Ray Harryhausen Collection (1 Viewer)

[Brent Avery]

I had planned on just purchasing The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad but the set was lying there and well.... guess I have weakness for box sets ( the excuse is one saves money over buying the titles individually ). Good deal I suppose, being on sale but some of us that bought 20 Million Miles To Earth earlier will not be impressed! ( like me ). I will check the films out during the week - hope Sony did a stellar job on the transfers. Oh, I guess this means selling my SD versions.








Please excuse the lackluster photos - any reason I can find to practice using the camera.

 

[Chris S]

I too picked up the initial release of 20 Million Miles to Earth which is one of the reasons I haven't pre-ordered this set. I remember picking up 20MMtE and seeing it the following week for virtually half off. I'm hoping this set will do the same closer to Christmas.

 

[Brent Avery]

I did a quick comparison between the previous SD release and the BD (Sinbad) - one difference, the SD was framed at 1:85 and the BD is 1:66. I wonder which is the correct OAR? The audio is a definite improvement, a remixed Dolby 5.1 HD vs the SD's Mono. Much more defined and I had the volume turned down a fair amount and the BD was louder. The center channel is used for most of the dialogue. As usual I only have optical out so I am limited to the standard Dolby Digital core. Video image - cleaner, sharper, more depth to the image, in short the kind of results one expects from 1080. The various costumes really shine - the color and detail gives you more appreciation for what HD brings out.

I should add that I had forgotten how good the score by Bernard Hermann is - the 5.1 mix breathes some new life into it.

 

[LarryH]

I would have loved to have the two movies exclusive to this box set, but I couldn't bring myself to double-dip on 20 Million, especially with a bunch of other desirable blu-rays coming out this week. I'll pick 'em up later if they're released individually.

 

[Holer]

I'm really disapointed by the way Sony is handling this. I too already bought 20 million and I can think of 3 0r 4 other films that would have been a good fit in it's stead. At the very least, make the other two films available as a twofer.

If you buy Sinbad now, will you have to double dip again when the inevitable Sinbad box comes out next year?

Sony should treat fans of classic cinema with some respect. There's only so many of us out there and we don't like being taken advantage of. The original SD Harryhausen collections were really excellent. It makes no sense to crap up the BD releases of same.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad Blu-ray Kathryn Grant

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I know these are DVDB screen caps...
just ithe BD/new SD DVD are way too red & dark for me.
Hope some more reviews prove me wrong...
as I traded in the original SD last wk.

 

[CraigF]

^ Agree. And I much prefer the previous DVD for colors, looks much more natural to me, for the things that are natural. Based on the caps. I watched the (old) 7th DVD a couple days ago before deciding if I might *need* the BD...

As far as the AR, sounds to me like some people may be trying *very hard* to convince themselves 1.66 is "right". I have no idea, but whenever I read too much "justification" I start to think the facts are probably being massaged to suit. If it was normally projected in 1.85:1, and not in 1.66:1, then that's good enough for me.

 

[Eric F]

I also am just interested in all the Harryhausen Sinbad films and Argonauts, and that's pretty much it. So I think I'm going to pass on the set.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

This seems like a bit of hyperbole to me. The article clearly states that it's Harryhausen who was uncomfortable with the 1.85:1 AR, and I hardly think 3 sentences is "too much justification". This article and (IIRC) the "Harryhausen Chronicles" documentary both support Harryhausen's claim.

 

[CraigF]

^ It's been discussed plenty elsewhere, not just here!

I do my "research" on ALL BDs these days, what's getting released is not to be blindly trusted IME just because I know it's a good title or was good on SD (i.e. no more pre-orders of BDs for me).

I gleaned the film was usually (always??) projected in 1.85:1 in theaters. Regardless of what Harryhausen preferred or liked or was comfortable with himself, it's not what happened in theaters. I am coming from the side of revisionistic justification for the change. Not keen on that. I don't mind if we want to call it a new home video AR, nothing wrong with that, but I certainly don't think it would be correct to call it OAR and I doubt anyone will. That will bug some people, as AR changes always do, whether or not the change is "better".

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

I don't recall anyone calling it OAR. And I hardly think you can call something "revisionistic justification" if it was intended to be presented one way, but was presented by only the studio's decision in another for completely non-artistic reasons (i.e. to fill up a screen). You're confusing re-imagining with a reversion to the intent, which what is happening here. This isn't a cropping of the image that removes important information, nor is it opening the ratio to reveal what shouldn't have been seen. As with "Sleeping Beauty", it's just the way it was made. Are you upset with that release because they've opened up the picture from 2.35:1 to 2.55:1 while not removing any part of it?

You claim this has been you've been doing research on this and that it's discussed plenty elsewhere. Could you give me some links so I can look into this myself? Because from the research and discussions I've seen, there's no one "trying *very hard* to convince themselves 1.66 is 'right'", while there's plenty of people (including the studio, via the release) that already admit that the 1.85:1 ratio was done only by the studio, and against Harryhausen's wishes.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I'm OK w/the 'new' AR.
Harry knows best! ;-)

Still waiting for more reviews...
Xylon too the rescue!

 

[CraigF]

Jesse: I think you're mistaking me disliking the new AR (which I don't hugely have an opinion about until I see it here) with my dislike of those trying to convince themselves it's "correct" and was "wrong" in the theaters. It's the latter point I don't like, not the specifics of what has been changed. Whether multiple ARs co-exist is of no concern to me really, it's been happening since DVDs have been around. I'm sure every single person involved in making important decisions about a film have to compromise, and they all would NOW have done something different, if they could have. That doesn't change what was done THEN for whatever reason. Going back and "correcting" the past is revisionism; just happens to be an annoyance to me, I realise it doesn't bug everybody.

The point is simply the movie was presented one way, and that is not how it is on the BD. You can make your own decision for whatever reason you want. For myself, I am just being picky about which movies I rebuy in BD: it's got to be very good as I don't use a projector and am not a close-sitter (a relative of close-talker). I am happy watching my apparently not-RH-approved-AR DVD for now. But I may bite when the 7th.. BD is available separately...

Anyway, I'll look for Xylons caps if he did some, for the color comparison, perhaps on the "forum that cannot now be named". I have not really looked for info for about a week. These days my process is to watch the DVD of a movie I'm considering upgrading to BD shortly before it's to be released on BD, when there's some concrete info available, just to affirm or deny my desire for the higher res version. And to "see" if I have a problem with the DVD audio JIC that could be motivation enough.

Edit: I think you are right about the DVDB BD captures. Looking around at some other films there, the reds are definitely exaggerated.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

So, you don't respect the decisions of the filmmakers, just the arbitrary decisions of the studio? And just because that's what was presented to the audience? That's a bit backwards, IMO.

Again, according to the available material, the only one trying to convince themselves of what is correct is people who are claiming the studio's presentation is the "correct" version despite the fact that the studio--by way of providing the 1.66:1 presentation--has admitted they showed it the wrong way in the theaters. Like I said before, if you've got evidence that anybody is trying to convince themselves rather than some nebulous "them" or "those people", feel free to provide it.

 

[DeeF]

Wow! Sinbad is FANTASTIC! Don't pass this one up. The Herrmann score in TrueHD sound is reason enough to buy the set.

The picture is astounding, too. No, it doesn't look like Iron Man. It looks like a great fantasy movie made 50 years ago.

I've seen the movie many times, and each time is a pleasure, a new experience. This new BD is another great, new experience.

 

[Douglas R]

However, no cinema in the USA or Canada would have shown a film in 1.66:1 in 1958 and, of course, every filmmaker knew that. To complicate the issue though, 1.66:1 was standard widescreen in Europe in the 'fifties. So I suppose you could say that this new version is the correct ratio as presented in Europe.

 

[Tino]

Very dissapointed with Sinbads transfer...but the sound and extras are great.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Update

I addressed our friend Grover Crisp over at Sony about your concerns
and this is the reply I received from him...

 

[Doug Otte]

Would you care to elaborate?

Thanks,
Doug