A Few Words About A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Powell&Pressburger]

I agree with this point. Do they not take a look at these discs and ask themselves these important questions?

I ay go with the older Two Disc Special Edition DVD... Most places you can get it dirt cheap these days.

I am so sick of WB's releasing sub par releases. I know they do good work but sometimes the bad work seems to be what is the loudest.

Word of mouth will spread... I feel the same way RECALL THE DISC and rescan the negative and release it. I bet Blue-Underground could release a better BLU RAY! and that isn't disrespecting B-Underground at all. IN fact they have a great BD track record so far. They don't over process their releases.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I've always been concerned if this philosophy is correctly interpreted by the people that make the decisions regarding these releases.

I could see, instead, the following interpretation of poor sales: "Why should we bother to release any further catalog titles when the blockbuster 1984 Best Picture winner can't even make us a profit?" I always worry they will see low sales as apathy with regards the product rather than an indictment of the quality of the product.

Would it not be more effective to directly let the studio know our opinions of the release (coupled with the appropriate purchase or lack-of-purchase...whichever is appropriate)?

I know Ron says WB regularly scans these boards...but is that enough?

 

[Brandon Conway]

No amount of forum-enthused boycott will put a big enough dent in sales to send any message. People should state their opinion here and let it get read by WB; with or without purchase it is the same.

A recall is a total pipe dream. Not gonna happen. Sorry, but that's the truth.

I fail to see the logic with "going for the older Two-Disc DVD". Even if one feels the BD is below optimal standards, it is plainly superior in every respect to the DVD. Blatantly so. Why degrade a viewing experience even further? To save $7-8? This makes no sense to me.

 

[Brandon Conway]

That I don't know. My receiver defaults on at a lower volume, so usually such things are not brought to my immediate attention. For what it's worth, I played it back in the same volume range I play most of my films back on.

 

[Shawn.F]

I agree with Brandon. However you feel about the transfer, it *will* be better than the SD edition. I picked it up this weekend at Best Buy, and since my set is not working at this moment, I spot checked the disc when I went to my friend's house. I thought the picture looked...decent. Yes, I did notice the DNR (Warner, for the love of God can you give DNR a rest?) and some EE (Warner, again, enough of this crap), but it was still a major step up from the SD edition from a few years ago.

It would be great for Warner to reissue the title, but then again it would be great if Disney reissued Gangs of New York with a transfer that didn't hurt my eyes. Unfortunately, I don't think either will happen (especially in this economy). Amadeus may have its PQ issues, but it is no where near the disaster Gangs of New York is.

 

[DavidJ]

I was considering picking this up since it was selling for $15 this week, but after reading the comment s here, I will pass.

 

[Brandon Conway]

My suspicions are, seeing as how this is a Saul Zaentz property rather than Warner outright, that the Zaentz Company approved the use of the HD Master created for the 2002 DVD release rather than doing a whole new one. For that time the level of DNR applied here is actually relatively spare.

This is totally conjecture on my part, but it makes the most sense.

 

[MatS]

wasn't interested in this title but am disappointed to hear about the transfer issues

if there is anything good to be had from this release it will be showing the studios/retailers that price point right now is king
#1 seller on Amazon for 2 days straight only due to its 14.99 reduced price point (to match Best Buy circular sale price)

to bad those buying it though aren't getting the presentation they should receive

 

[Thomas Agermose]

I haven't seen this myself but am relying on Mr. Harris expert opinions.

This discussion is yet another in the long line of cases of studio tampering with our beloved films. Starting with OAR, continuing with soundtrack mixes, we're now stuck with transfers designed for the videogaming generation.
For years nobody complained about OAR, the studios kept doing pan-scan and we kept on buying them. If we don't make a stand now they'll continue down whatever path will make them the most money.

Vote with your wallet.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

The detail removal goes hand in hand with the low average bit rate of 16 Mbit/s. You don't need a higher rate because you removed the HF content or you removed the HF content because then you can get away with the low bit rate. Which is it? Who knows, the net effect is disappointing. The HF detail should be there and the bit rate up where other studios put it for their important releases of somewhat grainy films (25 Mbit/s and higher).
Another lackluster Warner release in their line of 'good enough' releases.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Interesting comments, but I bought this release anyway because my viewing eyes are more forgiving than yours and at $14.99, the price was right for me.








Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert,

I know that you like Patton. Does your comment also mean that Gangs is worth $8.99, and that every disc, regardless of quality, has a fair price point?

My point to this regard remains very simple. Create a quality disc. Release it once in the highest possible quality, which with Blu-ray is totally film-like, and at the fairest street price.

With Blu-ray's capabilities, noise or grain reduction, as well as EE should be things of the past, except under specific and necessary circumstances based upon problematic elements.

Blu-ray allows one to keep it simple, and to spend less of one's budget on a video master. Why people continue to spend more is beyond all logic.

RAH

 

[Scott Merryfield]

This is disappointing to read, but like a few others, I already picked up the title over the weekend because of the great price of $14.99. Hopefully Warner Brothers does indeed read the comments here and learns from their mistakes.

 

[Robert Crawford]

RAH,
Actually, is not that I like the "Patton" BR presentation, it's more like I'm disappointed that it's not all it can be, but I can live with it for now and I hope in the not so distant future, Fox can revisit that title and give it the video presentation this great film deserves so that all fans of this film can enjoy the BRD of it to it's fullest extent.

The same applies to every title including "Gangs" which I haven't bought because it's not one of my favorite films and I can wait for it to be done again, no matter how low the price of the current BRD becomes in the future. By the way, a friend of mine has "Gangs" and from what I viewed of the disc while over his house, this BRD is even worse than "Patton" or "The Longest Day".

 

[Sam Posten]

Man, that is disappointing.

 

[Robert Harris]

If a disc publisher, be it studio or indie, brings out a Blu-ray that isn't up to spec, I would hope that said publisher would replace with upgraded product when available. There need be no discussion from them of problems. Just replace.

Re: Gangs, it is the worst to appear, and is complimented by the SD version of Cold Mountain, which (now being released elsewhere) hopefully will not suffer the same fate. Same post house, BTW - with horrible work.

I should also state for the record, that Amadeus does not fit into this quality category. It will be fine on small screens, but has an extremely over-processed image when projected. We're 18 months down the line from Gangs and Mountain. The bar has been raised. Discussions on and off line have been read and digested. A Best Picture should no longer be treated as an also ran. If this is an older transfer, it should have been relegated to SD, for which it would have been created, and not used for a Blu-ray release.

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's fine and dandy, but reality comes into play here and the industry's record in that regard is spotty at best.





Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Actually, Warner's record is quite good in this regard, along with Sony and Disney. When one looks at the real numbers, it becomes clear that the actual replacement, probably a few hundred discs at most, gains far more in credibility, consumer awareness and consumer loyalty than the $5 or so per replacement.

RAH

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Wow! This thread comes as a bit of a shock, considering Xylon at AVS (whose eyes I consider more demanding than my own) acknowledged the processing, but said the picture was "very good to excellent for the most part."

 

[Xylon]

Oh boy RAH you opened a can of worms. Wriggly ones.