Ruthless People - Terrible DVD (1 Viewer)

If it's any indication of what to expect from Buena Vista's upcoming catalog titles, I think many of us are in for some real disappointment. I've just finished viewing the Ruthless People DVD and even though I paid a very low price of $12.99, I remain appalled and alarmed with the quality of this disc.
For starters, the image quality is a disaster. Though anamorphic, it doesn't really seem to matter as BV has utilized a print that looks like it's been through a dozen dirty projectors. The image is riddled with nicks and scratches, especially during the first half of the movie(take a look at the Touchstone logo at the beginning if you don't believe me). Grain is excessive throughout and compression artifacts are easily spotted, particularly in darker scenes. Frankly, it looks like they took an old laserdisc master and matted it.
Secondly, though seemingly unimportant in light of the poor transfer, there are zero extras, not even a trailer. I don't think I've seen such a lazily produced DVD.
Ruthless People is a classic 80's comedy and deserves much better than the treatment it's been given here. Shame on you, Buena Vista. I will think twice before purchasing more titles from you, even at low prices.

Thanks for the heads up. I was worried about this disc, and will hold off indefinitely.

I just don't understand why studios even bother releasing garbage quality like this. I guess they figure the disc will sell. And, I don't buy the excuse that it costs studios too much to make it look respectable. If it can't look respectable, don't release it.

I own the laser disc, which is fullscreen, but I don't recall it as being riddled with nicks and scratches. It's far from the greatest transfer around but it is quite watchable. The fullscreen doesn't even bother me as I don't really recall it as "tight" either. Too bad - I looked for this title at Best Buy yesterday but didn't find it. I will probably forego it. Now, what about Tin Men .....

It's funny how others based their dvd purchases on just one opinion.

Crawdaddy

Crawdaddy, how do you think Roger Ebert makes his living?

Well then we need some more opinions then.

Max

I will be playing my dvd later today. Perhaps the originator of this thread is correct, but I try to base my purchasing decisions on more than just one opinion, especially if I don't know what equipment they're utilizing.

Crawdaddy

http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreview...peopledvd.html
There's a review of the disc that gives the transfer a C+.

Robert: Now, that's not fair. Riddled with nicks and scratches is more of an observation than an opinion. I already own an acceptable version; however, if someone steps up and contradicts that observation, I may reconsider.

Alan,

Give me a break, how am I not being fair???????????

Crawdaddy

I watched mine earlier this week. I didn't see any particularly distracting print damage, but I'll readily admit that I'm far less sensitive to that particular problem. The video quality is nothing special, but detail, resolution and color values are quite good. It's not an image that knocks your socks off, but then I've never seen any version of this film that could be described that way (I never saw it in a theater).
Especially given the lack of extras, this is a disc that could easily be skipped by someone who already has an acceptable presentation of the film. Otherwise, if you're someone who watches the movie instead of the disc, it's well worth picking up, because the movie is still great and the disc provides an eminently watchable version at an attractive price.
M.

Robert: It was simply an unnecessary comment of a person (me) that offered no useful information. Maybe a small thing, but it irked me and is something I would never say.

I find Robert's comments to be completely fair. Your review- I have no problems with that observation, I completely respect your opinion- is subjective. You find that the video quality was an "F". Another reviewer found it be a "C+". Sounds like Robert finds it to be average, give or take, as well.

You consider it to be virtually "unwatchable"- ho doesn't. There are probably other titles that he finds unwatchable where you would find them acceptable. I consider "Born on the Fourth of July" (any version) to be in the former category. Many probably disagree. All reviews I've seen of "The Larry Sanders Show" say that i you are a fan of the show you need to buy the first season DVD set- even considering the lackluster, to say the least, video quality. Although I am a big fan, seeing as HBO just re-ran that entire season I disagree. THe DVDs are no better than the satellite presentation, so my DVD $ are better spent elsewhere.

He points out in his comments that he would not rely on only one review not only because every person's opinion is subjective, but also- as he clearly points out- because he doesn't know what equipment you are using to form your opinions. If you are watching the DVD on a 60" set then you will find many more flaws with the transfer than someone who is watching on a 27" set. Not to mention calibration, type of TV (front/rear projection, CRT) etc.

Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, Ruthless People was a pretty ugly looking film even in the theatres.
I mean we're not about a shoddy transfer ruining Freddie Young's breathtaking cinematography on Lawrence Of Arabia or a faded print being used and disfiguring Jack Cardiff's stunning visuals on Black Narcissus! This is an 80's cheesy low farce with Bette Midler.
But again, I'm into the movies more than the disc, so I'll be picking this one up.

Uhhh.. I was so looking forward to this edition so i´m really dissapointed that it didn´t have atleast a commentarytrack!!
:frowning:
With the Pic quality in mind, I think I´ll skip this one..
:frowning:

From previous post:

I felt the opening titles were atrocious, but the rest of the film seemed average, with only a few really noticeable scratches. The poor quality was only a distraction for me during the titles, to be honest. Howeve,r they are some of the dirtiest, scratchiest titles I've ever seen on a DVD.

Optical shots--film credits, dissolves, special effects--tends to age rather badly. The dupe stock utilized has a habit of fading much faster than the camera negative. For example, if you watch the opening of TAXI DRIVER on DVD, the film looks looks pretty awful--until the credits end.

Even when new, optical work has a habit of attracting dirt and scratches. Even new films--like SEXY BEAST--have examples of this during the opening credits.

And as long as we are ragging on this release, the new cover art is absolutely horrible. Not that the old art was great or anything, the drawings looked dated now, but at least it was colorful. I really hate this trend of having new covers that are in many cases much worse than the original (think any MGM catalogue title) but prominently feature the actors just so some idiot at a Best Buy somewhere might pick it up. It just looks cheap.