-

Jump to content



Photo

Superbit strikes again...this time for "Heavy Metal" fans


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
48 replies to this topic

#1 of 49 OFFLINE   Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,276 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted February 20 2003 - 02:06 PM

I just read Colin Jacobson's review. While not perfect, it appears the Superbit version is a significant improvement over the original. Keep the Superbits coming!

http://dvdmg.com/hea...lsuperbit.shtml

#2 of 49 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter

  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted February 20 2003 - 02:36 PM

D'oh! This is actually bad news for me. Now I'll have to buy it. Maybe I'll just pass this by and wait for the HD-DVD version.Posted Image

#3 of 49 OFFLINE   MatS

MatS

    Screenwriter

  • 1,599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2000

Posted February 20 2003 - 02:44 PM

the extensive supplements for this movie (on the original disc) are worth way more to me than the slight improvements in audio and picture, and I certainly don't watch this movie enough to double dip

skip

#4 of 49 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter

  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted February 20 2003 - 02:54 PM

Yeah- I just thought of that. No extras. Bummer- maybe I'll really pass.

#5 of 49 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter

  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted February 21 2003 - 01:32 AM

Quote:
I just read Colin Jacobson's review. While not perfect, it appears the Superbit version is a significant improvement over the original.


Sorry, but his comments seriously put into question his and your assumption that the Superbit is a "significant improvement":

Quote:
Based on my comments from my original 1999 review, the new one demonstrated a significant improvement over the old release. Unfortunately, I got rid of that DVD years ago, so I couldn’t make direct comparisons between the two discs.


Quote:
Note that although I believe the old disc offered the same Dolby mix found here, I gave it a “B+” in my older review. This score variation most likely represents my changing attitudes as a reviewer and should not indicate that the two mixes differ. Since I can’t compare the two directly, I can’t unequivocally say that both Dolby tracks are identical, but I’d be surprised if they weren’t.


He concludes that the new disc "gives us the superior presentation of the movie itself"--yet he never made a direct comparison between the two releases.
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper

#6 of 49 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor

  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted February 21 2003 - 03:52 AM

Quote:
He concludes that the new disc "gives us the superior presentation of the movie itself"--yet he never made a direct comparison between the two releases.
Posted Image gotta love internet reviewers.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#7 of 49 OFFLINE   Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,276 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted February 21 2003 - 05:32 AM

Colin Jacobson is the most critical DVD reviewer and maybe the most technical when it comes to video and audio remarks. I trust he is on target as I seem to always agree with his calls.

#8 of 49 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M

    Producer

  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted February 21 2003 - 08:52 AM

This statement is enough to piss me off..
Quote:
Frankly, I was shocked at how bad this movie was. I knew the music would bite - after all, the soundtrack mainly focused on the hard rock or metal from the late Seventies and early Eighties, and that stuff was genuinely terrible. Journey? Sammy Hagar? Nazareth? When Stevie Nicks and Black Sabbath – the post-Ozzy version of the band - are the acts that remain the biggest deal from your soundtrack, you know you're in trouble. For some strange reason, the phrase "pathetically dated music" springs to mind – not that any of this crap was good even back in the Eighties.
Posted Image
...well at least he's not being biased....anymore than I am for loving this music and considering it no worse that most of the crap that's out there today...I'm 34..forgive me...Posted Image
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert
 

#9 of 49 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,235 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted February 21 2003 - 02:07 PM

Quote:
He concludes that the new disc "gives us the superior presentation of the movie itself"--yet he never made a direct comparison between the two releases.

He also took pains to make sure readers knew that. He easily could have not mentioned this fact and led readers to believe that his comments came from more direct comparisons, or he could have omitted any comparisons whatsoever. However, he wanted to present the most honest appraisal he could, so he made sure the readers knew that his comments weren't a "guarantee" that the new one was significantly better that the old one...

Quote:
gotta love internet reviewers. Posted Image


Okay, enough third-person writing. I'm starting to think I'm damned if I do, etc. Like I mentioned above, I feel I took the most responsible method I could in this instance. Would it be better if I'd directly compared the two discs? Of course - I do that whenever practical.

But much of the time, it's not. I've been a DVD reviewer for more than four years now, and I've covered about 1400 titles. I get rid of most of these, as I don't want my house filled with DVDs I don't like. (Actually, I often dump titles I DO like just because I so rarely have the chance to rewatch them - there's always something new I need to review.) My copy of Heavy Metal left my hands years ago, so I couldn't slip in the disc and watch it.

Without the option to rewatch the old disc, I had to do my best based on my opinion of the original DVD. This gets a little risky, as my opinions have often changed over the years. Standards evolve over time, and I'm more critical now than I was three years ago. But without a chance to re-examine the original DVD, I had to base my comparisons on the comments I made in 1999.

Is that a great system? Nope, and I really wish I could have offered a more direct comparison. But given the circumstances, it was the best I could do. Rather than pretend, I told readers that this was the case. I HATE the possibility I might mislead someone in a review, so I added the caveats that I provided.

And then I got slammed for it here. Honestly, some people have unrealistic expectations for reviewers. I can only speak for myself, but I do the best I can. I can't be an expert about every movie I watch, and I can't promise that my opinion today will equal my opinion tomorrow. But I try as hard as possible to a) know as much as I can about the material involved and b) maintain a high level of internal consistency. It's not a science, folks, and neither I nor anyone else will ever be able to satisfy everyone. But I do my best, even if some think it's not good enough.

And BTW, Philip, I think your general slam of Internet reviewers is out of line. Overall, they're more knowledgeable and responsive than the folks who do print articles on DVDs. I don't appreciate the insinuation that we're all amateurs who can't compare to the gods who actually appear in print. (But maybe I'm just a little sensitive right now...Posted Image )

Quote:
...well at least he's not being biased....anymore than I am for loving this music and considering it no worse that most of the crap that's out there today...I'm 34..forgive me...

Of course I'm biased! I've been a huge music fan my whole life, and while you're correct that the tracks heard on Heavy Metal aren't any worse than the majority of today's pop, that ain't saying much. You can say "this crap's no worse than THAT crap", but both are still crap!

And I'm 35, so age isn't a factor. I couldn't stand the cheesy music from the acts heard in HM back when I was a teen, and I can't stand it now. (I also think the music's aged REALLY poorly - it sounds worse to me now than it did 20 years ago...)
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#10 of 49 Guest_Chris*Liberti_*

Guest_Chris*Liberti_*
  • Join Date: --

Posted February 21 2003 - 02:10 PM

Why is everyone on this board so infactuated with extras I do not know anyone personally who watches ANY extras ever. The only thing I occasionally will listen to are the director commentaries and this is only with a handful of directors. I only care about the best picture and sound possible.

#11 of 49 OFFLINE   Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,276 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted February 21 2003 - 03:11 PM

Colin, keep up the good work.

As far as extras, I rarely watch them (only on a few movies). I would ALWAYS take a superior video and audio track over extras. The movie is what counts to me (so many people seem to have lost sight of this).

#12 of 49 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter

  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted February 21 2003 - 05:25 PM

Generalizations will get you nowhere. I happen to like extras, when they are done well. The extras on Heavy Metal happen to be excellent- including the one long cut sequence which is truly amazing and a work of art. Makes you sad it wasn't in the movie.

That said, I will buy a Superbit edition IF there is a significant improvement over the original. At this point I'm just not sure if it's worth investing into Superbit because DVD-HD doesn't seem that far away anymore.

#13 of 49 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M

    Producer

  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted February 22 2003 - 05:11 AM

Quote:
And I'm 35, so age isn't a factor. I couldn't stand the cheesy music from the acts heard in HM back when I was a teen, and I can't stand it now. (I also think the music's aged REALLY poorly - it sounds worse to me now than it did 20 years ago...)

Whoa, calm down there friend. I had my tongue in my cheek and I don't mean to step on your love for The Carpenters or Chicago..or Devo...or whatever..Posted Image

As far as the music goes...well...it is a matter of personal taste as to whether late 70's early 80's Hard rock/"Heavy Metal" was cheesy or has dated badly, if you never liked it to begin with you can't really say it has dated badly from a objective point of view....but I guess we're talking about "Personal Taste" here so Subjective is the word of the day and so from a subjective point of view I must say...The Movie's Called Heavy Metal For Dio's Sake! What Were You Expecting.... Prokofiev's 5th Symphony?!?! DON'T MESS WHIT MY PRECIOUS METAL!!!
....go off and listen to Nu Shooze or Taco..or Hall & Oats...you filthy little..(mumble..mumble)

...I...I'm sorry about that..I don't know what came over me..t..that was uncalled for....I have to go listen to some Budgie now...


Seriously, do you mind if I ask what you did listen to "back in the day" to use the vernacular of those crazy modern kids.
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert
 

#14 of 49 OFFLINE   Ned

Ned

    Supporting Actor

  • 840 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2000

Posted February 22 2003 - 06:14 AM

I only care about the best picture and sound possible.

We're the minority Chris.

#15 of 49 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted February 22 2003 - 06:31 AM

Quote:
the superior presentation of the movie
This statement addresses the DVD releases of the "movie", and finds the SB vision to be superior.
By what margin?
Only he knows.
But, he did find it to be 'better' than previous release.
Superior means better than. By how much?
That's up to the reviewer.

Quote:
significant improvement
It, "superior presentation", in no way infers: "significant".

That is all.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#16 of 49 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,235 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted February 22 2003 - 09:16 AM

Quote:
Seriously, do you mind if I ask what you did listen to "back in the day" to use the vernacular of those crazy modern kids.

In 1981, I was a MAJOR Stones fan - I got turned onto them that year, so they dominated my listerning back then. I was also really big into the Beatles, including the various solo works. Honestly, those two acts strongly occupied my listening, though I started to get into the Police and the Kinks by the end of the year...

Quote:
The Movie's Called Heavy Metal For Dio's Sake! What Were You Expecting.... Prokofiev's 5th Symphony?!?! DON'T MESS WHIT MY PRECIOUS METAL!!!


IMO, there's relatively little "metal" in the film. Stevie Nicks is a metal artist? Journey? Most of the music's commercial, somewhat harder-edged pop. Cheap Trick aren't exactly headbangers, y'know?

And when I stated the music hadn't aged well, I meant that above and beyond my dislike for it. Back then it just sounded lame to me. Now it sounds lame AND dated - it all feels very much like a part of its time. Ie, it ain't aged well!
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#17 of 49 OFFLINE   Kevin M

Kevin M

    Producer

  • 5,172 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted February 22 2003 - 10:40 AM

Yes, but it can't be "above and beyond your dislike for it" when you also use a statement like "..sounded lame to me" immediately afterwards, you already stated that you never liked the music to begin with so for you to also say that it hasn't aged well is rather redundant. Of course it hasn't aged well for you, you never liked it to begin with.
As far as the argument of it sounding dated...you're seriously telling me that the Stones, The Kinks & The Police don't sound like a product of their time? Of course they do, as do The Beatles (mind you I happen to like all of the above), so it really does come down to a matter of personal taste as to whether "they have or haven't aged very well", to me this is a rather subjective opinion but you seem to present it as if you believed it to be an objective fact (at least that is how I interpreted your "And when I stated the music hadn't aged well, I meant that above and beyond my dislike for it." statement.).

As far as it being "Metal", #1 my saying "don't mess wit my metal" was a joke (I'm not sure if you understand this or not) but #2 I already stated that it was a mix of
Quote:
late 70's early 80's Hard rock/"Heavy Metal"
..and yes Metal was a term used well before Metallica or Motorhead and is popularly (though never officially) attributed to Jimi Hendrix..
Quote:
In the PBS series "Rock And Roll", which originally aired on September
26, 1995, in the fifth hour entitled "Crossroads," "Chas" Chandler was
interviewed in his capacity as manager of the Jimi Hendrix Experience
in 1969. In discussing the origin of the music genre phrase, "Heavy Metal",
he said ".....it was a term originated in a New York Times article
reviewing a Jimi Hendrix performance." Chandler said the author called
the Hendrix Experience "...like listening to heavy metal falling from the
sky."

..so I guess it depends on what you define as Heavy Metal at the time of the films release.
Here's an interesting link to one site about the origin of the term.
Does the film contain a mix of popular music of the time like Devo and Stevie Nicks?...you mean films actually do that?
-Kevin M.

There's a human tendency to resent anyone who disagrees with our pleasures.  The less mature interpret that as a personal attack on themselves.
- Roger Ebert
 

#18 of 49 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Executive Producer

  • 16,146 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted February 22 2003 - 10:56 AM

well i love this movie and the music.
i cant wait to hear all this in glorious dts surround sound.

i also have my recently purchased cd of the soundtrack that has 16 songs on it.
4 of which are not heavy or metal but pop ballads.

but the rest is very good i think.

especuially QUEEN BEE by GRAND FUNK.
facebook.com/whotony

#19 of 49 OFFLINE   Dwayne

Dwayne

    Supporting Actor

  • 753 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2000

Posted February 23 2003 - 12:26 AM

I agree that presentation is important. But extras have their place as well. I'm first and foremost a film lover. Extras provide me with an insight into the various stages of a film and it's history. I find things like that fascinating. Do I have my priorities wrong? This is, after all, a home theater forum. But, if I had to choose between a superbit LOTR, or the collector's gift set that I currently own, I would probably choose the latter. Quality extras are in abundance and the presentation is impeccable.

Shabba Dabba Ding Dong. Posted Image
Dwayne

#20 of 49 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,235 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted February 23 2003 - 05:06 AM

Quote:
Of course it hasn't aged well for you, you never liked it to begin with.


My original opinion of the music's irrelevant. There's plenty of music I liked in the past that I think's aged poorly. There's also music I DIDN'T like that's aged well.

The music in HM a) I didn't like at the time, and b) has aged poorly...

Quote:
you're seriously telling me that the Stones, The Kinks & The Police don't sound like a product of their time?

Nope. But some music avoids period trapping better than others. For example, Let It Bleed sounds vastly more "timeless" than Dirty Work - the production used for the latter really shows its mid-Eighties roots. Most music will show some reflection of its era, but this occurs to radically varying degrees. I think the stuff in HM sounds really dated - live with it!Posted Image

Quote:
and yes Metal was a term used well before Metallica or Motorhead and is popularly (though never officially) attributed to Jimi Hendrix..


Not if he said that in 1969, given that Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild" - from 1968 - includes the line "Heavy metal thunder". That's the more popular association for the phrase...

Quote:
..so I guess it depends on what you define as Heavy Metal at the time of the films release.


I suppose, and I don't think of much of the movie's music as metal. Black Sabbath, sure, but Cheap Trick, Devo, and Stevie Nicks? Nope...

Quote:
Does the film contain a mix of popular music of the time like Devo and Stevie Nicks?...you mean films actually do that?


What's your point? As you stated:
Quote:
The Movie's Called Heavy Metal For Dio's Sake! What Were You Expecting.... Prokofiev's 5th Symphony?!?!

If you call a movie Heavy Metal, I expect to hear... heavy metal! They didn't title the movie Mix of Popular Music...
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow