1962 Mutiny on the Bounty in November 8 - Review up

[rvmeeker]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

What's changed with Blu-ray is the stakes (read: cost$$$) have risen dramatically to properly redo these catalogue titles. And this is at a time when we're still in recession, home video sales in general have softened, and Blu-ray still hasn't crossed over as the primary home video medium. Factor in the push to HD VOD for cable and other 'unboxing' streams, plus the diminishing will for studios to 'go-for-broke' on a high-end Blu-ray edition unless they can make it an 'event' release like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz. Guess where rescanning and remastering something like Mutiny on the Bounty falls on their scale of priorities?
...
However, it's not all bad news. I think the studios are already aware that these lazy legacy-dumps just aren't cutting it with either movie afficionados or mainstream fans, and will eventually get around to properly redoing their catalogues. What will most likely drive that is the need to feed the HD cable and streaming markets.
...
So over the next few years, we'll likely see some of these 70mm epics treated much better on Blu-ray...just not likely released under the house label, or as widely and cheaply available as these second tier legacy dumps.

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Rock-Around-The-Clock (yes, I too read Parade Magazine!). But they do beg some questions. First, you say that costs to redo these catalog titles have increased. Really? I've always assumed that hi-def transfer costs have gone down over the years. I remember when Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) first came out, it was predicted that product releases would be relatively slow as it took considerably longer (i.e. more expensive) to do an hi-def transfer than a conventional DVD transfer. With the thousands of titles that now have actually made it to BD, I can only assume that the per-disc cost for these transfers has plummeted. Am I wrong?

Second, I don't see how the push to VOD and streaming is going to lead to yet higher-quality HD transfers. My limited exposure to that stuff does not generally impress me. Furthermore, the greater the resolution of a "print", the more video broadcast bandwith it requires. Considering the mediocre hi-def expectations of the average consumer, why would a media company allocate more bandwith than is minimally required for it to tout a broadcast as "hi-def"? What passes for HD on some of my satellite channels is clearly far short of 1080p. And the little streaming video I've seen shows very low PQ. Consumers seem to be demanding convenience far more than PQ, so although I hope you are correct, I don't understand why you believe this trend will possibly lead to good things.

Finally, I do agree that it's possible that more and more of these legacy titles may migrate to smaller Twilight Time-type labels, but I'm not sure if that necessarily translates to reference-qualiity transfers. For example, I'm thrilled to have "The Egyptian" on blu-ray, but I'd say it falls considerably short of reference-quality. Do you have any sense of what the actual cost comparisons are for a true high-quality transfer vs. a run-of-the-mill dump? I have no idea myself, but it would be interesting to know the numbers. I would think that Criterion might be willing to tackle some of this stuff, but that assumes the major labels would license their titles, an unlikely scenario I would think.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Rock-Around-The-Clock (yes, I too read Parade Magazine!). But they do beg some questions. First, you say that costs to redo these catalog titles have increased. Really? I've always assumed that hi-def transfer costs have gone down over the years. I remember when Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) first came out, it was predicted that product releases would be relatively slow as it took considerably longer (i.e. more expensive) to do an hi-def transfer than a conventional DVD transfer. With the thousands of titles that now have actually made it to BD, I can only assume that the per-disc cost for these transfers has plummeted. Am I wrong?

Hate to sound glib or evasive rvmeeker, but "no"...and "yes".

My answer would be "no" if the studio was already sitting on high resolution scans (4k plus) of the source materials with meticulously restored masters. To do a transfer to Blu-ray from that calibre of source could be very cost-effective. But how many of those "thousands" of titles (of which only hundreds are vintage catalogue titles), were redone from such high-end, readily-available source materials? I trust my eyes on this point...not too many older movies have just 'swanned' onto Blu-ray without showing signs that they should have had more rework than was done.

More often than not, my answer would be "yes", based on what studios actually spend to take some of these titles up several notches. For example, although the numbers vary, Warners' rescan/remaster of North by Northwest was reportedly over $1,000,000, so it's anybody's guess what something like Ben Hur or Wizard of Oz cost.

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Second, I don't see how the push to VOD and streaming is going to lead to yet higher-quality HD transfers. My limited exposure to that stuff does not generally impress me. Furthermore, the greater the resolution of a "print", the more video broadcast bandwith it requires. Considering the mediocre hi-def expectations of the average consumer, why would a media company allocate more bandwith than is minimally required for it to tout a broadcast as "hi-def"? What passes for HD on some of my satellite channels is clearly far short of 1080p. And the little streaming video I've seen shows very low PQ. Consumers seem to be demanding convenience far more than PQ, so although I hope you are correct, I don't understand why you believe this trend will possibly lead to good things.

Agree 100%, which is why none of the current 'pseudo' high-def cable or streaming offerings interest me...at least not yet. However, with the push for fiber to the home, and cable fighting to remain competitive with IP based systems, I believe the former will at some point 'pull out all the stops' to deliver a level of quality that IP streaming has no short run hope of matching. Since the studios are ultimately content providers, I suspect they will want to be ready for these true-def cable services when they become more widely available.

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Finally, I do agree that it's possible that more and more of these legacy titles may migrate to smaller Twilight Time-type labels, but I'm not sure if that necessarily translates to reference-qualiity transfers. For example, I'm thrilled to have "The Egyptian" on blu-ray, but I'd say it falls considerably short of reference-quality.

Awww, well, we differ there sir. I've seen and held the actual film of The Egyptian, and can say without the slightest hesitation that what Fox/Twilight Time did with this Blu-ray was as close to that original 'grace state' as I can imagine. Whether or not it's 'reference quality' (whatever that term actually means anymore) this disc was a very accurate representation of what The Egyptian looked like in early 2.55:1 CinemaScope. Honestly, I don't know what they could have done to improve it, short of restaging and reshooting the entire movie with different actors and modern, less-distorting anamorphic lenses.

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Do you have any sense of what the actual cost comparisons are for a true high-quality transfer vs. a run-of-the-mill dump? I have no idea myself, but it would be interesting to know the numbers. I would think that Criterion might be willing to tackle some of this stuff, but that assumes the major labels would license their titles, an unlikely scenario I would think.

Unfortunately, anything I could offer you would just be ballpark and more-or-less heresay, like those NxNW numbers quoted above. I'm sure someone with much more inside knowledge of the studio's balance sheets could offer a more credible cost breakdown for these end-to-end redo's.

It's worth noting though that even Criterion is at the mercy of what the studios choose to dust-off, rescan, and restore. Although Criterion treats titles with care and adds their own interviews and other features to their transfers, if the studio couldn't provide them with top notch high-def source materials, then even the most sensitive work at the backend cannot make a so-so master into something incandescent.

[benbess]

I thought that sometimes Criterion did their own restorations and scans...?? Not sure though...

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by benbess

I thought that sometimes Criterion did their own restorations and scans...?? Not sure though...

I should have said "mostly" benbess. I don't know exactly what percentage Criterion does end-to-end, but judging by a few of the 'iffy' Criterion BDs I own*, I'd bet it's fewer than they would prefer we know, and most Criterion collectors would be willing to admit. Criterion is a somewhat special case though because I think a lot of the goodwill toward this label is based on the understanding that they sincerely do care about cinema, and try (mostly succeeding) to make their masters and transfers the best they can be regardless of what they've been given to work with.

* One of my biggest disappointments to date was the print they used for Stagecoach. That couldn't have been an archival class restoration judging by all the scratches I saw - just play the opening credits to see what I mean. And yet I've read often breathless raves about that Blu-ray, including some on this site! But I didn't detect anything special being done with it.

[rvmeeker]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

Awww, well, we differ there sir. I've seen and held the actual film of The Egyptian, and can say without the slightest hesitation that what Fox/Twilight Time did with this Blu-ray was as close to that original 'grace state' as I can imagine. Whether or not it's 'reference quality' (whatever that term actually means anymore) this disc was a very accurate representation of what The Egyptian looked like in early 2.55:1 CinemaScope. Honestly, I don't know what they could have done to improve it, short of restaging and reshooting the entire movie with different actors and modern, less-distorting anamorphic lenses.

Well, ROclockCK, I stand firmly corrected. A little background to my "confession": For the past year or so, I honestly had not been overly impressed with any blu-ray I had been watching. I've got a pretty high-quality system, complete with 10-foot-wide curved 2:35 screen, fancy electronics to match, and was always so glad to experience what true hi-def could offer a film buff like myself. Then, about a month ago I went in to have my annual eye exam. According to the doc, my distance vision had deteriorated since the last visit, so I swallowed my pride and ordered some prescription glasses. Just got them a couple of days ago after reading your comments about THE EGYPTIAN, so I figured why not revisit the film. This morning was the official test drive. Verdict: Holy s%$! I've been officially resurrected and have re-entered Hi-Def Heaven. Please accept my humble apologies; I completely retract my EGYPTIAN comments. (Moral to the rest of you Middle-Agers: accept reality and gets your eyes checked. It's well worth it).

OK, as for the numbers crunching, you say that NBNW cost upwards of $1,000,000, and I believe 10 COMMANDMENTS was a similar figure. Who knows what they spent on BEN HUR, or what Fox is spending for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Well, if Twilight Time is only licensed to sell 3,000 copies at $40 a pop, that totals only $120,000 for a complete sellout ($180,000 if they also sell out the DVD at $20 per). Assuming their projections result in at least some profit, how in the world can Twilight Time do such a killer job for a fraction of what NBNW and 10C cost? Am I missing something here?

Thanks for the continued conversation ... it's much appreciated.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Well, if Twilight Time is only licensed to sell 3,000 copies at $40 a pop, that totals only $120,000 for a complete sellout ($180,000 if they also sell out the DVD at $20 per). Assuming their projections result in at least some profit, how in the world can Twilight Time do such a killer job for a fraction of what NBNW and 10C cost? Am I missing something here?

Like most independents, all Twilight Time did was license a digital master. Sony has lots of these HD masters laying around that they have been doing for years....not just with an eye toward bluray but cable, streaming, etc.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

...about a month ago I went in to have my annual eye exam. According to the doc, my distance vision had deteriorated since the last visit, so I swallowed my pride and ordered some prescription glasses. Just got them a couple of days ago after reading your comments about THE EGYPTIAN, so I figured why not revisit the film. This morning was the official test drive. Verdict: Holy s%$! I've been officially resurrected and have re-entered Hi-Def Heaven. Please accept my humble apologies; I completely retract my EGYPTIAN comments.

Good for you rvmeeker! For awhile there, your original comments had me wondering if I needed my own prescription checked!

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

OK, as for the numbers crunching, you say that NBNW cost upwards of $1,000,000, and I believe 10 COMMANDMENTS was a similar figure. Who knows what they spent on BEN HUR, or what Fox is spending for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Well, if Twilight Time is only licensed to sell 3,000 copies at $40 a pop, that totals only $120,000 for a complete sellout ($180,000 if they also sell out the DVD at $20 per). Assuming their projections result in at least some profit, how in the world can Twilight Time do such a killer job for a fraction of what NBNW and 10C cost? Am I missing something here?

If I recall correctly, this subject was discussed on the Mysterious Island board by folks more knowedgable than I, so I'll defer to them. Also check out The Egyptian review and board, plus the Fright Night board.

In a nutshell though, TT is only licensing titles which already have high definition studio rescans/remasters, for which they will just handle the authoring, manufacture, and distribution (which on limited runs such as this is also very costly per unit). Otherwise, as you suggest the numbers couldn't possibly add up for a complete end-to-end redo, especially if a particular title required any restoration of the original film elements before transfer (as was the case with Ben Hur, so I've heard).

What is not as widely understood is that the major studios are continually working on their libraries in the background, upgrading titles with 'iffy' specs for high-def cable, or anticipating a new Blu-ray/DVD release down the line (most of the Fox Cinema classics DVD series was the direct result of this ongoing improvement programme). This was likely the case with The Egyptian as well, which was rescanned/remastered as recently as 2010. However, somewhere along the line Fox' release priorities changed, and they decided they didn't want to further invest in the authoring, manufacture, and distribution of this title in the numbers they are accustomed to doing for such a niche market worldwide (probably as a result of softer-than-expected Blu-ray sales for The Robe and Quo Vadis). So rather than just sitting on a quality master until the economy improves and Blu-ray's market share increases, Fox chose to license it to TT in the meantime for a limited run. Will Fox eventually repatriate this title and re-release it themselves? Probably. Maybe. Hard to say. The sales performance of every TT title will be different - some much better than expected, others much worse - so these limited releases will be like 'testing the water' for each studio's marketing team. Some of these titles will eventually come back to Blu under the house label; others will be deemed already done adequately for the small group of fans worldwide who seriously wanted them.

[rvmeeker]

Thanks, ROclockCK. I always learn something from your posts. I'll check out those other forum discussions. You are probably correct that the studio decided to "test the waters" with their limited release agreement with Twilight Time. From their perspective, it no doubt makes sense. I honestly did not realize that a number of HD masters are just "laying around" waiting for either eventual HD broadcast or possible (but not guaranteed) BD release. One wonders about the economics of such a business plan. Perhaps, however, there are actually some far-sighted studio honchos that recognize the long-term value of these legacy titles, and the importance of getting good HD transfers in the bank before the original film elements deteriorate even more. We can only hope.

I'd still be fascinated to know the units sales figures for a lot of these catalog BD titles. Does anyone know whether this information is available anywhere, or is it all proprietary?

"I can see clearly now ..."

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

...or what Fox is spending for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA....

Love your avatar….and spent a great deal of time on your island in the late eighties riding in several Mauna Kea 200’s but, that phrase you wrote above just crushed me.