Air Force One blu ray (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

I don't see any comments on the Air Force One blu ray here. I found a review on Blu Ray.com. They found it to be a good disc.

I like this movie, and is probably one of Ford's last better roles. "Get off my plane!"

 

[Tino]

On it's way from Amazon.

 

[Brent M]

I will definitely buy this on Blu-Ray if I can find it at a good price. The DTS-MA track should be fantastic.

 

[Nelson Au]

And I see Mr. Harris has posted a Few Words and says it's another excellent Sony release!

 

[troy evans]

You're going to be getting TrueHD 5.1, but, yes it is fantastic.

 

[troy evans]

It is awesome on Blu. From the start this was one of my top 20 movies to buy as a Hi-Def release. Glad to say, I was not disappointed. ......19 more to go.

 

[sestamuch]

Excellent... looking forward to it.

 

[Paul_Warren]

Was lucky enough to get this about 2 years ago when they released it on Region B. Audio is astonishing & this + Executive Decision (not on BD yet) both have probably some of the loudest & most aggressive sound design ever. The LFE is extremely powerful (foundation shaking level!!) and all those jet flybys still sound amazing. PQ is as you would expect not perfect but a massive improvement over the DVD.

Well worth buying as the BD presentation makes it one of the few movies you can just watch and be sucked into the story even if you know the film inside out.

 

[Dale MA]

Any word if this release is any better than the UK BD?

 

[David Coleman]

As far as audio the only thing I can take off for is sometimes dialogue was masked by the sound effects, otherwise this is near reference!

 

[Hamilton72]

My understanding so far is that it's worse. My biggest gripe is that the Russian/English captions are now placed under the image.

This is bad if:

a) You want to watch the movie exactly as it was show in theatres or presented initially on DVD (gasp!) or

b) You mask your movies at home so only the 2.35:1 image is visible.

I certainly fit into the first of those categories and can sympathise with the second!

Bad Sony. Bad.

 

[Christian Preischl]

Unfortunately this seems to be standard practice with Sony. :frowning: Drove me nuts while watching The Da Vinci Code.

 

[Hamilton72]

They did it on that too? Bloody hell. Okay I won't be getting that either.

I will not be taken out of the movie by having PART of the movie flashed at me from underneath it!

 

[ATimson]

And I'll be taken into it by viewing as much of the picture as possible.

 

[Hamilton72]

Well good luck with that, but it ain't how the movie was meant to be seen!

 

[Dan M]

definitley a no-no for those of us with constant heighth setups.

 

[Hamilton72]

Sony seems to be quite good at listening to customer feedback and taking action, etc. Any chance somebody with studio contact could request that they leave theatrical subtitles alone or, if they really MUST replace them, that they at least put them in the same place as they were theatrically?

This issue is as important to me as DNR and EE is to other people. This is actually movie CONTENT that's being altered.

There are now THREE Sony titles that I will not upgrade to BD purely because the captions are wrong:

Bram Stoker's Dracula
Air Force One
The Da Vinci Code.

And since Air Force One is one of my favourite movies from the 90s that's quite disappointing.

 

[Wayne_j]

I'm pretty sure that the reason SONY is having subs be player generated is so that the same transfer can be used for any language. Hopefully they can at least get them to come up the same place on screen.

 

[Nelson Au]

Interesting, so many recent postings about subtitles not being the original as was shown theatrically.

I personally don't have an issue most of the time. Star Trek had specific subtitles in a particular font in the first Trek film and I can see wanting the studio to leave it as it was.

I actually appreciate the subtitles under the frame most of the time. Perhaps the technology exists for them to allow the user to select subtitles as seen theatrically or in modified form. But then, that's too technical for Joe6Pack probably who does not care.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

What's been bugging me over this controversy over the subtitles is: How do the people claiming to "know" that burned-in subtitles are the director's intent come by this info? It seems to me that they'd rather have more of the image presented, but are forced to do so by the limitations imposed on them by the theater set-up. "Theatrical" in that case has little to nothing to do with it, which seems to be borne out by the fact that masters without the burned-in subtitles obviously exist (even on decades-old films) and seem be the de facto way of doing things. That would mean that the director's intent wasn't to have them permanently attached to the image. If there's evidence to the contrary, by all means provide it, but I can't find anything supporting this argument.

I will allow that the 2.35 can be frustrating, especially since Blu-ray specs allow for authoring configurable subtitle placement. On the other hand, I can see definitely see a cost-benefit point of view that spending the extra time and money on this to please an almost immeasurably small percentage of their viewers may simply be not worth it in an economic climate where streamlining is of the essence. Anyhow, this release in particular seems to have screwed up, but Sony is making a good effort to resolve it.