The Sting (1973) vs Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) ......>>

[Member-38928]

The Sting vs Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ......>> Which is the better Paul Newman/Robert Redford movie? discuss........

[Member-38928]

The Sting vs. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

[Member-38928]

I'd love to hear some feedback here because I just bought them both and have never seen either one so I was just curious as to which film might be the better one, although I am pretty confident that both are excellent films and this was a pretty safe blind buy for me even though it sounds like Butch Cassidy has a pretty weak video transfer.


Anyone?

[TriuneImpurityRites]

The Sting is a MUCH better movie, but BC has potentially a slightly better transfer at times. (both transfers are rather meek)

[EPlay]

Awwww, I love them both. But looking at them now after the passage of time, I think I have to go with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I do like westerns, and it has some lovely moments as well as many classic lines.

[ScarredLungs]

Both are good movies, but the sting has the upper hand. The sting to me had a more engaging story that kept you on the edge of your seat.

Sting> Butch Cassidy

[HD Goofnut]

The Sting is a better made film, but as mentioned above both have questionable transfers. With a new master and a transfer in VC-1 or AVC Butch Cassidy would look much better much like the difference in Hoosiers, which is substantial. The Sting was recently restored and remastered, but as usual Universal pulled out the digital manipulation pen as there are instances of DNR and unnatural grain throughout the film.

[Member-38928]

Thanks guys, I look forward to seeing these 2 movies. ....but which one should I watch first? As far as my experience with Paul Newman's work goes, my current favorites are Road to Perdition and Cool Hand Luke....BTW being in the Paul Newman state of mind I also bought The Hustler today, I have not seen that one either.

HD Goofnut, do you think new transfers might come sometime in the future?

[Darth Marcus]

Both are excellent films, but I actually prefer Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You can't go wrong either way though!

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by TriuneImpurityRites

The Sting is a MUCH better movie, but BC has potentially a slightly better transfer at times. (both transfers are rather meek)

I see the video codec for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is MPEG-2 while The Sting is MPEG-4 AVC. Isn't MPEG-4 AVC a far superior codec, or no?

Sorry for not knowing because for the most part I don't keep up with the technologies used on Blu-rays, though I should take some time and learn them given the amount of money I have spent on these things. (to self.)

[Trekkie313]

It depends on your eyesight and expectations for Universal catalog releases, but I'm pretty sure that Butch & Sundance has a far worse transfer and is further hobbled by a DVD-era encode.

Can't say which movie is better due to not having seen either film in a very long time.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

It depends on your eyesight and expectations for Universal catalog releases, but I'm pretty sure that Butch & Sundance has a far worse transfer and is further hobbled by a DVD-era encode.

Can't say which movie is better due to not having seen either film in a very long time.

I guess that is true, but to a larger degree its also your HDTV size to viewing distance, as the vast majority of people sit too far away from their HDTVs to really see all of the benefits of Blu-ray. In fact, I would bet that at least 50% or better of the members here at Blu-ray.com cannot really see all of the benefits that can come from Blu-ray transfers. My bedroom TV is 15" and from ~9' away, Seinfeld the TV show dang near looks high def.

In my main system I sit almost exactly 9' away from a 60" HDTV

[Show spoiler](that is distance from my eyes to the HDTV screen, its been measured with a tape measure.)

and even then, every now and then I gotta get in closer to get a better look at some of the better BD transfers and my eyesight is about as good as it gets.

Oh well, in any case I am looking forward to seeing The Sting and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.... if I find either of them unpleasant to watch on my main system then I can watch them in my bedroom.......although there are like no Blu-rays in my collection that are bad enough that they are unpleasant to watch on my good HDTV. ....the main reason for this is because I mostly buy these things for the movies themselves so I can still enjoy piss poor Blu-ray transfers if the movie is entertaining enough.

[Mr. Movie Fan]

Originally Posted by trekkie313

it depends on your eyesight and expectations for universal catalog releases, but i'm pretty sure that butch & sundance has a far worse transfer and is further hobbled by a dvd-era encode.

Can't say which movie is better due to not having seen either film in a very long time.

WRONG.


I actually read that out loud to hear what it's like to say something so incorrect in a public space.

Robert A. Harris on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

"George Roy Hill's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was brilliant filmmaking in 1969 and remains brilliant today.

The performances by Mr. Newman and Mr. Redford are sharply honed and up to date in every way. Likewise the screenplay by William Goldman remains remarkably textured, working a thin line between the old western genre and the modern buddy film.

Butch Cassidy has stood the test of time.

But like any extremely popular film four decades old, it is physically a bit frayed around the edges.

Once parts of the original negative are damaged or gone, there is nothing to be done but to rely on preservation elements produced at the time. But the truth about those elements is that normally they were vaulted without a care -- literally never examined or tested to see if they would answer back in case of a problem. I'm not referring to Fox here. I'm referring to the industry.

And there are some problems.

Those among you who fit into the nit-picker category will note dupe sections, which appear derived from separation masters. They have a bit of flicker, some discoloration at the bottom of the frame, occasional dirt and other assorted discoloration anomalies.

Grain haters will also have a field day, as Butch was (I believe) photographed on Eastman 5254, the same stock as Bullitt and all of the films of the early '70s. It has a magnificent grain structure, and wonderful color characteristics. This is actually one of my favorite film stocks.

The audio, both in 5.1 stereo as well as the original mono seem crisp and clean, especially as derived from the DTS HD Master tracks.

The truth, which is the bottom line, is that nit-picking is not in order here, as the surviving elements are what they are, and no amount of work, investment or complaining is going to change a thing.

Great films do not age well from a purely physical perspective, while poorly received films seem to age beautifully.

I tend to look at it this way, which is a perspective that I suggest.

As a four decade old production, Butch Cassidy still seems fresh and vibrant to both those revisiting its charms as well as those who have never seen it. This is one of those films that appears that it could have been made yesterday. But here's the perspective that seems to put things in their place.

Go back an equal number of years from 1969, and one is just reaching the dawn of sound -- orthochromatic black & white negatives, along with people speaking into flower vases. With the exception of Mr. Mamoulian's work, a pretty difficult transitional era.

I can easily accept this wonderful film for what it is, and where today's elements allow it to be taken.

I'm certain that a full 90% of viewers will never notice anything amiss here, which is why I suggest to the nit-pickers...

relax, allow yourselves to be taken back to the wonderful war years of the Nixon administration, and take in Butch Cassidy for what it still is -- one of most entertaining films ever created.

There are no caveats here.

Fox Home Video's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in Blu-Ray comes Extremely Highly Recommended. This is one not to be missed!

RAH"

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

Thanks guys, I look forward to seeing these 2 movies. ....but which one should I watch first? As far as my experience with Paul Newman's work goes, my current favorites are Road to Perdition and Cool Hand Luke....BTW being in the Paul Newman state of mind I also bought The Hustler today, I have not seen that one either.

HD Goofnut, do you think new transfers might come sometime in the future?

Possibly so. Fox just did it for MGM's Hoosiers so why not Butch Cassidy? It really needs to be remastered first and then given a VC-1 or AVC codec.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

Fox Home Video's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in Blu-Ray comes Extremely Highly Recommended. This is one not to be missed!

RAH"

I read that one however it seems that RAH is pretty close to being alone on this one.
From Cinemasquid vvv of 18 reviews the average video ranking is 58 (30-90)vvv

The 18 regular edition video ratings are 60,50,60,90,50,40,88,62,60,60,50,50,30,50,70,78,40 ...> Robert Harris is the only review with no numbers but he basically gave it a 100.
The 18 regular edition reviews.

The 2 Digibook reviews both gave it a 60.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Possibly so. Fox just did it for MGM's Hoosiers so why not Butch Cassidy? It really needs to be remastered first and then given a VC-1 or AVC codec.

Thanks, I don't want to go OT too much but have you compared the old and new Hoosiers transfers?
From the review here on the new Hoosiers BD. vvv

So, is the Hoosiers 25th Anniversary Edition worth a double dip? That's a call you'll have to make on your own. If you already own the original Blu-ray release, wether or not to buy this new edition is simply going to come down to how much you love the film. The new encode is better, but not drastically better, and the special features are nice having but nothing you haven't seen before. It's a toss-up. On the other hand, if you don't yet have a copy of the movieóand want oneóthis is definitely the edition to get. Recommended for sports film fanatics, high school basketball nuts, and anyone who roots for the underdog.

.......and from what I have read on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, it would seem that there is plenty of room for a drastic improvement.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

Thanks, I don't want to go OT too much but have you compared the old and new Hoosiers transfers?
From the review here on the new Hoosiers BD. vvv
.......and from what I have read on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, it would seem that there is plenty of room for a drastic improvement.

It's definitely an upgrade from MPEG-2 to AVC. Grain is much tighter and natural, colors are more accurate, and fine detail textures are slightly better.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

WRONG.


I actually read that out loud to hear what it's like to say something so incorrect in a public space.

Robert A. Harris on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

[Show spoiler]"George Roy Hill's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was brilliant filmmaking in 1969 and remains brilliant today.

The performances by Mr. Newman and Mr. Redford are sharply honed and up to date in every way. Likewise the screenplay by William Goldman remains remarkably textured, working a thin line between the old western genre and the modern buddy film.

Butch Cassidy has stood the test of time.

But like any extremely popular film four decades old, it is physically a bit frayed around the edges.

Once parts of the original negative are damaged or gone, there is nothing to be done but to rely on preservation elements produced at the time. But the truth about those elements is that normally they were vaulted without a care -- literally never examined or tested to see if they would answer back in case of a problem. I'm not referring to Fox here. I'm referring to the industry.

And there are some problems.

Those among you who fit into the nit-picker category will note dupe sections, which appear derived from separation masters. They have a bit of flicker, some discoloration at the bottom of the frame, occasional dirt and other assorted discoloration anomalies.

Grain haters will also have a field day, as Butch was (I believe) photographed on Eastman 5254, the same stock as Bullitt and all of the films of the early '70s. It has a magnificent grain structure, and wonderful color characteristics. This is actually one of my favorite film stocks.

The audio, both in 5.1 stereo as well as the original mono seem crisp and clean, especially as derived from the DTS HD Master tracks.

The truth, which is the bottom line, is that nit-picking is not in order here, as the surviving elements are what they are, and no amount of work, investment or complaining is going to change a thing.

Great films do not age well from a purely physical perspective, while poorly received films seem to age beautifully.

I tend to look at it this way, which is a perspective that I suggest.

As a four decade old production, Butch Cassidy still seems fresh and vibrant to both those revisiting its charms as well as those who have never seen it. This is one of those films that appears that it could have been made yesterday. But here's the perspective that seems to put things in their place.

Go back an equal number of years from 1969, and one is just reaching the dawn of sound -- orthochromatic black & white negatives, along with people speaking into flower vases. With the exception of Mr. Mamoulian's work, a pretty difficult transitional era.

I can easily accept this wonderful film for what it is, and where today's elements allow it to be taken.

I'm certain that a full 90% of viewers will never notice anything amiss here, which is why I suggest to the nit-pickers...

relax, allow yourselves to be taken back to the wonderful war years of the Nixon administration, and take in Butch Cassidy for what it still is -- one of most entertaining films ever created.

There are no caveats here.

Fox Home Video's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in Blu-Ray comes Extremely Highly Recommended. This is one not to be missed!

RAH"

But then he says THIS about The Sting. So I am not sure what to make of RAH's reviews.

[tama]

I just watched the Sting last night and it does not have a film like look to it. Some scenes were very cringe worthy.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by tama

I just watched the Sting last night and it does not have a film like look to it. Some scenes were very cringe worthy.

I just bought The Sting for $11.99, but have yet to watch it. I'll decide whether or not to sell my HD DVD after I watch the BD.