Do Special Edition DVD re-releases always have a better audio/video master? (1 Viewer)

[Dylan]

My question is that when a DVD is re-released in a Special Edition/Director's Cut format, unless it specifically states on the cover that the movie contains a new soundtrack (i.e. DD EX or DTS ES) and/or a new picture (i.e. widescreen anamorphic), would the sound and picture masters used for the first release be used on the second release as well? For example the Total Recall SE states that the sound and picture have been remasatered for Home Theater standards. While the answer to this question seems self evident to me (no, unless it specifically states that the audio/video have been remastered), I thought I'd put it out there to confirm my thoughts regarding it.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It varies on a case by case basis and you cannot always rely on the promotional copy printed on the box to tell you one way or the other.

Regards,

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

That's a pretty good question. In my experience, special edition re-releases usually have image and sound quality that is AT LEAST as good as the original, if not better. However, there have certainly been at least a few exceptions to this.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Yes and no.

In most cases...there is a lot of improvement. Examples are:

A Hard Day's Night: SE
Singin' In The Rain: SE
Amadeus: Director's Cut
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest: SE
The Wizard of Oz: SE
Nosferatu: SE (Image/Blackhawk)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail: SE

Then again, there are times where you get the same like..

The Quiet Man: SE
High Noon: SE

The Quiet Man is hideous, while High Noon is filtered too much (but thankfully isn't bleeding since it's not color)

Some aren't changed, but for a good reason. Some Like It Hot looks great (with only some ringing and one shot with decomposition) and the same on both the SE and bare-bones editions. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Some Like It Hot looks great (with only some ringing and one shot with decomposition) and the same on both the SE and bare-bones editions.

Some Like It Hot doesn't count in this equation, as the SE wasn't a re-release - both versions came out at the same time...

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Reservoir Dogs SE was different than the original release.

IIRC opinions differed as to which version was better.

 

[Ken Seeber]

A lot of the people feel the transfer on the "Reservoir Dogs" SE was botched, so no.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Some Like It Hot doesn't count in this equation, as the SE wasn't a re-release - both versions came out at the same time...

Not really. The Vintage Classics version came out in 1998 and the SE in 2001.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Not really. The Vintage Classics version came out in 1998 and the SE in 2001.

You sure about that? I recall distinctly that the standard version and the SE hit simultaneously in 2001 - I specifically had to make sure MGM sent me the right one. I'm pretty positive no DVD edition of Hot existed before then - I prepped an AFI 100 page for the site and would have reviewed it before 2001 if it was out there, unless it'd gone out of print. Nonetheless, every bit of evidence I've found says that the Vintage Classics version debuted the same day in 2001 as the SE...

 

[Damin J Toell]

Temperature rising

Looks like it is going to be a good spring for Marilyn Monroe fans, for in addition to the Fox Monroe box set, MGM will be releasing two versions of the classic Some Like It Hot on 5/22. The movie-only edition features a 1.66:1 widescreen transfer, English, French and Spanish mono tracks and subtitles, and the trailer. Retail is $14.95. The special edition, also due the same day, features the same video and audio specs, plus the "A Look Back" documentary with Leonard Maltin and Tony Curtis, and the featurettes "The Sweet Sues (The All-Girl Band)" and even an "Interactive 3-D Hall Of Memories" Retail is $24.95.

DJ

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Then again, there are times where you get the same like..

The Quiet Man: SE
High Noon: SE

The Quiet Man is hideous, while High Noon is filtered too much (but thankfully isn't bleeding since it's not color)

High Noon's "unenhanced" audio track is a big improvement over the original or "enhanced" track. I have not heard the new Quiet Man audio. I don't dispute that the video on both was not significantly different than their predecessors.

I still prefer the video and audio on the Criterion Silence of the Lambs to either the concurrent Image or subsequent MGM releases. The Criterion is not 16:9 enhanced and exhibits more compression artifacts than the MGM, but the color timing on the MGM release is completely different, being both brighter and cooler than the Criterion. Similarly, the MGM sports a 5.1 remix, but I find the Criterion presentation of the original 2.0 pro-logic mix to be more enveloping with, believe it or not, better bass extension.

Regards,

 

[Mitch Stevens]

I've also heard that the "Heathers" DVD that is now anamorphic, is actually much worse than the non-anamorphic one, because the anamorphic one, has done things to get rid of film grain, but because of this, it leaves a very soft, image that no longer has any detail to it.

I've only had the anamorphic one, so I can not really compare the two, and I agree that the picture is just awful. It's way, way, way too soft for my tastes. I think it's the softest picture I have out of all my DVDs.

 

[Clinton McClure]

The newest release of Tombstone is a love/hate relationship. The new soundtrack is much superior to the first one, however there is so much EE added to the picture, it's on the verge of being unwatchable if you are watching it on a very large screen.

 

[Travis_W]

Every special edition I've run across has had a facelift or two in video terms minus Mummy:Ultimate Edition. Don't know about X-Men 1.5 but I heard it was the same.

Damn I wish they would redo the Reservoir Dogs transfer because it had to botched.

 

[Dave H]

The Matrix: SE is an example where it will have the same video/audio quality as the original release. While the original release looks good, I think if it were re-compressed it could look better. There are too many artifacts in it for today's standards.