What does everyone think of their Grease DVD's ? (1 Viewer)

[Joe McCabe]

Reply to Richard Michael Clark:

I agree with the things you stated.

The 5.1 mix is really awkward at times. I also noticed during the "We Go Together" segment, that Travolta's voice dominates the song. The others were simply background vocals, and as I recall, that's not how it was meant to be.

 

[Reed Grele]

The opening credits on the W/S DVD are cropped. WHY???

Those with TV's having 5% overscan will see "ockard hanning". The 20th anniv. LD's titles were properly framed.

I preferred the 20th anniv. LD's digital PCM stereo mix over the LD and DVD's DD 5.1.

Other than that, the DVD is great.

Reed

 

[Peter McM]

On Stockard Channing's name, the 'S' and the 'C' are about half visible. That's on my run-of-the-mill Magnavox 32" stereo TV.

 

[Carlo_M]

I have about 4% overscan and scan see basically everything but the very left border of the S and C in her name.
Here's a link to the screencap I got from the DVD on my PC to show that her name isn't cropped off, but that peoples' overscan can be more than they think.

There is plenty of room to the left of her name.

 

[Peter McM]

Can I correct overscan on my TV? How come I haven't noticed this problem on any of my other DVDs?

 

[Jenna]

damn, the packaging SUCKS!

Eloquently put...and I agree. Same with Panic Room. Why put great films in cheap cardboard packaging??? The edges are already bent and I've only removed/replaced it for one viewing thusfar. In a couple of weeks, it'll look like a film packaged in the 70's. :frowning:
As for the quality of the DVD: it looks like a 70's film and sounds like a 70's film. Very unimpressed. Also, the plain Main Menu looks amateurish and stale. And where's the Special Features?? You mean to tell me that with that much quirky talent, there were NO outtakes??? I would DIE to see those!
Paramount spent all those $$$$ to promote this??!! Who spiked their punch?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Knowing how incredible Rocky Horror looked after restoration, I'd love to see a future re-release of this film utilizing the same care and rehabilitation.

Still, for the moment I'm just glad to have this in OAR 16x9 with at least an "ok" transfer. Watching on DVD was my first time seeing this film in OAR!!!

-dave

 

[Carlo_M]

Can I correct overscan on my TV? How come I haven't noticed this problem on any of my other DVDs?

1. Yes you can correct overscan, but the controls are usually in the service menu, not the user menu. If this doesn't make sense to you, you probably need to do some research before tackling the issue, try typing in your model TV and "+" service menu on google and see if you get any hits from do-it-yourself'ers who might have access to the menu and the values. You do not want to set it to zero, as most sets have geometric distortion at no overscan.

2. Most movies do not put things as obvious as credits all the way to the border, most credits are at the center or just off-center of the screen. That may be why you haven't seen the phenomenon before.

BTW - I did notice on my old 32" tube TV (which wasn't ISF'd) that the very edge of the green words at the beginning of 12 Monkeys had a tendency to get cut off. Now on my 47" ISF'd widescreen w/ 4% overscan the words are there w/ plenty of room.

 

[Billy Fogerty]

I think this disc looks and sounds great!! I see no overscan,and the 5.1 mix is on the money. I t could be in how your system is set up? i like this disc. Not many extras,but the picture and sound are very good.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I hated the 5.1 audio, the transfer was pedestrian despite finally getting it in widescreen, my disc is R4 so the packaging is keepcase, not the R1 POS! All in all somewhat disappointing. Paramount should be ashamed of this effort, since this has to be one of their BIG catalog titles. They should have done much better by this film, it deserves better treatment. :frowning: :frowning:

 

[Dave H]

I finally got around to watching this tonight.

I thought it looked pretty good. The only thing that really kept this from being an excellent transfer was the minor - but noticable - artifacts and edge enhancement. (The artifacts bothered me more.)

The audio was good in 5.1. I didn't listen to the other track.

 

[Dave H]

I finally got around to watching this tonight.

I thought it looked pretty good. The only thing that really kept this from being an excellent transfer was the minor - but noticable - artifacts and edge enhancement. (The artifacts bothered me more.)

The audio was good in 5.1. I didn't listen to the other track.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It may have been mentioned before, but Costco has Grease in normal Amaray DVD cases (for some odd reason). I returned my copy of Grease (unopened), and am content to wait another couple of years for the primo SE version.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I noticed a few artifacts on my 65" too, but what really cracked me up was where they hid the black security tab. They put it inside the slipcover! Yes, those cases suck. I hope it was just an experiment.

Glenn

 

[Andy_MT]

the lack of extras i can live with (assuming this is down to legality issues), but recycling an old and clearly lacking transfer is not on. most of us aren't asking for the world, but surely a decent product at a fair price is not too much to ask for is it ?

heard an advert on the radio for this DVD the other day. very funny. all this hype for such a mediocre release. surely even J6P are questioning this move.

come on paramount, you're better than this ...

 

[Ricky Hustle]

Anybody else on my side of the Digipak fence?

Yep! I have no problem with the packaging, less footprint on my DVD shelves = more DVDs.

I handle my stuff with care, I dont see this thing falling apart anytime soon.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

My review was just published, so I thought I'd share it with y'all.
Link Removed

 

[Clinton McClure]

It's much better than the P&S Grease DVD which I did not buy.

 

[Andy_MT]

My review was just published, so I thought I'd share it with y'all.

Scott - I'm confused. You trash the disk [and rightly so], yet you give it 4.5 out of 5. is this right ?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Ack! Good call, Andy! I'm not sure if that was my mistake or my editor's (almost definitely mine), but that should be 3.5/5!! The correction will be made.
I realize 3.5 may still seem a bit high, but there's lots of factors:
1. I really do love the movie, and after all the bells and whistles, the movie is what matters.
2. The transfer is not stunning, but (to my eyes) it's certainly good enough to enjoy the movie.
3. The paltry extras were disappointing, but I've given rave reviews to bare-bones DVDs in the past. Not fair to knock a particular product for what it DOESN'T have. (Well, not usually anyway...)
4. That particular website leans a bit more towards the 'movie' spectrum rather than the 'digital' side.
But yours was a good question. 60% of the review knocks the product, so a 4.5 rating seems a bit lofty. (I anguished over what 'overall score' to give it for more than a few minutes.)
Most importantly, thanks for reading. Hope you enjoyed it.