I wouldn't count on anything the Universal web site says. Before releasing Sweet Charity, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Somewhere in Time, Xanadu, and many others were listed as 5.1 on the coming soon part of the Universal web site. Not one was 5.1 when it arrived. In fact, Universal devoted an entire page to the "new 5.1 stereo remaster of Somewhere in Time special edition (first time in stereo they claimed), yet when it came out it is mono. Not saying that Flower Drum is mono, it won't be, but the 5.1 I have doubts about.
I wouldn't even be shocked if Universal released it in mono.
I say that because they released the laserdisc as pan and scan (although in stereo) -- but when the movie was shown on Turner Classic Movies correctly letterboxed -- it was in mono!
There seems to be a curse on this movie where they just can't seem to get it right. But since I don't believe in curses, it's likely the DVD will be OK.
quote: Before releasing Sweet Charity, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Somewhere in Time, Xanadu, and many others were listed as 5.1 on the coming soon part of the Universal web site. Not one was 5.1 when it arrived.
The audio on "Sweet Charity" was one that was done correctly.
Only a few weeks left--I can't wait to see this. I was jumping up and down a while back because they showed it on TCM and it was in yucky mono. The picture quality wasn't all that hot, either. Has there been any restoration on this movie in the recent past? Or for the dvd? I can't tell by viewing the listing on amazon.
How come this thread was abandoned when the extras were posted? Doesn't anyone want to discuss the following? :
Digitally Remastered Picture & 5.1 Surround Sound 2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen English DD2.0 Stereo & DD5.1 Surround English SDH, French & Spanish subtitles Audio Commentary with actress Nancy Kwan and film historian Nick Redman A Classic Evolves: From Print to Stage to Screen Faces of the East: Casting Flower Drum Song The Songs of Flower Drum Song An All-Access-Pass to the Sets and Costumes of Flower Drum Song The Legacy or Rodgers and Hammerstein
I just have a feeling this is going to be a very good transfer. The laserdisc from many years ago, while pan and scan, had one hell of a great soundtrack, and the picture was very good, so I hope it's at least that good, I think it should be better. I just hope they give us something like a 3.0 or 5.1 track and not just Dolby Surround. I've seen conflicting reports on this. It's going to be "a grand night for singing," 4 Rodgers and Hammerstein films at one time. Now that's good living
I remain optimistic; I think we yelled at them about Oklahoma loud enough for them to hear. This is the last R&H to make it to dvd; now we need to see a restored King and I and all will be well.
I have that LD. The thing I like about it is they used widescreen for some of the production numbers. This makes a lot of sense for shots that had a wide stage or used mirrors, like the I Enjoy Being a Girl number. I wish they used the same "limited widescreen" technique on other releases. And before you ask, yes, I'm no OAR purist. I'll take more resolution over composition as the director intended with my current SD HT. That may change iff I migrate to HD, but I'm not sold yet.
So are you saying that it's better to have 100% fullscreen than to go for an informed edit that combines the two ARs? [Sorry, but I refuse to accept the gospel of the holy aspect ratio when it means sacrificing facial expressions for peripheral scenery.]
Everyone has a right to ltheir own choices, whether it is widescreen or fullscreen format. So, whichever we personally prefer, I hope that issue doesn't become a debate here, only Flower Drum Song
We should start seeing some reviews for Flower Drum Song soon. If anyone finds any, please post (I will as well). Not sure how early Universal sends those out, if they do at all, I heard they cut down on that.
Yes...for the very reasons cited in the Mission Statement.
An "informed edit" is a slippery slope.
Your logic factors in two decisions made independently of the original creative team:
1.) the decision to go "pan-and-scan" when extraneous background material is unnecessary and can be eliminated. One could argue another separate decision would also have to be made as part of that process as to how to re-frame the shot. And,
2.) the decision of when it's good to be in the OAR and when its best to switch to an MAR to make a mixed presentation with "informed edits".
The entire point of the OAR argument is: we should see the film as close to the original presentation as possible.
If you are thinking that you need better resolution on your images, I suppose you should look at how best you can improve your hardware (within your means) rather than asking for arbitrary decisions to be made to the original presentation which impact the way others would see the material.