A few words about...™ Gulliver's Travels -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

 

[Jason_V]

Thank you Robert. As someone who was engaged in a maddeningly nonsensical e-mail exchange with North Hampton Partners about the DVD version, it is wonderful to know I was not out of my mind. This is an incredibly poor disc (either format) and everyone involved should be embarrassed, not defending it.

 

[Robert Harris]

There is nothing worth defending.

Garbage in. Garbage out.

 

[Michael Osadciw]

that bad, eh? whoa...

 

[Jason_V]

If you're up for some reading, Michael, I posted all the e-mail's Peter Rosenberg and I exchanged over the title in my blog. There's a fair amount of tech talk-not to mention double talk, back speak and plain stupidity-but it should explain everything.

 

[Paul Arnette]

My slightly hipper suggestion would have been "Fail".

 

[Jeff Robertson]

Wow. The ignorance in that email exchange (not on Jason's side) astounds me. I guess this is what can happen when a public domain film gets handled improperly.

 

[Vincent_P]

Amazingly, a soft-core internet porn "star" who also works at Koch sent out an e-mail to all her "fans" imploring them to post 5-star reviews of the GULLIVER'S TRAVELS Blu-ray on Amazon, and a bunch of them did just that. There's a thread in the Blu-ray software forum on AVS that goes into this.

Vincent

 

[Jason_V]

I think the best part-for me-was the "conspiracy" between AVS, Bluray.com HTF, DVDBeaver and DVDTalk to defame this "stellar" release. Or how we're all out to make names for ourselves by discrediting the work done...or how the screencaps do not come from the actual retail versions of the disc...

I'm just happy I kept a record of the conversation so I could share it with as many people as possible. No one would have believed me!

 

[Josh Dial]

My favourite part was how Peter Rosenberg, the president of the company, refers to the technology as "Blue Ray," multiple times.

The amount of ignorance and idiocy in that exchange (and not by Jason, as has been stated above) is astonishing. For instance, when Jason posts the link to a Buffy screenshot, and says "Notice the picture pillarboxed and the size of the bars." To which Mr. Rosenberg responds with "Nope." Further the line (again, quoting from Jason's blog) "i just went to the store with my disc and tried it on Sanyo, Sharp, Panasonic, Toshiba and Pioneer tvs, with a brand new DVD player hooked up to all of them and it worked perfectly on each" smacks of a flat-out lie.

 

[Patrick McCart]

What's the disc art like? If I can get this used for under $3, I'd like owning a Gulliver's Travels coaster.

 

[Edwin-S]

I read your exchanges. None of the people you were dealing with seem to know what they are talking about.

I couldn't figure out what the fellow from Echelon Media Group was trying to say when he said, " The reason why I put the bars is to nicely cover the black bars that are already present on your tape." What is he mumbling about? Was the original tape pillar boxed already and he zoomed and cropped the picture to hide the bars?

 

[Peter Neski]

This is real Shame,Too bad Lionsgate(?)Paramount(?) can't do a
real 1.33:1 version

 

[Dave Mack]

Almost all of the 5 star reviews for the Blu ray said, "the blue ray DVD looks...."

"Blue Ray DVD"


mmmhmmm...

And amazon removing the truthful reviews is shameful.

 

[Brian Borst]

The first part I don't understand at all. But the part about enlarging the video should be wrong, because they're claiming to have restored it from the 35mm original negatives. Those have a greater quality than HD, so reducing quality wouldn't be a problem. And he admits that the video was cropped

. But I think I'm taking this person way too serious.

 

[Robert Harris]

As far as I know, the original negative should neither be problematic, nor be in need restoration. Paramount no longer owns this film.

 

[Jo_C]

Robert, then who does? Well, it's kind of confusing since here in the U.S. the film is in the public domain anyway, and the elements should be with Paramount, or rather Republic, since in a sense it is part of the Republic holdings, and Lionsgate owns the home video rights to the Republic feature library anyway (except "It's A Wonderful Life").

After researching the reviews of the new Blu-Ray release and other past DVD issues, it is clear that the definitive home video version of "Gulliver's Travels" is yet to come.

So, why doesn't Lionsgate/Republic release such a version in the original screen ratio (1.33:1), and free of edits? Or, for that matter, the Fleischer cartoon classics? Nothing would please me more than to see such a release.

If anyone can explain who "owns" the film better than me...well, thank the Maker for this forum.

Too bad Richard Fleischer is no longer here to give his opinions...

 

[Dave Mack]

Hi, the bottom link should give some idea....

Gulliver’s Travels on DVD | Cartoon Brew: Leading the Animation Conversation


The two heads of Gulliver | Cartoon Brew: Leading the Animation Conversation

 

[Keith Paynter]

A little high, don't you think?

 

[Keith Paynter]

Per Jason...

The Movie Rambler: "Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels" Aspect Ratio Part 5


And here is where the the failure of Koch and their producing partners is complete. My first BD player was a Samsung unit that would not, I repeat, NOT, play any 4x3 source DVD in any way except "full" on a 16x9 TV, no matter how many settings I tried, and I was using my HDMI connection. After the machine refused to keep up-to-date in terms of firmware, and more of my new discs refused to play, I bought the Sony BDP-S550. My 4x3 discs now look correct, not stretched.

Ditch the Samsung, and get a player that works. Then get back to us about your product.