Professor Echo
Senior HTF Member
Can anyone tell me if they have the original 1963 theatrical trailer on there or is it the same re-release version we've gotten on all but the very first standard DVD release?
Magnús Þorsteinn Magnússon said:I'm beginning to think that they have really mismanage the OCN.....BIG TIME.
It says it's the original trailer with a narrator.Professor Echo said:Can anyone tell me if they have the original 1963 theatrical trailer on there or is it the same re-release version we've gotten on all but the very first standard DVD release?
Also a bit like MGM's release of West Side Story.David_B_K said:Wow. Sounds like the same care and attention that MGM lavished on THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.
Uselark144 said:Sorry! After posting the above I realized I included a spoiler, but I couldn't figure out how to edit my post.
Robert Crawford said:It says it's the original trailer with a narrator.
Edit: Just checked the first DVD released in 1998 and that trailer is not the same as the one on the BD.
haineshisway said:I'm an hour in. I have yet to see one instance of the disastrous transfer I was led to believe I'd be watching. Re the post above regarding DNR - I don't see it - at all - anywhere. On the one hand, you correctly state that there is excellent detail in mid to close shots - had this transfer been DNR'd to death you would see it in those shots as well - in other words, they don't just use DNR on wide shots. I'm not going to pretend I know if this is a perfect transfer or not - but I do know enough to know that it's certainly miles and miles ahead of the DVD (it is unfathomable to me on those other boards where they say the DVD and Blu-ray are basically the same - one just shakes one's head - of course, they haven't actually seen the Blu-ray, they're just looking at the awful screen caps).
Re the titles - obviously the footage backplates are dupes, sometimes dupes of dupes - multiple-pass optical. That said, the lettering itself isn't as sharp as it should be to my eyes. I'm sure Mr. Harris would know the reason for this better than I would. But so far, I am not really upset about anything. I see grain (light), and I see detail - no, it is not the sharpest transfer I've ever seen, but you cannot compare a frame of this film to West Side Story - that is a 65mm production, this is not. And correct color - that is a MAJOR plus for me. So, thus far I'm really enjoying the film and the presentation. I don't know about "perfect" but I do know this is not the four-star disaster I'd read about.
I've now finished and I have to say I found the transfer overall excellent. As Pete says, and as others I've spoken to who've seen it projected recently, this is what the film looks like. But we're dealing with a reviewer on Blu-ray.com who has no clue about this film and so his pronouncements are meaningless, especially when he invokes an interview and pulls comments out of context and that have nothing to do with this transfer, to make his points. And then the usual suspects on that board all chime in and call the transfer a disgrace and a disaster and people cancel their orders - and the people calling the transfer a disgrace haven't seen it, of course - they're looking at the awful screencaps and making their judgments. What else is new?Peter Apruzzese said:It looks very similar to the brand new 35mm print I ran back in 2006 or so. The film is full of long opticals (the entire "tailor" sequence, for one) and, as Bruce notes, diffusion filtered shots. Not the best combination to deliver razor-sharp images. It actually ticks up a bit in sharpness after the 4th of July scene.I'm pleased with it, especially for 10 bucks.