Alliance.....is the quality of their DVD releases inferior? (1 Viewer)

[Dan Rudolph]

What I do not understand is the reason behind them. VHS never had bilingual covers, so unless there is some obsure law that applies to DVD and not VHS, I just don't see the point.

VHS never had multiple languages on a single release.

 

[CraigF]

Why I asked who "owned" AA is because their stationery says "Universal Studios/Alliance Atlantis Video". Now, Uni is owned by MCA aren't they? I mean, isn't it like car brands, they don't like to remind you that there's probably only a half dozen "independent" companies making cars, brand differentiation to make it seem like we're getting a large choice.

[BTW, Quebecor is a very large publishing empire based in Quebec, who owns TVA, the distributor of The Pianist and Brotherhood of the Wolf, for instance.]

 

[Tom Tsai]

What's the relationship between TVA Films and Lions Gate?

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

Perhaps the have some kind of disitirbution partnership with Universal now. I did some checking and they are still independent.

Michael McMillan is the chairman, and, I think, still majority owner.

some other interesting info that I did not know:

"Alliance Atlantis is a leading producer and worldwide distributor of television programs and a small number of feature films. Our productions include documentary and kids' programming, primetime television drama, as well as theatrical motion pictures. One of the shows we co-produce is CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the number one show on U.S. television."

"We are also Canada's largest producer and international distributor of feature length films, with a focus on low to mid-size budget art-house productions. Recent successes include Michael Moore's Cannes Film Festival winner Bowling for Columbine; Ararat directed by Atom Egoyan starring Charles Aznavour, Bruce Greenwood, Christopher Plummer, Arsinée Khanjian, Brent Carver and Marie-Josée Croze; Lynn Ramsay's Morvern Callar starring Samantha Morton; Isztvan Szabo's Sunshine starring Ralph Fiennes, which was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards, as well as Egoyan's Academy Award nominated and Cannes Film Festival Grand Prix winner, The Sweet Hereafter."

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

perhpas you cna find that info here:

http://www.lionsgatefilms.com/CorpSite/corp/corp.html

No promises though.

What's the relationship between TVA Films and Lions Gate?

AH! Here you go!
http://www1.newswire.ca/releases/June2002/11/c5088.html

 

[Rob T]

Actually, this site is no more. Last month, the owner of the site announced that he was packing it in. The site ceased to be about two weeks after that. A shame really, they were a decent source for Canadian DVD.

Damn. :frowning:
Hopefully another one will pop up to take it's place.

 

[Tom Tsai]

ah...thanks Jonathan.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

you are welcome. I am always interested in these things too as I am an actor as well as a home theatre/movie geek, so keeping a close eye on the Canadian film industry is important.

 

[KerryK]

The relationship is that AA titles are distributed on home video by Universal. But it's just the sales and distribution, not production.

 

[Gary Tooze]

With great thanks to Marc Colella, the comparison of the Alliance Atlantis "The Straight Story" (WS) vs. the Disney (Buena Vista) version is now up at:

http://www.compare.dvdbeaver.com/

Although released afterward, the Alliance fails to improve upon every category. The image quality is inferior (hazy with dirt speckles throughout), there are no Extras (even though they only needed to beat out a trailer to improve upon the Disney). They sliced up the film into Chapter stops against the director, David Lynch, wishes... and finally their version is 5 miniutes shorter as they did not compenesate for the 4% PAL speedup from the Studio Canal print that they ported it from.

I will continue my boycott of Alliance products until such time as they show strong improvement.

 

[Tom Tsai]

^ thanks Gary, I'll be picking up the US version ...although the difference isn't AS BAD as others make it out to be. Still, the disc was released in Frebruary of last year so I don't know why you're boycotting. They have shown improvement since then. Anyways, thanks for the comparison again. Time to import.

 

[Gary Tooze]

They have shown improvement since then...

Tom, you mentoned this a number of times. Can you give us some examples ? Atanarjuat: the Fast Runner came out in January of this year. I'd love to know how they have improved (specific DVDs). I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just not up on Alliance's recent releases.

Thanks,

 

[Tom Tsai]

^ The Fast Runner came out in November of last year. Maybe they haven't "improved", but they haven't screwed up much lately...and they have released a lot of titles since then I guess they're improving in that respect...

Hey, I just checked! The Straight Story (Disney) is pretty cheap!!

 

[EdH]

Gary,

Regarding the CTHV vs. Alliance transfers of Atanarjuat:
if you can't appreciate the difference between a movie presented on video and one presented on film, then I don't know what to say. Colors presented on digital video are "hotter", images are "sharper." Compare photographs taken by a digital still camera vs. a film still camera. The digital will be sharper with more vivid colors. Movies shot on digital video always have that cheap "camcorder" feel. To me, they don't look like films - no matter how sharp and vivid the colors are.

Yes, the image is sharper on the Columbia disc. Yes, the Alliance transfer is not great. But the Alliance disc was transferred from film elements, which are what were shown in theatres. To my knowledge, the digital masters of the film were never shown in theatres. And the difference between the digital masters and the film print are significant.

I don't want to restate every point made on the DVDTalk thread I linked to in my previous post, but here are some relevant quotes:

"Getting "closer to the source" doesn't necessarily mean a better film experience. Transferring video to film is just another step in the post-production process, no different than adding sound effects, special effects or digital effects (e.g. O Brother Where Art Thou). The film look of Atanarjuat provided the effect of a hypnotic waking dream. The video version breaks that spell."
-ehonauer (that's me)

"i own the canadian version and it looks great. beautiful. transfer of the film. in class three weeks ago, we watched a copy of the new american release and it did look awful. it did look like someone with a plain digital camcorder. the canadian version is much more superior in terms of visual quality, flesh tones and all that look great." - TLwizard

"I've seen the American version, which does come off looking like a student film shot on DV." - monkeyboy

"I just watched the Canadian 2-disc of Atanarjuat, The Fast Runner, and I have to say that the softer transfer of the Canadian release is definitely the way to go. The trailer on the extras cd is a direct dv transfer and has the crispy video look that I find very distracting. By contrast, I found the film transfer of the feature far more immersive." - Nocturnaloner

Even though I strongly dislike the video transfer, I'm willing to allow that it's a matter of preference - without calling the notion absurd. I guess the people who prefer the Alliance transfer are just crazy idiots. Thanks for setting us straight, Gary.

The tone of this topic is starting to get unpleasant, so I'll be signing off now.

 

[Gary Tooze]

You are certainly entitled to your opiion EdH... as is monkeyboy from DVDtalk.

To me, they don't look like films

What do you say about director's like Julio Medem and Abbas Kiarostami that are shooting their cinema in digital? and... why do you suppose they are doing so? I would guess because it more accurately represents what they are filming. But it may be easier... I don't know. I only know what looks sharper, better, less cropped (this issue is continueosly being avoided).

Snow is white Ed, not blue like the Alliance DVD shows. Shouldn't colors be displayed as accurately as possible? ... regardless of how one might have seen it in a theater.

You arguments are persuasive, but I am just not buying into it, although I appreciate your efforts to prove to me that you are correct. If it comes to image quality I can't see a viable reason not to take the sharpest, cleanest, less cropped, more accurate (colors) image everytime.

Thanks,

 

[Andrew_K]

Nobody mentioned "Purple Noon" (Plein Soleil). Canadian DVD is horrible, transfered from a print with burned-in subtitles, that are hard to read because very often the background is white. After buying this DVD I have decided to avoid all Alliance DVDs.

The movie has also English audio track, but you have to watch it with burned-in subtitles. Miramax release in much better.

 

[Josh Dial]

I'll chime in again, first appologizing to Gary, for snapping at him in another thread, it was unwarranted and unfriendly.

I stated in another thread, that I had the oppurtunity to watch The Fast Runner at the University of Calgary this past year, on film. I don't have the greatest memory, but two things struck me as odd. First, the film transfer seemed very washed out, like it was on old stock or something. Second, the sound was less than stellar, though it was playing through well used, though high end speakers (and probably set up wrong).

Zacharias Kunuk (the director) was actually in attendance for the showing, as there was CBC thing going on at U of C that weekend (which i did not attend). Mr. Kunuk was not asked about the quality of the transfer, though I now wished I had asked him. He was however, asked about the DVD (which had just come out a few weeks ago (November sometime). He said he was pleased with how it turned out, though he never mentioned if the transfer was director approved or anything.

I wish I could get a hold of Mr. Kunuk somehow and simply ask him about the transfer. Perhaps someone in the fine arts dept at U of C could pull some (limited) strings I'll check into it.

cheers!

Josh

 

[Gary Tooze]

Josh, I don't think you need to apologize. Being passionate about film is quite common around here, and I do have a tendency to talk down to people. I, myself am quite passionate about adhering to artistic integrity and in regards to Atanarjuat it seems like a no-brainer. I truly do not follow EdH argument AT all.

I want to see what the Zacharias Kunuk saw when he shot this film. I want to see the same colors he did... I want the grass to look as green as what he saw (not brown as in the Alliance)... I want to see the snow as white as he did (not blue-tinged as in the Alliance)... I want to see things as sharp as he did when he was creating this masterpiece. I want to be as close to his vision as possible.. as accurate as I can to what he was seeing, I too, want to see it as he did. To translate his expression to me I must see it as accurately as possible. The statement that the Alliance is how it looked in *some* theaters only makes me feel that the Columbia Tri-Star DVD is actually better than that experience.

The Alliance's washed-out, color manipulated, cropped DVD presentation is a blight on Zacharias Kunuk's vision... a poor, pale representation.

Even if you through Atanarjuat out of the mix, what this thread has concluded is that Alliance does not seem interested in keeping close form to the artistic integrity of the directors films they put on DVD. They are not willing to spend the money, time and effort to reproduce the films in the most accurate method for those who purchase their products. I will continue to condemn them and boycott their DVDs. (/end rant).

 

[EdH]

Josh,

That would be fantastic, I'd love to know what he thinks of the two transfers. I do know that he and Norm Cohn (Director of Photography) are big proponents of digital video, so I wouldn't be surprised if he preferred the Columbia transfer. But I'd still want to hear his thoughts on color, framing, frame rate, video vs. film, the transfer process, etc.

Gary,

It's ironic that you take such a dogmatic stance in regards to a film that champions tolerance and appreciation of other cultures and viewpoints. I can relate to someone who is passionate about aesthetics. I can't relate to someone who calls others' opinions "false" and "absurd". Nor can I understand someone who viciously defends the presentation of an artistic work (in the artist's name, no less) without first knowing the artist's preference. I know you have a vendetta against Alliance, that's fine, they're a crap company that could give two figs about artistic intentions. But it's blinding you to the fact that others don't share your viewpoint. You've been very disrespectful of others' opinions in this matter.

By the way, here are some other films that you may want to lobby to "see as the director saw":

O Brother Where Art Thou
The majority of the landscape shots were digitally altered in postproduction to change the yellows and browns of fall to the greens of summer. How about changing those back?

Sex And Lucia, Bamboozled, Chuck And Buck, Julian Donkey-Boy, Lovely And Amazing, Irreversible
All shot on digital video and transferred to film. Why not campaign to have the original digital video elements released on DVD instead of the current film elements? It's certain that the image and colors on the original DV are truer and sharper than the film elements for all of them, and will be represented better on DVD.

Any black and white film
The director certainly didn't see it in black and white. Maybe we should colorize them.

Good luck with your crusade...

 

[Marc Colella]

By the way, here are some other films that you may want to lobby to "see as the director saw":

What a director "saw" refers to the "vision" in his/her mind - not necessarily just what he physically sees with his own eyes.