I'd like to add one more thing here. I don't work for the studio, but I did work there several years ago, and still have many friends employed there. When you work in Los Angeles, you often have friends at studios and you hear things. One friend in particular was really hurt by Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory. This hit too close to home for me, and I stepped in to stand up for someone who wasn't going to stand up for themselves. Instead of being happy about my post, my friend became upset with me, so I asked for them to be deleted. I'm sure this will be picked apart and the "my friend" statements will be questioned or doubted, and I honestly don't care. I didn't post to start a war or gain a following.

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

 

[compson]

Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory.

Isn’t that what you did? In any case, I commend you on your candor in explaining what happened.

If Paramount would be willing to defend its work through an on-line dialogue with RAH, I’m sure that would be very enlightening for all of us.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hello,

I'd like to add one more thing here. I don't work for the studio, but I did work there several years ago, and still have many friends employed there. When you work in Los Angeles, you often have friends at studios and you hear things. One friend in particular was really hurt by Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory. This hit too close to home for me, and I stepped in to stand up for someone who wasn't going to stand up for themselves. Instead of being happy about my post, my friend became upset with me, so I asked for them to be deleted. I'm sure this will be picked apart and the "my friend" statements will be questioned or doubted, and I honestly don't care. I didn't post to start a war or gain a following.

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

FWIW, I don't believe Mr. Harris intended to paint too broad a brush on everyone at Paramount (or any other studio) -- it's possible this thread came across that way, but that's certainly not his norm nor what I got from this thread (although I can see someone new to HTF and/or Mr. Harris' overall commentary output might read it that way).

My understanding is he (and most others on these threads) is mainly critical of the "powers-that-be" (as he often calls those in "Melrose") and maybe some particular other, known(?) responsible individual on rare occasion (as in the recent Godfather trilogy release... though even in that case, I don't recall him actually "attacking" that presumed individual, but was actually often very diplomatic about the release)...

Yeah, sometimes, these discussion threads do grow a bit overblown or take on a life of its own well beyond Mr. Harris' control/intention... as such can often happen on the net (though HTF mods do exceptional work to keep things from going too far here unlike most other forum sites)...

Anyway, Ms. Canova, if that's really your name, I for one do appreciate your very prompt walk-back from your initial post w/ reasonably appropriate explanation, etc (even though your last statement might be unnecessarily harsh... just as some others' comments might be as well).

Anyway, welcome to HTF, and hope you'll enjoy spending time here and ultimately find it rewarding!

Cheers!

_Man_

 

[tenia]

It's my perception that there seems to be some kind of criticism for many releases.

There are, but in the grander scheme of nowadays restorations, I do believe that we are in an era with less duds than in the past, with systemic digital tinkering being a much lesser thing that it used to be.
In parallel, sure enough, some people have grown a more discrimant eye for technical stuff, the increased resolution making issues sticking out more than they used to, but this (and discussions about the systemic color-grading trademarks of some labs aside) is something different that what I was saying. However, it does seem to me that many of these criticisms are valid, but tend to be a smaller issues. One could very well deem those criticisms as feedbacks that could be used for continuous improvement, but alas, there still are many people (both inside and outside the industry) that prefer to brush them off as pointless nitpicking from bitter never-happy armchair experts.

 

[titch]

Hello,

I'd like to add one more thing here. I don't work for the studio, but I did work there several years ago, and still have many friends employed there. When you work in Los Angeles, you often have friends at studios and you hear things. One friend in particular was really hurt by Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory. This hit too close to home for me, and I stepped in to stand up for someone who wasn't going to stand up for themselves. Instead of being happy about my post, my friend became upset with me, so I asked for them to be deleted. I'm sure this will be picked apart and the "my friend" statements will be questioned or doubted, and I honestly don't care. I didn't post to start a war or gain a following.

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

Well, I remember when studios took notice of negative feedback regarding bad blu-ray transfers - Gangs Of New York and Out Of Africa come immediately to mind. Two years later these were redone. It would be very positive if Paramount went back and redid this title.

 

[JohnnyLancer]

On this subject I have commented before in other post, and kept up to date on the comments here about a favorite film of mine. Before I made a statement I wanted to see the product, to atleast see if I liked it or not. Yesterday I sat in my living room and put on, One eyed jacks, by Brando that got restored years ago and released through criterion. For years I watched a public domain print as a young boy and never thought I would see one of my favorite films restored. The integrity of the picture finally came through when watching it as it was intended to be seen, while asking myself a serious question: would the brilliance of the film be there if it wasn't seen in the manner it was supposed to?

I say all of that to say this. I understand Mr. Harris point better about films being seen in the capacity in which they were intended. Sitting there it occurred to me that if a film doesn't look the way it is intended its integrity and meaning even can all be lost. And for a favorite film of mine I wouldn't want to see that.

While I don't know much about restorations/fixing pictures, and what goes behind them I am opening my eyes and ears to try and understand more about this art. If I have argued with you in the pass about this forgive me. My ignorance showed along with my emotion over a film I loved.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hello,

I'd like to add one more thing here. I don't work for the studio, but I did work there several years ago, and still have many friends employed there. When you work in Los Angeles, you often have friends at studios and you hear things. One friend in particular was really hurt by Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory. This hit too close to home for me, and I stepped in to stand up for someone who wasn't going to stand up for themselves. Instead of being happy about my post, my friend became upset with me, so I asked for them to be deleted. I'm sure this will be picked apart and the "my friend" statements will be questioned or doubted, and I honestly don't care. I didn't post to start a war or gain a following.

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

We all have friends at the studios, and we all want to do what we can to protect them. I also understand
that if they're still working there, they may be unable to speak up.

But there are people involved that within the protection of the studio went their own way.

When projects go wrong, and those at the top of the food chain refuse to
understand their own limitations and errors, they need to be called out.

Unless your friend is fully and ultimately responsible for these works, they were doing as ordered,
and presumably needed to keep their job. I'm fully aware of the financial responsibilities
of food, education, mortgages, rent et al.

If their names aren't attached to the project, they shouldn't be taking the truth personally.
Whether they were at MPI or Paramount, there is a layer of responsibility to getting it right.
And in this case, it wasn't.

My position is that work should performed correctly, so a film can be archived as it was mean to be seen.

I would have been pleased to help with the '22 Godfather(s), and offered to do so, both
before and after turning over my papers, notes, continuities, etc gratis.

There came a time, however, very early on, when it became apparent that the project
was running off the rails, and that there was no way for me to be an asset. I'd be in
the way of what the studio was doing.

At this point, I'm pleased that I backed away.

When referencing papers, here's just one example of what I turned over to the
studio team, an example that was months of work in continually changing documents.
It allowed a frame to frame continuity and check list, that alleviated months of research.

For the record, there was some excellent work performed on this project, but in the end
it was damaged by either a desire to not follow the original orders of the cinematographer,
as to colors and densities, and as wells as an overriding need to use different footage that
caused continuity to be shifted.

This could have, and should have been a glorious representation of the film, and I'm
sorry that it wasn't. Please tell your friend that my words were not personal unless their
name was at the top of the credit list, and that I'm sorry if their feelings were hurt.

Final point. If those leading the project are going on camera in interviews discussing the enormity of the project, the great honor of leading the charge, the absolute importance and perfection of their work, and how it replicates not only the original, but uses the 2007 restoration as a hero, possibly it’s a good idea to get the work correct before praising it, so that it matches their words.

 

[Robert Harris]

Hello,

I'd like to add one more thing here. I don't work for the studio, but I did work there several years ago, and still have many friends employed there. When you work in Los Angeles, you often have friends at studios and you hear things. One friend in particular was really hurt by Mr. Harris's comments, which instead of staying technical, veered into personal attack territory. This hit too close to home for me, and I stepped in to stand up for someone who wasn't going to stand up for themselves. Instead of being happy about my post, my friend became upset with me, so I asked for them to be deleted. I'm sure this will be picked apart and the "my friend" statements will be questioned or doubted, and I honestly don't care. I didn't post to start a war or gain a following.

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

One additional point, if I may.

If you’d like to have a further discussion, it might be advantageous that we have a real name. Having dealt with people hiding behind alternate egos in the past, I find it more more comfortable to know who is speaking

 

[Richard Kaufman]

I use my real name here ... why not? And I'm a cranky old film buff of over half a century. There was a time when I lived in New York and saw every film that opened on the day it opened (if possible). Now I own an overabundance of DVDs, blu-rays, and 4k discs. And watch lots of streaming as well.
I've seen too many films (and many of them too many times!) to recall the exact colors and grain. BUT, I can certainly tell when a film I've seen before, no matter the medium, now looks like hell. Too much grain? No grain? Mastered from a faded print? All of these things and much more are seen and felt within the first reel.
I have watched Robert Harris's film restorations with deep awe and respect--Lawrence of Arabia at the Ziegfeld in Manhattan; a once in a lifetime experience that can never be forgotten. Ditto for the blu-rays of the Godfather films, which immediately, if only subconsciously (for many viewers), instantly key one's emotions back to the film as it appeared in theaters.
If there has been a discussion of the role of the subconscious in this thread I've missed it, but it seems to me to play an important part in seeing films again, this time presented correctly on home video. Our original viewing, if the film is worthwhile for whatever reason, lodges itself in our minds. We may not recall the grain, color, etc., but the thing itself stays with us in some way. When we watch a well-done presentation on home video, the thing that has been hiding in our subconscious remerges in a powerful way. A delightful exhalation that our old friend is back and is still the friend as we remember it.
But when the thing we are watching conflicts with that old friend, our impression of the film goes sideways and we feel betrayed in some way.
Forgive my meanderings ... I'm with Mr. Harris all the way. I'll take real chocolate rather than "chocolate flavored" any day.

 

[Robert Harris]

I use my real name here ... why not? And I'm a cranky old film buff of over half a century. There was a time when I lived in New York and saw every film that opened on the day it opened (if possible). Now I own an overabundance of DVDs, blu-rays, and 4k discs. And watch lots of streaming as well.
I've seen too many films (and many of them too many times!) to recall the exact colors and grain. BUT, I can certainly tell when a film I've seen before, no matter the medium, now looks like hell. Too much grain? No grain? Mastered from a faded print? All of these things and much more are seen and felt within the first reel.
I have watched Robert Harris's film restorations with deep awe and respect--Lawrence of Arabia at the Ziegfeld in Manhattan; a once in a lifetime experience that can never be forgotten. Ditto for the blu-rays of the Godfather films, which immediately, if only subconsciously (for many viewers), instantly key one's emotions back to the film as it appeared in theaters.
If there has been a discussion of the role of the subconscious in this thread I've missed it, but it seems to me to play an important part in seeing films again, this time presented correctly on home video. Our original viewing, if the film is worthwhile for whatever reason, lodges itself in our minds. We may not recall the grain, color, etc., but the thing itself stays with us in some way. When we watch a well-done presentation on home video, the thing that has been hiding in our subconscious remerges in a powerful way. A delightful exhalation that our old friend is back and is still the friend as we remember it.
But when the thing we are watching conflicts with that old friend, our impression of the film goes sideways and we feel betrayed in some way.
Forgive my meanderings ... I'm with Mr. Harris all the way. I'll take real chocolate rather than "chocolate flavored" any day.

Thank you, sir!

 

[Robert Harris]

I use my real name here ... why not? And I'm a cranky old film buff of over half a century. There was a time when I lived in New York and saw every film that opened on the day it opened (if possible). Now I own an overabundance of DVDs, blu-rays, and 4k discs. And watch lots of streaming as well.
I've seen too many films (and many of them too many times!) to recall the exact colors and grain. BUT, I can certainly tell when a film I've seen before, no matter the medium, now looks like hell. Too much grain? No grain? Mastered from a faded print? All of these things and much more are seen and felt within the first reel.
I have watched Robert Harris's film restorations with deep awe and respect--Lawrence of Arabia at the Ziegfeld in Manhattan; a once in a lifetime experience that can never be forgotten. Ditto for the blu-rays of the Godfather films, which immediately, if only subconsciously (for many viewers), instantly key one's emotions back to the film as it appeared in theaters.
If there has been a discussion of the role of the subconscious in this thread I've missed it, but it seems to me to play an important part in seeing films again, this time presented correctly on home video. Our original viewing, if the film is worthwhile for whatever reason, lodges itself in our minds. We may not recall the grain, color, etc., but the thing itself stays with us in some way. When we watch a well-done presentation on home video, the thing that has been hiding in our subconscious remerges in a powerful way. A delightful exhalation that our old friend is back and is still the friend as we remember it.
But when the thing we are watching conflicts with that old friend, our impression of the film goes sideways and we feel betrayed in some way.
Forgive my meanderings ... I'm with Mr. Harris all the way. I'll take real chocolate rather than "chocolate flavored" any day.

What you’ve so beautifully and aptly described, I reference as visceral.

 

[haineshisway]

I think I use my real name here. I could use my alter ego's name, but then everyone would think I was referencing Strangers on a Train. Those who know will know, those who don't should understand I answer no questions As to Judy Canova, she'd be mighty amused someone was using her name as a moniker - I knew her well, adored her, and have worked with her daughter many times over the fifty years I've known her, most recently just two years ago when she did an audio book for me.

And as a P. and an S. - I will never understand why people don't use their real names on boards like this. I mean, I understand it at the other site because it's clear why they don't there - it's easy to do what they do there when anonymous. I've always felt it was different here and that no one should be afraid to use their real name.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Interesting. Don’t know this other dude, but reading this review from Mr. Scott, I just ordered a copy. I love natural grain.

”One thing I did notice was that film historian and preservationist, Robert Harris, was displeased with how the grain seems to have been scrubbed slightly and considers it a slightly botched transfer. Personally, I nearly always agree with Robert Harris’s opinion on things of that nature, but respectfully I have to disagree, as while there may have been some light grain scrubbing, it’s so slight that you can hardly tell, and the benefits of the transfer far outweigh any minor issues with the grain (which really DOES look fantastic).”

Note: This Harris dude never said that grain was “scrubbed slightly.”

I went back, and read his piece - found it on a site called HTF - and he definitely alludes to a Brillo effect, covered with coriander seeds.

Yeah, but this Harris guy is some Internet know-nothing. I wouldn't trust him to tie his own shoes, much less opine on films!

 

[Alan Tully]

I've switched to my real name. I never did like the moniker Billy Batson, I don't know why I chose it.

 

[Sam Posten]

Personal opinion, not moderator hat: That’s about enough pressure for anonymous people to decloak here. Just because your life circumstances say you have little worry of speaking your mind that is not a universal luxury. Many factors weigh in on the necessity of anonymity and you have no idea what may be at play. That you vehemently disagree with the sentiments and accusations doesn’t change any of that.

 

[Blu Eye]

It's extremely unfortunate that there is still some people who feel they don't need to watch a movie as it was originally intended as much as is feasible within the constraints we all have such as hardware and viewing environment etc.

This is not about snobbery or elitism or any other word that some people alluded to regarding this subject.

To illustrate how important this subject is to those who have made comments on not paying any particular attention to colours or grain I will pose a question or two.

If it is not that important to you then why even have a colour TV?

Why not black and white? Furthermore, why not an old black and white TV to boot?

Why not just collect and watch movies on VHS? You can pick them up for pennies these days. Will save you money from streaming and other avenues.

Why even go to the cinema? Let's all just watch movies on an iPhone.

How many would be happy to watch all their favorite movies that show them in a pan & scan format and not in their original aspect ratio?

And I don't want to hear arguments such as you can't compare loss of grain to aspect ratios etc.

The point I am trying to make here is that we all value the importance of how a work should be shown (whether we believe it or not) but perhaps have not applied much thinking to it whilst also not being educated to the actual science and rationality behind the process of viewing and enjoying any movie as it is supposed to be viewed.

Maybe you don't notice a lot of flaws and changes from how a movie should be presented and viewed as originally created.

Maybe you notice a thing or two but are indifferent.

Maybe you even recognize almost every flaw in a movie that has been butchered.

Regardless of what you spot or what you do not it is without doubt your experience of viewing that particular movie has been reduced whether you recognize that fact or do not. Even if you did not watch the movie shown in theaters and are not aware of how it originally was supposed to look.

A movie story is told through colours, aspect ratio, acting performance, sound and it's mixing etc.

How many would be annoyed if 10 seconds of dialogue or music was cut from a favorite movie due to a technical error from a disc producer?

Would you be happy to buy and own a classic 60s or 70s American automobile without the original seats or wheel rims?

Or if the car got a respray but was slightly off from the original factory color and you noticed it? Would you still buy it if you was aware and noticed these alterations?

How about we alter the stone on the Egyptian pyramids to modernize it? After all the limestone is pretty worn and weathered. It will definitely look nice and clean if we replace the exterior with a new facade especially as the muslims removed the old marble coverings in the 8th century.

We can make a reinterpretation of how the original builders intended the pyramids to look.

It's about preservation. A fundamental principle that must be adhered to for obvious reasons. So we can enjoy it's original beauty and try to understand its significance etc.

We have preservation in paintings and architecture and we should have it in cinema.

Especially when we are talking about great movies in the history of the cinema which is what we are dealing with here and with a release from a major studio.

Why are the boutique independent labels putting some of the major studios to shame on some disc releases?

If some major studios can't do their job properly and not enough people call them out on their incompetence/ignorance then what hope is there?

It is my hope these words show how important it is that major movie releases on disc and also for streaming get shown as close as possible to how they were created.

If not then future generations will not be able to fully appreciate their artistic merit along with ourselves also who want to watch these great movies and experience the artistry put onto the screens for us all to enjoy and admire just as the people who created them wanted us to.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

When I was aged about four I used to tell people my name was Anthony John Houghton Clarke Father Christmas Hobgoblin. A couple of those weren't real. And for good measure, I'd spell my first name ... A N T H O N Y AND THE H IS SILENT I'd say. My elder sister reminds me of this at least a couple of times a year.

 

[Robert Crawford]

My 4K disc arrived yesterday from Deep Discount. I watched the 4K disc in its entirety last night and noticed a couple of issues that I most likely wouldn't have noticed, if it wasn't for this thread, as I was paying very close attention to the video presentation more so than my usual movie viewing. I won't mentioned those couple of issues because I want to see if anybody else noticed them. Overall, I was pleased with the audio and video presentations on my main HT setup as I was about 10 feet away from my 65" OLED. My video grade is 4 out of 5 which is lower than I thought it would be based on my previous 4K digital viewing.