Legend - SPECS! (1 Viewer)

[Horatio Jones]

Horatio, since the US theatrical cut was an abortion that I believe was cobbled together by the studio, wouldn't you think Mr. Scott would want the time spent on his TRUE version of the film?

Jeff,
I'm not saying Ridley shouldn't have labored over the Director's cut and made it awsome. But to not even give the original cur with the Tangerine Dream soundtrack a 5.1 offering is sad and inexcusable. I mean hell I would taken DD 3.0 or 4.0, but simple DPL, that just sucks.

 

[GlenH]

IMO always better to give the viewer a choice rather than force them to adopt something. however, what does bother me is that the Theatrical Release version is only in Dolby Surround while the Directors cu gets DD 5.1 and DTS.

Horatio, this isn't directed specifically at you, but, why is it that people typically freak out over changes to OAR or added scenes on a DVD release because they demand that they get exactly the film they saw in the theater, yet, when it comes to the soundtrack, it is not only OK, but demanded that the movie include a DD5.1 and DTS sound track when the original movie didn't have either?

IMO, I think it makes perfect sense to deliver the directors cut with the 5.1 channel sound tracks and the original movie with its original Dolby Surround sound track.

Glen

 

[Horatio Jones]

Horatio, this isn't directed specifically at you, but, why is it that people typically freak out over changes to OAR or added scenes on a DVD release because they demand that they get exactly the film they saw in the theater, yet, when it comes to the soundtrack, it is not only OK, but demanded that the movie include a DD5.1 and DTS sound track when the original movie didn't have either?

Glen you make a good point, but IF that was the case, then ALL movies should be released as the theatrical way. Which means movies like Rocky, the Bond flicks, Wall Street, etc. should be released to DVD as STEREO or in some cases MONO.
Doing this does not take advantage of the DVD medium. Since you and I know that one of the main reasons we buy DVD is the superb sound, if director's were to release movies to DVD in the Original Sound why would we buy DVD?

 

[GlenH]

Glen you make a good point, but IF that was the case, then ALL movies should be released as the theatrical way. Which means movies like Rocky, the Bond flicks, Wall Street, etc. should be released to DVD as STEREO or in some cases MONO.

Doing this does not take advantage of the DVD medium. Since you and I know that one of the main reasons we buy DVD is the superb sound, if director's were to release movies to DVD in the Original Sound why would we buy DVD?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problems at all with old movies being released in DD5.1 and DTS. However, if a 5.1 sound track was not available in the original, and one isn't offered on the DVD, I don't see it as much of a problem. Sometimes, it just seems wierd to watch an old movie in DD5.1. For instance, the chariot race scenes from Ben Hur were pretty impressive in DD5.1. But, it also seemed strangely out of place. Just my opinion. But, I do see your point. If it's not too much trouble, they should just offer both original and new 5.1 sound tracks just to give people the option.

I'm not too much of a purist, but I just find it slightly hypocritical when some HT enthusiasts (again, not singling you out) pick and choose what they believe should be preserved vs. what shouldn't. Another example of this is watching 1.33:1 material in ANY strech mode on 16x9 TVs. Practically everyone does this when the reality is, not only is the material being presented in the incorrect format with various degrees of stretching, but significant portions of the movie may be cut off from the top and bottom. Yet, when a movie like Apocalypse now was released in a very slightly different aspect ratio than was shown in the theaters, these very same people got all in a tizzy. Same thing with how many 1.85:1 DVDs are actually cropped to 1.78:1 for DVD release. People complain about this, then gleefully watch 4x3 stuff in stretched and crop mode.

 

[Horatio Jones]

Glen once again excellent points. People to often pick and choose when, where, and what they want preserved. Me just give me any wide screen aspect ration and at a minimum 5.1. I could care less if the OAR was 1.78:1 and the DVD has it as 1.85:1. Too often I feel as if we are splitting hairs.

 

[Chris Dugger]

Well....

Let me chime in here with a question.....

Region 2 just saw a release of LEGEND. This is an 89 minute version with the GOLDSMITH score.

Certainly this must be the European cut which not be included on the new Region 1 release, no?

Dugger

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Certainly this must be the European cut which not be included on the new Region 1 release, no?

Correct. To be a completist the R2 is necessary, since the original European cut won't be included on the R1.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

This press release gave me goose bumps. I cannot believe that I'll finally get to see all the cut scenes from this movie!!!!! Well, "cut" from the American release... You know what I mean.
One thing that confuses me a little. I was under the impression that the original UK theatrical release had a running time of over 2 hours. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? (If this is the case, I'm also dying to get a look at the Lost Scenes feature!)
On May 21st, I'll be doing something that we movie freaks almost never get to do; I'll be watching a movie that I've seen before...yet I'll be seeing it for the first time.
I'm still somewhat irked that this title was delayed so many times, but I'll be the first to thank Universal Home Video and offer a grateful "better late than never"!
May 21st simply cannot come quickly enough for this pathetic movie addict!

 

[Bryan Tuck]

One thing that confuses me a little. I was under the impression that the original UK theatrical release had a running time of over 2 hours. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

The original rough cut was just over 2 hours. This was fine-tuned to just under 2 hours (this is the "director's cut" that will be on the DVD). This version was test-screened in LA, and the results were disappointing to the studio(s). After that about 20 minutes were removed from the UK version, and it was released at about 94 minutes (along with some severe and choppy editing to Goldsmith's music). Then Universal made even more changes and released an 89-minute version with the Tangerine Dream score. Also, you might check out this site; they can give you a lot more info than I can.
Hope all that helps a tad.

 

[cafink]

Doing this does not take advantage of the DVD medium. Since you and I know that one of the main reasons we buy DVD is the superb sound, if director's were to release movies to DVD in the Original Sound why would we buy DVD?

Well, I can't speak for you or for anyone else here on the forum, but personally, I don't buy DVDs because of superb sound. I buy DVDs because I like the movies on them. If the movie on a particular DVD happens to be one with a mono or a stereo soundtrack, then a mono or stereo soundtrack is what I want to hear from the DVD.

 

[todd stone]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the torture!

 

[Horatio Jones]

Well, I can't speak for you or for anyone else here on the forum, but personally, I don't buy DVDs because of superb sound. I buy DVDs because I like the movies on them. If the movie on a particular DVD happens to be one with a mono or a stereo soundtrack, then a mono or stereo soundtrack is what I want to hear from the DVD.

Carl, then why even buy DVD? Why not just buy VHS? I mean the players are cheaper and so are the tapes?

 

[cafink]

Carl, then why even buy DVD? Why not just buy VHS? I mean the players are cheaper and so are the tapes?

What makes you think I don't buy VHS tapes? I said before that I like to watch movies in their original form. A VHS tape typically doesn't preserve a movie's original aspect ratio, but if it does, there's no reason I wouldn't purchase it.

 

[Horatio Jones]

I'm not saying you don't, I was just posing the question. I mean why have a DVD player and a VHS player? Why have DVDs and VHS tapes? Seems kinda silly since the sound and video is only secondary to the original aspect ration and sound. Heck you might as well sell your DVDs and DVD player and go buy more VHS movies that hold the original ratio and sound.

 

[cafink]

Heck you might as well sell your DVDs and DVD player and go buy more VHS movies that hold the original ratio and sound.

If my collection was limited to movies which have OAR VHS tapes available, it would be about 1% of the size it is now. I can't "buy more VHS movies that hold the original ratio and sound" because there aren't very many VHS tapes that do.

 

[Sam Hatch]

Yeah, if I didn't own a VCR I wouldn't have been able to watch the Legend euro-cut all of these years. Well, I could've shelled out for the Japanese import LD but it was always out of stock when I tried. The VCR is a still a good friend!

 

[TheoGB]

Err Horatio, here is a list of reasons why (IMnot-so-HO) DVD is better than VHS, all of which lie above sound:

VHS tapes are typically very quickly made, from inferior prints, and therefore do not look good or last very long.

You can't get anamorphic output, therefore you have lower resolution on widescreen films (if you have 16x9 TV like I do)

You get extra value such as commentaries, deleted scenes, making ofs, which while not specifically part of 'the movie' can still be of great interest if there's a particular part of the film you want to know more about. Or (for me) are probably the main reason to buy DVDs.

And I'd also say that DVDs are better than VHS because of their compact nature and durability, meaning you are more likely to share with mates. Not sure this is more important than sound, but there you go.

 

[Horatio Jones]

theo I am not arguing that DVD offers enhanced picture, deleted scenes, commentary, etc. but I think that one of the main reasons people get into HT is the whole 5.1 aspect. and you can't get 5.1 on a VHS. my point was simply the sound on DVD is superior to that of VHS and is a reason people will opt for DVD over VHS. you and I could argue this point for eternity, but without actually asking every single person we won't know if the enhanced sound quality and multi channel presentation was a reason people chose DVD or VHS.

 

[TheoGB]

Sorry. I failed to quote. I was really referring to this statement of yours:

Carl, then why even buy DVD? Why not just buy VHS? I mean the players are cheaper and so are the tapes?

I was listing reasons why Carl might well still have a DVD instead of VHS.

Your argument appeared to be that if it wasn't 5.1 sound you were after then there was no reason to have a DVD.

Moreover, I like the sound from DVD but then I am a 2.0 user only. I have no sound system. Doesn't matter, the quality of a 2-channel digital DVD soundtrack beats the hissy quality of VHS so it's still a factor.

 

[cafink]

And that's not to mention that the original soundtrack for a lot of films is 5.1! VHS certainly wouldn't preserve the original track in those cases.