DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Dragonslayer (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Yeah, Paramount should have let ILM fix the spotty optical composites on this title. It would have made it look a hell of a lot better... but, since this is Paramount we're talking about I guess it's the best we'll ever get.

If it was good enough for the original creators to project on a 50 foot theatrical screen when it was originally produced, it's good enough for me on DVD.

 

[MikeEckman]

I have never seen this film either, but yesterday while I was at my local B&M picking up the Matrix, I saw this on the shelf and picked it up. I didnt even realize it didn't come out til next week until I saw the release date here.

Anyway, after reading the comments here, I am even more eager to check this out this weekend!

For the record, I really liked Dragonheart and liked Reign of Fire, even though Reign of Fire isnt really even a fantasy film, its more of a plain action film with a dragon in it.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Well if (again I use this because it's a great example) Superman The Movie can look a lot better with tweaked optical effects and wire-removal and effects color correction then I think ILM or whoever did the cleanup for Superman should have had a crack at this film.

It had worse compositing than the original Star Wars films because it was done on a much lower budget and quicker time table. I think the effects guys did the best they could at the time, but I'd bet they'd love to have the dragon flying around the clouds without a large force field around it or even mountains with force fields! Even at its best, optical compositing was very hard to do on a very bright background plate. ILM also had trouble on the snow speeders in Empire and they have been trying to fix those optical gaffes in later years.

In this respect I think I would want effects cleanup work with today's technology. I don't mean CGI effects added, just the optical plates digitally re-done.

As we all agree, DragonSlayer is one of the very best fantasy films so far. Paramount should have treated it better. It sounds like they didn't even restore it.

Dan

 

[Gary->dee]

Oh yeah I'll be picking this up. Perhaps not next week because there's far too many other things coming out but this will eventually end up in my collection.

 

[Frank@N]

I hope DS will be priced like some other Paramount catalog titles recently.

I bought 'Nobody's Fool' and 'Leap of Faith' for $8.99 at Kmart recently, if DS is the same I'll pick it up too.

 

[Scott Kimball]

DragonSlayer is one of the very best fantasy films so far. Paramount should have treated it better. It sounds like they didn't even restore it.

Dan, it's funny how you can be so critical of the quality - and of Paramount - when you haven't even seen the DVD you are criticizing.

No... Dragonslayer hasn't been "restored," but it needed no restoration. The print used for the transfer was in gorgeous shape... looking far better than, say, Raiders did before its restoration.

Cleaning up opticals is revisionist, and it is expensive. It is unrealistic to expect that sort of thing on a title that will not have mass-appeal. Frankly, and with all due respect, I prefer Dragonslayer the way it is.

-Scott

 

[Carlo_M]

I have to admit: having been to the studio tours at the various HTF meets you get an idea of how much time and effort and cost is put into even MILD cleaning of a print. There isn't some magic washing machine that you feed film into and it cleans it. These dirt and specks are taken out by hand usually, on a frame by frame basis. Now that doesn't count as "restoration" but it sure as heck takes a lot of time, effort and resources.

As long as the print was in good shape (and it sounds like it was based on the reviews online) and a game effort was made at cleaning it up, then I can't really fault Paramount for a title that will soon be in the $10 and under bin, and won't exactly sell a million copies regardless of whether it had been restored or not.

Bottom line: it's about finances. Sure we'd love every title to be restored, cleaned up, etc. but the bottom line is that the studios would quickly be in the red if they undertook those efforts for every title, particularly the ones that aren't going to be selling like hotcakes.

I for one am just glad that this movie is coming out on DVD in a respectable edition.

 

[rick stein]

YEAH!!! this is a must own. I loved this movie

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to think that digital restoration is a quick and cheap way of 'revitalising' old films. Erasing matte lines from optical shots is extremely time consuming and expensive. George Lucas can afford it and it is at his pleasure to do so, but films like Dragonslayer have a much smaller fanbase and such restoration would not be financially viable. Superman was also sure to be a big, big seller, and was therefore less of a risk.

There are young film fans who don't know what "matte paintings" are, and if films are refurbished in a way that replaces or erases the craft that went into these films, then I think that would be a real shame.

Why not replace the SHODDY effects of King Kong in the classic 1933 film? Or the shark in Jaws? Because craft went into those films - blood, sweat and tears (and money!) and the people who gave those precious bodily fluids for the greater good of Cinema deserve their craft to be left as made it. The effects in King Kong and Jaws work 100% for me, because they are illusion and I get caught up in the fantasy of these films because they are well-made. The effects work. The effects in An American Werefolf In London work brilliantly to this day. The CGI effects in An American Werefolf In Paris most certainly do not! Awful. It's all to do with craft. I'm not a ludite, I embrace new technology in all aspects of life, but only if it used correctly and with thoughtfulness and passion. But I do think that when it comes to movies, the old "movie magic" is the best. Get people working together and interacting and get a buzz going and it will come through on screen. I was so glad when Peter Jackson decided to use lavish sets, miniatures, opticals and CGI to craft Lord Of The Rings. The one thing that computers cannot do on their own is put emotion into movies and music - only nature and people can do that.


Gordy

 

[Craig S]

Gordon - yours is one of the best posts ever on this subject. Well said!

 

[Mark-W]

Gordon and Scott,
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!

While I appreciate some minor digital enhancements to remove the undesired limitations of the effects of the time, I want this movie AS IT WAS, with the special effects circa 1980 and not some souped up "Lucasfied" version.

That people would even dare to whine that this film is not getting costly, digitally-enhanced special effects, when Paramount has clearly gone the extra mile to provide the best print possible while STILL giving us a title that will retail for less the $15.00...

I care about the picture and the sound. Everything else, especially on a "niche title" like this one, is gravy.

They even gave us the original poster art for the DVD's sleeve!!!

Man, what a bunch of whiney, spoiled babies who don't know what the f*@! their bitching about.

 

[David Lambert]

Man, what a bunch of whiney, spoiled babies who don't know what the f*@! their bitching about.

Amen, Brother! I couldn't have put it better myself!!


I've been reading these "Dragonslayer should've had the FX changed for DVD" posts the past days with real anger over the concept.

Look, I just want to enjoy the movie the way it was first presented when it came out. Period. No changes, no bullshit. Just the movie, the way it was when the world fell in love with it. If you want something "more modern", I have a copy of Dungeons & Dragons I can sell ya REAL cheap!


Superman was retouched because it was going back into the theaters. The DVD represents that theatrical re-release version of the film. That's fine. I'm still waiting for the DVD of the original theatrical version that I fell in love with. I realize I'll never get it, though.

 

[Jeff_HR]

Well when this arrives in two days I can retire my two Lds, the WS one & the FS one. I'm looking forward to seeing the DVD.

 

[Kevin M]

Well if (again I use this because it's a great example) Superman The Movie can look a lot better with tweaked optical effects and wire-removal and effects color correction then I think ILM or whoever did the cleanup for Superman should have had a crack at this film.

Oy...Dan I am not going to get into that argument with you yet again...we've had this conversation already in THIS THREAD and damn near every other Dragonslayer related thread (and there have been quite a few) that has come up on the Forum in the last year or so...it's getting old.

You can have your opinion of course but as for my opinion?

Well, let me paraphrase myself from that other thread...
Dragonslayer is what it is and I love it for that fact...it is the best work that the Special Effects team could do at the time and I wouldn't insult the blood sweat & tears that ILM, Phil Tippet, Chris Wallas and everyone else poured into this classic fantasy film by "fixing" the FX one iota.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Where did I say they should "Lucas-fy" DragonSlayer? All I'm saying is that ILM has not been happy with the old optical printing techniques they had at the time. If they were to digitally recomposite the shots from cleaned up camera negatives (many of the people who worked and slaved on DragonSlayer are still in the industry and could be contacted to see if they would have wanted to touch up the opticals as they did with the Indy Trilogy-- very few are bitching about that!), but didn't change anything else. No "Greedo shooting first," no censoring... zero zip nadda... I have absolutely no problem with that. That has absolutely nothing to do with changing the 1933 stop motion Kong with a CGI model, or changing Bruce the shark with another CGI monstrosity.

I hated what they did to E.T., but one thing that did impress me was replacing the go-motion puppets with real kids on bicycles shot on a gimble rig (again with the blessings of Phil Tippett), and the optical cleanup (if all other shots and dialog had remained the same as the original 1983 premiere I wouldn't have sneezed). That looked great. Everything else was a travesty.

Besides, there were two studios behind DragonSlayer, not just Paramount (Disney)... plus Lucasfilm. Perhaps in time (as long as the original participants are around and willing) they will be in a position to pony up for a theatrical release-quality restoration and clean up that will make us proud.

Again, I will buy this DVD on sale.

Dan

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Thanks, Craig, I appreciate your kind words.


Gordy

 

[Edwin-S]

I read his posts and it doesn't sound like he was whining. He stated a preference to see the effects work cleaned up. I also didn't see him state that the effects should be changed. The only thing he seems to want is that the existing effects be cleaned up so that they fit more seamlessly into the film. He is talking about cleaning up a process, not changing or removing the effect.

I guess there had better not be any digital erasures of visible wires when the long awaited SE of BLADE RUNNER comes out. That would be "tampering" with the original teams effects work. Right?

He mentioned the cleanup of the INDY trilogy, and no one seems to be pissed off with that "tampering". What is the difference with this film? The only thing that stands in the way is the cost of cleaning it up. In this case, ROI may not make it financially viable.

 

[David Lambert]

He mentioned the cleanup of the INDY trilogy, and no one seems to be pissed off with that "tampering".

I stated my objection to that a long time ago. No need to belabor the point.

 

[Mark-W]

Edwin-

What is the "public interest" in BladeRunner?

Who stars in it that has name recognition?

Is it a "genre-defining" film?

Answers: Lots of public interest; Harrison Ford; the "Sci-Fi Neo-Noir" film, if there is one.

Can they afford to do a costly restroative
process on BladeRunner, Superman, or
The Indiana Jones Trilogy and sell enough copies on DVD to make it economically feasible?

Would it make sense to do the same, knowing the marketplace for Dragonslayer? No. Not unless one wants to jump the price-per-unit to Criterion style pricing, like one sees on Terminal Station, with an MSRP of $40.00 per unit.

What is the "buzz" (outside of this forum),
or general public awarenes of Dragonslayer?

(Not much, though us fans of it are trying to get the word out.)

While there ARE pros and cons to removing the apparent limitations of special effects of any film, the fact is Paramount took the time to make the video and audio on this DVD the best it could be.

When I read sentances like
"Paramount should have treated this title better,"
I can only think,
"Unless you have the money to donate to pay for the costly digital process to remove the matte lines, then shut your pie hole."

Paramount, from all reports, is giving this film with the best picture and audio we have ever seen for this title on any home video format, are releasing it at a price point of $14.99, and already spent money cleaning up the existing prints that many a studio would've skipped.

I can think of another studio that has been doing a poor job with catalog titles,
AND releasing them with an MSRP of $24.99:
Hello Columbia TriStar (Think "The Awful Truth" with its subpar transfer and at least $19.99 price tag.)

Dragonslayer is a title that will not sell very many units when compared to all the
"high interest" titles that have had costly
digital enhancments. This title is NOT Superman, BladeRunner, or The Indiana Jones Trilogy.

Mark

 

[Kevin M]

I read his posts and it doesn't sound like he was whining. He stated a preference to see the effects work cleaned up.

Edwin, I actually agree with you on the fact that Dan isn't actually "Whining & Bitching" (I personally never said he was BTW) about his want for FX clean up, but in practically every thread dealing with almost any aspect of the film Dragonslayer Dan has chimed in with his "Digital cleanup" pitch and while I understand his desire for perfection in a film that he so obviously Loves, hey I love it too, he isn't actually asking for a little bit of clean-up, in all the other threads he was actually asking for digital recompositing of all the original FX elements. Well, as I said in the other threads before and as some have said here now, that would cost a considerable amount of money to pull off...and whenever someone says this little fact Dan uses his Superman comparison...and whenever he does that we inevitably explain that Dragonslayer isn't Superman and such work would be cost prohibitive for such an semi-obscure flop (at the time).

No offense to Dan is meant, it just gets a little old after a year or so.....plus I really don't mind the matte lines in the film, I meant it when I said the film is what it is and I love it for that.