Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Robinson Crusoe


RazorX
 Share

Recommended Posts

{size:12px}I'm annoyed by yet another of Bob Osborne's flubs, referring to director Luis Bu{size:12px}ñuel as "Looie."

 

It's Spanish, Bob -- pronounced "LOO-eess" -- not French.

 

It's your job, Bob, one for which you're being paid money to inform, not misinform. Why can't you do your homework?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Admittedly, it was not the best print in the world but I let it slide.

 

 

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression this was a very rare title anymore, virtually impossible to find, let alone see, so I have to commend TCM for tracking down a print if no other reason than I've finally been able to see all five of the Best Actor nominees for 1954. I've been waiting a long time for that one. O'Herlihy's (sorry if I spelled it wrong) is quite good; it's no minor feat to be a one-man show for so much of a film's running time. I liked -- and am not suprised at this -- many of Bunuel's wicked/clever touches in the direction -- especially Friday in the dress and the strange, soulful barking of the dog at the end. My impression was, moreover, that the film quality improved markedly as the film went on, so some who bailed may not have been aware of this.

 

 

Sometimes with rarities, TCM has to screen what it can get, I'm sure. Both "Across to Singapore" and "Two Arabian Knights" (silents from 1928 and 1927) have subtantial nitrate decomposition that completely obscures the image at times, but I'm still happy TCM shows them. (In fact, keep your eyes open for TAK, which will turn up before the 31 days is over. It won an Oscar for Lewis Milestone in the Comedy directing category, which was only given out in the 1927-1928 edition of the Oscars. )

 

 

I'm less than happy when a substandard print of a well-known film gets on the air, as happened with "The Razor's Edge" a couple of nights ago. I thought that looked dreadful -- very contrasty and dupey. I shut it off; fortunately TCM usually makes amends for things like this by tracking down better prints of films when they can and scheduling them ASAP. I'm sure if it' posible to do this with AORC, they will, and even with The Razor's Edge. (Yes, this is a hint.)

 

 

Cordially,

Dan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that rare, VCI has had a good looking DVD of it out for many years. This print tonight didn't look as good, but for once even I won't complain. I've seen much worse than what we got tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprocket_Man wrote:I'm annoyed by yet another of Bob Osborne's flubs, referring to director Luis Buñuel as "Looie."

 

It's Spanish, Bob -- pronounced "LOO-eess" -- not French.

 

 

 

It's your job, Bob, one for which you're being paid money to inform, not misinform. Why can't you do your homework?

 

*I* thought that he wath lithping.

 

This was Robert's slip.

 

Now here's yours. In Spanish, Luis is *not* pronounced "LOO-eess". It is pronounced Lweess. The vowel combination "ui" is a Spanish diphthong, which is a continuous, gliding sound, rather than being in two syllables as your post indicates. This is the same diphthong as "uy" in the Spanish word Muy, which is pronounced Mwee, *not* MOO-ee. Hearing you say it this way, a Spaniard would probably wonder where the cow is :-).

 

Remember, your duty is to inform, not misinform. Why can't you do *your* homework?

 

 

musikone

 

Edited by: musikone on Feb 22, 2012 7:55 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how many of you read the book but they pretty much put the essence of the tale in an hour and 45 minutes. Moved from the plasma tv to the lcd and the picture was watchable. Not great but OK. Wonder if that Pathe color system had any thing to do with the mottled look of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RayFaiola wrote:I looked at my DVR'd copy last night. One of the reasons it looked so lousy is that it was heavily overscanned. I suspect this was done for HD viewers.

 

Until TCM can demonstrate convincingly, *in advance of its showing,* that a title which is scheduled for showing in HD is a definite improvement over that same title to be shown in SD, then, in my opinion, it should be viewed on the SD channel.

 

Currently, and I expect this practice to continue indefinitely into the future, I view *every* TCM movie on the SD channel. Occasionally I check up on the situation. However, every time that I make an A-B check of a movie on both HD and SD channels, *I can see no significant difference between the two,* except that, on my TV screen, the HD picture is 50% of the size (area-wise) of the SD picture!

 

So *this shrunken image* is the improvement that we are being promised on the HD channel?

 

There may be exceptions to my general observations, but I do not know what these *very few* movies are -- nor will I particularly care until TCM cleans up its HD act.

 

And yes, my eyesight is *very* good, thank you.

 

 

musikone

 

Edited by: musikone on Feb 23, 2012 12:48 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Occasionally I check up on the situation. However, every time that I make an A-B check of a movie on both HD and SD channels, *I can see no significant difference between the two,* except that, on my TV screen, the HD picture is 50% of the size (area-wise) of the SD picture!

 

So *this shrunken image* is the improvement that we are being promised on the HD channel?"

 

It should be just the opposite. A widescreen film on the SD channel will be shrunken down to fit in a 4:3 space, while on the HD channel it should fill the screen from side to side, and may have some slight letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen, depending on the aspect ratio.

 

I DVR most of the films I watch on TCM. If something's being shown in the Academy ratio, I try to record it from the SD channel to save DVR storage space but anything wider I record from the HD channel, so I have a decent-sized image that I can actually see.

 

In the case of Robinson Crusoe, it looked much better on the SD channel than on the HD channel. I suppose HD revealed more of the print's shortcomings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

 

{color:black}I first saw this movie when I was 8 years old and while the print was not the best it was worth the near 60 year wait. I agree that Mr. O'Herlihy deserved his Oscar nomination; as this was 1954 this makes him a real "contenda" for Brando.

 

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

{color:black}I have seen worse prints; in fact I did today with another 50's film, *Black Patch*. It looks to have been done on a low budget and is not that well known so perhaps this was the best version Warners could find to work with. Again, it was a film I'd not seen since the 60's so it was better than nothing. I was a bit disappointed but as I've been waiting to see it on TV for ages I gratefully took what I could get. The story and acting were good.

 

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

{color:black}Maybe we've become spoiled. The alternative is not seeing the movies at all. Thank you, TCM.

 

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

 

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RazorX wrote that musikone wrote:

 

"Occasionally I check up on the situation. However, every time that I make an A-B check of a movie on both HD and SD channels, I can see no significant difference between the two, except that, on my TV screen, the HD picture is 50% of the size (area-wise) of the SD picture!

 

 

 

So this shrunken image is the improvement that we are being promised on the HD channel?"

 

RazorX then responded:

 

"It should be just the opposite. A widescreen film on the SD channel will be shrunken down to fit in a 4:3 space, while on the HD channel it should fill the screen from side to side, and may have some slight letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen, depending on the aspect ratio.

 

I DVR most of the films I watch on TCM. If something's being shown in the Academy ratio, I try to record it from the SD channel to save DVR storage space but anything wider I record from the HD channel, so I have a decent-sized image that I can actually see.

 

In the case of Robinson Crusoe, it looked much better on the SD channel than on the HD channel. I suppose HD revealed more of the print's shortcomings."

 

Here we go again! :-)

 

When I refer to a "shrunken" image, I am referring to the fact that, *for the same aspect ratio (i.e. width/height),* the area of the image in TCM's HD channel is just 50% of the area of the image in TCM's SD channel.

 

For example, if I view a 4:3 picture in HD, the image area will be 50% of the image area of the *identical 4:3 picture*, but viewed in SD.

 

Every time that I broach this subject (it somehow or other keeps reappearing), someone always confuses apples with oranges. So let's stick to apples this time around, and hopefully this point will finally sink in! But I won't bet on it.........

 

musikone

 

Edited by: musikone on Feb 23, 2012 11:39 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

> For example, if I view a 4:3 picture in HD, the image area will be 50% of the image area of the *identical 4:3 picture*, but viewed in SD.

>

>

>

 

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me. On my HDTV, a 4x3 image has exactly the same size on the SD channel, as on the HD channel. And, as RazorX wrote, a LB image will fill the screen when viewed on the HD channel, but must be zoomed to fill the screen on the SD channel.

 

I DVRed the film from TCM SD. It did look overscanned. I enjoyed the film, but it is very unlike other Bunuel films I have seen, and not among my favorites of his. Still, I am glad to have seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...