Ethan Riley
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,286
- Real Name
- Ethan Riley
Now I'm cringing in anticipation of "Somewhere in Time."FanboyZ said:Do the people at Universal know how terrible their work is?
Now I'm cringing in anticipation of "Somewhere in Time."FanboyZ said:Do the people at Universal know how terrible their work is?
Yeah, almost anything Universal released on HD-DVD looked better than the eventual "upgrade" to BD. The Thing is another example. And The Big Lebowski, as well. I hate to think how Midnight Run might look if they ever release it on BD.FoxyMulder said:I remember reading about Gladiator and the astonishment by Universal staff at Ridley Scott not wanting additional processing, this of course was the re-release after the very poor first botched one, a comment i read from Universal suggested that they thought DNR and EE was standard practice for catalog titles, it's the guy in charge of the video department, he has the power to stop it, you wouldn't find Grover Crisp ( Sony ) allowing this, i'll take an old master as it is, don't add any additional rubbish to it, of course these studio's were so short sighted about the future that they often baked issues right into the master they made.
Go right back to Universal's first blu ray releases, The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, the HD-DVD editions had film grain, they looked okay, not perfect but good and filmic, but for the blu ray release they decided to add in some DNR to the mix and make it all smoother, i have ended up purchasing some older HD-DVD editions of Universal films just to get more film texture, i don't know why they felt blu ray needed the smoothavision treatment, it almost makes me wonder if they hated the fact blu ray won the format war and decided to put out inferior catalog releases on purpose.
I really wanted Cat People, i like this film a lot, i can't purchase this rubbish though.
Right. It's just a Shout Factory brand that they use when releasing horror titles.Bob Cashill said:Scream is a division of Shout.
Precisely the reason I have the HD-DVDs of The Sting and The Thing and no Blu-ray equivalents. I learned my lesson with Apollo 13. I do think Pride and Prejudice (2005) looks just as good on Blu as it did on HD-DVD.Oblivion138 said:Yeah, almost anything Universal released on HD-DVD looked better than the eventual "upgrade" to BD. The Thing is another example. And The Big Lebowski, as well. I hate to think how Midnight Run might look if they ever release it on BD.
The "grain is bad" mentality set in with Universal, that's what happened. They are trying to appeal to the average Joe (who hates grain) at the expense of the HT enthusiasts.Vincent_P said:There was a short period of time in the mid-2000s when Universal was making very nice HD masters of catalog titles (DUNE, THE THING and THE DEER HUNTER come to mind). I wonder what the hell happened?
Vincent
No need for conspiracy theories. Universal's catalog titles on HD DVD were no great shakes either. The studio is cheap and lazy, simple as that.FoxyMulder said:it almost makes me wonder if they hated the fact blu ray won the format war and decided to put out inferior catalog releases on purpose.
My screen name is FoxyMulder, i gotta come up with conspiracy theories. I agree with your post.JoshZ said:No need for conspiracy theories. Universal's catalog titles on HD DVD were no great shakes either. The studio is cheap and lazy, simple as that.
Who was it here who claimed that Universal actually isn't recycling old masters, and that all of these catalog titles are new 2k masters? Sorry, but I can't believe that from the results.
"Nobody down here but the FBI's most unwanted."FoxyMulder said:My screen name is FoxyMulder, i gotta come up with conspiracy theories.
Thank goodness there is someone else who dislikes their Blu-ray of one of my all-time favorites To Kill a Mockingbird. It's too processed, and those optical push-in close-ups look simply awful. I put the previous DVD release in my Blu-ray case, and that's the version I typically watch. I like the look of it very much.warnerbro said:I was even unhappy with what they did with TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (one of my favorite films). They thought it looked better to smear the process shots where the camera moves in because they thought it had too much grain. They even admitted this in one of their behind the scenes films. I hate it!
TKAM looks so inconsistent. Though when it was first released, you'd get your head bitten off if you criticized it. I think people so wanted to believe that Universal was turning over a completely new leaf that they were willing to overlook everything that was wrong with that transfer...and also to shout down anyone who didn't completely love it.Matt Hough said:Thank goodness there is someone else who dislikes their Blu-ray of one of my all-time favorites To Kill a Mockingbird. It's too processed, and those optical push-in close-ups look simply awful. I put the previous DVD release in my Blu-ray case, and that's the version I typically watch. I like the look of it very much.
Really? I seriously doubt any shout downs took place here.Oblivion138 said:TKAM looks so inconsistent. Though when it was first released, you'd get your head bitten off if you criticized it. I think people so wanted to believe that Universal was turning over a completely new leaf that they were willing to overlook everything that was wrong with that transfer...and also to shout down anyone who didn't completely love it.
I don't believe I was actively posting here at the time it was released. But elsewhere online, I was given a good thrashing, believe me.Robert Crawford said:Really? I seriously doubt any shout downs took place here.
Oh, I believe you, but we try to prevent such behavior here as we think everybody's opinion should be respected whether we agree with it or not.Oblivion138 said:I don't believe I was actively posting here at the time it was released. But elsewhere online, I was given a good thrashing, believe me.
Which is why I'm much more inclined to speak my mind here than elsewhere these days.Robert Crawford said:Oh, I believe you, but we try to prevent such behavior here as we think everybody's opinion should be respected whether we agree with it or not.
What blasphemy? This version is better than the original by virtue of not having a crappy sequel follow from it (Curse Of The Cat People) and also getting rid of the whole King John of Serbia / 'Mameluks made us slaves, therefore we're cursed' nonsense plot by getting down to the real nitty gritty of what the cat people are; they're werecats because they're werecats. And they can only sleep with one of their own, or they turn into panthers and kill to become human again.Steve Christou said:Thanks for the review RH. As you can tell from my avatar I'm a big fan of this film, and much prefer it to the Val Lewton classic, blasphemy I know.
I bought the Giorgio Moroder soundtrack LP as soon as it was released, and later the CD. Still listen to it.
Quentin Tarantino loved it so much he used it to great effect in Inglourious Basterds.Sky Captain said:I too also love the soundtrack and the 'Cat People (Putting Out The Fire)'.