Entertainment Weekly Bashes "Angel" DVD's; Digital Bits praises. What gives? (1 Viewer)

[Grant H]

I must say I was very disappointed in last week's Entertainment Weekly (the one with Daredevil on the cover I believe) when they reviewed the Angel: Season 1 DVD's and said soemthing to the effect that the video transfers were horrible.
I had already ordered the DVD's and most likely would have no matter what they said, and haven't yet checked mine out, but wasn't I surprised when today at The Digital Bits Angel recieved an "A" for Video quality. (The program content got an "A" as well)
The folks at the bits are ususally pretty demanding in the video department and I trust them a whole lot more than EW, but am quite upset by this matter.
How many readers will turn away from the set because of this apparently false statement?
I've always wondered about some of their movie reviews, and the cynic in me wonders if it has to do with their Time-Warner affiliation.
I wonder since Angel is a WB series, but is released on DVD by Fox if there's some kind of sour grapes going on. Maybe Warner isn't making as much profit as they'd like from the deal, and is trying to "bite" back.
That or they got a defective set (as could be possible with an early pressing for the press I suppose) or they're watching DVD's on some cheapo $50 DVD player.
I encourage anyone who's happy with the Angel set to encourage everyone else to get the set and fight the negative press out there.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't put much stock in EW's DVD reviews. Technical reviews aren't their specialty, and they don't even tell you what equipment they're using.

I have the Angel set but haven't watched it yet.

M.

 

[Jodee]

I thought EW's main beef with the Angel discs was that the bios said Glenn Quinn was living in Los Angeles when he died in December.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The image on the discs looks superior to the OTA signal I reguarly watch every (now Wednesday) night, up to and including last night's episode

Therefore, I gave it an A

EW is probably rating it like a movie, where there's time to light and perfect every single shot instead of the "setup and move" style you have to use on TV

I'm curious to know what EW gave the Buffy sets, can anyone tell me their exact complaints about the video on Angel?

 

[Grant H]

They said that as well, but saying the episodes look terrible is probably a lot more important to readers than some techie forgetting to update a bio they may never read.
Most people will buy the set to watch the actual show. If they want a bio on an obscure actor they'll go to the Internet.

 

[DeborahK]

Maybe some well timed letters to EW from happy ANGEL Season 1 DVD viewers are in order. I have the set, but have not had a chance to look at any of it yet. (Still working my way happily through BUFFY Season 3 )

Deborah

 

[Scott Kimball]

I've watched the first 3 episodes of Angel season 1.

In my opinion, the picture quality is superior to the first two seasons of Buffy. I would give the video quality at least a "B+". I've seen a few TV series with better transfers, but the Angel sets are above average.

I was not disappointed with the transfer of the episodes I've watched.

-Scott

 

[Grant H]

I'm trying to hold off on watching mine until I can watch the crossovers correctly with Buffy Season 4.
Going to be hard to watch it sit on the shelf, but I have a lot of Babylon 5 and X-Files to go through too.

 

[Adam_WM]

I've been a subscriber to EW for many years. The rule of thumb I use for EW reviews is this:

1) If they give it an "A", it's worth checking out.

2) If they give it anything less, make your own decision. They have given many things that are some of my favorite movies, books, and music things far less than A's.

 

[Citizen87645]

While I am a subscriber to EW I don't put much stock in their DVD reviews. The section tends to evaluate releases based on the quality of the film/show rather than technical quality of the DVD, so it seems more like a means for the mag to revisit films, especially as they provide the original grade given when the film released theatrically. I mostly check that section to read another opinion and for the occasional witty comment. And given the fact they don't give more than a few sentences to most releases, how seriously should one take it?

 

[Dave Mack]

I don't believe them at all. Many times they will say "With a STELLAR, pristine new transfer..." yada yada yada about something that winds up gets bashed all over the net for excessive EE, grain, contrast issues etc....
Press release nonsense and I wouldn't doubt to be politically (studio-wise) motivated...

 

[Michael Hall]

I've made it through the first eight episodes, and to me, it looks better than when I saw some of them on television (I only got to see about six season 1 episodes when they first ran due to WGN dropping the WB back in 1999). The quality of the transfers is light years ahead of the first two seasons of Buffy.

Anybody who is holding off on these discs because of something that EW says is really missing out. Go out there right now and buy it (Angel season 1, not EW)!

 

[Kai Zas]

I've gone through the entire season in one week. I did notice some interlacing artifacts here and there although I do watch on a completely PS setup. It's very noticable when the red on black "Angel" title appears on the screen. During some heavy fighting scenes this was also noticeable. I didn't mind one bit, though. Angel is a great series. (I couldn't wait for Season 2 so I picked up the R2 version... it fits better with my R2 Buffy collection.)

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Since someone mentioned the Buffy transfers, I have a question:

I bought the R2 UK version of Buffy season 1, and the R1 of season 2. It seems to me that the video quality is much poorer on season 2. Is this just because of the superior PAL resolution? Or is there some reason Buffy season 2 doesn't look as good as season 1? I hesitate to ask in the Buffy threads since they're full of spoilers.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Sounds like a perfect example of how reviews with ratings for video quality need to have 2 disctinct categories:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...eed+new+rating

 

[Adam Tyner]

Sounds like a perfect example of how reviews with ratings for video quality need to have 2 disctinct categories:

EW already has the market cornered on arbitrary, meaningless ratings. I don't think they need another set. There's a really great quote in Kevin Murphy's "A Year at the Movies" ranting about the popcorn boxes EW uses for its summer blockbusters for people too lazy to bother reading. I'll probably post it later when I have the book in hand...