WHV Announcement: Mystic River and The Music Man (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[lionel59]

Hi guys,
Can't recall where I first heard the Grant/Harold Hill anecdote, but it was well before I heard a similar account regarding his rejection of the role of Henry Higgins. It is quite possible that he said the same thing about both roles. He was a bigger box-office draw than Preston and Sintra (Jack L Warner's first choice) at the time (due to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, OPERATION PETTICOAT,HOUSEBOAT etc., MUSIC MAN began shooting in 1961 so I'm guessing casting was done in '60/'61). In his excellent THE GREAT MOVIE STARS-THE INTERNATIONAL YEARS, David Shipman writes regarding the role of Harold Hill: "Certainly both Fred Astaire and Cary Grant were mentioned for it". Grant could have handled the "patter"-style songs but would probably have appeared more noticeably aged than Preston (though less so than Bing Crosby, who was also after the role). I have read that Barbara Cook was initially considered for the film, but as Da Costa was doing his utmost to have Preston cast, there was probably little hope of a screen unknown co-starring with him once Da Costa got his way. Shirley Jones had succeeded in screen musicals as of 1955 and won an Oscar in early 1961 so I'm sure she was a very logical box-office choice. Still, Cook's interpretations of the songs are un-beatable! Still looking into the 70mm issue. Cheers, Mike

 

[Brent Avery]

Already a number of reviews up on The Music Man but I will just add to the high marks given for this release. Viewing it on a 128" 2:35 screen and it looks great, an absolute treat. A first rate transfer and a wonderful film which I confess to never having seen until now, but I could not have waited for a better time and it gives me an idea of what it must have been like during it's first run. I hope Warners keeps them coming.

 

[Simon Howson]

Originally Posted by lionel59

The costs would no doubt be prohibitive, but I would love it if Warner Home Video transferred this BluRay from a 65mm print. I have 2001 on Blu-Ray and it looks so good that I have been wondering if it was taken from a 65mm positive print. BluRay is, in fact, ideal for movies shot in this 'High-Def' film format (twice the resolution of 35mm).

I don't see what the advantage would be in transferring to digital from a 65mm element. It would just mean having to go through another optical conversion to remove the anamorphic compression, which would reduce the image quality. It would make more sense to transfer it from Technirama, then do the anamorphic decompression digitally.

 

[OliverK]

I wonder why the aspect ratio of the movie on Blu-Ray is almost exactly 2.4 to 1 ?

This is neither the correct aspect ratio for Technirama (2.35 to 1) nor for Super Technirama (2.2 to 1) so this would mean that some cropping has been done on the top and/or bottom of the frame.

This would also point more to a scan from a standard 35mm reduction element instead of the original 8-perf material.

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Simon Howson



I don't see what the advantage would be in transferring to digital from a 65mm element. It would just mean having to go through another optical conversion to remove the anamorphic compression, which would reduce the image quality. It would make more sense to transfer it from Technirama, then do the anamorphic decompression digitally.

That would be the best way to do it and if the intention was to pick up all the resolution one would scan the negative.

To save costs and in order not endanger the original negative however in several cases of large format production coming to Blu-Ray the scans today are done from wetgate IP's, examples for this would be Baraka and South Pacific.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Everybody's talking about the musical so I'll chime in with my thoughts on Mystic River. I had the DVD sitting around unwatched since I bought it 3 years ago and finally got around to it this weekend. I couldn't help notice how crappy the transfer looked for a relatively recent film. Maybe I'm suffering from the effects of the "Blu-ray vs DVD" phenomenon (not being able to watch DVD-level quality after experiencing hi-def). Anyway, I won't be picking this up - I thought the movie was too long and it doesn't have a high re-watch value.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'll be moving on to the Blu-ray of Mystic River as soon as I finish the review I'm currently writing. It's no secret that I consider MR one of Eastwood's best films, and I'm counting on Warner to have done their usual fine work with image and sound.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well, I had been hedging on whether to pre-order The Music Man from amazon at the $19.99 pricepoint as I have a nagging suspicion that the price will probably drop eventually after release.

But, I didn't want to hedge anymore and decided to go ahead and take my chances that I won't get burned too bad. This is one title I will be glad to have ASAP and I don't imagine anyone having it for much less than $20 on release day. bestbuy.com currently shows a $24.99 price--common for their catalog BDs.

 

[Jon Martin]

I watched the Music Man Blu-Ray over the weekend and have to say if you like the film, it is worth the upgrade.

Great film. I was happy with the transfer. The extras are the same as the previous DVD.

 

[lionel59]

Hi again Matthew and Ken. I recently picked up Leonard Maltin's book MOVIE CRAZY. On p.7 in a chapter on the making of THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER, he writes "years later, he [Jack L. Warner] reportedly wanted [Cary] Grant to play Harold Hill in THE MUSIC MAN and then wanted him for the role of Henry Higgins in MY FAIR LADY. In both cases, he was persuaded to ......stick with the parts' Broadway originators". This confirms what I had read earlier. I did in fact hear about his rejection of Hill before Higgins and it's quite possible he had the same comment for both roles (ie. 'I won't even go and see the picture if Robert Preston/Rex Harrison are not in it!") Cheers, Mike