Red Dust- Jean Harlow

[tiffany26]

I am curious why Red Dust, a 1932 (pre-production code) film starring Clark Gable, Jean Harlow & Mary Astor, has not been given a proper DVD release? I have looked on Amazon, Ebay, etc. and can only find a VHS copy. The TCM shopping site doesn't even have it.

 

I saw it for the first time last night (I recorded it during the Jean Harlow month) & LOVED it! I was already a huge fan of both Gable & Harlow, but I was blown away by the sexual chemistry between the two & all the little innuendos (i.e. Harlow as a prostitute, Gable shoving money down the front of her dress & popping her on the behind, Harlow braless, the open hints at adultery, etc.).

 

Anyway, I was really disappointed I couldn't find it anywhere to purchase. In fact, has there really ever been a proper Jean Harlow collection released? I know TCM released a Harlow 4 pack recently, but I think she deserves a real collection. She was so charming & sexy & her death was so tragic. Died right at the height of her career...

[musikone]

Do you have a DVR or DVD recorder? With such a device, you can simply record everything that comes along, no matter what time of day or night, and then later save what you want to keep on a DVD disc--*permanently.*

 

musikone

[redriver]

This is a wonderful adventure. I, too, find it distressing that it's not more accessible. Of course, in two years, DVD will be obsolete. Who can keep up anymore?

[scottman1932]

It would be nice if there was a proper boxed set of her movies, however some of her rarest films like GOLDIE (1931) and IRON MAN (1931) were made at other studios and would more than likely be difficult to include in a set.

[musikone]

*Don't bet on it!*

 

What do you expect to replace it?

 

Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information.

 

The current high cost for this information is not going to drop very much when things like classic movies, for example, are promoted in conjunction with Blu-Ray technology. Nonsensical and expensive.

 

Now then, tell us the basis for *your* claim. Thank you.

 

 

musikone

 

Al is in Wonderland!

where things are definitely not what they seem to be.

all hail to super marketeering--at our expense

[JonasEB]

> {quote:title=musikone wrote:}{quote}

> *Don't bet on it!*

>

> What do you expect to replace it?

>

> Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information.

 

My god, please stop typing.

 

Have you ever seen an old film screened theatrically? Have you actually watched a Blu-ray?

 

"Classic Movies" aren't shot on video, they are shot on film, which has a far greater capacity for "resolution" than most digital productions.

 

Have you ever stretched a DVD size image to several times it proportions? It looks like crap. Do you actually think a film would look good on a theater screen if it was limited to what you see on DVD?

[MovieMadness]

I think the cheese lobby is mad about how she said they slap the female goats around, so no DVD release.

[redriver]

You have more patience than I have. I don't even respond to people like that.

[1968B2]

Thank you, musikone. Have every Harlow immediatement, why wait?

[markbeckuaf]

> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}

> It would be nice if there was a proper boxed set of her movies, however some of her rarest films like GOLDIE (1931) and IRON MAN (1931) were made at other studios and would more than likely be difficult to include in a set.

 

I agree, it would be difficult to include those for sure, but wow, it would be awesome to have a proper box set of her films, done up right! With at least flicks like RED DUST, HOLD YOUR MAN, THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI, RED-HEADED GIRL, BEAST OF THE CITY, and the like!

[traceyk65]

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=musikone wrote:}{quote}

>

> Have you ever seen an old film screened theatrically? Have you actually watched a Blu-ray?

>

>

 

Nothing better than a classic on the big screen! It's awe inspiring--so much more amazing than seeing it on TV.

[incredibull]

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=musikone wrote:}{quote}

> > *Don't bet on it!*

> >

> > What do you expect to replace it?

> >

> > Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information.

>

> My god, please stop typing.

>

> Have you ever seen an old film screened theatrically? Have you actually watched a Blu-ray?

>

> "Classic Movies" aren't shot on video, they are shot on film, which has a far greater capacity for "resolution" than most digital productions.

>

> Have you ever stretched a DVD size image to several times it proportions? It looks like crap. Do you actually think a film would look good on a theater screen if it was limited to what you see on DVD?

 

Although it was not my post that brought out this reply from you, I do question its accuracy. While you are correct about the issue of resolution, there are other factors which remain to plague many older (such as some classic) moves and contribute to their inferior viewing quality. For one thing, the tone quality (gray scale) may be poor. For another, the sound quality may be poor, due to the technological limitations of audio at the time that the movie was made. Etc., etc.

 

For these reasons, the digital reproduction of these older movies cannot match the quality of first-class later movies, meaning that their reproduction in the "high definition" of which Blu-Ray technology is capable is not possible.

 

Of course, the economic issues will be paramount for some time to come, meaning that, even if the quality reproduced from a Blu-Ray disc is excellent, the cost of the reproduction equipment will be such as to severely limit the sale of this equipment. So the statement that the DVD discs will probably disappear in two more years is simply a wish--not a reality.

 

In summary, score one for the high resolution quality of film, score zero for other inferior qualities of so-called "classic" films.

 

 

incredibull

[ValentineXavier]

I have seen DVDs projected in a theater, using a 3-chip DLP projector, costing $50-100,000. They can look far better than I expected. But, 35mm film has much better resolution, and will benefit from a good HD BluRay transfer. Audio can be cleaned up, equalized, perhaps filtered a bit, actually improved quite noticeably. But, no, audio can't be 'restored' to the point where it is as good as the audio we record today.

[JonasEB]

> {quote:title=incredibull wrote:}{quote}

>

> Although it was not my post that brought out this reply from you, I do question its accuracy. While you are correct about the issue of resolution, there are other factors which remain to plague many older (such as some classic) moves and contribute to their inferior viewing quality. For one thing, the tone quality (gray scale) may be poor. For another, the sound quality may be poor, due to the technological limitations of audio at the time that the movie was made. Etc., etc.

 

Street Angel, one of many early Fox Film Corporation titles compromised by their vault fires in the 30s, still looks much better on Blu-ray than it does on DVD, 5th generation print and all. Better rendering of contrast, a fuller rendering of print qualities, richer audio, it's a superbly done Blu-ray.

 

But tons of classic films are in perfectly fine condition.

 

> For these reasons, the digital reproduction of these older movies cannot match the quality of first-class later movies, meaning that their reproduction in the "high definition" of which Blu-Ray technology is capable is not possible.

 

It doesn't have to match anything, it only needs to be a faithful representation of what the source is. Actually, the difference between The Searchers on DVD and Blu-ray is as great as it is for a modern film like Inception. Ditto City Girl and The General from the silent era.

 

> Of course, the economic issues will be paramount for some time to come, meaning that, even if the quality reproduced from a Blu-Ray disc is excellent, the cost of the reproduction equipment will be such as to severely limit the sale of this equipment. So the statement that the DVD discs will probably disappear in two more years is simply a wish--not a reality.

 

Redriver was referring to physical media disappearing in favor of streaming and such, not Blu-ray getting rid of DVD.

 

> In summary, score one for the high resolution quality of film, score zero for other inferior qualities of so-called "classic" films.

 

No, a large number of classic films are clearly ready for Blu-ray - almost all of the heavy hitters on TCM obviously are. It has nothing to do with age it only has to do with the quality of the print - this isn't an issue only the older films deal with, films made in the last twenty years struggle with it. The Birth of a Nation, 4 years from turning 100, exists in 1st generation prints, struck from the negative, and is clearly acceptable for a beautiful Blu-ray transfer.

 

And Blu-ray isn't just high resolution, it's fewer to zero video artifacts and uncompressed audio. Visually any older film can trump any newer one. It doesn't matter if audio recording equipment was inferior in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, it's still a leap over DVD.

[filmlover]

> {quote:title=musikone wrote:}{quote}

> *Don't bet on it!*

>

> What do you expect to replace it?

>

> Blu-Ray? This is a laugh :-) *Classic movies* (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray, which was developed to handle the technological demands of preserving high-definition video on a disc which superficially resembles DVD but contains a great deal more information.

>

> The current high cost for this information is not going to drop very much when things like classic movies, for example, are promoted in conjunction with Blu-Ray technology. Nonsensical and expensive.

>

> Now then, tell us the basis for *your* claim. Thank you.

>

>

> musikone

>

> Al is in Wonderland!

> where things are definitely not what they seem to be.

> all hail to super marketeering--at our expense

 

 

Sigh, more misinformation. That whole statement about *Classic movies (whatever this may currently mean) are generally of a video quality which gains little, if anything, from Blu-Ray* is so incredibly ignorant.

 

I am still surprised by those who don't have a clue of what is currently going on or make side-by-side comparisons of DVD to Blu-ray, which I did a few years ago here on the message board. And I am equally as stunned by people who don't seem to care about seeing the best quality picture and hear the best quality sound...and color and capability to do all better on one disc than DVD ever could. To those of use who have Blu-ray, sticking with DVD PQ is like watching only standard definiton programming on an HDTV...why? I've said it before, watching SD is like you are sitting in a moie theater watching a film where the projection sharpness is off. You want to see it at its sharpest, right? Yet people say, "No, DVD is good enough." But I don't know of anyone who has given up Blu-ray after getting it.

 

I was just thinking about some classic films to show you, and the first that came to mind was "Zulu." Take a look at the screen comparisons.

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/zulu.htm

 

Older? Okay, how about "An American in Paris"?

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/an_american_in_paris_blu-ray.htm

 

Older, and in black and white? Okay, The Maltese Falcon

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews25/maltese_falcon.htm

 

Older? Gone With the Wind

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare6/gonewiththewind.htm

 

Older? City Girl

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews49/city_girl_blu-ray.htm

 

Older? The General

 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare5/thegeneral.htm

 

When you have a great original, you can have an excellent DVD...but you will have a better Blu-ray.

 

I know there are some on the board who are resentful of Blu-ray, thinking that studios stopped releasing classic DVDs in order to concentrate on Blu titles. The actual fact is that studios had cut way back on their classic DVD output before Blu came along. Others think they have to rebuy their whle libraries again. Not true, not every film needs to be on Blu, particularly. Heck, I think there are a lot of films out there that never needed to be released on DVD, either.

 

There are still people who say,"Oh, Blu-ray players cost way too much." Take a look around online or in a brick and mortar store, and you will find you can get a Blu-ray player from Sony or other major producer for about $100 now , and they often come with internet capabilities, so you can stream movies.

 

And, oh, yeah, "the cost of Blu-rays are too expensive." Again, another look around will reveal that many titles are released about the same price as DVDs. That's been discussed at length here.

[MovieMadness]

I notice some of the Blu Ray players are able to upscale the quality of DVDs, I wonder how much of an improvement that is? it claims near HD quality so it could be the DVDs are fine after all in a Blu Ray player.

[JonasEB]

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}

> I notice some of the Blu Ray players are able to upscale the quality of DVDs, I wonder how much of an improvement that is? it claims near HD quality so it could be the DVDs are fine after all in a Blu Ray player.

 

Actually, all of them do. It still doesn't look anything like HD. A DVD looking good on an HDTV (particularly the kinds with higher refresh rates) all depends on how good the DVD actually is - if the transfer has been noise reduced, edge enhanced, and full of artifacts due to a bad encode, it's going to look terrible (Blue Velvet is pretty bad.) Unmanipulated DVDs (like Winchester '73) look pretty good.

[filmlover]

But it must be said that a DVD playing on a Blu-ray player will look a lot better than on a standard DVD player.

[ValentineXavier]

How much better depends on the quality of the upscaling tech in the Blu-ray player. The Oppo Blu-ray player, a reference quality player that costs $500, has upscaling that is far superior to cheaper, and even many more expensive, players.