Dismal Blu-Ray version


It's hard to believe that a major company like Fox would release a classic movie onto Blu-ray disc in such atrocious condition as The Greatest Story Ever Told. I recently bought a Blu-ray triple feature set that includes The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Robe, and the Bible.

Got around to watching The Greatest Story Ever Told last night and could not believe how bad the image looked. Before it started, there was a statement on the screen that the film used was from the best available sources. Once the movie started, I realized why they slapped that statement on there.

There is no way this movie should look this bad. The image could not have come from the original negative. It seems there was no clean up effort whatsoever. This is an absolutely horrible presentation of this movie. There's no sharpness to the image, yet film grain pours out of it. Colors are dull throughout. Toward the end of the film, half the picture turns blue for some inexplicable reason. What happened here? I don't think there was any effort made to clean this up at all.

Conversely, The Bible - which was released to theaters around the same time - looks fantastic, a major upgrade from previous home video releases.

Apparently Fox/MGM got lazy with the release of "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and that's a shame.

reply

Toward the end of the film, half the picture turns blue for some inexplicable reason.
This was how it was on all versions I've seen, long before DVD or Blu-ray. I've always thought it was bizarre: if unintended, unforgivable; if intended, incomprehensible.


Call me Ishmael...

reply

Just bought the same triple feature pack of blu-rays and watching The Bible last night and it was exquisite!....and just started TGSET now...granted I have a 4k SUHD tv and player but my version is a huge improvement over my dvd I have previously watched in the past...n one word I'm anxious to watch The Robe and see how that turned out...

reply

This must be the version Prime is showing now.

It also skipped most of the miracles like walking on water, turning water into wine, and feeding the multitude with a few baskets of fish and bread, opting for a second hand report to the local authorities instead. I mean, this had a 20M budget in 1965 (like 200M today), couldn't they spring for some special effects? Or were they cut out for the TV version to get it down to 3 hours?

reply