The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX* - Page 14

MGM has already released TGTBTU on Blu-Ray (and DVD) in Germany, so I would think they are the only rights owners there.

So how is the dubbing for Tuco, Blondie, and Carson? Did they use good voice actors for the roles? I just ordered the Mondo version. I have seen the movie enough times to know whats going on and the direction and music is a huge part of why I enjoy this movie so much, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

IMDB says cinema Mondo own the rights for Finland and i know Scandinavian countries usually provide english language on releases. So perhaps there is hope yet. It also says Svensk Filmindustri (SF ) released a Blu Ray in 2009 or will release one. ( Thats Sweden ) Hmm although United Artists released theatrically which brings us back to MGM or maybe for home video Svensk uses different prints. ( doubt it )

Maybe MovieSwede can rent it and see if it's better than the MGM and has an english track.

I doubt it. As I said before, an English dub for the Italian cut probably does not exist. Remember that originally only the 161-minute US cut was dubbed in English. It was only in 2002/3 that the dub for the long version was made by MGM (including new recordings by Eastwood and Wallach). But the MGM cut is different from the Italian cut, and Mondo most likely will not get the rights to the new dub anyway.

So i guess we have to hope that MGM's continuing financial troubles see them bought by another studio like Sony who will then work on a new edition and release it in 2011 for the film's 45th anniversary. ( i can dream )

Was there an old DVD release of this film which matches the Italian cuts running time or was only the longer restored cut released on DVD ?

The documentary of the disc showing how it was restored was a bit of a giveaway.

Steve W

No dice, the Nordic Blu-ray is the same MGM/Fox disc as in most other countries, only with a different set of languages and distribution by local companies.

FS-Film distributes TGTBTU in Finland and unfortunately we already have the pan-European release by MGM/Fox in our hands. I think FS-Film is somehow releated to Svensk Filmindustri. Former is handling the home video and the latter movie theaters. Actually, TGTBTU is distributed by the same company in the Nordic Countries.


Did they show how the "restoration" technician max out the DNR knob and says "Now, let's get rid of that ugly film grain and make this film look real smooth and perfect for Blu-ray HiDef. Just see and watch the magic happen!"

Wow, Italian Mondo BD really beats the h@ll out of the MGM BD. Maybe not every way perfect but very film like video which will be joy to watch on 100" screen. I'll be buying this for sure. I bet the Italian 5.1 mix is also superior to MGM one. And if not, Mondo offers lossless 2.0 PCM.

Oh dear.

The restoration was on the film. How it's been transfered to Blu-ray Disc has nothing to do with the restoration.

No one 'maxed out the DNR knob', there is definitely film grain in the MGM presentation. DNR was 'maxed out' on Patton, and there is virtually no extra detail on the Blu-ray Disc than the DVD - that is not the case here.

Once again, we're presented with either 'no DNR' (not true) vs. 'maxed out DNR' (again, not true).

Steve W

It's not worded clearly in the bonus feature, however it is likely the people reconstructing the new cut in the US got a print of the Italian restoration, and therefore would already there be one generation removed from the quality they could theoretically achieve in Italy.

Besides, restoration and transfer isn't the same thing. We know transfers from just a couple of years back that could be considered substandard, and this one must have been done somewhere around 2002-2003. I recall reading even way before the Blu-ray, when they decided to re-use the same TGTBTU discs for the Leone anthology on DVD, that people who had seen the restored version projected complained that the colours were all wrong, and that it looked far from as good as it should.

Essentially it's possible the US re-cut looks decent on film, and that it's just an old and rubbish transfer.

I think for this one you need to watch the documentary to see how it was done.


It's a real shame the they didn't re-visit the restoration, I agree.

I'm afraid it's something we have to live with - when studios have done a HD transfer several years ago, they're not going to re-visit it and spend more cash a few years later. This may be one of the biggest problems we have in the next few years with Blu-ray Disc, but in a pragmatic world it's a problem we have to live with. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm a realist.

Steve W

Honestly, after comparing the pictures back and forth, the DVD looks better!
It doesn't have those ugly faces and it has more detail on them too,
one of my favorite movies

That Mondo Bluray does have more detail than the MGM Bluray, HOWEVER.

And this is a pretty big However, the restoration job done by MGM has accurate colors, that look A LOT more natural than the Mondo version.

Now, I give you that the MGM version has a TON of DNR that turns most of the faces into wax, and scrubs away some detail, but the advantage in the accurate and pleasing colors is not to be completely forgetten.

Where there differences in the running time on the Mondo vs the US version??!!

Or else i was thinking of playing the Mondo in one BD player and the MGM in the other and getting ENG audio from the MGM version (lol)

That's a good point. When combined with the lack of either an English audio track or English subtitles the release is an easy pass for me. While it hurts to know how good a job MGM could've done with this release, I don't think there's much choice but to wait for them to try again.

Mike, I understand the concern. I'm not convinced this is just a DNR issue, though.

Firstly, there is grain in the MGM version, though it varies.

Secondly, some scenes on the MGM disc are very sharp.

Thirdly, I saw the same variability between grain levels and detail on the restored version of OUATITW, and that was on film, in the cinema, presumably untouched by DNR (as did Rob Tomlin, see post #302).

I'm not saying DNR is not an issue, but I just think it's not as simple as saying "The MGM disc has a lot of DNR" and that's the start and finish of it.

The colour differences between the two are interesting. Looking at both I don't immediately see how anyone can ay one is more right than the other without any external reference.

Steve W

Well, I'm basing the colors on my own personal opinion, and the reconstruction and restoration video in the new DVD. I think the restoration did a fantastic job, its just sad that when they brought it to Bluray, they digitalized it.

The Mondo Bluray has the colors of the previous DVD, which look like your typical 90's DVD colors, which is to say, not quite right.

I totally disagree about the colours. It's possible the Italian transfer is a bit boosted but on the whole, when I think of Leone's westerns, it's much closer to what I see in my mind, despite never having actually seen them like that.

I believe Leone was a rather colourful man in many aspects of his film making, and the incredibly drab, washed-out colours of the US disc make no sense to me. They don't convey the vast plains or the sun or the heat very well either.

Of the comparison shots that were posted, most are also in bright, sunny weather, and considering that, I disagree that they would be less realistic as well.

Did you watch the documentary on the restoration and reconstruction?

The old DVD's color look boosted, so since thats all we've ever seen, I can see how watching the colors of the newly restored film bothers some people.

But the colors of the New MGM DVD released a couple of years ago and the MGM Bluray look the same and are undoubtedly closer to the original negatives, again, just going by the documentary.

I don't totally disagree with a number of your presumptions, but they remain just that - presumptions.

I can understand the concept of MGM looking at the carefully restored print and applying to DNR to remove grain because they think people won't understand it, but I can't understand them spending a fortune on restoring it, then changing the colour for the DVD/BD.

At the moment, the only comment that's anything like a definitive quote comes from Sir Christopher Frayling, who knows more about Leone's film than anyone on the planet, and he said the HD transfer was 'stunning'.

Steve W

One presumes he was talking about the HD restoration though and not the actual Blu Ray disc.

IMO, Frayling made the comment on the surviving film print and assumed that the HD transfer would be similar. If he really saw the MGM HD transfer and felt that was "stunning" we would be forced to feel he had lost a lot of the respect we might have had for his professionalism.

I doubt that and you have no proof for that.

The Mondo restoration was supervised by the Leone family and done with the original negative. So I trust their judgement more than MGMs. I have to watch the MGM documentary again but I am quite sure they did not have access to the original Italian negative so they had to cut together several sources.

stwrt, my understanding is that Frayling made the comment after a public showing of the new (MGM) Blu-ray Disc at an Italian educational institute in the UK.

Steve W

It just goes to show everyone can get it wrong from time to time. You say a public showing of the new disc. Did they wheel out their state of the art 21inch fat tubed CRT which they bought in 1992 or did they view on a large screen ? Without more details it's hard to believe.

It's also worth noting experts get it wrong when viewing on smaller screens. The brilliant restoration expert Robert A Harris called it wrong and has admitted calling it wrong on several releases when he used to view on a television monitor. He bought a projection system and now calls it right most of the time.

The Italian edition was restored using negatives owned by the Leone family and there is even a message on the Italian disc stating this.

It comes down to a matter of belief. Is Frayling's word the final say on the matter and no one can challenge him or do you look at this with open eyes and say the MGM could clearly have been a lot better and that Frayling is wrong.

If your recollections are correct it really doesn't change anything though and it doesn't change the fact that even taking into account color changes between both releases the Italian version just looks so much more like film.

Foxy, I believe both can be true.

Frayling's most certainly isn't the final word on the matter PQ-wise.

However, when the world's authority finds it 'stunning' then, no matter how much better it could be (or how much better the Mondo version is), we are faced with different questions: how much does the difference in PQ really matter, and if it matters to you and not Frayling, who has their priorities right?

I suppose it's a question as to whether you're more of a film fan, or more of an A/V & PQ fan.

I can't agree with your comments that:


A more film-like look with grain structure I can understand. But 'more film-like colour'? I'd question what that means.

We've had demonstrated in this thread that, using the screen caps with the biggest difference in detail levels, the difference appears to be about the same as 720p vs. 1080p. However, we know that, at around 1.4x screen widths seating distance it's not possible to see any difference between those levels of detail.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9157454

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...340&highlight=

More detail is always welcome, but let's keep the differences in perspective.

You may be right that the Italian version is more film-like. However, as I don't speak Italian this is not a relevant question. All I need to know is, does the version I can access look great on my screen, and better than the SD DVD? The answer is yes.

Whether some multi-lingual projector owner who sits nose-to screen can see more detail thinks I need my eyes testing really isn't of any concern to me at all. I'm sure this post will get dozens of abusive replies saying (or implying by omission) that all those people from the Greek AV club have defective eyesight, too. Again, I don't really care.

Steve W

I never said anything about a more film like color and thats your words. I said the colors are different but the Italian version has a more film like look to it.

You still haven't taken into account the size of monitor/screen that Frayling saw this on when he proclaimed it was stunning.

Stunning is a word preserved for the best. Can you really tell me this is stunning ? Do you think the MGM release is stunning ?

I don't care if he is the world's authority on Leone because he actually begins to discredit himself by making such silly comments on this release. People will then view further statements from him with absolute derision and suspicion. I know that i certainly am vieiwng his comments that way since i can't believe anyone would knowlingly call this MGM release "stunning" unless they actually were viewing on a small monitor and even then can you really call it stunning ?

I would suggest Frayling has his priorities wrong and not me. I would suggest you are defending the indefensible and i would suggest this is getting tiresome as it's been proved there is a much better edition available that had a restoration and was from the official Leone family.

Maybe you just like to defend your purchases. Maybe you like to defend Frayling. Maybe you just like counter arguments as it's entertaining for you. I don't know the answers to those questions but i do know what my eyes tell me and my eyes tell me the Mondo release looks very acceptable to me while the MGM release looks bloody awful.

I'm a film fan and i believe that silly argument that those of us who call releases bad are just PQ snobs is insulting in the extreme. Regarding the nose to the screen crap it's also insulting and tiresome and gets old hearing such ridiculous statements. For future reference please don't pull that with me again.

I sit at 8.5 feet distance from a 104inch screen and can assure you i see differences easily but thats not the point. The MGM release is clearly filtered and only you in this thread continue to argue otherwise. Originally you said it's as good as it can be but now we have proof that it can be more film like and better and you still argue. It's old and it's tiresome and frankly i'm done with this thread because i just cannot see how anyone can continue to argue the case for the MGM release.

Finally as for not caring. I actually believe you. I don't think you care about getting the best possible transfers and i think you are happy with better than the DVD. You are the only one continuing to argue about this release despite evidence against it so really i think it's best we just agree to disagree. Enjoy and have a great day.

This is a guy holding out like that Japanese soldier hiding in the jungle for 40 years who thought World War II was still on and he says he doesn't care

I don't know how the colors are supposed to be in the Leone films, and can we ever know for sure? Leone, Dallamano, Tonino Delli Colli or even Carlo Simi are all dead. And I wouldn't trust anybody's memory on how the films used to look at the cinema back in the day.

GBU isn't the only film where there are differences... theres a huge difference in colors between the Paramount and CVC (at least the older longer disc) DVDs of OUATITW. Where again the Paramount disc is kinda "normal" looking compared to the Italian one.

Another example that comes to mind is My Name Is Nobody... basically all the smaller labels (from UK, France, Italy, Finland, probably USA as well) look like this
Yet once a bigger company, Paramount, got their hands on the film, it looks like this (the German DVD).

Why would the Italians (and some others) always get it wrong and these big companies (MGM, Paramount) right? Or why would the Italians be correct? I don't know. But I trust the Italians.

I prefer the colors on the Italian GBU Blu-Ray.

Foxy, your search for the highest possible standards is commendable, and to be applauded.


I venture to suggest that neither of you has the wrong priorities', just different ones, each tailored to suit his own wants, needs and tastes.

As a cinephile, Frayling's priority is to get access to the best looking/sounding version of the film possible, then to enjoy it as much as possible.

An Audio/Videophile yours is to not settle for anything less than the best, and that your enjoyment of the film will be damaged if you're not getting this.

As I say, neither is wrong or right, but each person's satisfaction will reveal their priorities. As I say, it'd the difference between a film fan first and foremost, or an AV fan first and foremost.

For me, I share Sir Chris's priorities, and don't feel I should be subject to ridicule for that.


A pretty poor attempt to misquote, Foxy.

I quite clearly said I don't care if some idiots post abuse about my position here.

It's not a question of not caring about PQ, but about what you do if you don't get it. Do you keep a sense of perspective, or descend into hyperbolic levels of self-pity, and exagerated criticism.

Me, I'm a 'glass is half full' kind of guy.

Steve W