Any reviews for Rocky & Bullwinkle S2 or Fractured Flickers yet? (1 Viewer)

[Josh Sieg]

These DVDs DO look better than the syndicated versions too. They have been cleaned up somewhat.

I love these sets, and I will be buying them all!

 

[Josh Sieg]

PS.

If you buy this set at Best Buy, you get 3 20 oz. Coke products free!

 

[george kaplan]

I'm as pissed as the next guy about the watermarks and wish they weren't there. But they certainly cover up a lot less picture than the subtitles on foreign films, and people don't complain about those.

 

[RomanSohor]

I have a question about these DVD's. Why did they make them flippers? Could they have just made them dual-layer discs?

I was curious about that - can you get "four" sides on a flipper? (two dual layer sides) or is it just a way to get around making the disc 2 layer?

 

[Gord Lacey]

I've never seen a PD Rocky & Bullwinkle set. This is the only set I've ever seen that contained a bug in the corner. It's not enough to boycott the release, but it's something to bitch about.

I was speaking to someone at VSDA (Video Software Dealer's Association) in July and he told me about a product he was working on. To modernize it he wanted to stick a bug in the corner. I explained to him that consumers don't want that, so he made a call and told them not to place a logo on the video.

I agree - pirates won't care that there's a logo in the corner, they're PIRATES!

Gord

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Gord,

again the concern (I presume), is not in regards to the likes of petty sellers on Ebay pirating copies... but the smaller "legitimate" video corporations who could essentially compile a selection of episodes sourced from these remastered prints, and than turn around and issue them for profit. This would obviously be bad for a number of reasons I don't think I have to get into. Therefore the implication of this logo is significant in that the producers can now track any bootlegs sourced from these remastered prints by simply identifying the watermark that turns up on screen. I believe it works in the public domain, that if you copy an original source print and than proceed to edit or alter the copy in any ways and have that transfer copyrighted, it would than be considered illegal for another person or company to alter or reproduce from that transfer or the property in general unless they go back to the original source. In the case of Rocky and Bullwinkle, the original masters are conveniently in the ownership and custody of the Jay Ward family/estate and are not available for such purpose.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

BTW, I just considered that the above might actually be the "real" reasoning behind Ward's decision to include the alternate music cues in the opening sequences... for copyright protection of this set against the public domain lurchers. possiblity?

 

[Gord Lacey]

So we have to suffer because people MAY rip the content off? Well then, how about we support logos on everything?

There are other ways to identify transfers of material; a bug doesn't need to be placed in the corner. Like someone else mentioned, they could have placed something in the overscan area which would achieve the same result, except we couldn't see it. I think they made a poor decision.

Gord
P.S. I actually think this is a subtitle track, which would leave the video unaffected. I don't have any way to check this though.

 

[Gabe D]

Actually, they released at least a dozen VHS tapes in the early '90s. (I've still got 'em.) They're not too hard to find.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

A commercial pirate would either zoom/crop the offending frames to remove the bug, replace it with an opaque bug of their own, or ignore it altogether.

Bugs do absolutely nothing to prevent piracy.

 

[Jay Pennington]

Not a chance.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

yes but perhaps it effects the copywrite protection by altering the original program along with the music cues, just a thought? This would force the commercial pirates to go back to the original masters which as stated, are conveniently not available.

Gabe, there were 11 compilation volumes released to tape in the early 90's and that is and was until now, the extent of Rocky and Bullwinkle's commercial viability outside of t.v. syndication. I used to rent these myself often, but was too young to actually remember the technical specs and context of these releases so I can't comment.

Perhaps there were other ways around the bugs, it's possible as I've stated that they were put to use for copywrite protection of the actual source material and not just in contention towars the video piraters who might've bootlegged these sets, but regardless, I still don't feel that it's such a big deal.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Jay, I contacted Classic Media last year in regards to the issue of watermarking on these sets and was sent the following email by Sasha Junk:

"We are pleased to hear that you are such a big fan of Rocky & Bullwinkle and appreciate your concern over the inclusion of a protective "watermark" on the programs. Unfortunately, over the past twenty years "No Goodniks" have pirated the Jay Ward library and sold unauthorized videos. Most consumers are unaware that these low-quality copies are illegal. Worse, consumers feel cheated because they are a poor representation of the original shows. More than one million dollars was invested by the Ward family to restore the film masters for Rocky & Bullwinkle & Friends Complete Season 1 and future Jay Ward releases. The watermark enables us to trace the source of the video masters to prevent future copyright infringement and piracy, and to protect the Jay Ward legacy."


If you're a fan of classic animation or have any sort of understanding into the practices of film preservation of older vintage televised series, specifically cartoons, than I'd be amazed that you would overlook the display of quality presented on these sets... I would say that a million dollars easily went into the cleanup and restoration of these episodes. I can't believe how many of you have negative comments to make in regards to these excellent sets, I wish more studios devoted such time and effort into packaging their films and television series.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I knew about the bug, and it wasn't enough to stop me from enjoying the first set and won't be enough to stop me from enjoying this one.

Long live Borris and Natasha!

 

[BernieV]

I'd like to ask a question and make a comment concerning the RB overlay on this transfer.

The watermark issue has been a point of contention concerning this release, both here and on dvdtalk. Watermark may not be the most accurate term for it since watermarks like those used on currency and writing paper are invisible under normal circumstances. Video watermarks are designed to be visible. Perhaps bug is a more descriptive term, since some find them irritating and hard to ignore.

My question is why does the bug have to be visible on screen? As others have noted, there are many ways to embed copyright marks without visibly affecting the content. Digital signatures could be inserted in every frame, making it extremely difficult to illicitly copy work. I understand the need to distinguish this from a public domain release, but an invisible ID could serve that purpose just as well. Visibly altering program content seems like a reaction to overcautious, overzealous legal counsel. Does it really have to be visible?

My comment may already be apparent. Simply put, I don't like video bugs. If they cover any portion of the program area, I find them intrusive and distracting, no matter how brief their appearance. Some people didn't like it when broadcast TV started using bugs. Not enough of them complained back then, so now we must live with it. The same thing could happen to home video. Whether or not it's your ox being gored here, this is a significant issue for others. If bugs become common and accepted, there may be no getting rid of them. At that point it may be impossible to view programming in its original broadcast format and some of us may abandon the market altogether.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Actually, if you try to get pirated versions of Rocky & Bullwinkle, they'll have larger bugs. The versions aired on Cartoon Network and Boomerang have the CN logo AND a two line text bug on the other side on every intro. Not exactly the translucent and otherwise small bug used on the DVD's. (Not to mention any pirated versions would have to come from the unrestored laserdiscs, VHS, or TV broadcasts.)

I think the old tapes also have that two-line bug.

To be honest, is it really THAT big of a deal to cope with a tiny little bug in exchange for seeing the show in restored form?


I'm kind of surprised that they went for double-sided discs... but I assume they used them due to the amount of episodes.

(BTW, pre-ordered the set from Deep Discount. They have a superb price on it.)

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Can anyone confirm whether these are actually on the video, or are they on a subtitle track? I have a bloopers disc from Passport video that has a player-generated bug, and even turning the subtitles off doesn't get rid of it but it does disappear if you tap the reverse-scan button. Also you can 'rip' the disc on a computer and remove the subtitle track altogether (yes, that's not kosher but when they do this they're asking for it.)
I could probably live with it if it only stays on for a few seconds, but there's so much other stuff to buy out there that it's enough to make me not want to bother with this. I don't want to see this become a bigger problem like it has on TV either; I was furious enough when the Fox network had their bug on for a couple minutes during each show, and I did complain, but as you can see it's now on all the time and has spread to the other networks as well, and as a result I've given up on TV altogether. If it becomes commonplace on DVD I'll just stop buying them and catch up on watching all the ones I've already got.
I've heard that Laserlight has a bug that appears for a few seconds on their Andy Griffith Show discs, but some other companies have stolen these transfers and put out their own discs with the bug still intact!

 

[RomanSohor]

EVeryone who isn't amazed with the quality on th e R&B sets should read "The moose that roared" book about Jay Ward & Co., the prints came up from Mexico looking ATROCIOUS - they probably look better now than the first time Jay Ward and Bill Scott saw them themselves!

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Bernie, I happen to agree with your stance to a degree... if this were the upcoming Seinfeld release and we had on-screen logos or the like I would be very much irked. But I guess we all have to pick and chose our battles and in this particular case and for reasons outlined, I just don't feel as strongly. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather them be omitted in upcoming sets, it's just to say that I don't feel as though the inclusion or practice of such truly detracts from the great content and packaging that we've otherwise been given. Now don't hold me to any of the following because I'm not a legal attorney nor am I educated in the constituion of copyright law, but - I believe that there are codes which stipulate that one can copyright changes to a transfer as an author after the fact but the change have to be pretty radical. Just doing a telecine transfer or certain film scratches falling in certain order don't qualify because they don't change the artistic structure. Colorizing a black and white film or doing wraparounds or so called extras can allow you to copyright the disk as a whole compiled work but if you break the individual elements out and restore them to their original state they become the PD work again. Perhaps adding the text and alternate music cues was a significant means of protection by the Jay Ward estate to fall in with copyright laws thereby restricting others to tamper with these new transfers. Again, I'm really not sure, but it's a theory..

 

[BernieV]

That brings to mind the image of someone watching a cockroach scurry across the kitchen floor. It's only a small one and it didn't stay out in the open very long, so why don't I just ignore it? My answer would be if having permanent six-legged houseguests is not THAT big of a deal to him, then yes, he can safely ignore it.

We've established that this is a good restoration and that copyright protection may be needed, but can anyone explain why it must appear as a visible blemish on an otherwise clean transfer?