Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by RobertR, Apr 27, 2011.
An update from The Digital Bits:
I don't understand why they would waste their time and money with this re-issue. They should cancel the upcoming re-issue and opt for releasing it once the new HD transfer is completed.
Better late than never!
wonder if this will end up being like Gladiator, where you can get the Blu Book, and then exchange it for a correct disc?
Yes, it is very odd that they did not push back the Digibook version for this new master. Did they really have to make that Memorial Day deadline? Does there really have to be 3 separate bluray releases of Patton?
Regardless, I am very happy to hear a better version is coming along. Maybe it will be packaged with a remaster of The Longest Day, which suffered a similar abomination of a release.
This is disappointing news. I do not understand why Fox would re-release such a poor transfer when the remaster is in the works.
In any case, I just canceled my order at Amazon.
Same with me, not a good decision customer service-wise when it comes to producing a quality product.
Jeez, I wonder if Amazon just saw a ton of pre-orders get cancelled? It doesn't make sense to me why they would reissue the "bad" master again with full knowledge that they were going to correct it a few months later. Each release costs money to produce, why wouldn't they just cancel the May release and focus their efforts on the upcoming remaster? Unless of course they have a huge stockpile of discs from the first release that they are sticking into the Blu-ray book to use up the inventory. That would at least make sense.
Most on this forum (and the few others there) probably wouldn't have pre-ordered it until the reviews come out
Those not on these forums would propably have no idea in the first place
That's at least in the neighborhood of 'predatory', no? Yes, those that don't know, don't care. But Fox knows, and they know they have a remaster coming down the pike. Sounds like an ethical issue (for as far as these things go).
I wouldn't say those that don't know wouldn't care. They may care, they just aren't informed. How many Walmart shoppers actually read Disc reviews?
FOX does know, and yes, FOX is probably better off waiting for the remaster. It's sneaky when they know they're releasing a remaster, but remember "Let the buyer beware"
All this does at least suggest that Patton is selling well. The only reason I can think of to rerelease the old version is to avoid losing sales from lack of stock or to take advantage of the anniversary prior to the remaster coming out. Also, my thought on the whole issue of the extra-smooth, nongrain treatment of the original release is that I think Fox fell for the taste test fallacy. That is, I have heard that focus groups were shown grain and nongrain versions of films and chose the nongrain version as the preferred one. However, these types of tests often lead people to focus on some particulary obvious aspect of the sample and single it as their supposed preference even if, over time, they might not really prefer it. Back in the 1970s when Pepsi had the Pepsi challenge, most people said they preferred Pepsi to Coke largely because they focused on the greater sugar in Pepsi. However, over time, people really tend to prefer Coke and now both Coke and diet Coke lead Pepsi in sales (no offense to Pepsi fans).
You are absolutely correct. I first read of the May release not being re-mastered at Digital Bits, but I guarantee most people that live in Sullgent, AL don't read Digital Bits or HTF, but they do go to Wal-Mart.
In addition to the moral issue in releasing this again, it's just a damned stupid business act to deliberately and knowingly flood the market with another zillion copies of a known-to-be-shitty product.
Since we are going to now drag morality into this debate, it should be pointed out that not everyone thinks the current incarnation of Patton on Blu-ray is "shitty", even on these narrowly focused forums where the herd mentality is so prevalent. Among more mainstream consumers, I would speculate the vast majority of those that have seen this disc think it looks terrific.
So, before we go accusing Fox of a lack of morals, perhaps we should step back and consider that, perhaps, Fox is simply marketing a product that has already been a good seller for them.
Agreed that on a
So it's OK to nuke any old film in the mastering suite as long as joe shmoe thinks it looks great?
I have reread my post several time now and I can't seem to find anything that would/should lead one to this conclusion.
Agreed. I honestly believe Fox made a good faith effort on Patton and missed the mark. There's little doubt that transferring film to hi def is an art form and there will be stumbles from time to time. Those who care deeply about every nuance of a transfer can be heartened with the fact that a new transfer is on the way later in the year. For others, this disc will do just fine. Personally, I hope it sells very well. The more Fox makes on Blu, the more for everyone.
Yes, Patton, The Longest Day, and the Predator rerelease were essentially missteps in the in the earlier days of Blu-ray remastering at Fox. This announcement and the fact that subsequent Fox blu-rays avoided the mistake of complete grain removal is essentially an acknowledgment that those releases are now substandard with Fox's current standard of quality for Blu-ray releases (not including their MGM co-releases).
Its just sort of odd that this 5/10 re-release is a more expensive Digibook release compared to the first, which can still be found stocked in most department stores, yet still use the same subpar transfer when the new one is about 6 months off. Makes me curious as to what exactly the Fall/Winter release is going to be (maybe Sound of Music style box with Patton action figures?)