Far and Away 4K UHD (Shout! Factory) (1992)

[GrouchoFan]

Will wait for reviews, but definitely interested in upgrading from my DVD. Isolated score track, please!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

Sad news from the BD thread:

So the OCN, IP, separation masters etc were all faded or damaged even though the movie was shot in 1992? Or were they so cheap that they printed down to 35mm as quickly in the duplication chain as they could (OCN->IP->IN->Print typically)? Not to shoot the messenger, but this doesn't really make a lot of sense. At the least you think you'd have the separation masters to work with.

[Starman22]

Great movie and so great news!

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by singhcr

So the OCN, IP, separation masters etc were all faded or damaged even though the movie was shot in 1992? Or were they so cheap that they printed down to 35mm as quickly in the duplication chain as they could (OCN->IP->IN->Print typically)? Not to shoot the messenger, but this doesn't really make a lot of sense. At the least you think you'd have the separation masters to work with.

This seems to happen a lot with 70mm movies since, from my understanding, they’re much more expensive to restore from the OCN than 35mm ones. So the translation, as far as I can tell, is “we don’t want to spend the money to do a full OCN restoration.”

Very sad because so many good and beautiful movies are being left to deteriorate.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by singhcr

So the OCN, IP, separation masters etc were all faded or damaged even though the movie was shot in 1992? Or were they so cheap that they printed down to 35mm as quickly in the duplication chain as they could (OCN->IP->IN->Print typically)? Not to shoot the messenger, but this doesn't really make a lot of sense. At the least you think you'd have the separation masters to work with.

Wish I could answer this, especially since they’ve done some recent 70mm showings. It makes very little sense to me, either. All I can tell you is what I’m being told by people who are directly working on it. I definitely wish it weren’t the case. The studio had no interest whatsoever in an isolated score track (to address another poster) even though I offered to provide it myself. I have two audio commentaries already recorded (including one with two people they’ve interviewed for this release), and crickets. The amazing poster I had commissioned in 2022? No response. I dearly hope the transfer is fantastic, because the lack of engagement from Universal and Shout on this has been pretty disheartening TBH.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

This seems to happen a lot with 70mm movies since, from my understanding, they’re much more expensive to restore from the OCN than 35mm ones. So the translation, as far as I can tell, is “we don’t want to spend the money to do a full OCN restoration.”

Very sad because so many good and beautiful movies are being left to deteriorate.

You're talking about 65mm movies from the 50s-60s when all the 70mm prints were struck direct from the negative. There's no reason whatsoever for a big budget, studio 65mm film from 1992 to have its negative in any sort of extreme disrepair, or for there not to be a quality 65mm IP.

Chris

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

This should look great. The bd should have looked great.

Not holding my breath though.

It's not going to take much to surpass the Blu-Ray, that transfer sucked.

[traths]

I’ve never actually seen this film so I might pick this one up.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

The studio had no interest whatsoever in an isolated score track (to address another poster) even though I offered to provide it myself.

I've read elsewhere that the royalty rules for isolated scores changed a while back, and they now have to pay the original musicians royalties on isolated score tracks on home video releases, thus their almost complete disappearance.

[The Mad Kiwi]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Wish I could answer this, especially since they’ve done some recent 70mm showings. It makes very little sense to me, either. All I can tell you is what I’m being told by people who are directly working on it. I definitely wish it weren’t the case. The studio had no interest whatsoever in an isolated score track (to address another poster) even though I offered to provide it myself. I have two audio commentaries already recorded (including one with two people they’ve interviewed for this release), and crickets. The amazing poster I had commissioned in 2022? No response. I dearly hope the transfer is fantastic, because the lack of engagement from Universal and Shout on this has been pretty disheartening TBH.

Something's definitely amiss. My friend who went to the 70mm screening with the Ron Howard Q&A said the print shown was absolutely immaculate. But like you said, you're offering all these things to them that they're all, "Thanks, but no thanks" towards you, so that indicates to me that everyone involved is trying to make this as cheaply as possible. We'll be lucky if they use the teaser poster art for the cover at this point. I just hope the HDR delivers. My friend said the 70mm was gorgeously saturated compared to the drab Blu-ray, particularly the warm sunset colors in the final scenes.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Wish I could answer this, especially since they’ve done some recent 70mm showings. It makes very little sense to me, either. All I can tell you is what I’m being told by people who are directly working on it. I definitely wish it weren’t the case. The studio had no interest whatsoever in an isolated score track (to address another poster) even though I offered to provide it myself. I have two audio commentaries already recorded (including one with two people they’ve interviewed for this release), and crickets. The amazing poster I had commissioned in 2022? No response. I dearly hope the transfer is fantastic, because the lack of engagement from Universal and Shout on this has been pretty disheartening TBH.

I appreciate the feedback. It is strange though considering the only difference in expense would be the initial scanning and 65mm/70mm scanners are not at all uncommon and by 1992 storage standards would be such that fading, if any, would be at a minimum as would any damage so the amount of time needed to do any actual restoration would be minimal compared to films from the heyday of 70mm that were beat up due to overprinting, poor storage over decades, etc. I imagine they are just trying to save as much money as possible as 35mm scanning is cheaper than 65/70.

Either way, that is indeed sad. Modern 70mm should look amazing and considering that revival prints would not be seen by too many (I would love to!) this UHD is the best way for it to be seen by a larger audience and now the transfer gets cut down at the knees before it even started. Not only is it a smaller format, at best it would be a generation away and optically printed instead of contact due to the difference in format so you are losing a lot of quality right off the bat. If they are going to release a 4K disc, they might as well use this opportunity to do a proper scan and archive so they have at least a high quality 4K master for archival for streaming, DCPs, etc in the future. I do enjoy this movie (especially Colm Meaney as a bad guy) and will still pick it up if it looks good, but I am frustrated.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Wish I could answer this, especially since they’ve done some recent 70mm showings. It makes very little sense to me, either. All I can tell you is what I’m being told by people who are directly working on it. I definitely wish it weren’t the case. The studio had no interest whatsoever in an isolated score track (to address another poster) even though I offered to provide it myself. I have two audio commentaries already recorded (including one with two people they’ve interviewed for this release), and crickets. The amazing poster I had commissioned in 2022? No response. I dearly hope the transfer is fantastic, because the lack of engagement from Universal and Shout on this has been pretty disheartening TBH.

I wonder what the chances are of this landing with Arrow at some point. I have a feeling they'd be more interested in doing this right and would not be surprised if the tv-cut that Ron Howard said "no" to (it's shocking that he'd have a say) would suddenly be a possibility with Arrow.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

I wonder what the chances are of this landing with Arrow at some point. I have a feeling they'd be more interested in doing this right and would not be surprised if the tv-cut that Ron Howard said "no" to (it's shocking that he'd have a say) would suddenly be a possibility with Arrow.

I’m reaching out to Arrow (again) in hopes that they might do this at some point. Fingers crossed.

[Brosef78]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

This seems to happen a lot with 70mm movies since, from my understanding, they’re much more expensive to restore from the OCN than 35mm ones. So the translation, as far as I can tell, is “we don’t want to spend the money to do a full OCN restoration.”

Very sad because so many good and beautiful movies are being left to deteriorate.

It might just be Universal's philosophy regarding their restorations. Is "Spartacus" the only 70mm film they've done an original negative restoration for? When they released "Airport" on Blu-ray it appeared to be from 35mm elements since the aspect ratio was 2.35:1.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Wish I could answer this, especially since they’ve done some recent 70mm showings. It makes very little sense to me, either. All I can tell you is what I’m being told by people who are directly working on it. I definitely wish it weren’t the case.

With all the fuss about IMAX and other large formats, especially with 4K UHD you'd think they'd be somewhat more interested in using a better element to make a master that'll last them well into the next decade. It doesn't make sense at all.

[Croweyes1121]

Wow, it’s not even a scan of the negative…good lord.

[thunder2020]

disappointing hopefully its still a good IP transfer similar to Point Break.

[IndyMLVC]

Target link: https://www.target.com/p/far-and-awa...65#lnk=sametab

[Croweyes1121]

There was a faint hope that perhaps the added TV footage could still be procured last-minute for a deleted scenes section, but the studio apparently still won’t allow it. So no extra footage, even presented separately. Again, don’t shoot the messenger.

[400TX]

What an absolute waste not bothering with the OCN. As good as any 35mm IP can potentially be, it's nothing on a 65mm OCN. Anyone's who has seen a 70mm and 35mm print from a 65mm OCN can attest to that. Sad that every possible corner seems to be being cut on this release.