Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by metal134

Well, yes and no. I think the quality of the picture itself is reaching that point. But still, even with the best quality picture imaginable and the best TV or projector imaginable, nothing beats seeing a movie on a 400 inch screen. Unless you are rich beyond imagination, you'll never be able to achieve THAT in your home.

Any difference in quality, for which you need to also take into consideration viewing distance, is negated to me by the comfort of my custom theater seating, better choices of beverage/food, environmental factors, being surrounded by blabbering patrons, etc..

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Any difference in quality, for which you need to also take into consideration viewing distance, is negated to me by the comfort of my custom theater seating, better choices of beverage/food, environmental factors, being surrounded by blabbering patrons, etc..

Don't forget cell phone lights! That is one thing I never miss while settling in my HT for a nice BD viewing!

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by metal134

Well, yes and no. I think the quality of the picture itself is reaching that point. But still, even with the best quality picture imaginable and the best TV or projector imaginable, nothing beats seeing a movie on a 400 inch screen. Unless you are rich beyond imagination, you'll never be able to achieve THAT in your home.

Size counts, but once you are far enough away to be unable to see the texture of the screen fabric, it is only the size of the retinal image that counts ... well, almost true. This can appear to be affected by psychological factors. So you could simulate the 400" (33+ feet) screen you mention by sitting about 12 feet away from a very large home front projection screen. Somewhere online there is a calculator that provides you with the width of the image in degrees for a given distance from a given image width on the screen. If you are seeing 60 degrees in your favorite theater from your favorite seat, the image will be exactly the same size on your retinas as 60 degrees in the home. Your impression may be a bit different. In our music/movie room such a screen would be about 12 or 13 feet wide (we're saving up!). Psychological/perceptual factors are important. A screen on a wall that is much wider than the screen will look smaller than the same screen in a room in which the walls are only a couple of feet from the right and left edge of the screen. That's one reason for my fondness for my favorite, late, lamented 70 mm theater, which was shaped a little like a stubby bullet, with the curved curtains and curved screen taking up the curve of the walls near the tip of the bullet -- no stage .. just a wide angle window on the world.

To simulate the grand, sweeping effect of 70 mm in its heyday, you would probably need a home screen wider than 12 or 13 feet. In the theaters, one standard 70 mm size was 52 feet (624"), but in those theaters, the seats came right down almost to the chord of the arc of the curved screen, so those screens seemed bigger than they were. A more impressive 70 mm configuration was the 85 foot (1,020") that several theaters claimed to have (inc. Century 21 San Jose). I don't know how many degrees that would be from my favorite seats, but it might have been as much as 90 degrees. Simulating that at home would take big bucks, and I suspect that is getting up to the retinal size where Blu-ray resolution fails, and any of instability of the image would be fatal.

[s2mikey]

Watched my UK edition last night. First time I had seen this flick in quite a few years. First thing is first = the transfer & presentation are excellent. It looks stunning. The camera work, the cinematogrophy, the production values are stupendously awesome. It really is a technical marvel when you concider the time frame and lack of modern tools. From a film-laking perspective its hard to top this. Its very much in the same vein as 2001 A Space Odyssey which also holds up incredibly well and was light-years ahead of its time.

That all being said, the film itself is lacking a little bit. Its good and all, dont get me wrong. But, there seems to be a lack of suspense. Lawrence's character doesnt have as interesting or an arc as he could have. He isnt particularly likeable or despicable, hes just sort of there it seems. I also question the lack of actual battle scenes. For example, there is tremendous lead-up to the Akabar siege and the gallup scene heading in there is as good and exciting as anything Ive ever watched. But.... we see a brief ride thorough and then we are done. There are a few other instances of this where you dont see any details of an event. Imagine in Braveheart if the Battle of Sterling showed the cavalry charging and Wallace shouting "Hold.... Hold...." and then it cuts away to the end of the battle right as the first horse gets speared. Would have sucked!

The film itself is plenty long enough for more battle/action sceenes to have been filmed. Seeing the fighting & struggle(not just the ride in and charge) adds a lot to the importance of the situation. We want to see it, not have it explained to us or whatever. Not saying you need to go on and on(like too many battles do in films) but more was needed here. I also feel a few of the conversation scenes didnt serve a lot of purpose.

Lastly, Lawrences character flipped a little too much. He despised violence, then he loved it. His demeanor changed quickly - maybe thats the effect of the war and the mental abuse it can inflict on someone?

Just not 100% sold on the film itself. It seems there were some missed opportunities in there. A tighter plot and better editing would have helped. I dont mind the desert scenes at all - they really show the vastness of the desert and how time can stand still out there. Im good with that and its beautiful to look at. Its just, well, we need "more" meat to the story, IMO.

Just my take on it - no hating please

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Watched my UK edition last night. First time I had seen this flick in quite a few years. First thing is first = the transfer & presentation are excellent. It looks stunning. The camera work, the cinematogrophy, the production values are stupendously awesome. It really is a technical marvel when you concider the time frame and lack of modern tools. From a film-laking perspective its hard to top this. Its very much in the same vein as 2001 A Space Odyssey which also holds up incredibly well and was light-years ahead of its time.

That all being said, the film itself is lacking a little bit. Its good and all, dont get me wrong. But, there seems to be a lack of suspense. Lawrence's character doesnt have as interesting or an arc as he could have. He isnt particularly likeable or despicable, hes just sort of there it seems. I also question the lack of actual battle scenes. For example, there is tremendous lead-up to the Akabar siege and the gallup scene heading in there is as good and exciting as anything Ive ever watched. But.... we see a brief ride thorough and then we are done. There are a few other instances of this where you dont see any details of an event. Imagine in Braveheart if the Battle of Sterling showed the cavalry charging and Wallace shouting "Hold.... Hold...." and then it cuts away to the end of the battle right as the first horse gets speared. Would have sucked!

The film itself is plenty long enough for more battle/action sceenes to have been filmed. Seeing the fighting & struggle(not just the ride in and charge) adds a lot to the importance of the situation. We want to see it, not have it explained to us or whatever. Not saying you need to go on and on(like too many battles do in films) but more was needed here. I also feel a few of the conversation scenes didnt serve a lot of purpose.

Lastly, Lawrences character flipped a little too much. He despised violence, then he loved it. His demeanor changed quickly - maybe thats the effect of the war and the mental abuse it can inflict on someone?

Just not 100% sold on the film itself. It seems there were some missed opportunities in there. A tighter plot and better editing would have helped. I dont mind the desert scenes at all - they really show the vastness of the desert and how time can stand still out there. Im good with that and its beautiful to look at. Its just, well, we need "more" meat to the story, IMO.

Just my take on it - no hating please

Remember when Feisel was asked by the reporter about Lawrence being passionate about mercy,and Feisel said that Lawrence was passionate about mercy,and that for Feisel it was good manners (something close to it-can't remember the excact wording).And the reporter was left to decide which was more reliable?My reading of Lawrence was that his part in the arab revolt was a stance of passion and adventure.And remember too,that he looked upon himself as a messias,so his incident with the turkish commander makes it understandable the switch in his demeanor.His goal was still the same,but his hatered for turks replaced his passion for mercy and clemency.Kind of like Darth Vader

[Member-222782]

I'm a LoA newbie. The first time I saw the film a couple of years ago I was somewhat underwhelmed. I grew up watching great WWII films like The Great Escape, Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, etc and thought Lawrence was going to be in the same vein. It's still a great film but one that I think will take several viewings for me to fully appreciate it. It's being reissued to theaters next month so this is a good opportunity to watch it on a big screen and get a better feel for it.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by cine74

I'm a LoA newbie. The first time I saw the film a couple of years ago I was somewhat underwhelmed. I grew up watching great WWII films like The Great Escape, Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, etc and thought Lawrence was going to be in the same vein. It's still a great film but one that I think will take several viewings for me to fully appreciate it. It's being reissued to theaters next month so this is a good opportunity to watch it on a big screen and get a better feel for it.

it is not a patriotic war film like those you mention.
It's about the political intervention and manipulation by the British to control the Middle East.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Remember when Feisel was asked by the reporter about Lawrence being passionate about mercy,and Feisel said that Lawrence was passionate about mercy,and that for Feisel it was good manners (something close to it-can't remember the excact wording).And the reporter was left to decide which was more reliable?My reading of Lawrence was that his part in the arab revolt was a stance of passion and adventure.And remember too,that he looked upon himself as a messias,so his incident with the turkish commander makes it understandable the switch in his demeanor.His goal was still the same,but his hatered for turks replaced his passion for mercy and clemency.Kind of like Darth Vader

Yes - I recall that scene. Good point. Also remember the Turkish general part too. Even considering what he endured he had a lot invested in this revolt and seemed to change gears more quickly than I would have expected.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Watched my UK edition last night. First time I had seen this flick in quite a few years. First thing is first = the transfer & presentation are excellent. It looks stunning. The camera work, the cinematogrophy, the production values are stupendously awesome. It really is a technical marvel when you concider the time frame and lack of modern tools. From a film-laking perspective its hard to top this. Its very much in the same vein as 2001 A Space Odyssey which also holds up incredibly well and was light-years ahead of its time.

That all being said, the film itself is lacking a little bit. Its good and all, dont get me wrong. But, there seems to be a lack of suspense. Lawrence's character doesnt have as interesting or an arc as he could have. He isnt particularly likeable or despicable, hes just sort of there it seems. I also question the lack of actual battle scenes. For example, there is tremendous lead-up to the Akabar siege and the gallup scene heading in there is as good and exciting as anything Ive ever watched. But.... we see a brief ride thorough and then we are done. There are a few other instances of this where you dont see any details of an event. Imagine in Braveheart if the Battle of Sterling showed the cavalry charging and Wallace shouting "Hold.... Hold...." and then it cuts away to the end of the battle right as the first horse gets speared. Would have sucked!

The film itself is plenty long enough for more battle/action sceenes to have been filmed. Seeing the fighting & struggle(not just the ride in and charge) adds a lot to the importance of the situation. We want to see it, not have it explained to us or whatever. Not saying you need to go on and on(like too many battles do in films) but more was needed here. I also feel a few of the conversation scenes didnt serve a lot of purpose.

Lastly, Lawrences character flipped a little too much. He despised violence, then he loved it. His demeanor changed quickly - maybe thats the effect of the war and the mental abuse it can inflict on someone?

Just not 100% sold on the film itself. It seems there were some missed opportunities in there. A tighter plot and better editing would have helped. I dont mind the desert scenes at all - they really show the vastness of the desert and how time can stand still out there. Im good with that and its beautiful to look at. Its just, well, we need "more" meat to the story, IMO.

Just my take on it - no hating please

Agreed. I also found it a bit strange that when Lawrence indicates he leaves the Arabs and talks this over with the general, he switches from a resolute no to a new found enthousiasm, without any really convincing arguments from general Allenby. And then he gets back to the Arabs, where Sheriff Ali seems to find it pretty normal he is back so soon after his mental breakdown earlier.

Edit: First time viewing. Still an enjoyable film none the less, great cinematography and the story is interesting. It also doesn't have that overblown theatrical acting which I found somewhat annoying in Ben-Hur.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Agreed. I also found it a bit strange that when Lawrence indicates he leaves the Arabs and talks this over with the general, he switches from a resolute no to a new found enthousiasm, without any really convincing arguments from general Allenby. And then he gets back to the Arabs, where Sheriff Ali seems to find it pretty normal he is back so soon after his mental breakdown earlier.

Edit: First time viewing. Still an enjoyable film none the less, great cinematography and the story is interesting. It also doesn't have that overblown theatrical acting which I found somewhat annoying in Ben-Hur.

Good points, especially about the overdone acting in other films. It was more realistic. Its a very good story that could have been told a little better. Thats how I feel. Partially a missed opportunity in some regards. From a film-making standpoint though...and the sheer effort... can only be applauded with the upmost enthusiasm!

[HE1NZ]

From another thread:

Best cinematography and best looking Blu-Ray ever. Knocked down The Sound of Music from top. I freaking love 70mm. Also because the movie doesn't feature any optical effects at all - the only way to notice it's age is slightly dated soundtrack.

[pro-bassoonist]

Press announcement:

“lawrence of arabia” returns to the big screen to celebrate 50th anniversary

* * * * *

ncm® fathom events and sony pictures entertainment present

cinematic treasure in select movie theaters on october 4

centennial, colo. – september 6, 2012 – one of the most popular and influential films in the history of cinema returns to the silver screen with “lawrence of arabia 50th anniversary event: Digitally restored” on thursday, october 4 at 7:00 p.m. Local time, with special matinees in select theaters. Presented by ncm® fathom events and sony pictures entertainment, the film was meticulously restored by sony pictures entertainment in 4k at sony pictures’ colorworks from the original 65mm negative. This special event features an exclusive introduction from “lawrence of arabia” star and academy award® nominee omar sharif. The event will include newsreel footage of the new york premiere as stars arrive on the red carpet, as well as footage of king hussein visiting the film set in aqaba where he met david lean, sam spiegel and peter o’toole. Academy award® -winning director martin scorsese (best director, “the departed,” 2006) will also discuss the overarching themes of “lawrence of arabia” and its influence on other iconic films.



Tickets for “lawrence of arabia 50th anniversary event: Digitally restored” are available at participating theater box offices and online at http://www.fathomevents.com. The event will be presented using new digital cinema projection systems in more than 630 select movie theaters around the country. For a complete list of theater locations and prices, visit the ncm fathom events website (theaters and participants are subject to change).



Winner of seven academy awards®, including best picture of 1962, “lawrence of arabia” is considered one of the most timeless and essential motion picture masterpieces. The greatest achievement of its legendary, oscar®-winning director david lean (“lawrence of arabia,” “the bridge on the river kwai”), the film has been honored as the no. 7 film on the american film institute’s (afi) list of the “100 greatest movies of all time.”



“lawrence of arabia” stars peter o’toole in his career-making performance as t.e. Lawrence. A young, idealistic british officer in wwi, lawrence is assigned to the camp of prince feisal, an arab tribal chieftain and leader in a revolt against the turks. In a series of brilliant tactical maneuvers, lawrence leads 50 of feisal's men in a tortured three-week crossing of the nefud desert to attack the strategic turkish-held port of aqaba. Following his successful raids against turkish troops and trains, lawrence’s triumphant leadership and unyielding courage gain him nearly god-like status among his arab brothers.



“’lawrence of arabia’ deserves a spectacular golden anniversary celebration on the silver screen,” said shelly maxwell, executive vice president of fathom events. “this epic film starring peter o’toole and omar sharif is one of the greatest films in the history of cinema with special footage that fans won’t want to miss.”



the “lawrence of arabia” limited-edition, four-disc collector’s gift set will be available on november 13 in a fully-restored blu-ray™ with ultraviolet™. The four-disc set includes three blu-ray discs, plus a cd of the original soundtrack featuring previously unreleased tracks. Other special items include an authentic 70mm film frame (newly printed and numbered) and an 88-page hard-bound coffee table book that features rarely seen photos, the film’s history and significance and insight into the making of the film.



About national cinemedia (ncm)

ncm operates ncm media networks, a leading integrated media company reaching u.s. Consumers in movie theaters, online and through mobile technology. The ncm cinema network and ncm fathom events present cinema advertising and events across the nation’s largest digital in-theater network, comprised of theaters owned by amc entertainment inc., cinemark holdings, inc. (nyse: Cnk), regal entertainment group (nyse: Rgc) and other leading regional theater circuits. Ncm’s theater advertising network covers 181 designated market areas® (49 of the top 50) and includes over 19,000 screens (over 18,100 digital). During 2011, approximately 680 million patrons (on an annualized basis) attended movies shown in theaters in which ncm currently has exclusive, cinema advertising agreements in place. The ncm fathom events live digital broadcast network (“dbn”) is comprised of over 700 locations in 170 designated market areas® (including all of the top 50). The ncm interactive network offers 360-degree integrated marketing opportunities in combination with cinema, encompassing 42 entertainment-related websites, online widgets and mobile applications. National cinemedia, inc. (nasdaq: Ncmi) owns a 48.6% interest in and is the managing member of national cinemedia llc. For more information, visit http://www.ncm.com or http://www.fathomevents.com.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Press announcement:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=868

[ShellOilJunior]

I've seen the press announcement posted many, many times. Does anyone know if the special footage is before or after the main feature?

[monorail91]

Basing off of Fathom Events' presentation of The Birds a couple weeks ago, I think the special footage will be BEFORE the movie. That's also how it was for Fathom's Casablanca back in the Spring.

[metal134]

I'm not sure whether I'm going to go to the 2:00 or 7:00 showing. I'm on vacation all week, so I'll be off during the day for the 2:00 showing, but on the other hand, it doesn't matter if I don't get home until midnight because I don't have to be up Friday either.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by metal134

I'm not sure whether I'm going to go to the 2:00 or 7:00 showing. I'm on vacation all week, so I'll be off during the day for the 2:00 showing, but on the other hand, it doesn't matter if I don't get home until midnight because I don't have to be up Friday either.

I'm going for the earlier showing (1:00 pm) myself. Four and a half hours is much easier to take when it's earlier in the day. I don't want to be getting sleepy during this, and I most certainly would be at around 11 - 11:30pm after four hours.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by monorail91

Basing off of Fathom Events' presentation of The Birds a couple weeks ago, I think the special footage will be BEFORE the movie. That's also how it was for Fathom's Casablanca back in the Spring.

Eh. I'd prefer if they were shown at the end. I think it messes with the rhythm of the presentation. It's 2 hours 20 minutes until intermission. With the extras it will be about 3 hours.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Eh. I'd prefer if they were shown at the end. I think it messes with the rhythm of the presentation. It's 2 hours 20 minutes until intermission. With the extras it will be about 3 hours.

I'm taking my wife, who has never seen the film, and I'm worried these extras are going to spoil the film. Particularly, an intro by Martin Scorsese about the the "themes" of the film. If anyone goes to see the 2:00 p.m. show, can you please report back and let me know what this intro consists of? Seriously, I'd rather wait in the lobby for this Scorsese dscussion to be over if it's going to spoil the movie, in any way.

[Ernest Rister]

From what I can gather, it's the "Lure of the Desert" interview included on the upcoming US mega-set.