New Apocalypse Now DVD set this year? (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

This IS a complicated subject because of strange variations. Like I noted, clearly there are some flaws in the 1979 transfer not there in the Redux one, but the 1979 image also isn't simply a rehash of the 1999 DVD. I compared the framing of the "Charlie don't surf" scene and it's different. Perhaps they DID mix and match parts of the Redux and 1999 transfers for this Frankenstein 1979 transfer - I don't know. I do remain convinced that no branching was used - the two versions are too different for that to work, methinks.

Anyway you look at it, it's a nice set, though not a slam-dunk...

 

[andySu]

“You know how hard it is to find a DVD that you like! Just give me a full scope version, I promise I wont hurt you. You know how hard it is to find a DVD that you like!”

 

[Dave Mack]

Didn't the redux DVD use a 3 strip technicolor print or something? Seemed to remember reading that. The colors were more vivid I thought.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Yes, the Redux theatrical prints were dye-transfer.

 

[andySu]

Patrick

And didn’t the DP name the colours something like that, well someone knows?

That’s it I’m off!

 

[Dave Mack]

Thanks Patrick, I kinda knew what I meant but wrote the wrong term!

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I'm guessing that the reason for splitting both films over both discs is that had they put the entire 1979 cut on one disc and split the Redux cut over both, then the segment of Redux that shared a disc with the '79 cut would have been very short, so the disc swap would have come at a strange point.

Just idle speculation.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But why not put 1979 on DVD One and Redux on DVD Two? The original Redux DVD put the movie all on one disc, so there's no reason it needs to be split...

 

[Cory S.]

There is no reason for the split, eventhough after renting this set, I have to get. Circuit City is selling it for 12.99 with an extra disc. I'm sorry, no matter how crappy this set was executed, that's just a great deal.

I hate it but you can't beat the price.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Even though Redux is 201 minutes long, a lot of footage has to be repeated in order to integrate the theatrical cut. You're probably looking at 210-220 min. total, which is way too much to put onto a single DVD-9. Not even Redux should be on just a DVD-9.

 

[mike kaminski]

The reason for the split is to distribute disk space evenly. Without the split it would work out to:
Disk 1: 150 min
Disk 2: 205 min

So Redux would be in much worse condition with a whopping 3.5 hour runtime while the original cut is a mesily 2.5 hours. But combining them both and splitting them across two disk you average out the run times so it is roughly

Disk1: 75 min + 105 min=180 min
Disk 2: 75 min + 105 min=180 min

I am just making up the runtimes but they are probably a good approximation. Have not seen the set so this is just speculatory on my part but this is the best logical explanation.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

But it already IS in its original DVD incarnation! I thought that one looked just fine. I don't know why you're referring to "integrating" the theatrical cut. I advocated putting Redux on one disc and 1979 on the other - no repetition or integration involved...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Again, Redux has already appeared on one disc, so I'm not sure what it's not such a horrible idea.

Also, 1979 wouldn't be alone on its disc - you'd put the extras there. It'd be Redux on one platter, 1979 + extras on the other.

This is all moot, but I'd much prefer that to the current solution...

 

[Miki<>C]

According to the reviews the bit rate is higher needing more space.

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Hey, at least is isn't a DVD-18, right?

 

[Patrick McCart]

It looks alright, but the compression is spotty in really complex shots (like the opening montage). The problem is that roughly 2 1/2 hours are repeated between the two versions. It makes more sense to combine the two cuts since that wasted space can be devoted to more room for the total amount of video.

 

[Jim Peavy]

Ya' know, I always thought "penultimate" meant the ultimate ultimate, too. I just found out a few months ago that it actually means next to last. Yes, there's actually a word that means "next to last". Who knew?

 

[Dave Mack]

I thought that too, Jim!

 

[Sam Favate]

Can anyone who has seen the new release comment on the image quality? Mine shipped the other day, but I have yet to receive it.

 

[Gary Nash]

.

!!!!! ??????
You've got to be kidding, right?
I don't mean to be rude but do you find the declaration of your ignorance to be a cathartic activity?
Of course, you could be replying in an ironic manner, in which case I'll keep a look-out for the irony emoticons next time I dip into this thread.

Oh, and just in case this is interpreted as a thread fart which adds nothing to the debate, let me add a few trusty phrases we all know and love:
"Whooo-hoo, Yeah! this is mine"
"Sweet"
"I'm so all over this"
"I'm not going to double dip on this ultimate edition, I think I'll wait for them to release the penultimate one"