Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 6, 2006 16:12:00 GMT -5
Considering the commentary tracks, all of the extra stuff you get plus the restorations they do ( real restorations, not like those that Legend does) I think Criterion discs are worth the money. And considering I don't give a rats ass about bonus features, no they're not. I buy DVDs for the movie. If they want to overcharge me, they can kiss my ass. Think about it more. If Criterion did release it, then technically it would be in print.
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Jul 6, 2006 18:19:42 GMT -5
Maybe it's time to write to Criterion about doing a disc with the missing footage and commentary like only they can do? So I can overpay for a movie that's in print rather than overpay for a movie that's out of print? I think not. In print but region 2 forrestcrow.proboards47.com/index.cgi?board=deep&action=display&thread=1135232928&page=4 Head on over to eBay and pick up a cheap all-region player. That way you can play those Chinese and Korean boots also.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Jul 10, 2006 8:32:20 GMT -5
Think about it more. If Criterion did release it, then technically it would be in print. Think about taking that attitude and sticking it. Your sentence talked about not buying a Criterion one when it was already in print...as if you had a choice of two - which I don't consider the German version a choice since you have to buy a new DVD player in order to watch it (making as or more expensive than a Criterion disc). (PS - Sky....I've never seen a boot on eBay that the disc itself wasn't an "All Region" disc itself and didn't require a special player)
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 10, 2006 11:02:08 GMT -5
Your sentence talked about not buying a Criterion one when it was already in print...as if you had a choice of two - which I don't consider the German version a choice since you have to buy a new DVD player in order to watch it (making as or more expensive than a Criterion disc). Never in my sentance did I state that. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jul 12, 2006 7:07:22 GMT -5
Criterion wouldn't put MST3k:TM out on DVD. It's a nice thought, but it ain't gonna happen.
I suggest everyone email/mail Universal about it (fans seem to get more accomplished in the CC days, eh?). If they do decide to reissue it, I highly doubt we'll get any extras. ::sigh::
|
|
|
Post by Isaac on Jul 22, 2006 0:49:34 GMT -5
Considering the commentary tracks, all of the extra stuff you get plus the restorations they do ( real restorations, not like those that Legend does) The Legend releases ARE real restorations. The Legend releases only cost less because they restore and colorize films that are in the public domain, so no money is spent on rights.
|
|
|
Post by Famous Mortimer on Jul 29, 2006 0:50:03 GMT -5
Maybe it's time to write to Criterion about doing a disc with the missing footage and commentary like only they can do? So I can overpay for a movie that's in print rather than overpay for a movie that's out of print? I think not. You may not have said it explicitly, but your sentence makes no sense otherwise. You're implying, strongly, that it's already in print somewhere and the Criterion Collection would be in competition with it. Just sayin'.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Jul 29, 2006 11:29:45 GMT -5
So I can overpay for a movie that's in print rather than overpay for a movie that's out of print? I think not. You may not have said it explicitly, but your sentence makes no sense otherwise. You're implying, strongly, that it's already in print somewhere and the Criterion Collection would be in competition with it. Just sayin'. Bullsh*t. Let's take a look at what I said: "So I can overpay for a movie that's in print rather than overpay for a movie that's out of print? I think not." 1. It's sarcasm.2. "So I can overpay for a movie that's in print" makes perfect sense. Criterion over charges, and should they release it, it would be in print. Never did I imply that it's already in print and am merely stating that I refuse to pay so much for a movie even if it can't be found anywhere else. That's why I still don't own the movie, the asking price for the OOP DVD is outrageous. True, Criterion's price would be miles better, but it would still be enough to get my blood boiling.
|
|
|
Post by Cerrita on Aug 2, 2006 13:41:21 GMT -5
The movie is NOT pan-and-scan. It was shot open-matte, with the intention to be matted in theaters. At the risk of sounding like a moron... what does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by mrtorso on Aug 3, 2006 1:48:22 GMT -5
Wait a minute, how does this make MST3K any more likely than before? I wasn't aware there was ever a problem with releasing This Island Earth on DVD. Anyone wanna fill me in? Universal made a deal with Image Entertainment allowing Image to mass produce a certain number of movies they own as DVDs - MST3K: The Movie and This Island Earth among several others I don't know the names of were all included in this contract. When Image released the movies, Universal had some kind of problem with what they were charging for them and filed a lawsuit. The judge hearing the case issued an order that all of the titles mentioned in the contract had to be withdrawn from the market and kept off until the case was settled. Now - since one of the titles is being re-released - it's fair to assume all of the movies in dispute can be re-released. Image licensed 50 titles from Universal. After a period of release at one SRP Image (like a good company should) dropped the list prices to 14.99 or so. Universal sued saying that Image's license for the titles did not allow them to do that and they won. All 50 went out of print. Universal has released many of the 50 since they went out of print. (They Live/Breakfast Club/Sixteen Candles/Prince of Darkness and more) This Island Earth is not the first. If they wanted to release MST3K:TM they could in a heartbeat. --Ian
|
|
|
Post by travis on Aug 3, 2006 10:26:19 GMT -5
The movie is NOT pan-and-scan. It was shot open-matte, with the intention to be matted in theaters. At the risk of sounding like a moron... what does that mean? After the introduction of 2.35:1 widescreen-filmed movies, a cheaper method was created afterwards that used the 1.33:1 process (which was a lot cheaper), this image was then "matted" (masking, or basically cutting off some of the top and some of the bottom) so then it could be projected in theaters as widescreen. 1.85:1, 1.66:1 or 1.75:1. "Widescreen" TVs are just 1.77:1. Most of the movies shot in this process could also be projected 1.33:1, that is, "open-matte". This was also good for TV and video presentations, since (most of time) they wouldn't need to panNscan/crop the image. You can notice this sometimes if there appears to be extra "head room" in the image. Finally, some movies are "hard-matted" at 1.85:1, which means they were not intended to be shown 1.33:1/open-matte.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Aug 29, 2006 8:10:32 GMT -5
Considering the commentary tracks, all of the extra stuff you get plus the restorations they do ( real restorations, not like those that Legend does) The Legend releases ARE real restorations. The Legend releases only cost less because they restore and colorize films that are in the public domain, so no money is spent on rights. That's why with the Rifftrax of NOTLD or Reefer Madness you can pick up just any old DVD version out there and the audio will fit? And there's a good explaination of the aspect ratio of these films in this review: "The argument about the correct Aspect Ratio for the Universal Science Fiction films of these years (1953-57) has been renewed by a just-announced Classic Sci Fi Ultimate Edition set to be released in September. Universal has foolishly put out a press release claiming that 1:33 is the correct AR for these films. That's simply not the case; the studio just wants to avoid the extra expense of creating multiple transfers for older library titles. I've seen most of these films under original conditions and even prepared some for projection. Let me try to outline the facts. The years 1953 through 1955 saw an exhibition transition brought on by CinemaScope. Flat films originally shown 1:37 were matted to 1:66 and finally as wide as 1:85 and called "widescreen." The Universal handouts for It Came from Outer Space say that it is in 'widescreen', which indicates at least 1:66. In practice, all of these films were exhibited at different ARs depending on whether or not individual theater screens had been updated. There's a wide discrepancy between: 1) The Aspect Ratio intended by the director of photography (which could be superceded by the studio), 2) The studio's records, 3) Projection instructions accompanying the prints themselves and 4) The information handed out in suspect publicity announcements. Often negating all the above, the exhibitors showed the films in whatever way they felt like showing them, anyway! I've found that the best rule of thumb to determine a film's intended aspect ratio is to look at the credit blocks in the film's main titles. All of the Universal productions from 1954 on have relatively wide title blocks, enabling them to be screened as wide as 1:85 if desired, although most look best at 1:66 or 1:75. The underwater 3D scenes in The Creature from the Black Lagoon aren't very attractive when cropped wider than 1:66. For a few months in 1954 and the early part of '55 Daily Variety reviews spelled out official aspect ratios for individual releases: The Atomic Kid is listed as 1:85, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: 2:55, Revenge of the Creature, This Island Earth: 2:1, Conquest of Space, It Came from Beneath the Sea, Creature with the Atom Brain: 1:85. Then the magazine breaks off its reportage, probably deciding they were adding to the confusion rather than making things clearer. I think that This Island Earth might be rather tight at 2:1, but the title blocks certainly support 1:85. In any case, Universal Home Video's 'official' announcement that the original AR of these films was 1:33 is hooey. Their fallback justification for the claim is probably that the image on the film prints fills out the entire 1:37 Academy frame. If a studio person actually gives that as a reason, we'll know for sure that they don't know what they're talking about. Until then, we always have the ability to enlarge and mask off flat transfers on our widescreen monitors. They just won't look as good."
|
|
|
Post by Isaac on Aug 29, 2006 14:36:14 GMT -5
That's why with the Rifftrax of NOTLD or Reefer Madness you can pick up just any old DVD version out there and the audio will fit? If you actually took a look at the page, it specifically states that the commentaries will likely NOT work with cheap editions of the films, and that they have been reedited in order to work with only a few specific versions of the selected RiffTrax classics (I.E., Google Video versions of both films and the Image edition of Plan 9). The reason that the riff-track for Reefer Madness has been delayed is that it won't synch up correctly to the Google Video version, and thus, Legend Films has to upload their restoration of the film to YouTube in order for it to work. Holy smokes, what is your beef with Legend Films, man? They release some great discs, and they put a lot of time and effort into restoring and colorizing these films so that guys who like these kinds of movies can properly enjoy them.
|
|
|
Post by mrtorso on Aug 31, 2006 18:46:06 GMT -5
That's why with the Rifftrax of NOTLD or Reefer Madness you can pick up just any old DVD version out there and the audio will fit? If you actually took a look at the page, it specifically states that the commentaries will likely NOT work with cheap editions of the films, and that they have been reedited in order to work with only a few specific versions of the selected RiffTrax classics (I.E., Google Video versions of both films and the Image edition of Plan 9). The reason that the riff-track for Reefer Madness has been delayed is that it won't synch up correctly to the Google Video version, and thus, Legend Films has to upload their restoration of the film to YouTube in order for it to work. Holy smokes, what is your beef with Legend Films, man? They release some great discs, and they put a lot of time and effort into restoring and colorizing these films so that guys who like these kinds of movies can properly enjoy them. Yeah they won't sync up because other versions are missing footage. You can take the Rifftrax for NOTLD and sync it up to the Elite Millienium Edition (the first and best restoration of NOTLD) with no problems.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Sept 1, 2006 11:54:59 GMT -5
Holy smokes, what is your beef with Legend Films, man? They release some great discs, and they put a lot of time and effort into restoring and colorizing these films so that guys who like these kinds of movies can properly enjoy them. I'm sorry but I find their "restorations" suspect. With Reefer Madness they've somehow pulled in tighter on the image so that the whole frame is no longer visible and they put sound in where it doesn't belong (in the scene where Ralph is beating Jack to death) along with that 4-20 in the blank spot when Bill first comes to Mae's apartment. The best version of this film I've seen is the one available from Something Weird - even though it doesn't have the original title card it does have one from an actual Roadshow performance (when it was called Doped Youth). NOTLD is fuzzy. Plan 9 From Outer Space has vertical lines occasionally. And the colorization in all of them is rudimentary at best. Not every Caucasian person in the world has the same skin tone - but you'd never know that watching one of these films. And for some reason they can't leave anything untinted. Nothing is left just black or white - even the smoke in Reefer Madness is tinted lavender! Having said all of that, I own every one of them. But only because Mike Nelson's commentary made them worth it for the price.
|
|