"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I have never seen 1941, but isn't it considered Spielbergs worst film?

It's not one of his best, but it also isn't the disaster some make it out to be. For my money, his worst film is War of the Worlds, followed closely by Always. AI is his most underrated film.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sometimes I think I should be in the marketing division rather than a technical division.

“When girls are good they are very good, but when they are bad they are even better.”
I think THAT ^ is much better than this …http://www.sonypictures.com/homevide...396306011.html

and my sort of taglines might well make a Blu-ray incarnation, a profitable venture, but alas, they keep me in the Advanced Technology stuff.

Ray H.’s stuff is serious card-carrying cinephile material and its importance to cinematic history, Blu-ray collectors and home theater enthusiasts should not be underestimated, but believe me Oliver, personally, I would like a little more nasty diversity, because mingling with people that come out to events like “Bad Girls Night” makes the reward for the hours and hours of restoration even sweeter…http://davidallen.zenfolio.com/p407463247

Nice retort and according to the pics in the link you posted Grover would agree about the nasty or should I say naughty movies restorations and the subsequent rewards

I'm off to Norway now to watch 70mm movies on the big screen including a movie or two with a guy in the desert. Unfortunately FIAF is all but over but I could not make it earlier, but what can you do?

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Sure. There are some other areas in which Spielberg clearly went off in his own direction, but my point was that no matter how specific and articulate Kubrick's notes might have been, the peculiarities of taking a project into production will always mean that anyone else who took a shot at the movie, Kubrick included, may have ended up with something else by the time they were done.

True, but Kubrick had handed the film over to Spielberg before his death and would have never made it anyway.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Hmmm, I never got all the excitement about the Harryhausen films but I will probably buy it anyway as for some reason I never managed to watch this one plus I would like to see the result of that 4k scan

IMO, I like the other Harryhausen films for scenes here and there, but Jason and the Argonauts is easily his best film, and not just for the great visual effects. It's truly a classic story, done very well, and with just the right amount of escapist adventure charm to be great. The only downside is how abruptly it ends, with the sequel not being made at all. (It still ends satisfactorily. It just ends... very suddenly.)

So, yeah - a hearty recommend.

[mark antony]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For your consideration…
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4506

^ The film source was scanned at 4k and the quality of the master looked very good, actually better than I expected. In short, I was impressed with the outcome which is why I’m bringing this title to people’s attention. Might I humbly recommend everyone purchase Jason and the Argonauts because this Blu-ray movie represents quality work on an important film that should find its way into every cinephile's collection.

V much looking forward to this, Thanks Penton

M

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For your consideration…
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4506

^ The film source was scanned at 4k and the quality of the master looked very good, actually better than I expected. (...)

SCANITY or NORTHLIGHT ??

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by captveg

True, but Kubrick had handed the film over to Spielberg before his death and would have never made it anyway.

Which suggests to me that he was no longer as interested (for whatever reason) in doing it himself... adding further circumstantial evidence to my assertion that he may have ultimately done something different with it if he had done it himself.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Which suggests to me that he was no longer as interested (for whatever reason) in doing it himself... adding further circumstantial evidence to my assertion that he may have ultimately done something different with it if he had done it himself.

Or maybe the fact that he died may have had something to do with it...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Or maybe the fact that he died may have had something to do with it...

My point is that one can (and some often do) make the most precise, thorough and "concrete" plans for the production of a film and things will still often change significantly when they get on set (and/or in the edit bay) and start working with actual material, rather than theoretical material.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My point is that one can (and some often do) make the most precise, thorough and "concrete" plans for the production of a film and things will still often change significantly when they get on set (and/or in the edit bay) and start working with actual material, rather than theoretical material.

Well, knowing Kubrick it would have taken 2 years to shoot to get 30 min of usable footage.

Spielberg could have shot Eyes Wide Shut in a month and probably had a better film to show for it.

[The Big Blue]

My take is that Kubrick *did* finish AI. He took it as far he was comfortable doing so. Then after his death Spielberg honored him by shooting the film Kubrick recognized he shouldn't.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

:…http://www.sonypictures.com/homevide...396306011.html

I see no date on that.

Is that something that might make its way to Blu-ray?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

…http://davidallen.zenfolio.com/p407463247

40's

My favorite era for fashion, for both men and women. Coats, hats, pleats and cuffs.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, knowing Kubrick it would have taken 2 years to shoot to get 30 min of usable footage.

Spielberg could have shot Eyes Wide Shut in a month and probably had a better film to show for it.

Considering that I probably like my least favorite Kubrick film more than my most favorite Spielberg film, we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "usable footage".

[KubrickFan]

A.I. is an incredibly underrated movie, even more than Eyes Wide Shut. If it's true that Kubrick really intended for Spielberg to direct A.I., then I think he did a great job. Of course it would've been interested to see what Stanley Kubrick would have done with it, although I don't see how a real robot could've played the part of David. Nevertheless, Spielberg's A.I. is a fantastic movie. I'd rather have that Kubrick would have been able to do his Napoleon movie (however, Barry Lyndon is also very good), and Aryan Papers.

[kurtlingle]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

A.I. is an incredibly underrated movie, even more than Eyes Wide Shut. If it's true that Kubrick really intended for Spielberg to direct A.I., then I think he did a great job. Of course it would've been interested to see what Stanley Kubrick would have done with it, although I don't see how a real robot could've played the part of David. Nevertheless, Spielberg's A.I. is a fantastic movie. I'd rather have that Kubrick would have been able to do his Napoleon movie (however, Barry Lyndon is also very good), and Aryan Papers.

I also really like AI. When I rented it on DVD, I was ready for the worst - since it had so-so reviews (or bad ones).

But I really enjoyed it - though the ending was on the down side. I felt like the movie was a journey and I had no idea where it would go... and I enjoy that.

So I look forward to it on Blu-ray.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

A.I. is an incredibly underrated movie, even more than Eyes Wide Shut. If it's true that Kubrick really intended for Spielberg to direct A.I., then I think he did a great job. Of course it would've been interested to see what Stanley Kubrick would have done with it, although I don't see how a real robot could've played the part of David. Nevertheless, Spielberg's A.I. is a fantastic movie. I'd rather have that Kubrick would have been able to do his Napoleon movie (however, Barry Lyndon is also very good), and Aryan Papers.

Kubrick actually had ongoing conversations with the senior VFX supervisors at ILM. He wanted to create David via CGI: perfect but unreal.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

4K, you're not going to get those kinds of figures out of anyone publically, sorry, and there are so many variables involved, especially when it comes to overhead and the bigger picture business. A small company like Criterion or Shout Factory may do well at 5000 copies, while 7500 loses money at a large studio because the title isn't pulling the weight in the bigger picture it needs to.

Please note the above figures and names are intended for illustrative purposes only and do not represent anything "real"

Do all the studios have the sales figures for their competition? Would Universal find out sales figures for War of the Worlds?

Just wondering if Universal would use that info to help them determine whether or not the market is big enough for them to release some of their Spielberg titles (in addition to getting the okay from the man himself).

[Jeff Kleist]

Speilberg titles have their own measuring stick, installed base is what matters on those. If he's letting them out through Paramount, you can be sure that they're doing something with Uni as well when the marketing promotional slots hit for those titles.

They have raw sales numbers through the same reports everyone else gets, but they can only compare to their own authoring/production bills.

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Zee real Bigie will eventually come.

I will say that fewer catalog titles are being released by most studios now because people are not buying enough of them for the studios to make a profit. It's unfortunate because there are some classics that have not been released yet and we can't justify putting them out if no one is buying them.

I find this very sad. Finally a format to see these classics in stunning high def and hear the great scores in lossless, and the pickins' are slim. Blu-rays like The Music Man and South Pacific and How the West was Won are just incredible, but only wet the appetite.

I might add that I think part of this problem has been the classics that certain studios are releasing (my opinion of course). Wouldn't Sony have sold more Lawrence of Arabia than The Professionals? Wouldn't Fox have sold more Sound of Music than South Pacific? And Paramount hasn't even given anything from pre-1970 a try nor had Universal until Spartacus.

There are beautiful transfers being shown on Hdnet Movies and MGM-HD, but they still are not 1080p and they are still severly compressed in sound. I really hope the situation changes one day. Eventually they are going to run out of releases post 1990 and maybe then they will dig a little deeper. One can only hope.