"The DVD Comes of Age": Tomorrow's NY Times Arts & Leisure section (1 Viewer)

[Carl Miller]

I was very happy to read in this special that Wiseguy is coming out on DVD soon. For those who never saw it, if you're into organized crime drama, it's well worth a look.

 

[george kaplan]

Beware that it is believed due to an unwillingness to pay for the music rights that the ending of arc 1 (with Sonny Steelgrave) is going to have a different song which is really going to play havoc with that scene. :frowning:

 

[David Lambert]

Dave, you must have missed this article then. It should be more to your liking. (Still no quotes from Gord but there are some from Mr. Staddon and a Warner rep)

Yes, it's a bit better, and yes, I had missed it. Thanks.

 

[Dan Lindley]

What was wrong in that photo of Space 1999 in one of those articles? They said "and this is an example of how DVDs can make something worse" (or somesuch) but they never explained what was so bad (I didn't see it anyway).

That's bad writing. I'm taking my megaset and going home.

d

 

[Michael Reuben]

I think the author was referring to the overall quality of the show itself -- a point on which, obviously, opinions may vary.

M.

 

[Dan Lindley]

Hi Michael,

Surely, the reviews and opinions of Space 1999 vary, and many find it dry, scientifically wrong, etc. But in my reading the NYT piece's comments were about how the format of the DVD made the show worse. Maybe the author didn't have the childhood appreciation which may color my views, but here are the quotes from the piece:

"A scene from "Space 1999," which demonstrates how a bad show's flaws can be magnified on DVD." and

"(One caveat: a DVD of "Space 1999" may sound like fun, but in practice a bad show's flaws are grotesquely magnified when watched in a thrilling high-quality format.)"

Now, this surely supports your position that the author is commenting on the overall show itself, but I think the author is also in some unexplained way trying to show, and without showing how, the format of DVD makes things worse.

I just don't see how DVD makes it better or worse. As you say, YMMV viz the show. But does DVD make it worse? Perhaps the effects age, etc.

Here's a fairly objective question: could the DVDs be made better? I'm no expert on this, nor on any Laser or VHS versions that came prior. If the DVDs are ok, then the NYT is wrong to blame the DVDs for the (unexplained) things they think are wrong with the show itself.

 

[Michael Reuben]

"A scene from "Space 1999," which demonstrates how a bad show's flaws can be magnified on DVD."

That's a picture caption, not a quote from the article. Authors generally don't write the picture captions; I suspect this one was written by an editor who misinterpreted the author's remarks.

M.

 

[Ted Todorov]

"(One caveat: a DVD of "Space 1999" may sound like fun, but in practice a bad show's flaws are grotesquely magnified when watched in a thrilling high-quality format.)"

That quote (which is from the article) seems pretty self explanatory to me -- bad SFX, sets, costumes, acting are all magnified by the sharp, commercial free, attention demanding DVD format. As DVD starts to scrape the bottom of the barrel, (and Space 1999 isn't exactly cream) we will see more and more of that.

Ted

 

[Dan Lindley]

Ted's comments are what the article should have made explicit. Regardless of what one thinks of the show, it is interesting to think of when DVDs might make something worse, instead of better... For example, perhaps one might make the same comments for some of the weaker ST-TOS episodes (tho I haven't seen the disks, and won't until boxsets). ST-TNG looks great on DVD. So does UFO and Thunderbirds. That's why I (personally, IMHO, and all that) am a bit miffed at the NYT's lines.

Oh well, that's what makes horseraces....

DL

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

That was so bad. If you don't like something and are asked to review it, how can it possibly come out favorable?

'99 had a very specific audience. Reviewers are supposed to be objectinable too, but give me a break! Anyone can say that the sets were (insert word here), but TOS had ones that weren't any better. How about Lost in Space?

Again, the whole article is screwed up.

Glenn

 

[Andy_G]

Huh??? Did you mean "objective?"

 

[PaulHeroy]

I haven't read the original article, but it seems obvious to me that the flaws they are saying DVD magnifies are the technical flaws in the picture, not the content of the show itself. They are absolutely right that the better resolution of DVD clearly shows some flaws that were not as visible with VHS. It's just like listening to a SACD or even a good CD vs an MP3 or AM broadcast of a song. Flaws such as limited bandwidth, noise etc. in older material won't be noticed nearly as much in a low resolution format as a higher res format.

 

[Seymour Uranowitz]

...a bad show's flaws are grotesquely magnified...

[emphasis added]

Having read the article, I don't think the reference was merely to its technical flaws. Use of the term "bad show" pretty clearly indicates a low opinion of the overall production -- artistically, technically and otherwise.

 

[Dan Lindley]

Setting aside opinions on the quality (like-ability) of Space 1999 or other shows, I'm guessing this discussion reveals a bit about different folks' willingness to tolerate various technical flaws, flaws in sets, etc.

For me, I very easily suspend disbelief and forgive shows that I like for their transgressions (including, and perhaps esp TOS).

So DVD may magnify some problems, but for shows I like, I vote: so what, no big deal. I'm just happy, sometimes so happy, to have old faves on my shelf, ready for me and my kids.