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

I didn't vote because I didn't see most of the nominees, but go figure -- King Kong and Tom & Jerry are the only winners that I haven't seen.

Yes, this is just a shameless attempt at getting the first word in.

(PS The *real* DVD of the Year: Tae Guk Gi )

OK, so why was the Star Wars OT set "awarded" the worst audio? It's a re-release from the 2004 DVDs! Besides, reversed surrounds from ANH aside, it's far from the worst audio.

I was certainly curious about the Star Wars Limited Edition pick for worst audio. I own the 2004 DVD's and love them so not sure what is different (if anything). Although if they were going to re release them, they could have fixed the reversed music in the surrounds, so maybe that is what the award is for?

Agree with the other picks. Definitely a toss up between the Incredibles and Revenge of the Sith for best DVD of the year. Although I have watched Star Wars many more times than I have watched the Incredibles.

But then that is where my taste lies...

Dave

I'm happy with all the wins, except for Star Wars.

I feel that the ongoing obsession with Star Wars is hurting the exposure other problems need. At this point, I have no idea why people are convinced that if they keep requesting and obsessing over it, George Lucas will suddenly agree. If he hasn't wanted the theatrical editions on video for the last decade, despite what people want, he's only going to do it when he feels like it.

Also, it's a big "duh" that digital films will have the best transfers. Not to say it's a bad thing, but it's way more impressive to see films like The Wizard of Oz look like they're fresh out of the camera. I don't think a single HD-filmed film has had a bad transfer. Also, I think it's unfair how these digital films are being used as yardsticks to measure any other transfer. It's like using a wax banana to compare to a real one... "well, this one has a few brown spots on it, unlike the wax one."

I totally agree about King Kong being the best restoration. I just loved how film-like the visuals were and how well the cut footage blended in. The packaging is by far the best constructed I've seen... most tins are just too flimsy.

As for the supplements, I honest feel it was a toss-up between The Wizard of Oz and King Kong. However, Wingnut's Kong documentary and Kevin Brownlow's Merian C. Cooper documentary are just amazing. The Kong documentary is probably the most comprehensive I've seen for a film.

I'm kind of undecided on The Incredibles. It was one of my favorite films from 2004 and the presentation is... incredible. The supplements were just OK, though.

However, I'm glad the mention of Fox's faux-stereo tracks made it. Fox does a fantastic job of cleaning up mono soundtracks, so it's wasted space in my opinion. I don't think it's a bad idea to provide remixes for films like musicals, but are stereo tracks really needed for 1930's Shirley Temple films? As a side note, Fox ought to be praised for their ST remasters... huge improvement in the video quality.

I know T&J Volume 2 had the same flaws as the previous set, but I'm kind of let down Oklahoma!: SE didn't make it since it would have provided an incentive for Fox to restore the Todd-AO version. However, I hope T&J gets into the main WHV arm so they can give the cartoons one big box set with remasters like the LT's. Or even better, have 4-disc sets with a mix of MGM cartoons. This way, we'll get the Harmon-Ising's, the T&J's, Tex Avery, and the rest. This is one reason why I don't like the T&J sets. At least with the LT's, you get a variety.


Even if it didn't make it to the final poll, everyone ought to check out the 7-disc Harold Lloyd box set. That was my personal favorite of 2005.

I love the wax banana reference:



It's unfortunate, too, 'cause films should never look like wax bananas!

Leo Kerr

Well, except for the King Kong In The House Of Wax crossover.

Because those that voted selected it as having the worst audio of the titles listed.

I realize that. I was just wondering why a 2004 release was voted the worst audio of 2005.

Fay Wray was in both Mystery of the Wax Museum and King Kong. Both 1933 films, even.

I'd imagine that instead of a fire destroying Lionel Atwill's wax museum, Kong gets in there and crushes all the female wax figures or throws them out the windows.

Hmm... Fay Wray had her clothes peeled off in both movies, too.

Oh, and an addition to the "wax banana" statement: I'm not saying wax bananas are bad. They usually look beautiful and realistic. But I find the real ones quite tasty, despite the fact that they become a little squishy after a while. (at least I didn't use the "snails and oysters" analogy from Spartacus)

Thank you to the HTF for giving a voice, with your forum & awards, to the home theater fan.

Now;
Wasn't there a lot more categories on the voting form?
What is the difference between DVD & Video transfer?
Is it the actual video transfer of the movie (film or digital)? If so, would that be people's impression of what they remember seeing in the theater and what is presented on the DVD, without any consideration to the DVD transfer (which of coarse, has its very own category)?
WoW
That would be a tough call!!!
Especially considering some people saw SW Ep.III on film & some from a digital source/projector. And how many of us can truly tell the difference between artifacts from video transfers vs. artifacts from DVD transfers?
Then again, that what makes this HTF!

Great to see the WB win again. I'm sure CC came in 2nd.
To bad there has to be a "worst" studio. When in fact it may only reflect the view of fans that the studio has not released 'enough' product. Or, 'enough' extra's. Maybe a "worst" studio for transfers (or extras) would be more appropriate then calling Universal "THE" worst studio by "THE" best site on the www for home theater.
Or, maybe, just maybe, the fine folk here at HTF really think Universal IS the "worst studio".
Yikes!
That's like a poke in the spinning globe with a sharp stick.
;-)

The SW worst audio thing is pretty weird. Tis a 2004 title, how in the hell did that slip through the cracks? Friggin fanboys

--
H

The Star Wars trilogy was re-released in 2005 as a three disc set. I don't agree with it being on there but it was a 2005 release nonetheless.

Check out SATAN'S LITTLE HELPER.

Vincent

I think the question was 'what is wrong with the star wars audio?' I wasn't aware of any problems with either release, but I haven't been paying as close attention to Software and none at all to massive behemoth threads like the Star Wars ones generate.

I too am very curious about what was wrong with the star wars audio, the 5.1 sounded great to me.

Adam

Almost all of the complaints pertain to "The New Hope": The music (and only the music) was reversed in the rear surrounds. For example, trumpets playing in the front left might also be heard in the rear right. Also, several music cues are missing from the start of the attack on the Death Star. And there are also a few places in the movie where the fidelity of the dialogue seems inconsistent. There are some other minor quibbles as well, but those (I believe) were the main offenders.

Just for the record, I *didn't* vote for the Trilogy in this category, because I also think of it as a 2004 release.

How is Universal the worst studio? There isn't a single title from them in any of the categories, good or bad.

The 2005 re issue of Star Wars was a good opportunity to fix the mistakes made on the sound mix for the first film. As others have said, the music is mixed wrong and it just doesn't reflect what the movie sounds like.

The Homer head is pitiful, but Fox should be commended for offering replacements.

Matt, the reason Tom and Jerry won worst overall disc has been covered many times, if you do a search for tom and jerry in the main forum....

..But to save you the bother it has the same pitifull, un-cleaned-up picture quality on the pre-scope toon's as on the first set, 3 of the cartoons have replaced/censored audio, 1 of the toon's was already on the first set and it generally was a huge disappointment to T&J fan's who complained about censorship and picture quality on the first set...especially as WB does a generally high quality of work.

At least the runner-up, Oklahoma Todd-AO, saw a mop and duster to clean up its cobwebs, it just had a bad run-in with a poor compressionist, combined with poor source materials.

As for the other categories, worst studio could easily have been Paramount for it's seeming disdain for it's back catalogue, but I gues Universal have left such a bad taste in people's mouths over the year's for a variety of reasons people just automatically vote for them!

I can see why Star Wars peeded off so many people, but as has been said - if Lucas isn't fussed then it ain't gonna be fixed - anyway as far as Lucasfilm are concerned, those are intentional artistic choices, at least according to their 2004 press release.

M

Oklahoma! SE had terrific compression on both versions. The problem has to do with the Todd-AO version being out of focus and having a huge amount of DVNR applied to the image.

Universal's real problem is the lack of extras on catalog titles and the use of DVD-14/DVD-18 discs. However, I don't think people give enough credit to their excellent remasters on nearly every title.

Add:

And it's annoying to see Universal having all these dual-sided problems. They're the only ones who keep having issues with them. Considering how many have to be replaced, it would probably be cheaper to just use the damn DVD-9's like everyone else. Even Columbia used two DVD-9's for their two Batman serials.