Last Night's presentation of The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

[cigarjoe]

Whatever release version that they used ( it was the extended cut) I noticed the colors were a bit off, the grass was way too green especially noticeable at Sad Hill during Ecstasy Of Gold should be more of a burnt grass yellow.  

Should have been just a tad more golden hued, it didn't look like the original release I saw on Times Square multiple times in 1967.

[Det Jim McLeod]

47 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Whatever release version that they used ( it was the extended cut) I noticed the colors were a bit off, the grass was way too green especially noticeable at Sad Hill during Ecstasy Of Gold should be more of a burnt grass yellow.  

Should have been just a tad more golden hued, it didn't look like the original release I saw on Times Square multiple times in 1967.

Yes, the original 161 version was fine as it was. The restored scenes don't really add too much, so it was kind of unnecessary. Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach had to re dub in their dialogue in those scenes with their much older sounding voices. The restored scenes should have just been DVD extras.

[cigarjoe]

16 minutes ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Yes, the original 161 version was fine as it was. The restored scenes don't really add too much, so it was kind of unnecessary. Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach had to re dub in their dialogue in those scenes with their much older sounding voices. The restored scenes should have just been DVD extras.

The only two that should have been in the original release was the sequence at the ruined fort where Angel Eyes finds out were all the prisoners are taken (it explains how he's suddenly at Betterille). And possibly the night scene where Tuco finds out that his brother's mission is close by.

[cmovieviewer]

Thanks for the discussion.  IMDB appears to have a pretty good summary of the different versions of the film:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/alternateversions

[cigarjoe]

3 minutes ago, cmovieviewer said:

Thanks for the discussion.  IMDB appears to have a pretty good summary of the different versions of the film:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/alternateversions

Do they address the color corrections I wonder. There was one release that had a big kerfuffle about being  too yellow, last night's was too green. I distinctly remember one review back in 1967 in one of the New York City newspapers or one of the popular magazines Time, Look, Life,  etc. or a local NYC mag., that mentioned that the film had a mediterranean golden tint. And it's true it definitely looked like it had a slightly golden tint. 

[cmovieviewer]

33 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

Do they address the color corrections I wonder. There was one release that had a big kerfuffle about being  too yellow, last night's was too green. I distinctly remember one review back in 1967 in one of the New York City newspapers or one of the popular magazines Time, Look, Life,  etc. or a local NYC mag., that mentioned that the film had a mediterranean golden tint. And it's true it definitely looked like it had a slightly golden tint. 

A new 4K restoration came out in April of this year - blu-ray.com has a review where they talk about the extensive color grading that was done:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-4K-Blu-ray/283312/#Review

If you click on the screenshots tab you can see images from the new release and compare it with what you watched.

I suspect the version that TCM is showing is probably from the previous extended version that was released in 2017.  The blu-ray review of the new version refers to the new color grading as a "rescue project" so hopefully it is much better now.

[cigarjoe]

2 minutes ago, cmovieviewer said:

A new 4K restoration came out in April of this year - blu-ray.com has a review where they talk about the extensive color grading that was done:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-4K-Blu-ray/283312/#Review

If you click on the screenshots tab you can see images from the new release and compare it with what you watched.

I suspect the version that TCM is showing is probably from the previous extended version that was released in 2017.  The blu-ray review of the new version refers to the new color grading as a "rescue project" so hopefully it is much better now.

This is more like it should look (from your link) last night's presentation had the grass bright golf course green, lol 

[umop apisdn]

12 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

Whatever release version that they used ( it was the extended cut) I noticed the colors were a bit off, the grass was way too green especially noticeable at Sad Hill during Ecstasy Of Gold should be more of a burnt grass yellow.  

Should have been just a tad more golden hued, it didn't look like the original release I saw on Times Square multiple times in 1967.

Yeah, the teal push in the restoration was distracting. It is the only reason why I never purchased Kino's 2017 release. 

Color grading done at L'Immagine Ritrovata are hit or miss. It's a shame since their restoration work on black and white is excellent. 

I have not had a chance to view the new color grading done for this year's 4K release. I am still undecided on upgrading yet again.  

 

[Bogie56]

21 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Yes, the original 161 version was fine as it was. The restored scenes don't really add too much, so it was kind of unnecessary. Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach had to re dub in their dialogue in those scenes with their much older sounding voices. The restored scenes should have just been DVD extras.

The best added scenes were the Van Cleef ones who had a lot of material dropped in the original North American cut.  And his voice was the best match of the three.  If memory serves the late Burt Sharp did the revoice of those scenes.

I saw the original extended cut way back at the very first Toronto Film Festival in 1976 at about 4 in the morning.  The entire print was in Italian.  It was said to be Leone's own print of the film.  The American actors did their original dubbing after those scenes had been cut from the film so they only existed in an Italian dubbed version until the restoration.

The other thing that I didn't like about the restoration which I saw in the theatre was the panning of dialogue.  For instance, you would have Clint and Eli sitting tightly together driving a wagon and as soon as someone was off camera they would pan their dialogue either left or right as the case would be.  Hearing that in a large theatre space gave you the impression that the character was suddenly 50 feet away.  Very annoying to do that with dialogue.  Most have given up on that practise when it comes to dialogue.  They made the same mistake of doing that with the Spartacus restoration.  And last but not least, they should have endeavoured to use microphones from the 1960's to attempt a better match.  But you are right, both Clint and Eli were far too old to match their own voices.

[Bogie56]

18 hours ago, cmovieviewer said:

A new 4K restoration came out in April of this year - blu-ray.com has a review where they talk about the extensive color grading that was done:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-4K-Blu-ray/283312/#Review

If you click on the screenshots tab you can see images from the new release and compare it with what you watched.

I suspect the version that TCM is showing is probably from the previous extended version that was released in 2017.  The blu-ray review of the new version refers to the new color grading as a "rescue project" so hopefully it is much better now.

Is the new blu ray 4k release the old or the newer extended cut?  

[cmovieviewer]

4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Is the new blu ray 4k release the old or the newer extended cut?  

The listing for the 4k blu-ray says it is 162 minutes, sourced from a 1967 35mm tech print, so apparently not an extended cut.  The review of the release also says that 18 minutes of deleted scenes, 8 minutes of extended scenes, and 1 minute of alternate transitions are included as extras.  There is also a 'user review' for the 4K release that recommends buyers "hang on to the other Kino Lorber disc to retain the extended cut."  I would assume the extras on the new blu-ray are from the work that Kino Lorber did on their previous 2017 extended version.

It is nice to have updated restorations but it does make it confusing sometimes as to what version you should try to watch.  Based on your comments and Det Jim's comments the 162-minute version with corrected color might be a good choice.

[Bogie56]

4 minutes ago, cmovieviewer said:

The listing for the 4k blu-ray says it is 162 minutes, sourced from a 1967 35mm tech print, so apparently not an extended cut.  The review of the release also says that 18 minutes of deleted scenes, 8 minutes of extended scenes, and 1 minute of alternate transitions are included as extras.  There is also a 'user review' for the 4K release that recommends buyers "hang on to the other Kino Lorber disc to retain the extended cut."  I would assume the extras on the new blu-ray are from the work that Kino Lorber did on their previous 2017 extended version.

It is nice to have updated restorations but it does make it confusing sometimes as to what version you should try to watch.  Based on your comments and Det Jim's comments the 162-minute version with corrected color might be a good choice.

Thanks for that.  I look forward to that release.  The extended version is just a curio IMO and I wouldn't want to watch it each time out as it is just not as good as the original.  The extras are the way to go.