HTF AWARDS 2005: Official Results Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Brent M]

While I agree that Episode III deserved best video transfer, it did not deserve best audio transfer. That definitely should've gone to War of the Worlds which had a superior audio track to Episode III. As for the Star Wars Trilogy getting worst audio that's just plain stupid. If you want to get serious about it, A New Hope was the only film of the three that had audio problems so why should the superb audio quality of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi be penalized? Also, I don't care if it was re-released in 2005 or not, the Star Wars Trilogy was clearly a 2004 DVD release.

 

[Lyle_JP]

If there had been a category for Best Film Anthology release, it should have gone to Anchor Bay's brilliant Phantasm boxed set.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Lyle_JP]

Brent, I half agree with you. The New Hope 5.1 mix is an atrocity, and I believe it brings everything else in that set down with it.

But it doesn't deserve to even be considered for 2005's awards list since it is just a packaging change from the 2004 release.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't think they could have done as good of a job in 2001. Now that we have systems like Ultra-Resolution, a better DVD (and restoration) is possible. It's like saying WB mucked up the 70th anniversary of King Kong in 2003, when a release that year would be just as mucked up because it wouldn't be the high-quality restoration released last year. Not to mention it wouldn't have the two documentaries.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

"Ancient Internet Secret!"

Ron, I just copied and pasted the results into a spreadsheet at the time of the deadline.

Chalk it up to curiosity, and an interest in public opinion polls, and in the event the threads were removed I'd have a copy for myself to refer to.

 

[Vincent_P]

The only problem is that (and correct me if I'm wrong, administrators) these awards are for Region 1 releases, and that great PHANTASM set was region 2.

Vincent

 

[rich_d]

I think most people will see a big difference between honoring a film at 50 or 75 years - so your example of 70 years for King Kong falls flat as an example.

Your logic seems to be based on 'well things are better now so it wouldn't have been that great a release anyhow.' Well, if we adopt that logic we could have passed by laserdiscs, vhs, and the whole DVD format waiting for some grand final solution (whatever that might be). It also voids the whole category we just voted on as being relevant.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Why are anniversaries so important, though?

For the technology at the time, the previous restorations of Kong were terrific. In 1985, no one would even think that it could be digitally restored at 4K resolution. The film materials used may have not been available at the time.

I guarantee that in 20-30 years, King Kong will have to be restored yet again. All of these restorations will have to be done again eventually.

It's like how Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has had three restorations. The initial photochemical/traditional restoration in 1987 was amazing for that period. Then, Cinesite's 4K digital restoration technology allowed even further improvement by removing dirt, cel dust, scratches, and other artifacts. Then, Lowry Digital Images had technology to improve even more by reducing grain, sharpening the image, and allowing more accurate color correction. It'll be restored again for HD.

If King Kong had a 65th anniversary release (1998), it would have been very good. The previous master had great photographic quality, but it would likely be bare-bones (just a trailer) and far less pristine as the new DVD.

In the case of The African Queen, the Carlton DVD shows that the film could look better. But if it makes people happier to have 3-4 releases of the film, more power.

 

[Paul.S]

Is the chief problem with the The Simpsons Season 6 box set Homer head packaging the way it opens (and perhaps the flimsiness of the plastic used)? I think the overall concept is cool and fun but grant that the design/execution is problematic. Frankly, I think some would be annoyed with whatever Fox did that was different from the packaging of the first five seasons.

I'm late to the issue--just having recently bought Season Six as a gift for my partner--and am curious if the replacement box that I just sent off a check for via www.simpsonsbox.com is indeed a reasonable facsimile of the original packaging. At least Fox made this offer for those who don't like the heads.

Is there a similar offer for the Marge head/Season 7?

 

[Citizen87645]

They released both types of packaging simultaneously for S7. I actually opted for the Marge head.

 

[Lyle_JP]

If by original you mean "does it resemble the packaging for seasons 1-5", the answer is "kind of". It will match the others on the shelf reasonably well, but the inside uses a completely different design approach. Basically, you will keep the disc holder that is inside the Homer Head, and it just slides into the new box from the top.

Season 7 can be purchased in stores as either a box or a Marge Head. Best Buy has been good about keeping both designs in stock. Costco seems to only have the Marge Head.

-Lyle J.P.

 

[Citizen87645]

I bought S7 at Costco and at the time there were more box versions than Marge heads. That was back when they had that huge discount though, so MMV.