Thieves' Highway (Arrow)

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

I'm saddened because you will not accept any analysis of the disc other than your own. Your initial assessment that it was some kind of disc fault, an anomaly in the digital domain, remains in your review. What would it cost to edit your review properly? Nothing; not even loss of face.

Which, IMHO, is unfair.

Your response is to brook no compromise, to debate no view other than your own, and for good measure you add a wholly unnecessary - and puzzling, seeing as I post here once every Preston Guild - personal stinger.

That's why I'm saddened. But it's your playground.

Can you link me here to your analysis?

The sad thing is that you come here to act as a man of principles and yet it is painfully obvious that any analysis that does not reflect your view is automatically deemed sad. This, however, is not unexpected.

The analysis is very clear: There are poor errors that could have been addressed. They are not. You, apparently, choose the view that what is on the disc is all that could have been done. We very much disagree. I already explained multiple times why. The notion that this is how the film appears on all elements is absolutely flawed. (And I would love to hear where this certainty comes from). It is not how it was shot and it is not how it was intended to be seen. You are free to argue the opposite view, but it is extremely difficult to do so -- at least if you know what you are looking at.

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Can you link me here to your analysis?

The sad thing is that you come here to act as a man of principles and yet it is painfully obvious that any analysis that does not reflect your view is automatically deemed sad. This, however, is not unexpected.

You are missing my point; it's not your analysis I find sad, it's how you've dealt with this whole issue. And continue to do so. You've left a misleading analysis of this disc in the public domain, forever.

You are more than welcome to hold the view that Fox should have done more, but the plain fact is it is not a disc fault; a few keystrokes and a review that could confuse the less technically savvy would suddenly make everyone happy. I've no idea why you're so obdurate, I've no idea why you resort to character jibes.

But any more comment from me will obviously just take us round and round in the same unappealing circles. So I'm done.

[nastiesexpert]

It appears that Pro-B ( as in the Deep Red thread) insists his view is right in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It is also claimed that posts disagreeing with his view have been deleted.
Seems a bit off to have such an opinionated person who ignores facts to have moderating priveleges.
See what you think.

http://www.zetaminor.com/roobarb/sho...cements-Thread

Bets are on for how long it takes for this post to also get deleted.
Perhaps correcting the error in the review might help Pro B keep what little respect people have for his reviews intact.
And Blu Titan - you've made Pro B look bad by deleting some posts while at the same time making people question the integrity of the forum as a whole and the value of any Pro B reviews

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by nastiesexpert

It appears that Pro-B ( as in the Deep Red thread) insists his view is right in spite of evidence to the contrary.
It is also claimed that posts disagreeing with his view have been deleted.
Seems a bit off to have such an opinionated person who ignores facts to have moderating priveleges.
Start at post 633 via this link and see what you think.

http://www.zetaminor.com/roobarb/sho...w-Films/page43

Bets are on for how long it takes for this post to also get deleted.
Perhaps correcting the error in the review might help Pro B keep what little respect people have for his reviews intact.
And Blu Titan - you've made Pro B look bad by deleting some posts while at the same time making people question the integrity of the forum as a whole and the value of any Pro B reviews

The only posts taken offline where posts that either mocked or were aggressive toward a staff member. Sometimes a member would post expressing their opinion but quoting a post that was removed...thus, the post would be placed offline as well.

I personally buy as many Arrow releases as I can and I am a big fan of their output. I would want posts to be civil and respectfull. Discussion of personalities needs to be left out. I am a professional and a big movie fan. The last thing I want is to be wasting my time taking posts offline.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

The only posts taken offline where posts that either mocked or were aggressive toward a staff member.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

3. Anyone believing that this is how Thieves' Highway was shot and meant to be seen is either incredibly naive or clueless.

[Hatfield Peverel]

Here are the two contentious clips.

Both contain minor spoilers.

The two jumps in clip 1 are at 0:10 and 0:21. I've let it run on a bit after that.

Note that the film had some Hays Code interference late in post-production for issues of "morality", including some reshoots and additions to the last few minutes. It's not certain, but it seems likely the cuts here were part of the same censorship, in this case to shorten the kissing during an already erotically charged sequence. Since Dassin shoots so much of the film in long unbroken takes, these rather crude edits were all that could be done. As stated before, the music runs completely uninterrupted throughout and there are no sync issues at all.

Clip 1

The second is just a slightly ragged transition to an optical dissolve.

Clip 2

[NoirFan]

Thank you for your efforts, Hatfield. The evidence is quite clear. Presumably, Svet's review correction will soon be forthcoming.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The review has now been updated.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The review has now been updated.

No it hasn't

[Mr Kite]

Got to admit, this would be a blind purchase for me............but I think I will give it a go and fingers crossed I like it.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by tele1962

Got to admit, this would be a blind purchase for me............but I think I will give it a go and fingers crossed I like it.

If you have enjoyed any of the Dassin titles put out by Arrow (or Night and the City from BFI/Criterion), you will not go wrong with this one.

[Mr Kite]

Not seen any to be honest.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by tele1962

Not seen any to be honest.

maybe try Rififi first then?

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by nitin

maybe try Rififi first then?

Yes I had heard it was very good.

[Mr Kite]

It's a shame the review remains unchanged as it appears many very knowledgeable members seem to disagree with some fundamental points in it.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

No it hasn't

It was. Before it didn't have a video rating and now it does, there's also a vague update under the note, saying that the "errors" are on the element Fox used, which means that it wasn't a mastering error.

[David M]

Full disclosure: I did the encoding and authoring on this title.

The review still claims there's a mastering error though, which implies a problem in the disc mastering or in Fox's new scan and conform, which is conjecture. 20th Century Fox know what they're doing, and while Svet's correct to say we shouldn't automatically assume that a job has been done correctly, the context of the scene makes it extremely likely that it's a case of 1940s censorship. If the missing footage still exists intact with audio, it would probably have been included in the new 4K master. (That's assuming there is missing footage down to censorship - it could be jump cuts from combined takes, as someone else pointed out.)

The second is simply an optical printing error, which isn't uncommon at all in films of this age.

I feel Svet was totally right to point out the jump cuts (at least during the first scene), because they are noticeable and should be mentioned. But they're not the result of a mastering error, it's simply how the film is - a product of its era. Again, the fact that other existing video transfers - made from different film elements - contain the exact same quirks, is telling.

Especially in the latter case of opticals, the OCN for those sections was usually trashed. Keep in mind this is the 1940s we're talking about - the idea that these heads and tails of scenes should be kept around so they'd look good on high definition TV nearly 70 years later wouldn't even be a pipe dream.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

It was. Before it didn't have a video rating and now it does, there's also a vague update under the note, saying that the "errors" are on the element Fox used, which means that it wasn't a mastering error.

Both of those things were there for like a day or so before you posted. It's not the update that NoirFan is asking for however.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by Lyris

Again, the fact that other existing video transfers - made from different film elements - contain the exact same quirks, is telling.

I think this is an important point and also differentiates this from the Bitter Rice situation where there was a previous release, that used a different source, and that source had the frames that were missing on Criterion's release which was sourced from the OCN.

Whereas here, it does appear that all previous versions, some from different sources, have had the same quirks.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by nitin

I think this is an important point and also differentiates this from the Bitter Rice situation where there was a previous release, that used a different source, and that source had the frames that were missing on Criterion's release which was sourced from the OCN.

Whereas here, it does appear that all previous versions, some from different sources, have had the same quirks.

Maybe it would help if Svet explained why he has left the review unaltered, as to me it seems reading it on one hand Arrow are at Fault on the other Fox when if I am reading this thread correctly it was nothing to do with Arrow.