New York, New York (1977)

[MichaelR]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

What's with all the 1.66:1 aspect ratios on MGM blurays lately? These are all American films, wouldn't they have been framed for 1.85:1 or am I mistaken?

For New York, New York, Scorsese chose 1.66:1 as the closest equivalent to the 1.33:1 format of the films whose style he was recreating. This was after he tried 1.33:1 and deemed it impractical with then-contemporary equipment. He is explicit about this in the documentary.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

For New York, New York, Scorsese chose 1.66:1 as the closest equivalent to the 1.33:1 format of the films whose style he was recreating. This was after he tried 1.33:1 and deemed it impractical with then-contemporary equipment. He is explicit about this in the documentary.

I see. Thanks for the info. It's just strange that there are a lot of other recent MGM releases in 1.66:1 as well. Horse Soldiers, Some Like It Hot off the top of my head.

EDIT: I take back the statement "a lot". Looking back over my collection those two titles are the only other MGM blurays I have presented in 1.66:1.

[whitesheik]

Sorry, but NONE of these films were shown in the United States of America in 1.66. They were all shown in 1.85 just like every other non-scope film of the last fifty-plus years. It's all fine for anyone to say "I wanted the 1.66 aspect ratio" but they knew there was no theater that was going to show it that way. I saw each and every one of these films theatrically and each and every one of them were 1.85. The obvious compromise for blu-ray would be 1.78 and they'd all look great at that ratio, especially if they were coming off any kind of negative, which has slightly more image information on the sides and so it all balances out nicely. I just went through this in a telecine room - it was very instructional and interesting and I had a grand time transferring a film that was released the same day as New York, New York, and which got much better reviews, with New York, New York frequently being invoked and not in a good way

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

What's with all the 1.66:1 aspect ratios on MGM blurays lately? These are all American films, wouldn't they have been framed for 1.85:1 or am I mistaken?

Also, looking at the screenshots it looks "dupier" than I would imagine even an average release print would have looked. A bit dissapointing but at least they didn't put the zap on it with the digital scrubber. I'll still pick this up when it hits 10 bucks or so.

Read my original post and you'll understand what you're calling the "dupier" look. I explain it all there.

[BluRayBond]

Can anyone confirm whether this is playable in region b? Thanks

[peptalk]

Originally Posted by BluRayBond

Can anyone confirm whether this is playable in region b? Thanks

I can confirm this plays in a region B player, because I own it.

[Bates_Motel]

"Even if a new image harvest were to be done in the future, it's unlikely that NY, NY has ever looked better in theatrical prints than it does on this Blu-ray."

Shows you how far reviews have come since 2011, how people NOW know what to expect and how older reviews can't really be trusted. This could, in fact, look MUCH better, having just watched it again. Whites are so bloomed out that it's rather hard to look at in spots. Some whites lose all detail altogether. Contrast is rather weak, and while colors look generally nice, they could be stronger. Pretty much every aspect of this transfer could be improved, although it has a fair amount of detail for an older transfer. Wishing it would get a new scan/remaster, but not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Sorry, but NONE of these films were shown in the United States of America in 1.66. They were all shown in 1.85 just like every other non-scope film of the last fifty-plus years. It's all fine for anyone to say "I wanted the 1.66 aspect ratio" but they knew there was no theater that was going to show it that way. I saw each and every one of these films theatrically and each and every one of them were 1.85.

Old post, but this is also incorrect. I have in fact seen it screened at 1:66 several times, and there's no reason to think that it didn't play in theaters in 1.66 in 1977, because every theater was capable of it.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Old post, but this is also incorrect. I have in fact seen it screened at 1:66 several times, and there's no reason to think that it didn't play in theaters in 1.66 in 1977, because every theater was capable of it.

Theaters that did not have 1.66 aperture plates would not have been able to show the film in 1.66.

[Dan8700]

A new restoration by MGM will be screened at Venice 2019.

[TwoTecs]

I hope MGM or someone else actually releases. No point in doing a restoration to just sit on it. Although unlikely, would be great to see this on UHD.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by KMR

Theaters that did not have 1.66 aperture plates would not have been able to show the film in 1.66.

I worked at several theaters in the US which had plate/lens combos for 1.66:1. It's far from unheard of (at least back when film was the only medium). It was a lot more likely for an older single screen to have that capability as opposed to cookie-cutter multiplexes, but in 1977 the former would have still outnumbered the latter.

[KMR]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I worked at several theaters in the US which had plate/lens combos for 1.66:1. It's far from unheard of (at least back when film was the only medium). It was a lot more likely for an older single screen to have that capability as opposed to cookie-cutter multiplexes, but in 1977 the former would have still outnumbered the latter.

"It's far from unheard of" is not equal to "every theater". There is nothing you have said here that makes anything I said untrue. If a theater did not have 1.66 aperture plates, they would not have been able to show the film in 1.66. (Moreover, "cookie-cutter multiplexes" were very abundant in urban and metropolitan areas in 1977.)

[thatguamguy]

I look forward to the next installment of this random argument, in two or three years.

[baloobas]

This is big news. Has the theatrical cut been available before? When I first watched this film on VHS it was the extended cut so I’m quite curious to see how this cut plays.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by baloobas

This is big news. Has the theatrical cut been available before? When I first watched this film on VHS it was the extended cut so I’m quite curious to see how this cut plays.

That version was on the earliest VHS releases, too.

The longer cut was released in 1991.

The longer cut is far superior, and is Scorsese's preferred version.
The studio literally took it away from him in 1977, and did their own cut.

The principal difference is the removal of the entire musical finale sequences.

It's one of several reasons I've always felt the film bombed in 1977 (along with being out when "Star Wars" came along). And it was largely panned back then. When it was re-released in 1991 in Scorsese's director's cut, a lot of critics re-assessed it, and thought it was much better then they'd first thought. Not perfect still, but better.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by Freddie_Quell

So, the German version includes the theatrical cut.

I wouldn't buy that for the Theatrical Cut, but if it used the new 2019 restoration mentioned further up, I'd be down for that.

[jkoffman]

Using Google translate, details of the Koch German release:

• Theatrical version in HD for the first time
• Martin Scorsese's introduction to "New York, New York"
• Commentary by director Martin Scorsese and film critic Carrie Rickey
• Alternative and deleted scenes incl. alternative ending
• "New York, New York" stories: part 1+2
• Liza Minelli on "New York, New York"
• Commentary on selected scenes by cameraman Laszlo Kovacs
• Trailer
• Extensive picture gallery
• Booklet by Anna S. Ullmann and Daniel Wagner

[dkelly26666]

This is by no means indicative of any valid info, and may well be just wishful thinking on my part, but there has been so many films of Scorsese being rumored to be associated with Criterion, and several new restorations and so forth, and this is Scorsese's 80th birthday year and so on, and he has "Killers of the Flower Moon" coming out later this year, that I keep hoping that perhaps we'll see a big box from Criterion for Scorsese (similar to the Bergman and Fellini sets), at some point. And if that happened, it might well contain this new restoration of this film, as well.

I'd be so happy about something like that. But, again, a minute grain of salt, as I am just wishing upon a star at this point.

[BNex99]

Bumping this thread, as I finally watched this film for the first time recently, and I thought it was really fascinating. I think I understand why it didn't quite click with audiences when it first came out, but there are some really great things about it. (And it was very clearly an influence on LA LA LAND.)

It's a flawed movie, but one that could only have come from an incredibly talented team with a master filmmaker at the helm. Not the greatest, but far too interesting to be written off as "bad."

From what I can gather from IMDB and Scorsese's commentary, the initial 153-minute version removed all but the last couple of minutes of the "Happy Endings" sequence, and then the 137-minute "second run" version (included on the German BD from Koch) further cut a single 16-minute chunk from the middle.

I imagine losing the full "Happy Endings" initially probably hurt the film overall, as it does offer a kind of emotional release after all the interpersonal tension between the characters. It's also a great song in and of itself.

[tominkozhimala]

has anyone gotten their hands on the 2022 German Special edition? Any confirmation that this is the MGM restoration from 2019?

How does the bitrate compare to the 2011 release?