TWILIGHT RELEASES LACK OF INTEREST (1 Viewer)

[Robin9]

With many films, the only chance we'd ever get to see them, were it not for home media, would be on a 35mm print in a re-run cinema. If they go back and scan even unrestored earlier elements, we should be able to get something at least a little better than that.

You make a very good point; one that's frequently overlooked. Oldtimers like me who predate home theater and even VHS, used to catch up on old movies in re-run houses. The prints we saw were often appalling, but although we noticed the faults we accepted them because we really wanted to see these old films. There was no other way. And that's why I am far more tolerant of the less than perfect Olive Film presentations than some other regular posters. I'm used to scratches, dirt, faded color, poor contrast etc. That used to be my staple diet!

 

[bruceames]

I'm glad Olive releases them that way too. Without a restoration, all Olive can to mitigate the damage in the print is to apply DNR and that just dulls down the fine detail. I want to see all the information available that Blu-ray can provide, warts and all.

Also to be fair with Olive, they are getting prints in far worse shape than TT is getting, since with Republic's neglected library, that's the nature of the beast.

 

[Jari K]

"we're supposed to get excited over Sleeping Beauty yet again??"1) The last release was limited (I actually have the unopened 3-disc set - 2 BDs & 1 DVD, lol) so some people didn't get it (and don't want to buy it from Ebay). After all, the first BD release came in 2008.2) Disney collectors. They want every home video release.3) "Hurry! It's limited!" type of people simply have to get it. You know, because it's limited. And it goes back to vault.So I'm sure it sells.

 

[TravisR]

^ They'll also want to tie it into the video release of Maleficent (the upcoming Angelina Jolie movie) in the fall.

 

[davidmatychuk]

Robin9's point about the quality of prints in revival houses is well-taken. The first time I saw "Days Of Heaven" I thought it was great, despite the condition of the print they were showing which, to be charitable, was beat-up. Somehow, with no other options, it seemed good enough.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Agreeing with Robin9 and Yorkshire and Davidmatychuk about revival houses and old prints.

I think those old prints can be glorious, even when they're not in the best shape. I saw a battered print of "Terminator 2" last year, and even though my BD was cleaner, there was something about being in the same room with a physical object that was there when that movie became a giant hit in the first place. Something special about seeing a print that was probably one of many screened for excited audiences who were about to see something unlike anything they had seen before.

I saw a pretty good looking print of "Boogie Nights" last night - it had some scratches and a tiny bit of fading (mostly towards the beginning and end of each individual reel) but on the whole looked great. And the little bit of print damage actually worked with the mood and vibe of the film - made it feel like it was actually from the time period that the story takes place during.

I've picked up a weird quirk in that I'll gladly spend money to see a 35mm print of a film I love, even if I already own it and can watch it for free at home, even if the print is in bad shape, but I almost never will pay to see a pristine DCP of an older film in a theater (especially if I own it). To me, seeing a DCP of an older film in a theater feels no different than if they just popped my Blu-ray disc into a player. They look a little flat and lifeless compared to 35mm prints in my eye.