DVD movies-getting stale!!!

Michael Gibbons · January 12th, 2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

Show me the movie you decided to release to the public, that is what you will be remembered for! No changing it now!

Mike

I'm not certain this is correct in every case. For instance when I think of Blade Runner I always think of Ridly Scott's cut, not the theatrical release. Another example would be the LOTR movies. I think that most of the people who dig these will remember the exteneded versions more than the theatrical, because, it is more than likely the DVDs that will, in the end, be seen by the most people. Furthermore, not every movie makes it to theatre the way the director wanted it. For the most part I want to see what the director wants me to see, it makes no diffeerence to me if it was released that way in the theatre- a place to which I almost never go, anyway.

John Hudson · January 12th, 2006, 06:24 PM

The previews do not piss me off; it's the one;s that won't allow you to FF through them that do.

Mathieu Ghekiere · January 12th, 2006, 06:51 PM

I agree with Michael, a director ALWAYS wants his movie to end in the theatres the way he likes.
It are the producers and the studios who mostly decide different-wise, and often they have the final cut...

Look to American History X... Hey, I love the movie, but did you search about the story behind it? The director hated the cut, called Edward Norton (who I love btw in his acting) an egocentric narcist who made the cut for his own good... The director wanted the emphasis in the movie to lay on the younger brother, but the studio decided different...
Or Léon, from Luc Besson, magnificent movie. He had to cut out 24 minutes that had some violence, but especially, it hinted mor at a sexual relation between Léon and Mathilda... so they said to him: cut out those scenes... or we'll only release your movie in a handfull of small theatres...

If a director HAS the chance to bring out the director's cut, in a later moment in the process, like on dvd, I'm glad I as a movielover can look at it. Shame that it wasn't done in the first place, but mostly not the choice of the director.
Some studio's, small independent studios, still give final cut to their directors.
Big ones too, but only if you are a very big name (Spielberg, Lucas,... they don't make very controversial movies but they are big enough to make the movie THEY want).

Yi Fong Yu · January 19th, 2006, 08:58 AM

the only thing i'll add is that i really hate it when studios dump old film negatives onto DVDs as is. i watch a ton of classics (silent films, 30s, 40s) and thus far, Warner Bros, MK, certain Fox titles and a handful of film studios release excellent cleaned up prints.

what REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me is that a film shot in the last 30 years has WORSE print quality than a film shot 70+ years ago! that's ludicrously insane! an easy example, Forrest Gump, it's relative good, but when you start projecting that onto a 100" screen, all the dirty, grime and hair follicles start appearing in the film negatives. why couldn't they do it RIGHT in the first DVD release? *sigh*. it's very very disappointing. i don't mind paying $ for it, as long as they do it right in the first place!

another easy example is T2 Ultimate Edition, then Extreme Edition. UE print looks awful compared to EE. i wish the lowry digital process could be applied to ALL classic films! =). the results are really astounding!

with the upcoming HD formats, i should hope the studios give their classic film negatives a good clean before delivering it onto the new mediums, otherwise, a high-res dirty looking version is still bad!

i think the focus should be on the original film element that's being transferred to HD.

Michael Gibbons · January 19th, 2006, 09:35 AM

I have several collection of movies and classic movies on Warner home video, and I think they do the very best job as far a quality and execution goes. Especially when it comes to the extra stuff.

January 12th, 2006, 06:51 PM	#18
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	I agree with Michael, a director ALWAYS wants his movie to end in the theatres the way he likes. It are the producers and the studios who mostly decide different-wise, and often they have the final cut... Look to American History X... Hey, I love the movie, but did you search about the story behind it? The director hated the cut, called Edward Norton (who I love btw in his acting) an egocentric narcist who made the cut for his own good... The director wanted the emphasis in the movie to lay on the younger brother, but the studio decided different... Or Léon, from Luc Besson, magnificent movie. He had to cut out 24 minutes that had some violence, but especially, it hinted mor at a sexual relation between Léon and Mathilda... so they said to him: cut out those scenes... or we'll only release your movie in a handfull of small theatres... If a director HAS the chance to bring out the director's cut, in a later moment in the process, like on dvd, I'm glad I as a movielover can look at it. Shame that it wasn't done in the first place, but mostly not the choice of the director. Some studio's, small independent studios, still give final cut to their directors. Big ones too, but only if you are a very big name (Spielberg, Lucas,... they don't make very controversial movies but they are big enough to make the movie THEY want). __________________ http://productionsofthe3rdkind.com http://pr3k.com

January 19th, 2006, 08:58 AM	#19
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	the only thing i'll add is that i really hate it when studios dump old film negatives onto DVDs as is. i watch a ton of classics (silent films, 30s, 40s) and thus far, Warner Bros, MK, certain Fox titles and a handful of film studios release excellent cleaned up prints. what REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me is that a film shot in the last 30 years has WORSE print quality than a film shot 70+ years ago! that's ludicrously insane! an easy example, Forrest Gump, it's relative good, but when you start projecting that onto a 100" screen, all the dirty, grime and hair follicles start appearing in the film negatives. why couldn't they do it RIGHT in the first DVD release? sigh. it's very very disappointing. i don't mind paying $ for it, as long as they do it right in the first place! another easy example is T2 Ultimate Edition, then Extreme Edition. UE print looks awful compared to EE. i wish the lowry digital process could be applied to ALL classic films! =). the results are really astounding! with the upcoming HD formats, i should hope the studios give their classic film negatives a good clean before delivering it onto the new mediums, otherwise, a high-res dirty looking version is still bad! i think the focus should be on the original film element that's being transferred to HD. __________________ bow wow wow

January 19th, 2006, 09:35 AM	#20
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	Warner does it right I have several collection of movies and classic movies on Warner home video, and I think they do the very best job as far a quality and execution goes. Especially when it comes to the extra stuff. __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

January 12th, 2006, 06:24 PM	#17
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	The previews do not piss me off; it's the one;s that won't allow you to FF through them that do.