Alien trilogy coming to blu-ray?!... (1 Viewer)

[robbbb1138]

Home Cinema Choice has a review of the set. They didn't get to review the 6th disc though.

 

[Daz_85]

Just going back to what someone said about Alien possibly being geometrically "squished" in picture.... judging by this comparison site, it's hard to tell which version is "correct" here. The D-Theatre has more picture to the left and right side, but the new Blu-ray has more image at the top and bottom!


http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/78783/picture:0


Any clarification Charlie?

 

[DVDvision]

I wouldn't put any opinion on frame comparisons, typically, two different masters dont match pixel to pixel regarding the frame. One have to assume the poster just "fitted" one frame into the other one for them both to display, thus resulting in change of geometry on one of them. It's hard to miss the correct ratio on a HD transfert, as long as competent people (plus the director) are behind the wheel.

 

[MattAlbie60]

Hi - I registered specifically to ask this question.


Forgive me if this has been covered before, I went back through the thread but didn't see it, but does anyone know what the aspect ratio of the documentaries on "Disc 5" is supposed to be? My local Best Buy broke street date and I picked it up two days ago, and its fantastic, but I got to the documentaries today and they all appear to be slightly horizontally squeezed into a 4:3 frame. I think they were that way on the old Quadrilogy set, but I can't really remember and I don't have those discs anymore to check. Everyone just looks slightly taller and thinner than they should be.


Am I insane, or is the aspect ratio of the documentaries actually 4:3?


EDIT: I should clarify that I know that it isn't the settings on my TV or Blu-ray player, as everything else in the set plays absolutely normally. Even the menus on those discs appear normal. Its literally just the documentaries themselves.

 

[DVDvision]

I watched a bunch of those yesterday night, and they are now reframed in 1.77. You should switch on the 16/9 option on your TV to see them correctly I guess.


Do anyone know where the James Remar as Hicks bonus have gone ? It seems to have vanished from the set.

 

[hdjim]

Originally Posted by MattAlbie60

Hi - I registered specifically to ask this question.


Forgive me if this has been covered before, I went back through the thread but didn't see it, but does anyone know what the aspect ratio of the documentaries on "Disc 5" is supposed to be? My local Best Buy broke street date and I picked it up two days ago, and its fantastic, but I got to the documentaries today and they all appear to be slightly horizontally squeezed into a 4:3 frame. I think they were that way on the old Quadrilogy set, but I can't really remember and I don't have those discs anymore to check. Everyone just looks slightly taller and thinner than they should be.


Am I insane, or is the aspect ratio of the documentaries actually 4:3?


EDIT: I should clarify that I know that it isn't the settings on my TV or Blu-ray player, as everything else in the set plays absolutely normally. Even the menus on those discs appear normal. Its literally just the documentaries themselves.

The set produces scaling errors on certain Bluray players, most signifcantly the Oppo Blu-Ray player. I'm guessing that's what is causing it to be squished. I guess you have to wait for firmware updates to be produced or something.

 

[Jerome]

[COLOR= #000000]I spoke with Bill Hunt from Thedigitalbits.com by email and he has some new informations about the 16X9 aspect ratio of the documentaries[/COLOR]

[COLOR= #000000]http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews102210.html[/COLOR]


[COLOR= #000000] [/COLOR]

[COLOR= #000000] [/COLOR]

[COLOR= #000000]A note about the documentary framing: The original 2003 "making of" documentaries were all finalized in a 4x3 aspect ratio for the Quad DVD release. For this new Anthology set, they've essentially been "rebuilt" in 16x9. The video footage (interviews, vintage on-set footage, etc) have been slightly cropped (top and bottom) to fill the 16x9 frame. Meanwhile, all of the title graphics have been redesigned and newly-rendered in 16x9. The decision to do this was made by Lauzirika himself. (There were fans who complained in 2003 that the docs were 4x3 and not 16x9, so now you have a choice.) I've directly compared both versions and can say with confidence that you're losing VERY little from cropping - the footage still looks quite good for SD material. For the new enhancement pods, the vintage 4x3 footage is left as is, with graphic pillars filling the 16x9 frame, and native 16x9 title graphics. All of the pre-2003 featurettes and documentaries - the vintage 4x3 material - is left as is. Just be aware of it. I actually don't mind the change at all, but a few of you may prefer the original 4x3 presentation. If so, keep your Quad set accordingly. [/COLOR]

[COLOR= #000000] [/COLOR]

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Jerome


[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 0)] [/COLOR]

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 0)] [/COLOR]

While I don't see the need to crop the documentaries into widescreen, I at least am glad that they left the archival video stuff alone. With talking heads, the cropping mostly isn't that bothersome.

 

[Geoff_D]

Where's mah 'Dailies: James Remar' POD for Aliens? I can't find it on the UK set, unless it's been given a completely random new title.

 

[hdjim]

Originally Posted by Jerome


[COLOR= #000000] [/COLOR]

[COLOR= #000000] [/COLOR]

Yeah so in other words, that guy's player is messing up the footage since it is supposed to be 16x9. Seems a lot of people are having problems. I hope Oppo has this corrected soon. Their last firware release was in May. If they don't do one for this set, they should be embarassed, even if they discontinued the player (turn around for these players at oppo seems to be getting ridiculous short lately, the next player will probalby be sold for one month).

 

[TheBat]

they had an beta firmware released in august.


Jacob

 

[Scott D S]

I'll have more to add later (in short... WOW!)... but I had a very nerdy and trivial question about the Alien: Resurrection HBO special:


During the special, they discuss the previous Alien films and people like James Cameron, Jerry Goldsmith, Charles Dutton, and John Hurt are interviewed. Excerpts from these interview sessions are incorporated into the Quad documentaries.


So these guys never did new interviews for the Quad in 2003? I understand Cameron's schedule probably prevented him from being interviewed and Hurt shows up in the Alien commentary but I was surprised. I thought all these pieces were filmed for the Quad.


And it's great to see the unedited Alien 3 documentary. Fincher: "I like people. They stack well."

 

[Dave Simkiss]

Im only 30 mins into the making of Alien 3 docu's and already Im amazed at how many snippits were cut for the quad set.

I cannot believe John Landau described Vincent Ward's vision as 'artsy fartsy'!!!


It's debatable as to whether or not that would be an accurate description (personally I've always felt it was interesting, but not suitable for a follow up to Aliens) But for a producer to come out and say that... I can kinda see why it was cut for the Quad.


I've watched all the Alien 3 enhancement pods and am now 30 mins into the Alien 3 documentaries (had to go to work BAH!) and so far Im truly amazed. Even the menu's are out of this world - I checked out the Alien 3 film menu and it attempts to explain the Saluco egg location lol. Brilliant!!!.


My hat is once again truly off to Mr Charles de Lauzirika. I cannot thank you enough for the unbelievable amount of effort you must have put into this, it's absolutely astounding

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi my R2 set has arrived.

I am off to hibernate

 

[DVDvision]

I don't think Landau is far off -- there is definetely a balance to strike between art and commerce to make successful movies, if Landau think Vincent Ward didn't have the handle, it's probably true.


Think about it, all mass success films that last in time are striking that balance... the fun is, with time, we forget whatever genre they borrowed from (say, Terminator is really Halloween with a robot in place of the supernatural killer), and see more and more the arty things in them, the subtext etc


But you can't, and that what I think Landau means, make a successful movie if art take over the commercial elements.


My definition is simple : art in movies does not exist, as soon as a movie is produced to sell tickets, it cannot be 100% art anymore.


Successful directors strike a balance.

 

[hdjim]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

I don't think Landau is far off -- there is definetely a balance to strike between art and commerce to make successful movies, if Landau think Vincent Ward didn't have the handle, it's probably true.


Think about it, all mass success films that last in time are striking that balance... the fun is, with time, we forget whatever genre they borrowed from (say, Terminator is really Halloween with a robot in place of the supernatural killer), and see more and more the arty things in them, the subtext etc


But you can't, and that what I think Landau means, make a successful movie if art take over the commercial elements.


My definition is simple : art in movies does not exist, as soon as a movie is produced to sell tickets, it cannot be 100% art anymore.


Successful directors strike a balance.

William Shaskespeare made his plays for a profit. Hell, even the great painters did their work as part of a job for the nobility. This standard is nonsnese, because if that were true every piece of art except pehraps the original cave paintings would not be art. All fiction is art. It doesn't matter how "commercial" it is perceived to be, it is still art. This is the kind of belief that coprorations want you to believe so they can get away with recycling the same watered down product over and over again without paying the creative people responsible much of a paycheck. Whatever the case was with that producer's opinion, "its too artistic" is a pretty idiotic critique. Makes him seem like some business school bean counter or something that doesn't really care about cinema. I get the fact that certain things may not be economical in terms of appealing to wide audiences, but sometimes they can go too far in meddling with something that is supposed to be a creative work. If produc


And there's nothing wrong with borrowing from Halloween. Every film ever made borrows from something else. Halloween borrows from Deep Red. Deep Red borrows from The Girl Who Knew Too Much. The Girl Who Knew Too Much borrows from Agatha Christie, and so forth. Drawing from other sources is part of the creative process of any writer or director. It doesn't make something commercial and non-artistic.

 

[Scott D S]

Some more random thoughts...


-I'm watching Alien 3 in Mu-Th-Ur Mode...interesting. The commentary index isn't always perfectly in sync with the actual track. And the trivia track text is just a tad too small.


-Some of the cinematographers don't always have the "ASC" or "BSC" after their name - I don't know if there's any rhyme or reason to that... just a nitpick.


-The Aliens restoration... you guys had me at the Fox logo!


-Speaking of Aliens, shouldn't it be 1991 Special Edition? The menu lists 1990.


I'm loving this set. Now that I'm living in Jersey City, I'm able to go to the Union Square Best Buy which is open 24 hours a day Monday through Friday. I was not the only one buying this set and I managed to stay up till 4:45 watching clips, extras, etc.


Great job!

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

Originally Posted by Scott D S


-Speaking of Aliens, shouldn't it be 1991 Special Edition? The menu lists 1990.

I think it should be called the 2010 Special Edition since it features a couple of visual tweeks not found in the previous Special Editions that were released on any format.

 

[Robert Fielder]

Originally Posted by Geoff_D

Where's mah 'Dailies: James Remar' POD for Aliens? I can't find it on the UK set, unless it's been given a completely random new title.

Yeah its not on the US set either. Guess they weren't able to agree on terms/compensation with the actor, which is usually the reason features suddenly go missing. Bummer.


Anyway, this set is absolutely amazing. The original 1999 release of Alien is what got me to buy my first DVD player, and so the tradition continues as I've jumped into Blu-ray with this release.

 

[Ted Van Duyn]

I was able to confirm two visual changes in ALIENS.


When Ripley gears up to go rescue Newt in the drop ship, she takes out the appropriate weapons. Originally she would take out a flame thrower and laydown a pulse rifle and take out a pulse rifle and lay a flamethrower on top of the pulse rifle! Even on the previous DVDs, this was still present on the Special Edition.


The Bishop reaching out of the hole has been fixed. While it looks way better than what we got, if you focus in on it you can see some slight misalignment. Still, for what it is, it makes the effect look more awesome.