Press Release Paramount Presents! Press Release: To Catch a Thief (1955) (4k UHD) (2 Viewers)

[Patrick McCart]

Great opportunity for Paramount to put out a quality release. I'll patiently wait for the reviews first, but I'll be cautiously optimistic. Perhaps they can even include the original mono this time.

 

[Bill Street]

It’s interesting in that I just rewatched TCAT last night and wondered when it would be out in 4kUHD. I bought the earlier Blu-ray rather than the Paramount Presents, having read reviews first. I hope the UHD Bluray is handled correctly. I frankly wish Robert Harris was in charge of the restoration/release.

 

[Trancas]

Paramount+ through Amazon Prime has the 4K version streaming. There's usually a free trial if you've never had a P+ subscription before.

It's pretty much the same version that was released by Paramount four years ago. I doubt the 4k disc will be any different. It's smooth and grainless for a 1955 VistaVision film. Very mild contrast and color. Slightly zoomed in. Paramount spent a lot to make their last (botched) restoration and they be won't investing any more - anytime soon.

 

[davidmatychuk]

Paramount is unlikely to admit that they've done a new scan so soon after vigorously defending the problem scan, so we probably won't know much about it until the 4K disc comes out. Hitchcock remains the Master of Suspense.

 

[Keith Cobby]

This is released a few days before my birthday (I have dropped hints). Hopefully, Paramount will have taken heed of the huge amount of negativity around the 2020 blu ray and will surprise us (on the upside). This and NNW are my two most wanted 4k's and there is still lots of time for White Christmas to come out as well. This is a great year for 4k, not so much the number of titles but their importance (to me!).

 

[Osato]

looking forward to reviews and I am planning on picking up this title! Finally!!

 

[Bartman]

If I recall correctly people preferred the first blu ray release to the Paramount Presents one.

& that early transfer streams on Prime free! If the 4K stream is an improvement take my $4 please!!

 

[tenia]

Paramount is unlikely to admit that they've done a new scan so soon after vigorously defending the problem scan, so we probably won't know much about it until the 4K disc comes out. Hitchcock remains the Master of Suspense.

On the other hand, would they be willing to shelf out money so soon after financing a brand new 6K/4K resto from the VV OCN, especially when the sanitary cordon around it wasn't entirely tight ?

It's kind of a lose-lose situation for them anyway : either they'll use their latest crappy restoration and the UHD will be just that, or they'll use something better and it'll be admitting the previous work was so bad it had to be redone in a mere 3-4 years.

 

[cda1143]

Paramount is unlikely to admit that they've done a new scan so soon after vigorously defending the problem scan, so we probably won't know much about it until the 4K disc comes out...

On the other hand, would they be willing to shelf out money so soon after financing a brand new 6K/4K resto from the VV OCN, especially when the sanitary cordon around it wasn't entirely tight ?...

Indeed we have no idea what it will be, and may not until the release. But in discussing it, we ought to be more precise with our language. I don't believe anyone here knows, or has ever claimed, that the problems with the current release lie with the scan. It is highly likely is that this scan is perfectly fine. It is what was done after the scan which is a mess. It is very unlikely Paramount needs to do a new scan to get a great release. They simply need a new transfer.

...It's kind of a lose-lose situation for them anyway : either they'll use their latest crappy restoration and the UHD will be just that, or they'll use something better and it'll be admitting the previous work was so bad it had to be redone in a mere 3-4 years.

I don't see it as a lose-lose at all. If they release a great version this time, it should be a nice win for Paramount. It will generate good will, and erase the many doubts caused by only a couple of poor releases. It should generate the confidence for many pre-orders of future releases - as opposed to the great amount of waiting and skepticism which exists now.

 

[Trancas]

I don't believe anyone here knows, or has ever claimed, that the problems with the current release lie with the scan. It is highly likely is that this scan is perfectly fine. It is what was done after the scan which is a mess. It is very unlikely Paramount needs to do a new scan to get a great release. They simply need a new transfer.

Wasn't there a story 4 years ago that the original scan files had been accidentally overwritten - all that exists from Paramount's original 2020 6k VV scans are the sub-par finished 4K product.

 

[willyTass]

Unfair comment.

I’d not be pointing a finger toward one individual. Studio politics and budgets come into play.

your attitude….its been noticed

 

[tenia]

Oh yeah, it's definitely a question of what has been done digitally after the scan. I doubt the scan is to blame, and for all that matters, they probably could go back to the raw scan and redo everything done afterwards (which, IIRC, is what Arrow did for the Bruce Lee movies, for instance).

I don't see it as a lose-lose at all. If they release a great version this time, it should be a nice win for Paramount. It will generate good will, and erase the many doubts caused by only a couple of poor releases. It should generate the confidence for many pre-orders of future releases - as opposed to the great amount of waiting and skepticism which exists now.

I meant, for Paramount's reputation. Sure enough, the movie will at least finally be available in a proper new master, but what about the previous work's reputation ? Paramount's insistance nothing was wrong with it ? The previous disc's consumers ?
It's not really projecting confidence, but confusion from within the technical decision-makers at Paramount, that can decide in 2020 to release such a dud and insist nothing's wrong with it, only to re-do it 4 years later because I guess there was something wrong after all.
I get what you're saying : at least, they'll be willing to fix what was done wrong the first time around, but except if a replacement program is made available (like what Universal did with Gladiator back in the days), it also means one can't trust this studio for any consistency, and I do believe that's the worst thing you can project, because it means there's no good pedigree to rely upon, only a systematic case-by-case scenario. You can't blind pre-order, you can't trust it, and you have to wait for feedbacks first. It's not really good.

(but I think that Paramount doesn't have "only a couple of poor releases", but has more than this, and that even the good ones are largely perfectible, being from a color-grading standpoint, grain management, or encode - sometimes, all three together; and I don't forget their releases suffering from ghosting, like Last Train from Gun Hill)

 

[Robert Crawford]

Paramount reputation isn't in question for most consumers. It's only some purists and those with the highest standards that are questioning Paramount's reputation. Most consumers are oblivious to the issues being discussed about To Catch a Thief.

 

[Robert Crawford]

your attitude….its been noticed

I don't think RAH gives a crap! Furthermore, I don't blame him.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can't wait to preorder this 4K/UHD because I think it's going to sell out rather quickly.

 

[tenia]

Paramount reputation isn't in question for most consumers. It's only some purists and those with the highest standards that are questioning Paramount's reputation. Most consumers are oblivious to the issues being discussed about To Catch a Thief.

Well, yes : those who don't care or don't know better, whatever the reasons are, don't care or don't know better.

Which is fine, because that's what more discerning people are for, and I'd suppose it's this public that labels/studios should target (and that plenty of labels are already targetting), since "People who don't know better are happy with our products" isn't a particularly shining achievement.

All this being written, it's interesting to seemingly put "purists" and "people with the highest standards" in the same basket, as I'd have supposed no brand new lavish restoration should follow anything else than the highest standards, and I'm not sure what putting these in the same derogatory statement seems to be advocating for. That approximative work is ok to put on the market and have consumers pay for ? "Sure it has issues, but it's good enough" ? Is it being a "purist" to ask for a Blu-ray not to have ghosting ? For a 6k scan / 4k resto from a VV OCN not to be slashed with obvious digital smoothing ? For film grain not to be recurringly low-pass filtered and turned into a slightly smeary texture ? For a UHD not to show chroma issues and/or blocky grain ?

Sure, it's possible that most consumers haven't realised the new To Catch a Thief presentation has issues : does it mean the 2020 BD is fine ? Good ? Great ? Something for Paramount to be proud of ? Something other restorations should follow ?

I don't believe anybody should ask for anything less than the highest standards so many works proved to be achievable.

 

[Robert Crawford]

All this being written, it's interesting to seemingly put "purists" and "people with the highest standards" in the same basket, as I'd have supposed no brand new lavish restoration should follow anything else than the highest standards, and I'm not sure what putting these in the same derogatory statement seems to be advocating for. That approximative work is ok to put on the market and have consumers pay for ? "Sure it has issues, but it's good enough" ? Is it being a "purist" to ask for a Blu-ray not to have ghosting ? For a 6k scan / 4k resto from a VV OCN not to be slashed with obvious digital smoothing ? For film grain not to be recurringly low-pass filtered and turned into a slightly smeary texture ? For a UHD not to show chroma issues and/or blocky grain ?

Sure, it's possible that most consumers haven't realised the new To Catch a Thief presentation has issues : does it mean the 2020 BD is fine ? Good ? Great ? Something for Paramount to be proud of ? Something other restorations should follow ?

I don't believe anybody should ask for anything less than the highest standards so many works proved to be achievable.

Oh, stop it! I didn't say anything derogatory towards film purists and people with the highest standards when it comes to home video product. However, it's the mass market that drives sales not a small group of people with more critical eyes, even in this niche market. Furthermore, the studios don't care about their reputations any longer, at least not like they did 15-20 years ago. If they did then they would fix the digital home video format which is more broken in my opinion than the physical media format. Also, the profit margins in home video are small potatoes to them. The corporate types that run these studios care only about maximizing profits and they don't care to understand the history nor the legacy of their film libraries. Film grain, what the hell is that? It doesn't look like film, what does that mean? Such questions don't matter to those studios board rooms nor to the general public in mass. They just want their movies to look pretty on their 4K displays.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh, stop it! I didn't say anything derogatory towards film purists and people with the highest standards when it comes to home video product. However, it's the mass market that drives sales not a small group of people with more critical eyes, even in this niche market. Furthermore, the studios don't care about their reputations any longer, at least not like they did 15-20 years ago. If they did then they would fix the digital home video format which is more broken in my opinion than the physical media format. Also, the profit margins in home video are small potatoes to them. The corporate types that run these studios care only about maximizing profits and they don't care to understand the history nor the legacy of their film libraries. Film grain, what the hell is that? It doesn't look like film, what does that mean? Such questions don't matter to those studios board rooms nor to the general public in mass. They just want their movies to look pretty on their 4K displays.

“You tread heavily … But you speak the truth.”

 

[Keith Cobby]

Presumably though most 4k sales of this title (and others like it) will be mainly to enthusiasts who do care about how it looks. The general audience will pull out their old DVD or stream it.

 

[tenia]

Oh, stop it! I didn't say anything derogatory towards film purists and people with the highest standards when it comes to home video product.

Sorry if I misread this part of your post.
Quite often, "purist" is used as a way to dismiss some people as never-happy nitpicky party-poopers, and that's how I read it, ie it's not the less discerning people that may have too low of a bar, but the “purists” having theirs too high.

However, it's the mass market that drives sales not a small group of people with more critical eyes, even in this niche market.

More critical eyes are indeed a niche within the niche, but I'm not sure they have the same weight in sales than they have in technical decisions within the industry. I know firsthand that it’s some of the most discerning people around, the few of them, that had some indie labels changing some of their ways of working, technically speaking. I don’t think the general audience has noticed anything though, but it could be done, and thus should be done, and as such has been done. If these labels improved thanks to that, what’s preventing anyone else to do the same ?

Furthermore, the studios don't care about their reputations any longer, at least not like they did 15-20 years ago. If they did then they would fix the digital home video format which is more broken in my opinion than the physical media format. Also, the profit margins in home video are small potatoes to them. The corporate types that run these studios care only about maximizing profits and they don't care to understand the history nor the legacy of their film libraries. Film grain, what the hell is that? It doesn't look like film, what does that mean? Such questions don't matter to those studios board rooms nor to the general public in mass. They just want their movies to look pretty on their 4K displays.

Fair enough, but even if I can be dismissive of some works, we'll probably agree that flubs are more and more of a minority. The (ab)use of digital filterings, being (mostly) in one way (artificial sharpening) or the other (artificial grain management), has been greatly reduced over the years (even though it looks like new toys have appeared on the market to alter movies with), and duds like To Catch a Thief are even more of an exception than in the past.
So there are people around the studios (and/or indie labels) that get things right most often than not. If the industry was so careless overall, I doubt it’ll be this hit-to-miss ratio, and I doubt the general audience is to thanks for that.

Maybe plenty of people just "want their movies to look pretty on their 4K displays" but if you take most of the acclaimed releases, most of the restorations being considered great, stuff like Arrow's An American Werewolf in London, Sony's Black Hawk Down, Criterion's Branded To Kill, Second Sight's Dawn of the Dead, BFI's Get Carter, Indicator's Jean Rollin, Canal's The Elephant Man : have you read anywhere some kind of general massive appeal for these being redone but filtered ? I haven't seen any. Has anybody seen Wings of Desire's UHD and said "it looks awful" or "I wish it had been filtered" ? The Seventh Seal's ? The Last Emperor's ? Showgirls' (Vinegar Syndrome one) ? Mulholland Drive's ? The Straight Story's ? Menace II Society's ? So where such a vision would come from, that wanting "their movies to look pretty on their 4K displays" has to be by using tons of artificial filters ? Is there an actual tide within the general audience, actively requesting that, refusing to buy Sony’s Guns of Navarone because film grain hasn’t been nuked to oblivion or entirely replaced by an artificial computer-generated one ?

What you write about the weight of physical video releases for US studios is absolutely true, but it's likely to be for most studios, and most likely for most of their movies, so why certain titles get flubbed but not others, why some studios have a better record track than others ? It's not even as if the smaller titles get the flubs, it's not correlated to that.

Finally : I've seen, personally, some of these executives touring their brand-new restorations in festivals. They take pride of it. I've seen Cassandra Moore being extremely proud of the work done on Wyler's A House Divided. Some of these projects are showcases of what they're doing, and how they're doing it, and they're showing it in places where peers are in the room. I, again, get what you mean, but what I saw is that part of their work definitely is selling that they're doing things in preservation and that they're good at it. That Universal is good at taking care of its catalogue, in preserving it, restoring it, and then making it available. I'm not making that up or extrapolating anything : that was part of what Moore said there in her presentation of the showing. And it’s a great restoration at that.
I’ve also seen rubbish restorations being presented there. Nobody from the lab or the rightholder was present. And pretty much every pro that saw those dismissed them as “yeah of course : it’s from that lab, they’re a joke, that’s why nobody serious goes there, it’s a wonder they’re still in the business”.