What's new

Gladiator: Extended Edition (1 Viewer)

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou


Good to read that from someone who doesn't live in PAL land Dave. :) :emoji_thumbsup:

I watched my R2 extended Gladiator yesterday, didn't notice anything wrong with the sound, not that I would have noticed even if there was a sign on screen saying SOUND DISTORTION IMMINENT! ;)

My imagination or was the PQ better than previous editions? I always remember Gladiator being slightly grainy, even at the cinema, the new copy looked perfect to my eyes, as good as new.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Hiya Steve!

Yeah, I recently got an Optoma h57 DLP PJ and it displays native PAL 576P at 50 hz, with no conversion. Pretty sweet.
I wonder how the new R2 Gladiator compares PQ-wise to the new R1?

:) d
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou


That's great Dave, there's a plethora of PAL releases out there for you to enjoy on your machine, just watch out for the odd censored ones, and I do mean odd. ;)

An advantage the R1 Gladiator has over the R2 is that it also includes the theatrical version via seamless branching. The R2 unfortunately doesn't include that, so I'll be keeping my old R2 copy as a souvenir of the cinema release. I liked the extended edition I didn't think the extra bits affected the pace at all, Oliver Stone's Alexander's a couple of minutes longer than this extended version. Cleopatra's about 90 mins longer and Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace[STOP IT STEVE!] :D
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
:) I have had a PAL-NTSC converting player for years and have several PAL dvds already but finally seeing them unconverted was eye-opening! And I just got the R4 Aus. "Innocent Blood" which actually has MORE of the sex scene and a bit more gruseomness than the R1 version. :)
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
I don't think this set duplicates anything from the original other than maybe some trailers. Can't remember off the top of my head. Anyway, in the text commentary, it's made clear that they view this set as a complement to the original ala the Lord of the Rings packages and didn't want to present any duplicated features. Kinda sucks IMO, especially since I'd like to at least get the original audio commentary, but I respect the decision to create a new set and not some "Ultimate Edition" BS...
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray

Fair enough, but if this is supposed to be a "companion" piece to the original DVD then why include the theatrical version at all?
 

Ilias_Mas

Grip
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
15
They could spread the movie to two disks and give us DTS...
Titanic, Schindler's list, Dances with wolves (R2 extended edition) are some movies I can remember that are presented like this.
And they could cut it right after the extended scene in which Commodus hits his father's statue with his sword. Right after this scene it fades to black anyway.
And if they wanted to keep the price low or didn't think the movie deserved a 4 disc set, they could spread the features from disk 3 to disks 1 and 2. There, I said it! ;)
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
And then instead of people complaining about DTS...you'd have people complaining about split discs when the movie could have been fit onto one disc.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Welcome to the world of DVD Producer decisions.
 

JoshB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
903
Real Name
Joshua Bal


I think that issue was beat to death more than it ever could. You were hardly the first person to say it. The reason why it wasn't was then people would complain about lack of quality or low bitrate, or too many supplements hurting the picture quality. I dont see how you would fit that 200 minute documentary on a disc with DTS (if used), plus menus, subtitles, additional audio tracks, commentary and the film with sacrificing quality. And no, I would not want that doc split across two discs just ot satisfy DTS purists. I wouldn't want the film done that way either just to make them happy.

If you just look at the number of supplements, it would seriously ruin the quality by spliting the feature on the third disc onto disc 1 and 2. To me, that would be the most unwise decision, especially if you are dealing with two version of the film.

Look at it this way, there is still a version of Gladiator that won 5 Oscars that we have all know and loved for 5 years that has DTS, the original commentary, and other features. Nothing wrong with that. Why have the extended version with DTS when none of the added scenes in the extended film would benefit from the addition of DTS anyway? If you want to watch the theatrical cut, watch the 2-disc version if you own it, no the one on the 3-disc set. Either way, I don't see how you can lose as far as how you like the movie.

Again, this issue has been endlessly debated and I can't believe we are discussing it. :)
 

Ilias_Mas

Grip
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
15


We are not discussing it! OK, so we are! :)

I didn't mean to spread the doc, but the contents of the current 3d disk, which are storyboards, ridleygrams etc.

So, disk 1 and 2 have the movie and all the other stuff and disk 3 has the doc. Now, I know I should be the producer of this one... :D

And finally, the dolby track is quite good, but DTS on the older release was by far superior. I am keeping this edition for the extras, but I 'll be watching the previous one.
 

Dave Moritz

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
9,300
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz
I for one will not be buying the extended cut with no dts track. I allready have the movie why would I buy it all over again for 17 minutes with DD only? Especially with a distorted DD track? Even if the distortion is not in the entire movie that is still reason enough to not buy the extended cut.
 

JoshB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
903
Real Name
Joshua Bal

Exactly, why would you? The extended cut (and documentary) was the selling point of this DVD, not the DTS track. It's why they released it in the first place and called it the "Extended Cut". Studios do it all the time in case you haven't noticed.

There is nothing telling you that you must, except it lacks DTS? Would you still bu ythe extended DVD it it did have DTS? Havent you read the thread, or heard othe comments? It was not possible to include DTS on this set given space restrictions. They even added an easter egg to the set pointing this exact thing out. And besides, whats wrong wit ha DD 5.1 track anyway? Some say it is distorted in one or two spots, which I still have not heard. DTS is never a reason I buy a DVD, I buy it for the film first and foremost. I could care less for the audio, but the quality does matter of course, but I dont need it to be DTS at all. If it includes it fine, I will listen to it if theres is a better listening quality. If not, or its the same as the DD, then who cares? As long as the film I enjoy is there in its quality, DTS would never make my decisions for me. :) These pointless arguments over DTS are exactly that, and you can never convince the other crowd because they are too use to what they get, and expect it in every case over again without seeing it from the perspective of a DVD producer.

I think the time and effort put into the disc certainly considered all the possibilities before making such decisions, but in the end if something would have had to be cut, I for one would cut the DTS anyday. I mean, can you still listen to the film in DD or not? It may lack the "quality" of a DTS track if it does exist, but like you said you have the original, why buy this except to make another argument over DTS not being there. This set was never meant to replace the other set, but rather accompany it.

Why have DTS for two versions of the same film, especially when the extended cut would not benefit from DTS in the new scenes? If you really have an interest in the new extended film, DTS should not be a consideration because you can watc the theatrical in DTS if you want. If you want ot change these things from happening, be a DVD producer yourself and make these decisions. If you want to add DTS to every title, without caring if picture or extras are lost in the process, it shoudl sell very well if you only care for how the disc sounds.

Oh well, some people just can't be happy with what they get or don't get, but I know I dont have to be one of them. eithe way, I could haredly care less, and I stopped commenting o nthe issue along tiem ago because it headed in this very direction, and after the thread being dorment for a little while, the same issue was brought up again. So I'll just leave it to everyone else here to moan over how there DVD viewing lives seem less complete over what they didnt get what they wanted or thought should be included. :)
 

Dave Moritz

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
9,300
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz


Well I guess thats why some people are happy with Kia and some people want Corvettes. Some people have little exspectations of what they buy and are happy with it. Others want the best and they exspect to have the best when they buy something. If your happy with DD then more power to you. While I do not belive that older films have to be in DTS. Films with good 5.1 or 6.1 tracks can greatly benafit from the performance of DTS. The next generation of lossless surround track will most likely take up as much room as todays DTS tracks. And since there will be both lossless DD and DTS on future HD releases there is a chance you could continue to hear this arument continue, that is if there is a continuing difference between DTS and DD. At that point in time if they are truely equal then I wont care what format a movie comes out in.
 

JoshB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
903
Real Name
Joshua Bal


When has DD alone been a selling point? That to me is a pretty ridiculous example, because I dont, and think I ever will, see people rushing out to buy a DVD solely because of DD. DD is as common as a DVD menu and subtitle track. Hardly a selling point if you ask me. Maybe 10 years ago, that statement would have held true.

Like I said before, I'm not getting drawn into the DTS debate because there are numerous other threads for that issue and I'd like to not see this thread head in that direction. But I can already see it happening, so everyone can have at it.
 

Ilias_Mas

Grip
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
15
It all got to DTS again, didn't it? :)

In that thread you mentioned Josh, many people said that what track is better it depends on the movie. And on the Gladiator first edition DVD the DTS track is better. And every review I read mentions that. So, I believe that many people who whine about the lack of DTS have a point because they would want what is best for the money they pay AGAIN to own the DVD of their favourite movie.
 

JoshB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
903
Real Name
Joshua Bal
Yes it did, and I wish it didn't.

This constant debate too often overanalyzed and the real issue is ignored, which is the DVD itself and how fine a release it really is. No one seems ot care much for a DVD in terms of the quality of the extras, etc. They seem to only lament the lack of an audio track. And if they say "well the extras are important too," or "I appreciate the work that was done" a little mention of that might not hurt if you really are so concerned over the audio options.

I never said that the DTS from Gladiator 1 was not great, I think it is in fact and better than the DD 5.1. And I do agree that it depends on the movie too. Dont get me wrong, therre are many fine DTS releases and DD titles too, but this over emphasis on DTS overshadows certain titles when it becomes a matter of what people want and complain over what they dont get without understanding the reasons behind it. Even when those reasons remain clear and are explained (even by the DVD producer) it just becomes an argument of people being too selfish over what they expect from a DVD, a re-release or otherwise.

When a DVD release is announced, among the first comments about the release, regardless of whether official specs are released is "does it DTS, will it have DTS, or why doesnt it have DTS". How about, for once, does it contain the movie? I swear, some people would miss whether the film had DTS before they miss it being widscreen or anamorphic any day.

They have no reason to buy the same DVD again. It is in fact the same movie, just longer with deleted scenes from the first release. If they do like the film and look forward to the extended cut, then they might want to look past the lack of DTS on this release.
 

Dave Moritz

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
9,300
Location
California
Real Name
Dave Moritz


There is no debate on this issue so please dont even try. People bring it up because for many of us it is an important issue. Just as important as how good the video looks and how good the movie is. There are movies that are so bad that I would not buy even if they came out in 10.1 DTS. So yes the quality of the movie does matter, and the people at Columbia/Tri Star did not think quality was an issue when they came out with Superbit titles. I a number of Superbit titles and the video is very good considering that they are not 1080 HD material. Gladiator is a great example of a DTS track that out shines the DD track. Saving Private Ryan, Stargate, Terminator 2, U-571, Air Force One, The Patriot, Lord Of The Rings and Pirates Of The Carabean are very good examples of great DTS tracks. While yes DD takes up less space than DTS and codexes have improved over the years. DTS in theaters and in the home still provides one of the best audio exsperiences today. This may all change when the new lossless formats come out because of the work of Meridian who came up with MLP. Dolby licensed MLP from Meridian so they can come out with the next evolution of DD which will be DD+. DTS is also working on there own lossless audio track that is based off of MLP. IMHO when HD discs come out picture will be the main issue between HD-DVD and Blu-ray HD. DTS vs DD will not be as big of an issue at that point, which should make some people here very happy.

I though it was cool that they had an extra 17 minutes of footage in Gladiator. My main issue was that there where problems with the sound. And since there where problems with the DD track I would not buy it without the DTS track. If the DD track would have been spotless and there would have been no problems I might have concidered it. I still may end up buying it next year if the problem is fixed. There are just to many other movies to buy and older movies to get as well. I would rather buy some classics for my collection than repurchase a title a second time. And trust me when I say that when I purchased American Graffiti I was not looking to have a DTS track on that movie. I bought the movie for the movie not the sound! Movies like Jaws and the original Planet of the Apes are examples of movies that did not need DTS. So for older movies I dont look for DTS, there is no point to it.

Is there any plans to rerelease Gladiator with a fixed DD track? I would like to see DTS on the extended cut but if it at least had the DD track fixed that would be great as well.
 

JoshB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
903
Real Name
Joshua Bal
Well, I for one am hardly your buddy, and I will ask that you do not refer to me as a crack "smooker" ever again.


Yes! They are planning to redo the entire set for the convenience of DTS aficionados out there and correct a problem that some, myself included, have not even detected.

Oh, and Dave learn to use your spell check "buddy". It makes you seem like the one "smooking" the ganja.

Not to make it personal , but you did start your previous post by insulting me, which means your arguments cannot be civil and considerate and instead stick to good grammar and just being plain polite. I would expect you to at least act your age and mature enough and not resort to low level name calling and slander.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,809
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top