Marty (1955) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Dr Griffin]

If they were working with a truly open-matte transfer, the cropping for widescreen would have worked fine.

Hecht-Lancaster Productions announced a two year/seven film distribution deal with United Artists on February 9, 1954. The first three features produced under this contract were widescreen: APACHE was 1.85; VERA CRUZ was Superscope 2:1 and THE KENTUCKIAN - which was filmed at the same time as MARTY - was CinemaScope 2.55:1.

At the time of release, two major industry trade journals - the Hollywood Reporter for producers and Boxoffice for exhibitors - list MARTY for 1.85:1.

Why is there such a murky situation with Marty's aspect ratio, a film distributed in 1955 by a major studio? I've noticed that IMDB, for example, also lists it as 1.37:1 AR. Is it beacuse it was done by a smaller production company not in the grip of the major studios or is this off base?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

IMDB is often wrong on early widescreen data.

The documentation from primary source materials show that Hecht-Lancaster Productions were clearly on top of the industry-wide transition to widescreen. More information on that change can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

In addition, two important trade magazines specified the intended ratio of 1.85:1 upon release and the film began shooting nearly a year and a half after United Artists had changed to widescreen cinematography.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Also, if you look at the article, you'll see that by mid-1953, even smaller production companies recognized the need to adapt to widescreen.

Unlike the transition to sound in the late 1920's, widescreen happened VERY quickly.

 

[Dr Griffin]

IMDB is often wrong on early widescreen data.

The documentation from primary source materials show that Hecht-Lancaster Productions were clearly on top of the industry-wide transition to widescreen. More information on that change can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen

In addition, two important trade magazines specified the intended ratio of 1.85:1 upon release and the film began shooting nearly a year and a half after United Artists had changed to widescreen cinematography.

Also, if you look at the article, you'll see that by mid-1953, even smaller production companies recognized the need to adapt to widescreen.

Unlike the transition to sound in the late 1920's, widescreen happened VERY quickly.

Thank you for clearing that up. The Marty/Kino thing now has a clearer picture for me. Maybe they don't know exactly what they have at Kino, or they want to release this, but with a compromised master that they aren't willing to come clean about. I think it's now clear that this film is 1.85:1, and bad mouthing the research isn't going to change that.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Just a thought - if they are working with a zoomed in element, if the crop is severe enough, and assuming time/money don't allow for a new transfer (which is the ideal), then isn't it better that we get this essentially "pan & scan" version rather than a correct ratio which would be even more incorrect due to being cropped from a zoomed transfer?

 

[ahollis]

Just a thought - if they are working with a zoomed in element, if the crop is severe enough, and assuming time/money don't allow for a new transfer (which is the ideal), then isn't it better that we get this essentially "pan & scan" version rather than a correct ratio which would be even more incorrect due to being cropped from a zoomed transfer?

For the sake of just having it on Blu, then yes. If it was Warner, Sony, and maybe Fox they would have returned to produce a new transfer that would have had the correct OAR. MGM has given us THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, and WEST SIDE STORY that needed extra work but they choose not to. But again, they gave us FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, THE TRAIN, THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT and others that were excellent. MGM has more hits than misses when it comes to their HD Transfers but when it's a miss they sure can come up with excuses.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

My point is just, if they're not doing an uncompromised scan, then a full transfer of that without cropping is better than cropping a zoomed element that would just give people a false impression that they are seeing the proper framing even though they would be getting the "correct" ratio.Now OBVIOUSLY going back for a new scan at 1.85 is the right thing to do, but if Kino had simply said "look we can't do a new scan for this one, so we must present what we have in the most uncompromised way" I bet most people here would have applauded that rather than grabbing pitchforks. Honestly, the communication we get from Kino is sounding a lot like the defensiveness we got when Mr. Tarzi was at Olive that turned into complete silence.We're not morons, and we understand the real world, if companies would level with us the way TT does, I think they would gain a lot more of our respect and dollars.As it is I only plan to buy one title from this Kino batch, The Great Train Robbery as I would buy that from even (insert your favorite murderous dictator here).

 

[Mark-P]

Personally, I'm not buying the argument that Kino has a "zoomed in" or compromised transfer. It's my belief that we will be getting it uncompromised open-matte. I'm basing this on Kino's Facebook statement "After examining the film elements..." Did they misspeak there by using the word "film" when they meant "HD master"? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Only video masters would be zoomed, not film elements.

 

[haineshisway]

oh, never mind

 

[Mark-P]

oh, never mind

As soon as I receive the Blu-ray on July 16th, or shortly thereafter, I will screen in on my projector at 1.66:1 and report back how it looks.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Mark, I have ZERO doubt these people would consider a 10 year old transfer "the film elements".

 

[revgen]

Mark-P,

1) Misterlime said that Kino looked at the video master to determine the "correct ratio".

2) Bob Furmanek has also confirmed Misterlime's statement.

I'm not sure what Kino's Facebook post means by "film elements", but I'll take Bob and Misterlime's statement over whomever does PR on the Facebook page.

 

[Mark-P]

Mark-P,

1) Misterlime said that Kino looked at the video master to determine the "correct ratio".

2) Bob Furmanek has also confirmed Misterlime's statement.

I'm not sure what Kino's Facebook post means by "film elements", but I'll take Bob and Misterlime's statement over whomever does PR on the Facebook page.

If the final product turns out to be zoomed and doesn't matte well, then I'll join in with all the negativity, but until then, just let me be a cock-eyed optimist!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Nobody from Kino has examined film elements on MARTY.

 

[haineshisway]

Nobody from Kino has examined film elements on MARTY.

Glad that everyone said it more succinctly and straight ahead than I would have. That's why I wrote "Oh, never mind."

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Perhaps MGM has looked at the 35mm elements in the last few weeks? I don't know.

My last contact with Kino on this matter was nearly a month ago. At that time,1.85:1 was to be the ratio on the Blu-ray. In fact, the Amazon page still lists that ratio.

This is all very strange!

 

[Mark B]

Personally I am shocked and flabbergasted that 30+ years into the business of movies being marketed for home viewing we are still seeing issues with something as basic to the art of film as correct aspect ratios. Kino, if you can't release it properly, then don't. Members of this forum, I know that a certain desperation to acquire favorites on Blu-Ray has set in, as very little has been released as compared to the days of VHS, LaserDisc, and DVD. But, please don't purchase a release that you consider botched but good enough. There was a time during the hey-day of DVD when most would never have made that compromise. Times sure have changed, and standards of the fans seems to have fallen.

 

[ahollis]

Personally I am shocked and flabbergasted that 30+ years into the business of movies being marketed for home viewing we are still seeing issues with something as basic to the art of film as correct aspect ratios. Kino, if you can't release it properly, then don't. Members of this forum, I know that a certain desperation to acquire favorites on Blu-Ray has set in, as very little has been released as compared to the days of VHS, LaserDisc, and DVD. But, please don't purchase a release that you consider botched but good enough. There was a time during the hey-day of DVD when most would never have made that compromise. Times sure have changed, and standards of the fans seems to have fallen.

I don't plan on purchasing this release until I hear reviews. If it's a zoomed in transfer, then no sell. My main desperation is that if an Academy Award Best Picture is treated this way, what about the other titles? That is what scares me. I want about 10 of the announced titles but will wait until the reviews come in.

 

[Mark-P]

Personally I am shocked and flabbergasted that 30+ years into the business of movies being marketed for home viewing we are still seeing issues with something as basic to the art of film as correct aspect ratios. Kino, if you can't release it properly, then don't. Members of this forum, I know that a certain desperation to acquire favorites on Blu-Ray has set in, as very little has been released as compared to the days of VHS, LaserDisc, and DVD. But, please don't purchase a release that you consider botched but good enough. There was a time during the hey-day of DVD when most would never have made that compromise. Times sure have changed, and standards of the fans seems to have fallen.

If it is not zoomed, but simply open-matte, then I wouldn't consider that botched. No more than I would consider the purchase of an unmatted film print to be botched. Why? Because I have the ability to project the image matted to any ratio that I so choose. Others may not have that ability, so for them it can be no OAR no sale.

 

[Jari K]

"This is all very strange!"Like I said earlier, Kino should blow the whistle and postpone the release.