And Then There Were None (1945) Blu-ray - July 16th (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

I haven't seen a BD yet that isn't an upgrade over a DVD.

One of my biggest peeves is when people say that "that movie doesn't require Blu" for whatever reason. Someone said a mostly shot DV movie was pointless, and I disagree because even a DV film is going to be compressed on DVD, Blu allows you to strip away a layer of compression and present the material more transparently. Or even worse "oh that's just a comedy, it doesn't need Blu" ridiculous BS.

How's the quality on that? Might have to check it out.

It's not bad for free. Considering I stuck with VHS it's at least easier to watch on the iPad. I'd pay full price for a Criterion of this or at least something done well from the Fox elements.

 

[Mark-P]

One of my biggest peeves is when people say that "that movie doesn't require Blu" for whatever reason. Someone said a mostly shot DV movie was pointless, and I disagree because even a DV film is going to be compressed on DVD, Blu allows you to strip away a layer of compression and present the material more transparently. Or even worse "oh that's just a comedy, it doesn't need Blu" ridiculous BS.It's not bad for free. Considering I stuck with VHS it's at least easier to watch on the iPad. I'd pay full price for a Criterion of this or at least something done well from the Fox elements.

And then there are people who think old movies don't benefit from high definition. I've heard the comment before, "That movie is 50 years old, how good could it possibly look on Blu-ray?"

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And the answer is - they look AMAZING on Blu-Ray.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Elements being equal, yes, but take a look at STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS for an example of a BD that isn't.

You were so right! For the first time, I viewed a DVD that was superior to the Blu-ray of the same film. It wasn't even close to me for The Strange Love of Martha Ivers as the Paramount DVD was excellent in comparison to the mediocre BD from Film Chest.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I hope it is better than the VCI standard DVD from years back. It's frustrating, but it is now PD, but theatrically released by Fox. And Fox still have materials on it.

The VCI DVD was pretty bad and so was the Image DVD which was only slightly better in certain scenes. The opening credit sequence was in terrible shape on the Image disc, but they did have an extra which was the original UK opening sequence with Christie's original book title "Ten Little Niggers". That's right and of course, it was changed due to that offensive word. What's also particular is the UK opening looks much better than the US one. Anyhow, I don't think Fox owns this film as they appear to be only listed as the distribution company while Popular Pictures is listed as the Production Company. I'm not expecting much BD-wise from either Gaiam or VCI.

 

[Matt Hough]

The VCI DVD was pretty bad and so was the Image DVD which was only slightly better in certain scenes. The opening credit sequence was in terrible shape on the Image disc, but they did have an extra which was the original UK opening sequence with Christie's original book title "Ten Little Niggers". That's right and of course, it was changed due to that offensive word. What's also particular is the UK opening looks much better than the US one. Anyhow, I don't think Fox owns this film as they appear to be only listed as the distribution company while Popular Pictures is listed as the Production Company. I'm not expecting much BD-wise from either Gaiam or VCI.

Of course I knew that was the title of the original novel, but it seems so inappropriate for the film since the song and the rhyme and the centerpiece are all referencing Indians which the other word is not a synonym for. Of course, if that's the title by which the tale is best known in England, then I guess I can see why it might have been used, but I wonder if any theatergoers wondered why there was no reference to the title in the story.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Even though Fox may not own the film, they still theoretically have some materials on it that are in better shape than the PD messes we get, which could be licensed out to someone.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Even though Fox may not own the film, they still theoretically have some materials on it that are in better shape than the PD messes we get, which could be licensed out to someone.

Having some materials doesn't mean they have the legal right to release it on a digital video format in the US.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Yes it does if the film is PD, as this film is.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes it does if the film is PD, as this film is.

What documentation you have to support that? Even if they did have the right, studios don't usually like to release titles that they lost the copyright to and have multiple PD releases. They're afraid the units sold won't be enough to support their cost of releasing it on disc.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Im talking about them licensing it to Criterion or similar. If the film is Public Domain, it is legal for anyone with elements to release, including Fox. How do you think the BD announced in this thread is being released? Is it a bootleg? No the film is PD and I can release it if I have a copy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Im talking about them licensing it to Criterion or similar. If the film is Public Domain, it is legal for anyone with elements to release, including Fox. How do you think the BD announced in this thread is being released? Is it a bootleg? No the film is PD and I can release it if I have a copy.

In the end, do you know that Fox has the film elements to it? I know of instances in which studios thought they had film elements to a particular title and once they fully investigated the situation, they found out they have zilch after opening up the cans and such with no film elements in them. It happens more than we think.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

That I don't know. Others have said it but a call to Schawn Belston would provide an answer Id imagine.I just doubt this release will be "all it can be"

 

[Noach Kowalski]

VCI has set an August 27th street date for the Blu-Ray and restored standard DVD release of And Then There Were None (1945)

 

[John Morgan]

That I don't know. Others have said it but a call to Schawn Belston would provide an answer Id imagine.I just doubt this release will be "all it can be"

A friend of mine who works at UCLA asked Schawn about this and he said they had materials on the film, but no rights.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Newly restored is promising. We'll see...

 

[TheSteig]

Already pre-ordered !

 

[lukejosephchung]

For those looking to do an Amazon.com search to pre-order this title, it's listed as "& Then There Were None"...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Newly restored is promising. We'll see...

I still don't expect much in comparison to most BD presentations, but it should be much better than either DVD I have of this title.

 

[Matt Hough]

I think it's one of the great Agatha Christie film transcriptions, and I revisit it a couple of times a year because I enjoy the performances so much. Even knowing the mystery and its solution backwards and forwards, I still find the film marvelous fun.