A Few Words About A few words about…™ The Alfred Hitchcock Classics Collection - in 4k UHD Blu-ray (5 Viewers)

[Mark B]

Well, which is it for God's sake. Normandie says it's different and fixed, most others are saying it's not. This isn't brain surgery and has nothing to do with kbps - it has to do with SOUND and the correct mono mix. Let's not have confusion here - it's either been fixed or it hasn't.

I would love to answer that, but the disc I received yesterday floating loose in a bubble mailer won't even load on my player.

 

[Britton]

If throwing an unprotected, uncorrected disc, carelessly into a mailer isn’t a sign of the decline of physical media, I don’t know what is.

 

[PMF]

[...]I got a message from FED EX mine should deliver Mon. Says Direct Signature required like wtf.
[...]

And so it goes, while Universal demands a “Direct Signature”, they couldn’t even be bothered to acknowledge receipt of our own emails and proof of purchases.

A general automated email of reply and updates would suffice; as had been done so properly during Twilight Time’s end in a bi-monthly fashion during their farewell sale, to which they worked exhaustively to fulfill thousands of orders.

It’s not the mistakes of the “Psycho” discs that bother me;nor any amount of waiting time needed for all to be rectified; but, rather, the absence of communication and the added confusions as to which disc is correct and which one is not.

 

[haineshisway]

As you know, I never received a response, despite sending in the e-mail four times. Nor have I received a package from them.

 

[Dave Jessup]

Like some others, I did receive a replacement disc (regular blu-ray), tossed bare into a padded envelope.

The pressing numbers are different*, but the 2.0 "original mono track" does appear to be, again, the fold-down of the multichannel / added effects track, based on one shot very late in the film: Vera Miles' character throwing her hand in the air and hitting a hanging light bulb. The latter-day recreated track has clinks and jangles not originally heard, per a comparison video posted on YouTube.

Of several different points of comparison, that one seems the easiest to check.

* Originally-purchased double-layer disc: (1140797) 2129626R0 01E // (1140796) 2129626R0 02E
Just-received replacement double-layer disc: (1149968) 2129626R2 01E // (1149967) 2129626R2 01E

I've enjoyed being able to watch either version of the movie since purchasing it, but I do look forward, sometime soon, to being able to experience the picture and sound as accurately and as authentically as possible.

 

[haineshisway]

I think the simple question here is has Universal completely lost their minds? How do you make the same mistake twice? Is there no one there who knows how to LISTEN to the track everyone complained about and the original mono, which appears on their own discs? I'm happy to drive over there and help them out.

 

[PMF]

[...]I'm happy to drive over there and help them out.

If you do decide to go, Bruce, please check into the missing Entr’acte and Exit music of “Sweet Charity”, as well. Betcha the very same person was involved in that big blunder, too.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The Amazon and BB pricing of this box set is now $49.99 which still isn't low enough for me especially with this Psycho issue.

 

[RickardL]

Like some others, I did receive a replacement disc (regular blu-ray), tossed bare into a padded envelope.

The pressing numbers are different*, but the 2.0 "original mono track" does appear to be, again, the fold-down of the multichannel / added effects track, based on one shot very late in the film: Vera Miles' character throwing her hand in the air and hitting a hanging light bulb. The latter-day recreated track has clinks and jangles not originally heard, per a comparison video posted on YouTube.

Of several different points of comparison, that one seems the easiest to check.

* Originally-purchased double-layer disc: (1140797) 2129626R0 01E // (1140796) 2129626R0 02E
Just-received replacement double-layer disc: (1149968) 2129626R2 01E // (1149967) 2129626R2 01E

I've enjoyed being able to watch either version of the movie since purchasing it, but I do look forward, sometime soon, to being able to experience the picture and sound as accurately and as authentically as possible.

I think this one is a lot easier:
when Marion turns the knob/faucet to turn on the water in shower, there is a small squeak sound
If there is no squeak sound, it is the orignal sound mix. If there is a squeak, it is not the original. Simple.

 

[Reed Grele]

I think this one is a lot easier:
when Marion turns the knob/faucet to turn on the water in shower, there is a small squeak sound
If there is no squeak sound, it is the orignal sound mix. If there is a squeak, it is not the original. Simple.

Perhaps they hired a plumber to do the 5.1 mix.

Unfortunately, it seems that the plumbers helper was involved in the disc replacement program.

 

[PMF]

God help the person who buys this set; some five years down the road; as “New and Sealed” at an eBay auction. $473 wins the bid and damn, it arrives in all its 5.1 glory.

 

[Dave MJ]

I think the simple question here is has Universal completely lost their minds? How do you make the same mistake twice? Is there no one there who knows how to LISTEN to the track everyone complained about and the original mono, which appears on their own discs? I'm happy to drive over there and help them out.

Agreed. I want to be understanding, but this is sheer incompetence and/or complete apathy about one of the most important films ever made. These people are supposed to be the experts on their own films.

 

[PMF]

Agreed. I want to be understanding, but this is sheer incompetence and/or complete apathy about one of the most important films ever made. These people are supposed to be the experts on their own films.

This particular experience will become someone’s learning curve; but thereafter, and once resolved, they may very well ascend to the status of “expert”. Yup, it’s irritating; but the larger headache is theirs, to which I do not envy.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'm happy to drive over there and help them out.

This.

It would be so freaking simple for them to have a fan of these movies take a look and provide some input to head off things like this. Most often they'd likely do it for free, too, or maybe for a free copy of the disc/set.

They use test audiences and focus groups for everything else. Why not have a test audience to view the content of discs before they're replicated?

 

[Robin9]

They use test audiences and focus groups for everything else. Why not have a test audience to view the content of discs before they're replicated?

That's a very good point!

 

[nyguy2046]

This.

It would be so freaking simple for them to have a fan of these movies take a look and provide some input to head off things like this. Most often they'd likely do it for free, too, or maybe for a free copy of the disc/set.

They use test audiences and focus groups for everything else. Why not have a test audience to view the content of discs before they're replicated?

I'm reminded of the Fall 2012 brouhaha when they released the Hitchcock titles on blu for the first time and several of the titles had issues with the credits. Does everyone remember that? I'd lean to being understanding given the pandemic but Universal just has a history of being sloppy with their Hitchcocks.

My "replacement" discs also arrived in the mail today, unprotected (and already scratched) in a bubble mailer just like other people have received. They're the same faulty discs as in the collection.

 

[Worth]

I'm reminded of the Fall 2012 brouhaha when they released the Hitchcock titles on blu for the first time and several of the titles had issues with the credits. Does everyone remember that? I'd lean to being understanding given the pandemic but Universal just has a history of being sloppy with their Hitchcocks...

It's not in their self-interest, either. All these replacements are eating into, and possibly wiping out, their profits.

 

[PMF]

It's not in their self-interest, either. All these replacements are eating into, and possibly wiping out, their profits.

Not to mention the replacements...of the replacements...of the replacement discs; which will be at risk of being returned if more scratches occur, again. Those careless mailers may very well incur additional losses.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I'd like to show support to their physical media bizz, but they're really not endearing us to them w/ such shoddy efforts (on top of the already somewhat controversial, original packaging).

I already own 3 of these in 4K digital (on top of the old BDs), so it's not like these 4K discs will be some huge leap in quality for me...

They really need to get their act together post-haste...

_Man_

 

[Stu Rosen]

Like some others, I did receive a replacement disc (regular blu-ray), tossed bare into a padded envelope.

The pressing numbers are different*, but the 2.0 "original mono track" does appear to be, again, the fold-down of the multichannel / added effects track, based on one shot very late in the film: Vera Miles' character throwing her hand in the air and hitting a hanging light bulb. The latter-day recreated track has clinks and jangles not originally heard, per a comparison video posted on YouTube.

Of several different points of comparison, that one seems the easiest to check.

* Originally-purchased double-layer disc: (1140797) 2129626R0 01E // (1140796) 2129626R0 02E
Just-received replacement double-layer disc: (1149968) 2129626R2 01E // (1149967) 2129626R2 01E

I've enjoyed being able to watch either version of the movie since purchasing it, but I do look forward, sometime soon, to being able to experience the picture and sound as accurately and as authentically as possible.

My just-received replacement disc (also knocking around an envelope without any protection) has a series of similar but not the same numbers as you've listed. There are about 3 such numbers following similar number sequences but not identical. Given my old eyes I haven't yet tried to write them all down but I can confirm they're different!