Blu-ray Review Hello, Dolly! Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Noel Aguirre]

Don't be too dismissive of the sound qualities of "20year old laser discs". Sound reproduction took a giant leap backward when DVDs came along with all that compression. Finally, with blurays, we have sound that can surpass laserdiscs.Dolly's sound on laserdisc was spectacular, but so is the sound on this bluray. I'll leave it to those with state-of-the-art sound equipment to decide which is superior, but I would bet that the bluray's sound, however much it may not replicate the original 1969 mix' dialogue panning, is much more impressive when played through high-end equipment.I'm quite happy with this release.

I happy too - just not ecstatic.Look at "It Takes a Woman" -both the sky AND the Hudson are white!

 

[haineshisway]

Ok then what we have is a blu-ray musical with worse sound than a 20year old laser disc. And no isolated score.

No isolated score is a Fox decision which you can like or not, but which has nothing to do with the quality of this transfer. And as someone else has pointed out, your memory of the laserdisc sound is clouding your reality here - because I really doubt it's better than what's on the Blu, and my guess is that in a blind test, you would choose incorrectly.

 

[haineshisway]

I happy too - just not ecstatic.Look at "It Takes a Woman" -both the sky AND the Hudson are white!

So, you are willfully not looking at the establishing shot that precedes It Takes a Woman - the first shot of Vandegelder's? If you don't see a blue sky there, you really need to fix whatever device you are viewing this on. So, once you admit there's a blazingly blue sky in that shot of Vandegelder's then your whole argument falls to pieces because if you think they arbitrarily went shot by shot deciding blue for one shot and white for another - well, I'd say you don't know much about film I stupidly went back and watched specifically for you - so, the only post we all need to see from you is about the establishing shot of Vandegelder's store. Come back with your report, please so we can end this argument in fine fashion.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

So, you are willfully not looking at the establishing shot that precedes It Takes a Woman - the first shot of Vandegelder's? If you don't see a blue sky there, you really need to fix whatever device you are viewing this on. So, once you admit there's a blazingly blue sky in that shot of Vandegelder's then your whole argument falls to pieces because if you think they arbitrarily went shot by shot deciding blue for one shot and white for another - well, I'd say you don't know much about film I stupidly went back and watched specifically for you - so, the only post we all need to see from you is about the establishing shot of Vandegelder's store. Come back with your report, please so we can end this argument in fine fashion.

As I'm not the only one reporting that this is indeed a flawed transfer for whatever reason there may be- there is no reason to do so. A film with a budget of this size was not shown originally with blooming whites in most of its outdoor scenes regardless of what any recent print looked like.And you still haven't explained the sound flaws with all lower registers barely registering.

 

[allanfisch]

Was this mastered from 65mm. The TODD_AO version has different shots than the scope reduction.

 

[haineshisway]

As I'm not the only one reporting that this is indeed a flawed transfer for whatever reason there may be- there is no reason to do so. A film with a budget of this size was not shown originally with blooming whites in most of its outdoor scenes regardless of what any recent print looked like.And you still haven't explained the sound flaws with all lower registers barely registering.

Again you conveniently and now I have to believe willfully ignore the shot I asked you to view? Why won't you do it? Or have you and you know it defeats your argument. You are correct - a film of this size was not shown originally with blooming whites and there are none on view when I watch it - it's that simple, really. So, you think the recent 70mm print was incorrect, too, but you haven't seen it to know that. Perhaps if you saw it projected you might realize that your set-up might be at fault? So, if you're not going to look at the shot I asked you to look at there is really no point in continuing this discourse because you clearly don't want to see anything but what you believe. In the shot of Vandegelder's store that I have referenced repeatedly you will see a VERY blue sky - not a very WHITE sky, a very BLUE sky and that says all it needs to say and it is not the only example of a blue sky in this transfer. Kind of the end of the story, isn't it?

As to the sound, I don't know what you're listening to, what your system is. It sounds great on mine.

 

[haineshisway]

Was this mastered from 65mm. The TODD_AO version has different shots than the scope reduction.

Most assuredly.

 

[Mark-P]

And you still haven't explained the sound flaws with all lower registers barely registering.

Might I suggest a possible reason you might not be hearing "low end" is that perhaps this mix doesn't utilize the .1 channel? It's not unusual for older soundtracks to be mixed in 5.0 instead of 5.1, in which case if your main speakers are not capable of producing bass and your receiver doesn't have the crossovers set to direct lower frequencies to the sub, you might not be hearing the full spectrum of sound. I don't know if this mix utilizes the .1 channel or not, but I thought I'd toss out a bit of speculation, because the soundtrack sounds very rich and full on my system.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Was this mastered from 65mm. The TODD_AO version has different shots than the scope reduction.

Yes it is- the proof is Dolly does not almost lose her hat in Todd AO.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Might I suggest a possible reason you might not be hearing "low end" is that perhaps this mix doesn't utilize the .1 channel? It's not unusual for older soundtracks to be mixed in 5.0 instead of 5.1, in which case if your main speakers are not capable of producing bass and your receiver doesn't have the crossovers set to direct lower frequencies to the sub, you might not be hearing the full spectrum of sound. I don't know if this mix utilizes the .1 channel or not, but I thought I'd toss out a bit of speculation, because the soundtrack sounds very rich and full on my system.

It's 5.1 - read the audio section if the full review at the beginning of this thread. So what can be the explanation other than a flawed source or mastering ?

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Again you conveniently and now I have to believe willfully ignore the shot I asked you to view? Why won't you do it? Or have you and you know it defeats your argument. You are correct - a film of this size was not shown originally with blooming whites and there are none on view when I watch it - it's that simple, really. So, you think the recent 70mm print was incorrect, too, but you haven't seen it to know that. Perhaps if you saw it projected you might realize that your set-up might be at fault? So, if you're not going to look at the shot I asked you to look at there is really no point in continuing this discourse because you clearly don't want to see anything but what you believe. In the shot of Vandegelder's store that I have referenced repeatedly you will see a VERY blue sky - not a very WHITE sky, a very BLUE sky and that says all it needs to say and it is not the only example of a blue sky in this transfer. Kind of the end of the story, isn't it?As to the sound, I don't know what you're listening to, what your system is. It sounds great on mine.

Your basically one blue shot theory vs how many bloomed out white shots? Your own answer proves the point of mine and others that something is not right witheither the color here or the exposure timing. To me it looks overexposed.The whole BTPPB number has white skies AND Mathau's white feathers show zero definition.Plus the Hudson River is not white! Never has been. Lol

 

[Panavision70]

I love this film just the way it is, but have always wondered about different casting. Carol Channing should have done it. But Steisand is the best mis-cast actor ever in a musical film. My favorite "what if" would be Maureen O'Hara and John Wayne.
'

 

[haineshisway]

Your basically one blue shot theory vs how many bloomed out white shots? Your own answer proves the point of mine and others that something is not right witheither the color here or the exposure timing. To me it looks overexposed.The whole BTPPB number has white skies AND Mathau's white feathers show zero definition.Plus the Hudson River is not white! Never has been. Lol

Oh, dear, I'm afraid you're on your own from here on in. I pointed out more than one shot that had blazingly blue skies - you ignored that, too. Just watch the opening - how can one shot have blue skies and the next shot have overcast skies? Let's put on our thinking caps - different days, different angles, whatever. Why don't you just tell us what kind of TV you're watching and what your sound system is? But if you won't look at shots that have been pointed out to you, you probably won't let us know how you're viewing. There's no point in carrying this on.

From A. Hollis in the other Dolly thread: "I have read the posts and went back and looked at my copy and I see blue skies and white cloudy skies. The Hudson River looks blue and watery. I also see cloudy haze during the opening title long shots. I see a transfer that looks like film. IMHO."

 

[ahollis]

There are many shots through out the film that you can see blue sky starting with the opening number. There are also many shots with a white sky which would be cloudy or as I have seen many times in LA, SMOG. I just can not for the life if me feel this is a flawed transfer. IMHO it is great. The colors just pop out and I have no problem with the sound. It could be that the white sky is so apparent because the rest of the colors are so vibrant.

 

[Charles Smith]

I guess it was too much to ask for Best Buy, Target, Walmart or Costco to have any interest in stocking such an obscure, family-unfriendly title as this one upon its first heralded unheralded Blu-ray release. So...

Helloooooo, Amazon!

 

[Noel Aguirre]

There are many shots through out the film that you can see blue sky starting with the opening number. There are also many shots with a white sky which would be cloudy or as I have seen many times in LA, SMOG. I just can not for the life if me feel this is a flawed transfer. IMHO it is great. The colors just pop out and I have no problem with the sound. It could be that the white sky is so apparent because the rest of the colors are so vibrant.

Last time I checked the Huson River is not in California. However I could be mistaken as Haineshisway keeps insisting. Hello Dolly picture 4.5Sound 3.5I have a 42 Samsung plasmaAnd Yamaha receiver with B&W speakers.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Oh, dear, I'm afraid you're on your own from here on in. I pointed out more than one shot that had blazingly blue skies - you ignored that, too. Just watch the opening - how can one shot have blue skies and the next shot have overcast skies? Let's put on our thinking caps - different days, different angles, whatever. Why don't you just tell us what kind of TV you're watching and what your sound system is? But if you won't look at shots that have been pointed out to you, you probably won't let us know how you're viewing. There's no point in carrying this on.

From A. Hollis in the other Dolly thread: "I have read the posts and went back and looked at my copy and I see blue skies and white cloudy skies. The Hudson River looks blue and watery. I also see cloudy haze during the opening title long shots. I see a transfer that looks like film. IMHO."

Overexposed film? Or film lacking any blue?
HD could use a restoration if that's the best print available. . The print is too contrasty and sound is reed thin.

 

[Mark-P]

It's 5.1 - read the audio section if the full review at the beginning of this thread. So what can be the explanation other than a flawed source or mastering ?

Just because it's 5.1 doesn't mean they actually put anything into the ".1" track. And by the way, you are the only person complaining about the sound. As I said it sounds wonderful, with plenty of low-end on my system.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I did a closer inspection last night and came away even more impressed with the sound on the bluray. It's wonderfully rich, clear and robust on my system with all the high-end and low-end found on the old laserdisc and sorely lacking on the DVD. And the dialogue has not been entirely pulled into the center. I detected some directionality from time to time.

I saw Bruce's blue skies over Vandergelder's, white skies in other shots, and some trademark LA late sixties haze on Fourteenth St. (I guess even in 1890, the air was clearer over Yonkers than it was over Manhattan.)

When I got to the long shot opening the Harmonia Gardens sequence, I had a flashback to the time I saw the film at the Egyptian Theatre a few years ago and the audience erupted into applause over the set design!

To be honest though, I never noticed the uneven fading in that one shot in the title sequence before.

All in all, a lovely transfer. And thankfully, the entr'acte once again plays over a black screen.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Just because it's 5.1 doesn't mean they actually put anything into the ".1" track. And by the way, you are the only person complaining about the sound. As I said it sounds wonderful, with plenty of low-end on my system.

Good for you. The reviewer rated is generously with a 4. It's not a good mix- it's ok except if you compare it to The Sound of Music's. Even Lost Horizon's sounds better.This by no means the original Oscar winning Fox sound.And BTW if it states 5.1 and nothing is added in the .1 then that itself makes it a flawed mix.