Soylent Green 4K? (2 Viewers)

[84lion]

I thought about this film the other day and decided to dig the Blu Ray out of my stash. I hadn't realized that this film is on a single-layer BR, and the film itself is only about 15GB (per MakeMKV). I upscaled it via Topaz Video AI to 4K, and while I didn't view the whole thing, the bits of the result I scanned through looked OK, but not great. Going back to the BR, the picture tends to vary - in some spots it looks great, while in other spots it looks a bit soft. The film could benefit from HDR/Dolby Vision, as there are a lot of darker scenes that cry out for better contrast that might tease out some detail. Audio-wise, the disc has a couple mono tracks and one stereo (director's comments); it's certainly serviceable for the era but begs for an upgrade.

Any hope for Soylent Green to be remastered, scanned in 4K, and released as a 4K BR, with perhaps a DD 5.1 Surround mix in addition to the original mono?

 

[cineMANIAC]

Unfortunately, Soylent Green is one of those orphaned MGM-produced films that were gobbled up by Warner in the studio's acquisition of MGM's pre-1986 library. I say "orphaned" because Warner has always treated that library with very little respect on home video. Our best hope for Soylent, Logan's Run and other MGM properties controlled by Warner lie with Shout! Studios. They just released another MGM orphan, Coma, in a remastered Blu-ray that, while it won't win any awards, is miles above what was previously available. Sadly I don't expect any of these to ever hit 4K.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Unfortunately, Soylent Green is one of those orphaned MGM-produced films that were gobbled up by Warner in the studio's acquisition of MGM's pre-1986 library. I say "orphaned" because Warner has always treated that library with very little respect on home video. Our best hope for SL, Logan's Run and other MGM properties controlled by Warner lie with Shout! Studios. They just released another MGM orphan, Coma, in a remastered Blu-ray that, while it won't win any awards, is miles above what was previously available. Sadly I don't expect any of these to ever hit 4K.

I hear you CM, but for me I'd be thrilled with a decent BD...

 

[84lion]

I hear you CM, but for me I'd be thrilled with a decent BD...

I agree, but it seems criminal to remaster a film and then not scan it in 4K, and not release it on 4K BR, which has become the "standard." Of course, a sharper BD would result in a better upscale. So there's that.

This is probably what happened to one of my favorite films, Telefon, which is also an MGM property, from 1977. Shout will release that one next week in BR - the transfer should be great, but there are no extras other than the trailer, not even subtitles. I shudder to think of all the other fine films of that era that are wasting away just because Warner doesn't think much of them.

 

[cineMANIAC]

^ I received my copy of Telefon in late December but haven't had a chance to spin the disc yet. By all accounts it's a marginal upgrade to the old DVD. Honestly, I never expected it or St. Ives, also just released by Shout, to be much of an improvement - these films all had low budgets and were shot in a way that they will never look "polished". Blame 70's "aesthetics" for that I guess

Personally, I don't need everything on 4K - I'm perfectly happy with a fresh scan on Blu-ray.

 

[84lion]

^ I received my copy of Telefon in late December but haven't had a chance to spin the disc yet. By all accounts it's a marginal upgrade to the old DVD. Honestly, I never expected it or St. Ives, also just released by Shout, to be much of an improvement - these films all had low budgets and were shot in a way that they will never look "polished". Blame 70's "aesthetics" for that I guess

Personally, I don't need everything on 4K - I'm perfectly happy with a fresh scan on Blu-ray.

Ugh. Looks like I'm going to have to "manage my expectations" regarding this Telefon release. I'm going to rent this title first and see how good it is...or isn't. Someone at the below link said that it's a "pretty big" and "massive" improvement over the DVD. I hope he's right. My big concern is the lack of subtitles. Hopefully, I can port those over from the DVD I have.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=21770315

I am OK with movies from that era that look a little "gritty" or rough around the edges, but they can still be mastered (or remastered) to look good. "Rollerball" is another film from that era that has gotten the 4K treatment, but is still a bit "rough." The 4K still brings out detail and of course the colors are a lot better.

 

[Douglas R]

Unfortunately, Soylent Green is one of those orphaned MGM-produced films that were gobbled up by Warner in the studio's acquisition of MGM's pre-1986 library. I say "orphaned" because Warner has always treated that library with very little respect on home video. Our best hope for Soylent, Logan's Run and other MGM properties controlled by Warner lie with Shout! Studios. They just released another MGM orphan, Coma, in a remastered Blu-ray that, while it won't win any awards, is miles above what was previously available. Sadly I don't expect any of these to ever hit 4K.

I don’t agree with that at all. Warner have remastered and released a huge number of MGM titles and most being of very high quality. One dreads to think what would have happened to them if they’d remained with MGM, given their appalling indifference.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Cross your fingers for a remaster/4K UHD for MGM's 100th Anniversary? It could happen. Also, as per Doug above, Soylent Green has been released by Warner on both DVD and Blu-ray, and not by the Archive. Hardly an "orphaned" title. It's been a consistent seller for them and is largely viewed as a cult classic.

 

[Alan Tully]

I have the Blu-ray set of, Logan's Run, Soylent Green & The Omega Man. As I remember (I haven't seen it for years, I hope I still have it), Soylent Green looks just about okay, I don't think it's ever going to look great, & it looks a lot better than Logan's Run, which really does need a redo (but let's be honest, it's not a great film - even though I have a soft spot for it), The Omega Man looks fine. I can think of a great many films that Warner could work on before they revisit these titles.

 

[Worth]

I saw a decent looking 35mm print of Soylent recently and the blu-ray captures the look of it quite faithfully. Not to say that there isn’t room for improvement, but it’s probably pretty close to what you would have seen in the cinema in 1973.

 

[B-ROLL]

I saw a decent looking 35mm print of Soylent recently and the blu-ray captures the look of it quite faithfully. Not to say that there isn’t room for improvement, but it’s probably pretty close to what you would have seen in the cinema in 1973.

If memory serves ... there's a montage portion that uses a lot of stock footage but that really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I have the Blu-ray set of, Logan's Run, Soylent Green & The Omega Man. As I remember (I haven't seen it for years, I hope I still have it), Soylent Green looks just about okay, I don't think it's ever going to look great, & it looks a lot better than Logan's Run, which really does need a redo (but let's be honest, it's not a great film - even though I have a soft spot for it), The Omega Man looks fine. I can think of a great many films that Warner could work on before they revisit these titles.

I can also think of many Warner titles that they could work on but I'm talking about this particular group of 70's sci-fi films which, by the way, aren't masterpieces but still deserve proper restorations just the same. I've never subscribed to the mindset that just because a film isn't considered great, it doesn't need a fresh coat of paint.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Cross your fingers for a remaster/4K UHD for MGM's 100th Anniversary? It could happen. Also, as per Doug above, Soylent Green has been released by Warner on both DVD and Blu-ray, and not by the Archive. Hardly an "orphaned" title. It's been a consistent seller for them and is largely viewed as a cult classic.

When I said "orphaned" I was referring to the fact that the film(s) have not had proper remasters. If they're consistent sellers, that's more the reason to remaster and reissue them. My feeling is that, because they're MGM-produced films, Warner may not be interested in giving them much attention. I'm referring to this particular batch of films, not making blanket statements. Several high profile MGM titles, which I don't need to name, have been given deluxe treatment by Warner. I'd like to add Where Eagles Dare and 2010: The Year We Make Contact to my list.

 

[John Gilmore]

can also think of many Warner titles that they could work on but I'm talking about this particular group of 70's sci-fi films which, by the way, aren't masterpieces but still deserve proper restorations just the same.

The original "Westworld" is also part of the MGM sci-fi '70s films that need remastering. Interestingly, one of the last of that '70's sci-fi group, "Demon Seed," DID get a Warner Archive remaster.