Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[lesco]

Originally Posted by chas speed

I could swear that Sellers is doing Stanley Kubrick's voice in Lolita after listening to a audio only interview of Kubrick on the 2001 Blu-ray

Joe Dante said the same thing on a podcast a while back - "He's doing Kubrick" - so I'd say that was his intention.

[Richard--W]

Wasn't Loving You (Paramount 1957) supposed to come out this month?

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Wasn't Loving You (Paramount 1957) supposed to come out this month?

That’s a planned Rewind Productions release.

[Jobla]

After a premature announcement for February, the latest I've heard is that it will take several more months for LOVING YOU to hit Blu.

[Shanghai Express]

Sad to report that this week's release of Bedazzled utilizes Fox's mid-2000s master and exhibits the same incorrect aspect ratio and glaringly obvious vertical stretching that were present on the 2007 R1 DVD. Both that old DVD and this new Blu-ray are 2.35:1 compared to the German Blu-ray's faithful 2.63:1. If you already have the Fox DVD there is little here to justify an upgrade.

[T. Warren Scollan]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

Sad to report that this week's release of Bedazzled utilizes Fox's mid-2000s master and exhibits the same incorrect aspect ratio and glaringly obvious vertical stretching that were present on the 2007 R1 DVD. Both that old DVD and this new Blu-ray are 2.35:1 compared to the German Blu-ray's faithful 2.63:1. If you already have the Fox DVD there is little here to justify an upgrade.

At 2.63:1, are you saying that "Bedazzled" was originally filmed in either MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision or 6 perf 3 strip Cinerama?

[Aclea]

It's a regular 35mm Panavision feature and should be 2.35:1.

[Shanghai Express]

Originally Posted by T. Warren Scollan

At 2.63:1, are you saying that "Bedazzled" was originally filmed in either MGM Camera 65/Ultra Panavision or 6 perf 3 strip Cinerama?

The Blu-ray.com review of the German BD lists that as the ratio. Perhaps it was a typo? But the screencaps from that disc look marvelous and the image is proportionate.

I was disappointed last night when I started the TT disc and the opening credits still had the same dead giveaway re: stretching that the DVD had. Stanley Donen’s trademark on his 60s films was a circle in a square next to his name. On the DVD and this BR, it’s an oval in a rectangle.

[bunkaroo]

Anyone get a ship notice on Talk Radio yet?

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

The Blu-ray.com review of the German BD lists that as the ratio. Perhaps it was a typo? But the screencaps from that disc look marvelous and the image is proportionate.

It's definitely not a typo. I compared a screenshot of the German Blu to a screenshot of a random 2.35 film and it's definitely 2.63.

[Widescreenfilmguy]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

It's definitely not a typo. I compared a screenshot of the German Blu to a screenshot of a random 2.35 film and it's definitely 2.63.

It was never meant to be any wider than 2:35

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by Widescreenfilmguy

It was never meant to be any wider than 2:35

I know that. The user was asking if the 2.63 aspect ratio on the specs for the German Blu was a mistake (typo); it wasn't a mistake, it's incorrectly at 2.63.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by bunkaroo

Anyone get a ship notice on Talk Radio yet?

No. Still waiting, also.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

As a user above stated earlier, the TT is in 2.35 and not in 2.63 like the German release.

Thanks for catching that. Could you delete my quote. I don't want to spread any disinformation. Thanks again.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by mrmikefern

Sad to report that this week's release of Bedazzled utilizes Fox's mid-2000s master and exhibits the same incorrect aspect ratio and glaringly obvious vertical stretching that were present on the 2007 R1 DVD. Both that old DVD and this new Blu-ray are 2.35:1 compared to the German Blu-ray's faithful 2.63:1. If you already have the Fox DVD there is little here to justify an upgrade.

Why are you saying the botched German Blu-ray release of "Bedazzled" had a "faithful" aspect ratio at 2:63.1? The correct aspect ratio is 2:35.1 (check IMDB) for the film and the German Blu-ray's aspect ratio was not correct. I also found no stretching on the old DVD and it had more picture info then the UK disc. It sounds like Twilight did it right and you are getting it wrong. I look forward to reading some reviews now that I know that Twilight Time has the correct aspect ratio.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by CV19

The Pink Panther films are arguably his best known films, but I've never really warmed to them.

The problem with the Panther films is that they're one-note, and keep beating that one note to death in film after film. You've seen one, you've seen them all. A Shot in the Dark is the only one I've been able to watch over and over again. And I'm a Blake Edwards fan.

Being There is probably Sellers' best performance. He's OK in Dr. Strangelove, but he's outshined by Sterling Hayden and especially George C. Scott.

I couldn't stand him in Lolita. Or, to be more precise, I didn't like the way his character (Quilty) was presented, which was probably as much Kubrick's fault as Sellers'.

[koberulz]

I prefer Pink Panther to Shot in the Dark, personally. They're both dull, but the car chase at the end of Panther is worthwhile.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by jayembee

The problem with the Panther films is that they're one-note, and keep beating that one note to death in film after film. You've seen one, you've seen them all. A Shot in the Dark is the only one I've been able to watch over and over again. And I'm a Blake Edwards fan.

Being There is probably Sellers' best performance. He's OK in Dr. Strangelove, but he's outshined by Sterling Hayden and especially George C. Scott.

I couldn't stand him in Lolita. Or, to be more precise, I didn't like the way his character (Quilty) was presented, which was probably as much Kubrick's fault as Sellers'.

A Shot in the Dark is the only one I really Love. It's a great film.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by lesco

Joe Dante said the same thing on a podcast a while back - "He's doing Kubrick" - so I'd say that was his intention.

I wonder if Kubrick ever caught on that Sellers was impersonating him in "Lolita"? I suppose he had to have known.

[Aclea]

Directors tend to have a blind spot about themselves in that regard, especially in other directors' films. William Friedkin never twigged that J.T. Walsh was playing him in Breakdown (even down to the wardrobe) and Peter Bogdanovich still disputes that Robert Klein in Hooper or Ryan O'Neal in Irreconcilable Differences were playing him even though the former directly quotes him several times and the latter was inspired by his divorce. Like writers they often tend to develop a mental picture of themselves as the hero of their films and can't see beyond it.