Logan's Run BD this year?! (1 Viewer)

[Radioman970]

Both Westworld and Futureworld gave me nightmares in my younger days. That gunfighter is not mentioned enough beside the likes of Michael, Jason and Freddy. It's a shame they didn't see the potential and do more movies focus squarely on that character.

Ditto on Outland. I'm tired of my bought VHS.

 

[Heinz W]

Maybe I should see if I can still find the old snapper DVD (w/ original poster art) of Logan somewhere for $3, buy it, then cut off the cover to use wth my Blu. I almost bought a copy of this version a few years ago as a 'backup' for my old MGM DVD. Wish I had now!

For LOGAN'S RUN , I'll check around to see if anyone would be willing to port the LD extras which aren't on the DVD nor this upcoming Blu-ray onto a DVD. That way we could order some 2-Disc BD cases from GenesysDTP and make our own custom Edition.

I think that's a great idea Ray, if someone with the LD is willing to do it. I would pay a few bucks to whoever would do this to offset their costs for the DVD, their time, and postage.

 

[Worth]

Both Westworld and Futureworld gave me nightmares in my younger days. That gunfighter is not mentioned enough beside the likes of Michael, Jason and Freddy. It's a shame they didn't see the potential and do more movies focus squarely on that character.

I'm pretty sure they did - except they changed the name to the Terminator. "Westworld" was the first thing that popped into my mind the first time I saw Arnold in that role.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worth



I'm pretty sure they did - except they changed the name to the Terminator. "Westworld" was the first thing that popped into my mind the first time I saw Arnold in that role.

Stylistically, maybe, but the storylines came from different sources. Westworld and Futureworld were based on scripts from Michael Crichton (who also directed), whereas the story from The Terminator was very loosely based off stories from Harlan Ellison. On the other hand, the Terminator POV shots were certainly influenced by the Gunslinger POV shots.

 

[Radioman970]

Terminator! Great comparison. I've had people point out that Jurassic Park is basically Westworld. Haha! I guess T-Rex = gunfighter in that case.

 

[Cees Alons]

And a bit of it in Robo Cop.


Cees

 

[Heinz W]

Gary has his review up over at the Beaver, and it's not good. Despite his obvious dislike for the film the video review has me a bit concerned. I was hoping for a better image from a Todd-AO film, and some of the screenshots look a bit soft. I knew this title wouldn't get the royal treatment but I was hoping for better. After the Contact debacle I will wait until I see it myself before passing judgement. Only a couple more weeks. It has to be better than the DVD.

www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews47/logans_run_blu-ray.htm

 

[RickER]

I wonder what he was expecting!?
It is what it is, and while i LOTHE screenshots, the pictures he posted look better than the DVD. My DVD is older than 2004 (the year he said the DVD came out), cause it was one of the first i bought, and it was a pre snapper MGM release, not the Warner. I am sure Warner used the same MGM DVD, but i could be wrong.

In any even, the DVD is 10 years old, at least, and will indeed be better on Blu.

Now, how about Lifeforce on Blu?

 

[Heinz W]

Yes, I agree Rick, most of the screenshots do look better than the DVD, but a couple are soft. The close-up of Michael York in Sandman HQ for example. I have the original MGM DVD too, and yes, the later Warners versions feature the same transfer.

I wouldn't mind having Lifeforce on Blu either, Mathilda May in HD has to be a good thing!

 

[BillyFeldman]

When will you people learn that you cannot trust his screenshots - most of the time they do not come close to representing what's on the Blu-Ray either in sharpness, detail, or color. And yes, after Contact you'd think that would have been obvious to everyone.

 

[RickER]

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

When will you people learn that you cannot trust his screenshots - most of the time they do not come close to representing what's on the Blu-Ray either in sharpness, detail, or color. And yes, after Contact you'd think that would have been obvious to everyone.

Hello, didnt i just say i loath screen shots. And i dont use them to judge what we get.
However, dont you also think it would be obvious, that the Blu-ray will be better than a 10 year old DVD?

 

[BillyFeldman]

Of course it will be better - that was my point. I misread your comment, BTW. I thought it said you loathed the screenshots when what you wrote was that you loathe screenshots. But my post was really directed at Heinz.

 

[RickER]

I could have left out the part about his pictures looking better than the DVD. The DVD really looks like crap on my 52" Sony LCD. I thought his review had some errors in it, such as the year the DVD came out. Its not that new!

Just a thought about his review.

How can you REALLY watch a movie on a technical level, if your not even engaged in it on a personal level. He could have been looking at a magazine, or watching his clock for all we know. Not saying he was, but just wondering. I am sure i wouldnt make a good reviewer, cause i think you have to spend time with a disc, maybe watch it more than once, if time allows. Maybe you need to be able to separate your personal views, with the disc in hand. Hard to do, I'm sure.

 

[Heinz W]

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

Of course it will be better - that was my point. I misread your comment, BTW. I thought it said you loathed the screenshots when what you wrote was that you loathe screenshots. But my post was really directed at Heinz.

Billy, in post #107 I said:

"After the Contact debacle I will wait until I see it myself before passing judgement."

I DO NOT take screenshots as gospel for how the actual Blu-ray will look, especially from Gary's site. The shot I mentioned does look soft, while the others looked pretty good. I think Rick makes an interesting point about Gary's reviews. He's usually the first one to put them up and I sometimes wonder if he doesn't just skim through them quickly when it's a film he doesn't like, as in this case, just to be the first to review it. Just a thought, and maybe I'm way off base on that, but it makes me wonder. I still love Gary's site and visit it frequently, I've just learned to apply a sprinkling of salt to what I see and read there.

 

[BillyFeldman]

Actually, post #107 is yours, and you are not quoting me below, but another poster. I did say something similar, though

Originally Posted by Heinz W




Billy, in post #107 I said:

"After the Contact debacle I will wait until I see it myself before passing judgement."

I DO NOT take screenshots as gospel for how the actual Blu-ray will look, especially from Gary's site. The shot I mentioned does look soft, while the others looked pretty good. I think Rick makes an interesting point about Gary's reviews. He's usually the first one to put them up and I sometimes wonder if he doesn't just skim through them quickly when it's a film he doesn't like, as in this case, just to be the first to review it. Just a thought, and maybe I'm way off base on that, but it makes me wonder. I still love Gary's site and visit it frequently, I've just learned to apply a sprinkling of salt to what I see and read there.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

There aren't that many titles I'm willing to upgrade to Blu, but Logan's Run is one of them. I watched the anamorphic rerelease not that long ago, and while it was the best version I'd seen, there was certainly room for improvement, and hopefully this BR lives up to it. The screenshots don't look that soft.

I don't really care if a reviewer doesn't like the film or thinks it's silly, that is their taste and opinion - I happen to like '70s sci-fi, hokey effects and all.