Once Upon a Time in the West 4K UHD (1968)

[MifuneFan]

Kino will never release it

[koberulz]

What is with all the people on this forum who keep declaring they'll wait for a release that will never come? This from Kino. Inland Empire on 4K. Etc etc...

[fred25_Ca]

Paramount's blu ray release was packed with extras and had pretty incredible a/v for back then. I'm guessing this will also be a stellar release. This is one of the biggest classic movie Paramount owns, I'm fairly confident they will handle this well.

[ij72]

Originally Posted by fred25_Ca

Paramount's blu ray release was packed with extras and had pretty incredible a/v for back then.

The 2-disc DVD that preceded it by a few years was stacked, too.

[Vixen of the Night]

Here's a link to the original correct end credits of the movie from the Italian version. It's nice to see how it was originally meant to end compared to what was done in the restored U.S. versions. I'm okay with the credits rolling over the shot in the U.S. version, but it's the omission to the operatic final theme that's cut short that really hurts the movie. And here you can here the theme in full and it's beautiful.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jiO...ew?usp=sharing

[MarkosC]

Originally Posted by Vixen of the Night

Here's a link to the original correct end credits of the movie from the Italian version. It's nice to see how it was originally meant to end compared to what was done in the restored U.S. versions. I'm okay with the credits rolling over the shot in the U.S. version, but it's the omission to the operatic final theme that's cut short that really hurts the movie. And here you can here the theme in full and it's beautiful.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jiO...ew?usp=sharing

Holy changes in color timing Batman!

Seriously, thanks for posting that. It seems to me it's the same scene (I just compared it to the ending on the version on US Amazon Prime). Key difference is that on Amazon once the camera gets to Charles Bronson/Jason Robards* it plays the Cheyenne theme and the credits start rolling while the camera continues to pan. In contrast, the "correct" version continues with the "Birth of a City" theme while panning, and only when the panning is done and Bronson rides into the sunset (afternoon more likely in this case) does it stop and then give the Cheyenne theme and credits.

I can see that one might want think the final pan following Charles Bronson is neither clear (the camera does not zoom in on him) nor really compelling - zooming out of and panning away from the city from Cardinale is plenty. Functionally cutting the final Bronson scene in the "incorrect" version (the viewer's distracted and has mentally checked out) by the credits) maybe saves a minute.

Still, I'll say I slightly prefer the longer version. In contrast to the nocturnal fox-lady, IMO the "Once Upon a Time in the West" marque comes too early.

(as a side issue, I'm not expert in film cleaning and scanning, but while I'm aware 35mm film of a certain quality can yield an excellent picture upon digitization if the photography is carefully optimized, I have a feeling this movie won't fall into that category and the UHD SDR vs. Blu-ray difference won't be revelatory. I'll be pleased to be wrong - either way, as I first saw this movie streaming a year ago I've never bought the BD and I'll happily buy the UHD)

* I didn't know Jason Robards before I just looked this up but his WWII service is a neat story for "greatest generation" admirers.

[PullBackCamera]

Originally Posted by MarkosC

as a side issue, I'm not expert in film cleaning and scanning, but while I'm aware 35mm film of a certain quality can yield an excellent picture upon digitization if the photography is carefully optimized, I have a feeling this movie won't fall into that category and the UHD SDR vs. Blu-ray difference won't be revelatory.

Paramount are doing it properly to spec, ie. in HDR, so there should be a big improvement as long as they don't mess it up with DNR and/or poor encoding. People seem to have this idea that the image quality of Leone westerns is compromised in some way, probably dating back to the fact that original Techniscope prints had been through an optical stage. Once you return to the original neg that problem goes away and there's no reason this can't be just as luminous as any other 35mm film of the period.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Well since KINO put out a 4K NO HDR of TGTBTU we can see what a Sergio Leone Western with HDR in 4K is going to look like but after the F13 HDR Fiasco I'd say they don't even know how to run their own equipment. Maybe if Paramount hires the staff at KINO they have a shot at not turning this into a fistful of dynamite. See what I did there

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by happydood

Also... I'd read (and now I can't find it) that Leone kinda started belittling Eastwood's contribution to the trilogy and that that was the main reason they stopped working together....

I think there's a bunch of reasons why Clint and Sergio stopped working together but I think the main one was clash of personalities. If you listen to anyone talk about Clint and Clint's directorial style you'll most likely hear them say that Clint doesn't like to do too much work, he shoots one take and he's annoyed if he has to shoot another one. He's generally fine if the shot is only 70% perfect, he's not a Kubrick or a Michael Cimino, who once held up an entire day's worth of shooting on Heaven's Gate so he could wait for a cloud he liked to appear for a shot of the sky

Sergio Leone on the other hand was not like that. He was very controlling, very demanding. I think the bridge scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly took several set-ups and then they had to do it AGAIN because somebody screwed something up and they blew up the bridge too early.

So Clint bristled under that. Plus they didn't communicate well at all. Sergio didn't speak any English at the time (I think he eventually learned to speak some broken English) and Clint doesn't speak Italian, so pretty much all their communication had to be done via third party.

So after The Good, the Bad and the Ugly wrapped, Clint decided that was it and he'd never work for Sergio Leone again. This understandably upset Sergio Leone who then compounded matters by shit-talking him and belittling him as an actor. I think Sergio was a little bit resentful of Clint's success. Because Clint was a megastar triple threat (actor, director and producer. Sometimes composer as well) and Sergio Leone wasn't really appreciated much in his own time. Once Upon a Time in the West was cut to pieces and flopped in America and his masterpiece, Once Upon a Time in America was likewise given the same treatment. I guess Sergio felt resentful, understandably, because Clint Eastwood was nobody, Rowdy Yates on Rawhide, until Sergio cast him in Fistful and now he's this big star and Sergio Leone was really only appreciated in Europe and amongst the critics, he never really cracked America

They made up eventually though, when Clint went to Italy to promote Bird they went and had dinner. That was '88 and Sergio died in '89

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

Michael Cimino, who once held up an entire day's worth of shooting on Heaven's Gate so he could wait for a cloud he liked to appear for a shot of the sky

Lmao.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Zechs Merquise

I think there's a bunch of reasons why Clint and Sergio stopped working together but I think the main one was clash of personalities. If you listen to anyone talk about Clint and Clint's directorial style you'll most likely hear them say that Clint doesn't like to do too much work, he shoots one take and he's annoyed if he has to shoot another one. He's generally fine if the shot is only 70% perfect, he's not a Kubrick or a Michael Cimino, who once held up an entire day's worth of shooting on Heaven's Gate so he could wait for a cloud he liked to appear for a shot of the sky

Sergio Leone on the other hand was not like that. He was very controlling, very demanding. I think the bridge scene in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly took several set-ups and then they had to do it AGAIN because somebody screwed something up and they blew up the bridge too early.

So Clint bristled under that. Plus they didn't communicate well at all. Sergio didn't speak any English at the time (I think he eventually learned to speak some broken English) and Clint doesn't speak Italian, so pretty much all their communication had to be done via third party.

So after The Good, the Bad and the Ugly wrapped, Clint decided that was it and he'd never work for Sergio Leone again. This understandably upset Sergio Leone who then compounded matters by shit-talking him and belittling him as an actor. I think Sergio was a little bit resentful of Clint's success. Because Clint was a megastar triple threat (actor, director and producer. Sometimes composer as well) and Sergio Leone wasn't really appreciated much in his own time. Once Upon a Time in the West was cut to pieces and flopped in America and his masterpiece, Once Upon a Time in America was likewise given the same treatment. I guess Sergio felt resentful, understandably, because Clint Eastwood was nobody, Rowdy Yates on Rawhide, until Sergio cast him in Fistful and now he's this big star and Sergio Leone was really only appreciated in Europe and amongst the critics, he never really cracked America

They made up eventually though, when Clint went to Italy to promote Bird they went and had dinner. That was '88 and Sergio died in '89

That's pretty much the impression you get when reading Frayling's biography of Leone as well. They essentially drifted apart along different paths as Eastwood became increasingly displeased with Italian shooting methods and his star (and price) skyrocketed. Leone resented Eastwood being highlighted as the main attraction to the films over the years and unfortunately some bad blood developed in occasional print interviews between the two which eventually was settled.

Over time I did realize the thing I don't like in Eastwood's own films is that mentality of one take is fine if nothing is wrong. I think he is at his best when paired with someone to give the necessary push in the right direction to draw out some energy. Whether this means Leone or Don Siegel, Philip Kaufman on Josey Wales (who got screwed), Kevin Costner on A Perfect World or Spielberg on Madison County.
Ted Post was brought on to do Magnum Force as they were friends but Eastwood as the producer could dictate "one take is fine". Thus when the film was criticized for being too simplistic Post got the blame when he had no say in the matter. This is the quality that undoes all the Dirty Harry sequels to me.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by captainsolo

Over time I did realize the thing I don't like in Eastwood's own films is that mentality of one take is fine if nothing is wrong. I think he is at his best when paired with someone to give the necessary push in the right direction to draw out some energy. Whether this means Leone or Don Siegel, Philip Kaufman on Josey Wales (who got screwed), Kevin Costner on A Perfect World or Spielberg on Madison County.
Ted Post was brought on to do Magnum Force as they were friends but Eastwood as the producer could dictate "one take is fine". Thus when the film was criticized for being too simplistic Post got the blame when he had no say in the matter. This is the quality that undoes all the Dirty Harry sequels to me.

I dunno. See, I understand exactly where Clint is coming from. I discussed with my uncle, cause he's a film buff too, guys like Kubrick and, on Blade Runner, Ridley Scott wanting fifty takes of a scene and his take on it was that you're not going to get anything out of the actors in the 50th take that you weren't going to get in the first few. Not saying that Sergio Leone was a fifty takes kind of a director but you see the mentality in Clint. His directorial style comes mostly from being on the opposite end of the camera and knowing what it would take to get the best out of your performers, which is usually a calm, quiet environment where everybody does their job professionally and the actors aren't wearied by excessive repetition caused by the perfectionism of the director. Because, as much as I like Sergio Leone or Stanley Kubrick or the Blade Runner era Ridley Scott, most directors aren't those guys

[koberulz]

You might not get anything on take 50 you don't get in the first few (unless you want fatigue and frustration, I guess), but you might get something on take four that you don't get on the first three.

I remember one of the Breaking Bad bonus features having Gilligan talking about the shot of Gus stepping out of the room and adjusting his tie after having half his face blown off, and I think they ended up doing 19 takes of that. Come editing time, they shuffled them up randomly so Gilligan had no idea which take was which, he picked the one he wanted, and it turned out to have been take 19 of 19.

[Zechs Merquise]

Originally Posted by koberulz

You might not get anything on take 50 you don't get in the first few (unless you want fatigue and frustration, I guess)

Yeah, my uncle said possibly the only 'benefit' to doing 50 takes is, you break the actors. This worked well in The Shining, where Kubrick had really broken them down psychologically and you can see that on the screen, that comes through in their performances

Originally Posted by koberulz

but you might get something on take four that you don't get on the first three.

I agree. I don't entirely agree with Clint's process but, like I said, I understand where he's coming from

It puts me in mind of South Park. If you watch South Park you'll know that it takes six days to produce an episode, and Comedy Central aired a making of documentary on this called '6 Days To Air', which was a pretty good documentary that went into the process and everything.

But, in that documentary, Trey Parker said something very interesting as they were putting that particular episode together and that was something to the effect of 'If I had another week to work on it, it would probably be only 5% better'. To me that explains Clint's ethos perfectly. Yeah he could do multiple takes even though the first take was fine, but why? As he said to Matt Damon when Damon wanted to do another take during the making of Invictus, 'why waste everybody's time' and do multiple takes when multiple takes might make the film only about 5% better?

[Tuc0]

Well doing multiple takes is not allways completely for the actors. Camera work varies and whatnot and sometimes the scene just does not turn out well. Of course doing 20-50 takes on everything is kind of ridiculous but to say one take is enough might bite you in the ass during editing.

[harmonicaman]

I stumbled to this .de site and look like it will be coming very soon.. from 30th May.

https://bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-us-im...rt_ohne_dt_ton

Finger crossed and looking forward to see harmonicaman in 4k!

[MetalGuruMessiah]

Originally Posted by harmonicaman

I stumbled to this .de site and look like it will be coming very soon.. from 30th May.

https://bluray-disc.de/blu-ray-us-im...rt_ohne_dt_ton

Finger crossed and looking forward to see harmonicaman in 4k!

Thanks! Finally, things are heating up for OUATITW 4K UHD release!

[Kyle_g89]

can't wait. Does anyone know what the best standard blu ray version is to have? I have the original US import release but I noticed an anniversary version in the UK and this site states that it has 2 cuts?

also a trivia question:

Why does the Italian version of the film feature the 'man with a harmonica' theme that is out of sync over the infamous flash back scene? (particularly when the shot cuts to a close up of Frank's face)

[stvn1974]

After reading that post about Cimino waiting for a cloud made me imagine Kubrick yelling at a cloud and demanding it float by 72 times so he could get the perfect shot.

[No Name]

Looking forward to revisiting this gem on 4K! I pray Paramount doesn't botch up the transfer with some DNR.