Terminator 1 & 2

I also got the German Endoskull edition at last.

FYI Van Ling: I checked out the European BD Live link (or, Dynamic HD as it's called here). The three making of featurettes from the DVD are definitely not there. However, we get some exclusive German stuff like German theatrical trailer, German lobby cards and poster photos, and some other stuff like Japanese trailers etc. Need to check out the British and French content as well, however, I suppose I have to fiddle with the player's language settings for that.

The menus are just great, stylish and quite fast on my PS3. :)

The endoskull is also quite nice, though it's just a "cheapo" plastic head (in reality, it's not really cheapo, it's quite elaborate... but plastic). But for 50 euros, you cannot just expect Sideshow Toy quality, can you?


 

What's even worse about the BD-Live features on the European Disc: It is not possible to save the downloads permanently.
The videos are downloaded, then you can watch it and as soon as you go back to the BD-Live menu the video is deleted. If you select it again, it will be downloaded once more.
I would like to save all the stuff first and then be able to watch it over and over again without having to download it another time, or fearing that the server of the BD-Live provider is disabled some time in the future.
Does the American disc behave the same way?

Lars, the US disc allows you to download the videos and store them on your local hard drive for offline viewing.  Not sure why the European version is set up differently; perhaps it has to do with what StudioCanal perceives is the average size of local storage for most European BD owners.  Remember, the BD spec only calls for a minimum of 1Gb of storage (I think), and it can be in the form of a plug-in flash drive... it doesn't even have to be onboard!  How the BD folks expect anyone to try to push the format with such low minimum standards is frustrating to me.  It's like trying to sell people on race cars while telling car manufacturers that they only need it to be able to go 25mph to qualify as a race car.

V

hello van,

yesterday i finally got the chance to view the skynet blu-ray and i liked what you did. since i watched it on a pc, loading time were no issue. the video quality was a mixed bag, like many before me stated. i liked the clean up of the film which was carefully done. but then we have kinda waxy look. not huge but noticeable. certainly this wasn't your fault, so no blame on you. then i checked my personal requested feature that i made to you and boy was i happy: the trailers looked never better!!!
thank you so much for fulfilling my wish

cheers from germany,
enrico

Visually lossless means you can't tell it apart from the uncompressed version under certain to be defined viewing conditions. It also depends on the 'you'. What is visually lossless to the average consumer is often not (at all) to a professional compressionist. Video on Blu Ray is always mathematically lossy (you need bit rates up to > 100 Mbit/s for lossless AVC/VC-1) but visually lossless even with very revealing conditions and critical eyes is possible with high bit rates and not too difficult material. DNRing the transfer for compression as for the Skynet edition on the other hand gives a result that is easily recognised as different from the uncompressed and unfiltered version, e.g. not visually lossless.

Digital Bits posted information about the Comic-Con discussion panel, and listed both Terminator films as being "Skynet Edition" titles. Is revealing that title jumping a bit far ahead or is it going to be formally discussed there? 

I think that was a typo... the term "Skynet Edition" was something that Lionsgate and StudioCanal came up with for this recent T2 release, and I doubt that MGM/Fox will want to use another studio's naming convention.  To set the record straight, there is nothing firm about the Terminator release, other than it will likely be sometime in 2010.  I'm pretty sure it won't be this year, due to JC's commitments on Avatar preventing him from having the time to participate, and we're not going to do it without him, obviously.

V

Nice to know. Thanks for the reply

Van.

While we're waiting....

Could you tell us a little about the open-matte transfers of T2 and Abyss made way back when. What was JC's reasoning for participating in them so actively, was the choice of Super35 made specifically to accomodate future full-frame releases for home video, what were the technical and aesthetic challenges, what do you believe JC's stance would be today re. open-matte 1.78 transfers to fit HD displays, your personal opininon on the merits of these transfers then and now. Etc.Whatever insights you may have are welcome.

AFAIK the open-matte T2 was never issued on DVD (in North America) but the Abyss Full-frame was. I might have to track down the FF T2 on Laserdisc just for comparison.

Thanks.

Hi Van,

Any idea if your discs will be included in this set ?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002H9WI0M/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247605273&sr=8-4&tag=theimportforu-21

Nobody wants to see a featurette on the special effects of the day and how they have evolved over the years? Thats the most fascinating aspect of this film for me. Think about it - its 1984. They used stop motion in 1984! Clash of the Titans in '81  I think was one of the last films to use this technology. I don't think they could've done the effects on T1 any other way. They look fine, considering this was way before CGI. I would also like to see that alternate ending tacked on via seamless branching. That ending fascinates me to no end. Finally, I'd like to see full bios on all the actors, including, if possible, clips of other films they've done. What the heck happened to Paul Winfield after he did Terminator?

Add the unseen deleted scenes in the DVD.

Russel
http://www.spacify.com/

Fritz, I don't recall ever doing "open-matte" transfers on either of those films... that implies that we just left the composing matte off and allowed the rest of the frame to be seen as a default.  This was never the case.  JC did shoot in the Super-35 format to allow for better compositional options when doing full-frame transfers, but we almost NEVER used the whole Super-35 image area on video.  It's all about composition; if you compose for 2.35 and protect as much of the Super-35 image area as possible, that will allow you to use more of the areas outside of the main widescreen composition for your full-frame transfer, but it's done on a shot-by-shot basis, not just leaving the matte open during transfer. 

Full-frame transfers were always a compromise from the original theatrical intent.  Now that HD's 1.78 is becoming the default, I'm hoping that "pan&scan" transfers will be considered a thing of the past.  I'd like to think people understand letterboxing a bit more now, especially since even WalMart has had to explain the concept to its customers now that they stock 16x9 displays!  So in general I don't think that older films that were specifically composed for 2.35 should be panned and scanned to 1.78 HD... they should stay letterboxed.  But if the newer films can accommodate, they can be primarily composed for 2.35 but artistically protected out to the full 1.78 HD frame for full-height use if so desired.  My understanding is that Avatar will be composed for 2.35 as usual and presented that way in 2D theatres, but that the 3D presentations will be in full 1.78 (more image on top and bottom than the original 2.35 composition) because the 3D stereoscopic works better with the taller frame (due to giving you more peripheral image, which helps sustain the depth window better).

Hope this helps,

V

Mike, I'm not sure if this 4-movie set is a real thing or if it's one of Amazon's usual vaporware projections.  I doubt it's a real item, if only because I know that all of the films are owned by different studios and how impossible it's been to get them to agree on any kind of shared product.  T1 is owned by MGM and administered through Fox Home Entertainment; T2 is owned by StudioCanal and handled for video by Lionsgate in the US, StudioCanal/Optimum/Kinowelt in Europe, and Universal Pictures International everywhere else; T3 is owned by C2 Pictures and distributed through Warner Bros. in the US (I'm not sure who outside of the States); and T4 is owned by the Halcyon Company and also distributed through Warner Bros. in the US and Sony Pictures International in many global territories.

The generic packaging shot seems to be of the T2 Skynet Limited Edition endo-head case.  It's possible that Sony has the $$$ to pay for all of the other studios to provide them with the existing BDs from the other films' releases, in which case it's just a collection of the extant BDs for the first three films and StudioCanal might license them the use of the Skynet Edition disc... but it would likely be the exact same T2 Skynet disc you can get in the UK, France or Germany right now.  None of the studios would allow Sony to do their own transfers, especially when JC has to approve them.

I could be totally wrong, of course.  But I doubt it.  Lionsgate and I tried to do a Terminator Trilogy set for years, and we could never get everyone on the same page.

V

Luis, I'll try to touch on the VFX for the new T1 disc (now pretty much moved to next year), but stop motion really is alive and well and did NOT end with Clash of the Titans... there was stopmo work in everything from Robocop in 1987 to The Abyss in 1989.  And of course, as a stylistic artform, you still have more current films like Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Coraline (2009), as well as faves like Robot Chicken and Wallace and Gromit.

At this point I'm just trying to be allowed to include the deleted scenes from T1 at all... even though we included them on the original SE DVD I produced back in 2000/2001, I don't think JC has any problem with nixing them if he decides to change his mind.  I'm pretty sure he won't okay the idea of branching them in; not only would it cost a lot to redo them and remix the audio, the films would have to be recut to accommodate, when in fact they were cut out for a reason.  So if we're lucky, we'll be able to include them at all.  And if we're REALLY lucky, I'll be able to get them retransferred in HD... but forget branching or a new audio mix.

There have been fewer instances of cast and crew bios included directly on discs since the advent and easy access of IMDb, but this may change as BD-Live allows discs to update their data to stay current, which was the big problem with putting bios on the discs... they were usually outdated by the time the disc came out!  As for clips of other films, it won't happen because cross-studio licensing is a total b-tch and is really expensive.  For instance, I can't even get a 5-second clip from Jurassic Park to put in a featurette about Stan Winston without it costing me at least $5000 to use it.  And even if it's the same studio, they want cross-promotional text either overlaid on the shot ("Available on DVD and Blu-ray from Fox Home Entertainment!") or an actual product shot in the end credits of the featurette!

And although Paul Winfield died of a heart attack in 2004, he did a ton of stuff after T1, including Cliffhanger, Mars Attacks, and of course his famous eel-controlled brain role as Captain Terrell in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan... he also did The Simpsons, Touched By an Angel and a ton of voiceover work.

Hope this helps,

 

V

Thanks for the info Van, its a shame about the issues getting footage from other films.
It would be cool to track the influences and even the parodies (Simpsons Waynes World) that JC's movies have pushed out

Van.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

I never meant to imply there was little-to no effort involved in the 4x3 versions of T2 or the Abyss. Perhaps the term open-matte is inaccurate in these cases, but pan&scan doesn't really do it justice either. I am familiar with the process as it was excellently covered in the supplements of the Pioneer laserdisc of T2SE.

I just wanted to applaud the extra effort JC spent to artistically recompose his films for full-frame. I am very interested to hear about the way these came about. I am under the impression that JC championed this process and that in many ways he preferred the 4x3 transfers for home video. This was due to the limited resolution of the NTSC standard (or PAL for that matter), if I recall his letter accompanying the THX release of the Abyss laserdisc. (Like zooming in on Ed Harris' face to show that it was actually him in the suit at the edge of the abyss.

Now that we're into the HD formats of home video, would the same arguments apply? I would expect the theatrically projected aspect ratio to be gospel, but JC has never been a religious man, has he :-) Looking ahead, is it likely that JC will push for 1.78 versions (artistically composed, of course) of his Super35 movies on Blu-ray?

Very interesting to hear about the dual framing of Avatar. Which aspect ratio would be the "compromise" in this case, I wonder, or would they both be equally valid to JC? Hmm....

Anyway, thanks again for contributing to these forums.

... and now I just had to get me a copy of the full-frame T2SE laserdisc. The majority on eBay were the widescreen versions, but there were one or two sellers offering the full-frame version as well. I'll have a hard time explaining this purchase to the missus :-)

Mike, the irony is that the legal restrictions are all due to the studios and the fact that the stuff is on a commercial disc that's to be sold; if it were being compiled on the internet and was available for free, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.  When there's revenue involved, the studios get very (and frankly, understandably) legally anal about things.  Firstly, they look at every request as a possible revenue stream and as leverage to get concessions from other studios; this is pretty normal, as NO studio or license owner will ever be swayed by the "just let us use it for free, since it'll be good marketing for you guys too" argument.  It's more of the "you want something from me, I want something from you, quid pro quo, Clarice" variety.  Secondly, the studios are trying to avoid the spectre of having their disc release date threatened by a single individual or business whose likeness or image shows up in the bonus content without explicit permission.  They'd just as soon we not use anything, and if we do, we have to pay for it under our own budgets.

The sad thing is, things I'd want to do that involve cross-referencing various films and careers and which I can't do through the studios, I am seeing being done on various fan sites on the internet... they have more leeway and access than I do!  For instance, if I want to do a video tour of the shooting locations for T1 to put on the commercial disc, I have to not only get shooting permits for some areas just to film there at all and be able to use the footage, but also get legal clearance signatures from any and all business owners visible in the footage (which is pretty much impossible in downtown L.A. since they all want payment), in order to indemnify the studio.  At best, I can afford to cover a few locations, but that's it.  On the other hand, a dedicated fan with an HD camcorder can go and shoot as much as they want as a "tourist" and post the footage on their website for free, without any problem.  There are some great web resources out there that have been done in just that manner... they don't have all the info and they may have a lot of factual errors, but they at least get to do it!  It's frustrating sometimes that as a professional, I have to adhere to more limits than non-pros do, even though I may have better access to the info.

V

Fritz, it all comes down to what serves the storytelling the best in a given format, and what tools do you have to make it work.  When working in a medium like NTSC video, we'd want the ability to sacrifice scope for intimacy to allow for artistic/narrative reframing of the image.  JC's argument on the Abyss in his P&S letter was about the idea that if you have to work in lowrez SD and you had access to the full frame image of Super-35 as your transfer source, you could do a custom P&S transfer that could arguably do a better job telling the story through reframing than you could by slavishly maintaining the original aspect ratio via letterbox in a medium where doing so would make it impossible to see the details you could see in the theatre.

Of course, I'm not even going to begin to try to second-guess what Cameron would do... he's a contrarian by nature, even when I was working with him!  And as the technology keeps changing, it's hard to be dogmatic about anything, other than the need for good storytelling and compelling characters...

V

Thanks Van for addressing our concerns - its really appreciated. One other aspect of the "home video experience" that is really important to us collectors is the packaging. Remember those laserdiscs with the heavy-gauge cardboard boxes and beautiful artwork? Those were really attractive and leant an extra layer of "specialness" to our film libraries. That hasn't been replicated with DVD (with a few exceptions) and an important milestone film like Terminator deserves a little extra attention paid to the box the disc comes in. I'm not talking about gimmicky stuff like busts or anything like that. Criterion's version of Robocop came in a regular case but had a faux-brushed aluminum design with the title seemingly "stamped" into it and nothing else and it just looked cool -simple and elegant. Imagine how much cooler it would've been if they used a REAL metal box. All this seems a little nitpicky but its a huge deal for people like me who appreciate things like original artwork.

Hi Van.
(at last, an Insider to pester.) I am enjoying the glimpses of behind-the-scenes considerations for DVD producers. I am sure that the more we as consumers know about the business, the better our understanding of why a Special Edition can't necessarily fulfill every fanboy's expectations. More people in your profession should dare communicate directly with the public. Educate us, please! I hope you yourself have found the experience rewarding and recommend your peers to follow.

Question of the day:
True or false: "Making of" documentaries and similar programming are broken up into sub 30 minute segments to avoid having to reimburse "talent" for their contributions. Part of actors' standard contract, or so I've heard?

I have seen several of those documentaries split into two or more parts for no apparent reason. Last example would be the Captains summit on the recent Star Trek box.


LOL at calling James Cameron a contrarian, I can well imagine!

I really miss the grandure of Laserdisc box sets, I would love somthing in the vain of the CEOTTK BRD box that came out in the uk

Hello, Van. I read a couple of times that James Cameron actually preferred the 1.33:1 compositions to the 2.35:1 ones he did with the Super 35 format, period (not just for the limited resolution of NTSC). Is there any truth to that, as far as you know? I can't imagine that would be the case, but I was curious about it.

 Luis, I agree with you about packaging... it can be an artform in itself and adds to the collectible value of a disc, not to mention how it can be one of the things that keeps digital downloads from completely taking over the market sooner than it already will.  I still believe in packaged media over downloads because I still like the feel of actually having a physical object in my possession, rather than something I can erase with a magnet or an accidental push of a button.  Reckon that makes me an old-timer... ;-)

Fritz, there are several reasons why special features might get broken up for no apparent useful purpose.  One you already mentioned: by breaking them down into smaller pieces, they may be considered "promotional" rather than straight content, and as such might be exempt from royalties that might otherwise be due to the performers.  SAG rules allow exceptions for "promotional" use of footage without residuals, since contracts allow (or demand) that material of the performer be made available to promote the film, which then generates revenue.  This was a sticky point for many years... I remember back in the early 90s when I wasn't allowed to put the trailer for a movie on the same disc as the movie itself without signed waivers from all of the actors because SAG said including a trailer did not qualify as promotional if you had to buy the disc to get it.

Another reason to split up a feature into smaller pieces is to get around subtitling policies to save money.   Some territories or studios require any feature longer than 30 minutes to be subtitled in all languages, which costs money, so by breaking it down into smaller chunks, the studio may save the cost of creating and including subtitles.  This is generally a stupid reason and may not be done as much any more; most things get subtitled anyway these days (or should be).

The final reason is simply for marketing purposes: it looks better on the packaging to say "ten featurettes on the making of the film!" rather than "one big documentary!"  More bullet points means more perceived value.

Brian, if the film was originally composed for 2.35 in Super-35, then the primary preferred composition would be 2.35, but the P&S version would have the chance of at least not sucking because there would be more picture available in the Super-35 area outside of the 2.35 composition to work with when recomposing for 1.33.  In my experience on The Abyss, T2 and True Lies (and even Titanic), the films were never composed for or preferred in 1.33 composition except as a compromise for NTSC.  Unless these films were originally composed for 1.33 and simultaneously protected for 2.35, I don't really see JC preferring 1.33 over his original composition.  So I don't see any truth in that... but for all I know, JC might claim it to be true just to stir things up... ;-)

As far as I know, Avatar was composed for 1.78 HD for better stereoscopic 3D but protected for 2.35 for 2D widescreen, whereas all of his previous films were composed for 2.35 but only semi-protected for minimally 2.20 (70mm) and maybe to 1.85 at most.  If there was more image available beyond to 1.33, that was fine, but the 1.33 full image was never protected to be fully used on any of his previous films.  Aliens was shot Academy aperture and hardmatted at 1.66 (since it was shot in England) but composed for 1.85 (which is why footsteps would be out of sync if you saw the first few PowerLoader shots in the original 1.66, as I did when doing a transfer back in 1990).  T1 was composed for 1.85 but exposed to the full standard Academy aperture on the film.

Hope this explains,

 

V

Oops... quick revision: T1 was shot hardmatted to at least 1.66 if not 1.85.

V

Van, the explanations on how some content decisions are made are very informative, if not a little frustrating for the consumer who just wants a bunch of good stuff on his disc.  I think if I were a fly on the wall listening to these decisions being made, I would have fallen off the wall crying out "Help me!  Help me!"

It's "RoboCop" and not Robocop.
Van, I was eager to purchase the Skynet Edition but since it has DNR/EE, I'm now considering purchasing the Geneon 2-Disc Blu-ray or German Ultimate Edition DVD. I'm very disappointed. I'll wait until James Cameron himself has the time to approve the film transfer and make sure it retains the FILM GRAIN and not being a washed out mess. I certainly hope this isn't the case for THE TERMINATOR.
THX is meaningless now since I've seen too many transfers onto DVD which had DNR/EE applied. Yes, even The Phantom Menace although I'm burnt out on STAR WARS. Hell, even DIE HARD: With a Vengeance had DNR/EE.
As for Titanic, I felt A Night to Remember was the better movie. Is AVATAR going to have a song from the overrated Celine Dion? If so, I'm not going to watch the film. No I wouldn't buy TITANIC at all on Blu-ray but I would buy ALIENS, THE TERMINATOR (BD50, lossless ORIGINAL AND NOT-REMIXED theatrical audio with tons of extras), THE ABYSS, TRUE LIES and T2 personally supervised by Cameron.
No, I won't purchase any film on Blu-ray I'm interested in if it has DNR/EE and without the original soundmix.
Where's TRUE LIES 2? Arnold could possibly be in this and 9/11 is a very poor excuse for not making the sequel (I watched TRUE LIES the same day of that). Possibly between AVATAR and Gunm/Battle Angel Alita?
For Battle Angel, I certainly hope Cameron makes it almost 2 1/2 or more hours long.

^ No offense, Ray but do you think that Van will immediately relate your thoughts on Celine Dion, the superiority of A Night To Remember to Titanic, how 9/11 isn't a good enough 'excuse' for the lack of a True Lies 2 and how long Battle Angel should run to Cameron himself?

No not really!

Thanks for the feedback, Ray... reckon I best step aside on this stuff from here on out and let others get it right!

Hope you're not in the path of the fires burning up there in Santa Cruz,

V