Potentially Good News Regarding Paramount's Future DVD Output (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry, but I didn't have any major quality problems with those titles.




Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin-S]

i find them VERY inconsisent. enemy at the gates, forrest gump, we were soldiers (the unintentional flaws - EE), mission impossible 2 were either very poor or unimpressive. and their earlier titles were no picnic either.
------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot make a value judgement regarding the transfer quality of Forrest Gump or MI2, but Enemy at The Gates and We Were Soldiers looked very much the same on DVD as they did in the theatre. IMO, the transfers on those two films reflect the theatrical presentation very well.

 

[Greg_M]

Quote:

Fact of the matter is, I can't figure out this
business anymore. In my opinion, all of the
studios have their flaws. Just about all of
them have sold out to the lowest common buyer.

DVD has become the same as any other product you can purchase at a Walmart or supermarket. The studios are trying to sell one product to everyone. Just like VHS. Laser and early DVD was a high end niche market, but not any longer. When selling to the masses you must aim at the lowest common buyer, it's just plain business, that's all.

 

[Dave Mack]

Just popped in "Gump"... check out the opening credits. QUITE a bit of EE.There is a white font with a black "shadow". Next to that the EE clearly rears it's ugly head. Throughout the whole Film, but easily spotted in this bit.
:frowning: D

 

[Paul Linfesty]

GATSBY was in stereo in theatres? Where? AFAIK, GATSBY was strictly optical mono. I never heard of any mag prints made on this title.

As far as different music being used in part of the film, I think that had to do with music rights issues.

 

[Dave_P.]

I bought laserdiscs for years before DVD came around and 90% of them were literally "movie-only," but they were OAR and looked and sounded great. I was happy as a pig in shite. Movie-only DVD's that are OAR and look and sound great at half the price and size of LD? Happier then a whole pigpen of pigs in shite! I still consider them part of my "collection."

 

[Andy_MT]

i think paramount might have used on older master for their forrest gump release. it wasn't just the EE. all the fine detail was absent and it just took on a more 98/99 vintage look to it. to me it didn't fit in with the current day quality transfers out there (including paramounts'). i wonder if they had plans to release gump back in the early days, but didn't and released later and ended up using the orignal master. i think they did the same with grease, so it's possible. just speculation though.

however, paramount should be thanked for their commitment to OAR. i'd rather have lower quality OAR than a high quality pan and slice. i think sometimes we loose sight of this admidst all the mud slinging.

still, i hope this inconsistency (IMHO) can be resolved when Tom Lesinski takes over.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Robert, I certainly concur.
I'd really like to know what problems folks have with the Mission Impossible 2 transfer. The color saturation on this title is beautiful. It still is one of the cleanest and most film-like transfers in my entire collection and I still use it as a demo disc for the stunning colors on display in this film ( perhaps only exceeded by a few discs in this capacity. )
It's been awhile, but I also don't recall any problems with Enemy At The Gates. Another clean transfer that reflects the theatrical presentation quite well.
To reiterate what others have said in this thread, Extras are just that - extra. I've never seen a supplement yet, outside of trailers, at a theatrical showing. Paramount has produced a number of fine discs and to date, they have been one of my favorite studios for catalog releases, in terms of image quality and dependability regarding OAR issues.
- Walter.

 

[Eugene Esterly]

Secondly, they don't release Director's Cuts or NC-17 films to DVD.

IMO, Paramount should change this rule. IMO, I believe that movie should be on DVD in their uncut format. That main reason why I don't own the Friday the 13TH movies are becuase the DVD's don't contain the uncut versions.

 

[David Lambert]

Reading this thread, I am reminded of an old experience of mine.

Once upon a time, when I was a retail store manager, my Assistant Mgr., who was otherwise wonderful, was coming across as if she had some bad personality traits that I won't go into here.

In my counseling session with her, I dreamed up these words of wisdom on the spot, and I think they apply to Paramount here:

You have a problem. You either have the problems everyone claims you do, or you have the problem that people PERCEIVE that you have these problems, because they believe their own eyes. Either way, whichever is the problem, this is your problem to solve. Fix it.

Reading this thread, people obviously perceive that Paramount has an issue, or issues. Perhaps that had something to do with the change of leadership; I wouldn't know. But I hope our friend Martin has security where he's at, and is able to continue to do the best job possible with the resources and direction given.

Perhaps the new El Presidente' will allow people to perceive that this studio continues to have great transfers with OAR availability, and will have enough resources to put out more films and TV shows on DVD, in their original edits AND - in some cases where appropriate - in the director's intended original vision. These DVDs should be available with competitive pricing and supplements. If necessary, old releases that did not meet this criteria might be revisited.

It sounds like that's what everyone wants.

 

[Robert McLay]

Walt:
I know I will probably get bashed for this, but your comment relating the DVD's to cars is not a very good analogy at all. Because Paramount is a large corporation they should put out the best transfer possible at all times, I agree. But then when you start talking about extras, you make it seem like they should just be thrown in. That isn't how it is at all. I have a Chevy Prizm, that has no power windows, with very little extras - because I was unwilling to pay for them because I am a very poor student:frowning: . Now when I bought the car I would not have expected it to handle like a corvette, or have the amenities of a Lexus. I bought a chevy because I couldn't afford the extras.
Now that being said, I just wanted to point out it was a fairly bad analogy. I agree that Paramount has lacked in the "extras" that show up on other disc's quite often. But, I also agree that they put out consistently good transfers, which I can't say about other DVD's that I own, that is before I found Ron's Reviews
Rob

 

[Randy A Salas]

It would be great to get some of the Paramount musical films, hopefully now that "Chicago" is a hit the studio will release them.

Off subject, but Chicago has a long way to go before it can be called a hit. It cost $40 million to make, not including marketing, and has made only about $17 million to date. It's still not in that many theaters but is unlikely to go much wider unless it gets a huge boost from the Oscar noms or does particularly well overseas.

 

[Dan Lindley]

I would greatly appreciate a Star Trek series TOS release in season or mega-set format at about 1/2 the current price. Maybe the new direction will help this happen. MB said on another forum that there were no plans for this. But things change (I hope), so who knows?

As for DVD going downhill or going to the lowest common denominator, there are several folks saying that these days. But I'd like to hear the counter-arguments: look at all the great SEs. What of LOTR extended? A lot of folks seem really pressed to put out great editions. What of directors who plan for the DVD when they are filming? And how long do we have to wait until wide-screen TVs start driving the market? And isn't the market getting so big that studios can make money releasing in OAR and MAR formats? And what if actors charge more for extras... DVD sales are skyrocketing and if extras drive that, then it is market forces at work.

All I want are good OAR 16x9 transfers. On one of the sides of the disk.

I can't wait to see those issues discussed... I'm not so sure things are looking so bad. Dan

 

[Greg_M]

"Chicago" had the largest gross per screen last week at a limited number of theaters. The second week it opened in 300 theaters, Miramax is planning to open wide Feb 7th. Since it isn't on 3,000 screens it's doing extremely well. Granted it will never do the business of "Spiderman", "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings", but for it's target audience it will do very well. Especially if it wins the Golden Glode next week.

 

[Bob Black]

I remember when Paramount released their first wave of DVDs, including Face/Off, The Saint, and Star Trek - First Contact. I found them in a store an incredible TWO WEEKS before street date. The transfers on all these titles were incredible! Despite a short period when they decided to forego anamorphic enhancement, Paramount has been the studio MOST COMMITTED to quality 16x9 transfers! I would prefer a studio set higher MSRP prices and produce the best quality picture and sound than release a "budget line" like Warner and Buena Vista with lousy pictures and no OAR! Look at older titles like Marathon Man, The Parallax View, King Kong (1979), Don't Look Now - they are fantastic transfers for 20 - 30 year old films. I only hope they continue their great transfers. More special editions would be nice, but the most important factor for me is the film itself.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I have NEVER paid $25.00 for a single disc DVD in the 3+ years I have been buying.

You must not own any Criterion Collection DVD's!

 

[Jack Briggs]

The discs were aound $11 each where I bought them. Each disc contains two hours (i.e., two episodes) of original-series Star Trek (as well as the preview trailers), looking and sounding better than I've ever before experienced (including a few times on 16mm projected film). A tremendous value (most Hollywood movies are about two hours long). They're among my favorite discs.

 

[Dave H]

You must not own any Criterion Collection DVD's!

Actually, I do; but they are 2-disc sets, not a one-discer.

 

[Andy Olivera]

The two things I don't like about Paramount:

1. They won't release the F13 films uncut.
2. Their prices aren't the least bit competative.

Now, the F13 thing doesn't bother me much, as I'll just hold off until they do release them unrated, but pricing is a major issue.

I don't have a problem paying $25 for a DVD, considering that LDs used to start at $40. What makes the difference is that I can get two DVDs for that same $25 from just about any other studio. Not a very difficult decision, I'm afraid.

When they drop their catalogue titles to $20 retail(so I can pick them up for $15), their presence in my collection may go beyond a measley 3%. Until then, I'll probably just be buying the Star Trek films...

 

[Walt Riarson]

Well, I thought my car analogy was okay. haha. Oh well.

Anyway, I guess a majority of people are split over the problems Paramount may or may not have.

I do know this though, people I know who aren't DVD experts and who don't visit forums like this regularly have come up to me saying things like "I bought Major League II on DVD the other day. I would've bought the first one but it was 20 bucks."

So at the very least, we do know that "Joe Six-Pack" is also aware of how expensive Paramount's discs are. Whether they've made a connection to understand that all Paramount titles are priced high, I'm not sure. Probably not. Not very many people pay attention, nor care what studio releases what. However, regardless of what they know or don't know, there are a lot of people out there who won't buy Paramount discs because of their price/content.

I don't expect a full-blown Special Edition of every movie ever made. Granted, I'd love it, but it's just not a realistic goal in the least.

However, when a filmmaker and others involved are willing to work on a Special Edition, and the studio turns a deaf ear, then you have to wonder why. Since someone else already brought it up, I'll use Friday the 13th as an example. 3 or 4 years ago, before Friday the 13th was released on DVD, Tom Savini was contacted by someone at Paramount about preparing extra materials for the upcoming DVD release. Savini did as he was told. He put together home movies he'd filmed behind the scenes and a whole bunch of rare still-shots. However, after the initial phone call, Savini never heard from Paramount again. I don't know if there was a shift in management during that time, or if the person who called Savini did so without speaking to higher management or what, but for whatever reason, Paramount, even with the help of one of the people involved, didn't want to include anything on the release.

This is the kind of thing that I believe has given Paramount the mixed name it has within the world of DVD enthusiasts.

We're glad they give us what they give us, but we can't help but wonder what might have been if the said film had been released by another studio.

Example: What if Fox had released Better Off Dead? What if Anchor Bay had done Friday the 13th?