Ultimately all considerations about which movies to release, and in what quantity or format, are profit-motivated. The prints stored in that Kansas facility are at least being cared for. The problem is that so many films have either had their prints deteriorate or been lost altogether through decades of neglect, including movies made in the last 30-50 years. (People often think this is an issue only with silents and early sound films made 80 or 90 years ago.)
I do not mean the following as an insult, but rather in a way almost as a tribute, but you seem to be far pickier about the quality of movie prints than I or most people. For example, I don't regard the print of JTTCOTE generally in circulation as at all "muddy" -- especially when compared to films whose pictures genuinely are visually compromised. Similarly, it's simply not conceivable to me that the Blu-ray of The Ten Commandments (a disc I've never seen) is of such supreme quality that it "renders all other copies almost impossible to watch". When you speak in such absolutist terms it's not only misleading, in my view, but minimizes vastly more serious problems with films whose prints really do border on the unwatchable owing to years of neglect. A Blu-ray print may be "better" -- cleaner, clearer, sharper -- but to say this is such an improvement that one can't even bear watching an SD disc is, to me, pretty over the top. On the other hand, someone with your exacting standards might be a better choice to determine which films need to be transferred and to oversee such transfers.
Speaking personally, in most instances SD is a perfectly acceptable format for my requirements. Content is more important to me than some ultra-pristine visual improvement, and eventually I'm sure some future process will make Blu-ray look weak. That doesn't mean I accept just any junk print of a film, but for the most part spending an extra $10 or so for what BD offers isn't worth the expense. The few Blu's I've purchased so far are either of films otherwise unavailable in another format (basically a couple of Twilight Time discs), or of a few visually striking movies where I would like to see an even better picture. I bought the BD of Journey for that reason.
Twilight Time's limited edition series (which is of 3000, not 1000, copies) is the result of Fox's abrupt decision in 2008 to stop issuing films from its library. The guys who set up TT decided to do so to mine unreleased Fox titles, but so far, with few exceptions, their choices have been pretty poor, as they themselves admit, and include a few films already issued on standard DVD. They shifted to Blu-only production under the delusion that it was format, not title, that mattered most, ignoring the fact that if they have a title nobody wants the format makes little difference. So far, only three titles have sold out -- Journey from Fox, and Columbia's Mysterious Island and Fright Night -- all of them plainly titles that have a large built-in audience (sci-fi/fantasy/horror always sell), and which in all cases had already been released on DVD. The rest remain unsold because in most cases they aren't titles a lot of people want. (Their list of upcoming Fox releases bears this trend out.) Since last fall they've also begun releasing Columbia films on Blu-ray, but all of these are titles previously available on SD, and they're all major titles, so they've got a built-in audience...even though none of those, except the two mentioned above, have sold out either. Four Fox Blu's were already out on DVD: Journey, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines and the upcoming Enemy Mine...which makes four fewer new-to-video Fox titles released by TT. (TT also shifted from Region 1 to Region 0 discs, even before going all-Blu, in an effort to broaden their market.)
By the way, what's this "missing scene" with Pat Boone buying the hunk of lava in the shop? I've seen this film many times over the past 50 years and never saw or heard of such a scene. It was certainly never part of its official release. Perhaps it was filmed but cut out of the initial release print.
reply
share
solidgranite
12 years ago
I expected a cleaner result picture-wise from "Journey" and if the original negative could have been used---it would have been an improvement---TT's 3000 limit is correct---I was wrong about that---the "missing scene" was mentioned on this board elsewhere---I had completely forgot about it---possibly from seeing the film when I was a kid---I will have to drag out my Laserdisc of the movie and see if it is there ( I doubt it )---anything is "watchable" but "Ten Commandments" bluray is the best quality yet---If I had to watch the VHS pan and scan version because that's all I had---then I would---I will never view the old Laser-Disc version again---although it is not "unwatchable" by any means---just not preferable---Exactly---the best format in the world will not make up for bad material---Dr. Phil in widescreen 1080i is still Dr. Phil---will not watch---Content must be there for sure---I have S-vhs tapes recorded 20 years ago of "One Step Beyond"---ran by sci-fi channel and they were from excellent prints albeit edited to allow for more commercials---the same episodes on dvd are from syndication prints for TV---choppy,spliced,blurry,scratches,bad sound etc.---BUT they are complete---there is no question that the dvd's are almost "Unwatchable"---that is a better definition of my intent---btw "The Eygyptian" with Edward Purdom , an earlier "Twilight Time" release looks pretty good---BUT---most people find the film BORING---early FOX Cinemascope
reply
share
hobnob53
12 years ago
I like your example of "Dr. Phil" not being watchable even if he were ever committed to 1080i!
I belong to the school where having something on disc, even in a poor copy, is generally (I suppose there would be exceptions) better than not having it at all. But obviously, having the best possible print as source material is the desired goal. For something like Ten Commandments, of course a Blu-ray from the best existing source material would give you the best picture currently available. For me, the issue is whether I care enough about that particular film to spend the money for the BD, and in that case, the answer is no (or probably not). (Interesting you mention its aspect ratio, since TTC's a.r. is I believe 1.66:1 -- if that. There is scarcely any difference between its true a.r. and a pan & scan version -- if indeed they even bother actually panning and scanning for such a small a.r. difference. But to me, those so-called "black bars" are important, even if the picture differential is miminal.)
I'm not a huge fan of The Egyptian, but it's got enough points for me to have ordered it from TT -- the DVD, not the BD. I don't like it that much. The only film TT ever put out on both DVD and Blu-ray...neither one sold out yet.
I still don't believe that scene with Pat Boone ever existed in this movie. Frankly, given the film's temporal narrative, it doesn't seem the sort of thing they'd ever bother filming, and if they had, it's much better off cut. I'm vaguely aware of the post you referred to, someone claiming it was in the movie, but while I can't say with absolute certainty it never existed, I doubt it very much. This sounds more like someone thinking they remember a scene which in fact never existed, which you run into from time to time on IMDb. (It sounds as though you're taking this from that post, not because you've seen it yourself.) As I said before, I suppose it's possible such a scene was filmed, and if so it may have even shown up in a preview version before being cut, but I'm sure it was never in the general release print of the film. But I just don't believe it was ever filmed in the first place.
reply
share