The various John Hughes films have been around for decades, in all formats, and have seen collections. The two major sets are a three film “Yearbook Collection,” which was released in 2015, includes Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles and Weird Science, and this new release.

The John Hughes 5-Movie Collection includes a strange array of titles, and I’ve not yet found a rationale for it’s release, as the two major titles – Ferris Beuller and Pretty in Pink, have already been out on Blu-ray. Pretty in Pink arrived only last year, as number 8 in the Paramount Presents series.

Thee more have been added.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles, She’s Having a Baby and Some Kind of Wonderful.

To the best of my knowledge, She’s Having and Some Kind have never been on Blu-ray.

From what I’m seeing the reason to purchase this set is for Some Kind of Wonderful, as I’ve got to believe that everyone who has ever desired owning a copy of Ferris or Pretty, already has one.

The other two aren’t worth owning.

Planes, Trains has a lovingly prepared plastic appearance, with other anomalies.

She’s Having is an entire master’s class in pointillism, appearing to have been photographed in Super 8.

Here’s the quality rundown:

Ferris Beuller’s Day Off

Image – 5

Audio – 5

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Yes

Highly Recommended

Pretty in Pink

Image – 5

Audio – 5

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Yes

Highly Recommended

Some Kind of Wonderful

Image – 4

Audio – 5

Pass / Fail – Pass

Upgrade from DVD – Yes

Recommended

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Image – 2

Audio – 5

Pass / Fail – Fair

Upgrade from DVD – No

She’s Having a Baby

Image – 2.25

Audio – 5

Pass / Fail – Fail

Upgrade from DVD – No

Best to have released Some Kind on Blu-ray and called it a day.

Bottom line.

Is Some Kind of Wonderful worth the $20 price of admission.

I believe it is.

RAH

[parsehtml]

[/parsehtml]

Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,549
I attributed most of the blah nature of "Baby" to the source photography. It, "Pink" and "Wonderful" are all objectively pretty ugly movies.

You feel there are issues with "Baby" beyond the original photography?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
13,713
Real Name
Robert Harris
I attributed most of the blah nature of "Baby" to the source photography. It, "Pink" and "Wonderful" are all objectively pretty ugly movies.

You feel there are issues with "Baby" beyond the original photography?
I’m attempting to forget. As I recall extremely course and unattractive grain, that probably goes beyond original photography. Pink and Wonderful appear fine.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,549
I’m attempting to forget. As I recall extremely course and unattractive grain, that probably goes beyond original photography. Pink and Wonderful appear fine.

The worst culprits were some interior shots, but better-lit scenes seemed fine, IMO.

I think all 3 of those movies are pretty ugly but when I reviewed, I erred on the side of accepting the grain as "original".

At least we can't accuse Paramount of using noise reduction! :D

After last year's "To Catch a Thief" uproar, Paramount's probably like "they want grain, then by God, we'll given them grain!!!" :laugh:
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
7,590
I like the John Hughes Paramount t movies over his films from Universal. I'll probably pick this up, although I already own most of the films on BD.
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
7,590
Seeking noise reduction and plastic imagery?

Look no further than Planes, Trains...

It's perfect.
Luckily Pretty in Pink, and Some Kind of Wonderful are the two I'm missing on BD. I have the John Candy/Steve Martin classic film, but it is what it is. Powerless to change it.

It is a shame that the John Hughes films have always been so hit and miss on home video. I still remember the first release of Weird Science from Universal. It was without question one of the worst quality films I'd seen on disc. Macroblocking, and DNR to make anyone take notice, even the untrained eye.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,549
Luckily Pretty in Pink, and Some Kind of Wonderful are the two I'm missing on BD. I have the John Candy/Steve Martin classic film, but it is what it is. Powerless to change it.

It is a shame that the John Hughes films have always been so hit and miss on home video. I still remember the first release of Weird Science from Universal. It was without question one of the worst quality films I'd seen on disc. Macroblocking, and DNR to make anyone take notice, even the untrained eye.

I never saw the original "Weird Science" BD but I thought the Arrow release looked pretty mediocre.

For whatever reason, it simply appears that the original photography for a bunch of Hughes movies was blah.

As I mentioned, with "Baby" I erred on the side of the assumption that's just how the movie looked.

These aren't films you'll use to show off your fancypants TV! :D
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
7,590
I never saw the original "Weird Science" BD but I thought the Arrow release looked pretty mediocre.
Funny you say that. At the time of release, I thought the Arrow release was heaven on earth. Closer inspection proves it was just an average looking transfer. But still light years ahead of the Universal disc.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,549
Funny you say that. At the time of release, I thought the Arrow release was heaven on earth. Closer inspection proves it was just an average looking transfer. But still light years ahead of the Universal disc.

Yeah, I'm sure the Uni looks worse. I didn't suspect the Arrow was a poor transfer - I just figured the source was ugly.

That's the challenge I run into with movies like "She's Having a Baby". I have enough familiarity with 80s film stocks to have some clue how they look but I don't know the specific movie well enough to say that the BD looks just like it should or it's grainier than it should.

As I've mentioned, it's not an attractive movie, but is the new BD the best it can look or subpar?

Dunno. I thought it looked better than RAH did, though I clearly noticed the heavy grain...
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
10,549
For those who don't own the three big titles, this is a steal!

I'm genuinely shocked Paramount sells this so cheaply given the "Pink" BD is less than a year old and still going for $30 MSRP.

I guess they figure everyone who wants "Pink" and is willing to pay $20+ for it already has it!
 

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,302
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
Pointless, shameless reason for a double dip, just to get Some Kind of Wonderful, and in a transfer that isn't entirely perfect, no less, though 'acceptable'. She's Having A Baby was an awful movie, but now it's an awful movie with a gawd-awful transfer. Was there any logic to releasing crap on Blu and hope nobody would notice, especially when there are other fine examples of proper mastering to compare it? I mean, we can't even say 'they did it for the money' as the bargain basement price tag for this collection illustrates not much - if any - wiggle room for pure profit. Dumb release. Disposable and dumb - except for those who don't own any of these movies as yet.
 

David Weicker

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,769
Real Name
David
Pointless, shameless reason for a double dip, just to get Some Kind of Wonderful, and in a transfer that isn't entirely perfect, no less, though 'acceptable'. She's Having A Baby was an awful movie, but now it's an awful movie with a gawd-awful transfer. Was there any logic to releasing crap on Blu and hope nobody would notice, especially when there are other fine examples of proper mastering to compare it? I mean, we can't even say 'they did it for the money' as the bargain basement price tag for this collection illustrates not much - if any - wiggle room for pure profit. Dumb release. Disposable and dumb - except for those who don't own any of these movies as yet.
So you feel you wasted your $20
 

Nick*Z

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
1,302
Location
Canada
Real Name
NICK
So you feel you wasted your $20

I'm saying, that to release a 'collection' with one thoroughly flawed video transfer, and another, in slightly above average quality, repackaged with 3 other movies most everyone owns (without any video upgrade to Planes, Trains and Automobiles), and not make at least the other two previously unreleased titles available as separate discs is just a dumb marketing decision, akin to Universal, basically giving away Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein as 'an extra' with their Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolf Man box sets, before making it available again as a stand-alone, and then, farming it out to Shout! for the A&C box set. At this point, I'm using copies of that disc as coasters for my drinks.

If studios want to release collections, do it once, do it well, and then also give the public the option to simply buy the movies they want as separate releases. It costs the studios nothing to do this - right, the 12 cents for the disc, another 10 cents for the cheap plastic sleeve, and 4 cents to reprint the color insert. They could still sell the indies for $9.99 and turn a handsome profit.

It's not the $20 bucks I'm poo-pooing, David. Just the misguided and endless repackaging of deep catalog titles, too many with sub-par 1080p transfers, when the real heavy lifting to get these titles up to contemporary video mastering standards isn't being done. Where could the money have been better spent by the studio? Maybe on a video upgrade to the 3 titles that need it, and a stand-alone release of each as a deluxe edition, retailing for $20 a piece, which we would pay for quality, or just another, "Hey, what do we have left over? and How can we mash it together for another snatch n' grab?"
 

Rick Thompson

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,723
It's not a full John Hughes film (he co-produced, but that's all — it was written and directed by Chris Columbus), but one of my most wanted blus is Only the Lonely, the picture that showed me how good an actor John Candy really was. The supporting cast includes Maureen O'Hara, Ally Sheedy, Anthony Quinn and Jim Belushi. However, it was a Fox DVD, which means Disney, which means I can probably forget about it.