|
Safe Driver posted:Yeah I noticed that on the previously on Twin Peaks sections the audio was really off, but the episodes themselves were fine. However, I am only on disc 2 I skipped to the Fire Walk With Me discs and the audio is all off slightly and it's horrible.Thanks for bringing this up as I would've missed the deadline for replacements (September 12). I got mine from the UK Amazon, they sent me a new one free of charge, just have to mail them back the defective one (They also refund any postage) . Wait so is there a replacement program going now? Or did you just trade Amazon your defective one for another copy (which might also be defective)?
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
RichterIX posted:Wait so is there a replacement program going now? Or did you just trade Amazon your defective one for another copy (which might also be defective)? Traded for another probably defective one but fingers crossed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
CBS hasn't said anything yet. Either not all sets are affected, or not all players are affected. Or there's a combination of causes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
All discs should be exactly the same. Any replication errors / bad batches would result in unreadable sections on the disc, causing crashes or skips, not just audio that is a fraction of a second off. Different interaction with different players is a real possibility. Ideally, a "correct" Blu-ray disc authoring would play correctly on all Blu-ray players that have "correct" implementation of the Blu-ray specification, but that is unfortunately naive. My experience with BD thus far has led me to believe that the audio sync implementation in the specification is not terribly robust, leading to both players and disc authorings that interact in unusual ways, especially when the 1080p/24 flag is set (which is important because 1080p/24 is the correct (no scare-quotes, truly correct) way to watch most content).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
My Fair Lady confirmed for Dec. 9th from CBS Home Entertainment. It'll have the new 4K restoration supervised by Robert Harris, 7.1 sound, and 90 minutes of new archival supplements in addition to previously released extras. Not crazy about the film, but properly restored 65mm on Blu-Ray looks incredible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but Paramount just did a new release that contains both Star Trek 2009, and Into Darkness. The ST09 discs are the same as they've always been, but Into Darkness finally got the treatment it should have in the first place. For Into Darkness they collected all the extras that were spread across all the different retailers and put them together(including the iTunes exclusive commentary), as well as providing the IMAX version of the film finally. The 2:35 version of the film is not included but I'm guessing they figured people want the IMAX version anyways. If you held off on this one because of the shady as hell first release then this appears to be the one to get. EDIT: This is the one in case anyone is wondering. http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Com...pendium+blu+ray
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
The Blu-ray release for Leviathan has a lot of interviews for the extras. They're especially amusing as one features the creature effects guys talking about how they were doing their best to make the best monsters they could while the other interview with Ernie Hudson has him blasting the design saying that it looked like a giant chicken and sucked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Into Darkness finally got the treatment it should have in the first place. Thrown into a fiery pit and forgotten as the poo poo it was?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Yep, this is a thing to be excited for. The original broadway recording of Into the Woods is coming to BD. http://playbill.com/news/article/original-broadway-production-of-into-the-woods-coming-to-blu-ray-330482#.VBTagJI4hNY.facebook
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Thrown into a fiery pit and forgotten as the poo poo it was? I really like the new Trek films, but my favourite part is how bent out of shape they make fans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I really like the new Trek films, but my favourite part is how bent out of shape they make fans. Non-Fans: A fun and tense space opera/adventure. Fans: Remember that scene from Wraith of Khan? Remember that episode Space Seed? Remember Tribbles? Remember the Gorn? Remember Harry Mudd?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
They felt like films cobbled together by skim reading a bunch of wiki page headings. That Orci and Kurtzman continue to get work baffles me, their films are successes despite them, not because of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
FrostedButts posted:Non-Fans: A fun and tense space opera/adventure. I don't care about any of that stuff. I liked Star Trek '09 a lot, too. But Into Darkness was a really badly written movie. Also I think it had more of Lindelof's stink on it than Orci and Kurtzman's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:They felt like films cobbled together by skim reading a bunch of wiki page headings. That Orci and Kurtzman continue to get work baffles me, their films are successes despite them, not because of them. They're good at what they do, what they do just isn't what loud internet fans tend to want from these franchises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I really like the new Trek films, but my favourite part is how bent out of shape they make fans. I don't care about old Star Trek (except for the whale movie) at all and I thought Into Darkness sucked. I liked the first one of the new series but the second movie was just a boring slog. It wasn't as fun or charming as the first film and it was basically just a crappy remake of Wrath of Khan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
I'm a non-fan and they're terrible movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Yep, this is a thing to be excited for. The original broadway recording of Into the Woods is coming to BD. I've seen the recording on VHS and it'll be cool to see it on Blu-Ray but man do I ever not need to see the wolf's penis in HD. They'll probably tone down the sexuality of his costume for the Disney version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Has anyone picked up the new BR for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre today? I'd like to know how the image stacks up against the old BR, and the blu-ray.com thread is seven thousand insufferable pages of people sperging out over the minutae of packaging without so much as a mention of the transfer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Has anyone picked up the new BR for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre today? I'd like to know how the image stacks up against the old BR, and the blu-ray.com thread is seven thousand insufferable pages of people sperging out over the minutae of packaging without so much as a mention of the transfer. It's 4K off the 16mm a/b camera negative and supervised by Don May, Jr. - so it's pretty much perfect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
The previous blu-ray was also sourced from the original 16mm negatives so I'm wondering how much better it can look, especially considering that that version was quite good. That being said, the blu-ray.com review says this new release is superior. I still would like to hear the opinions of a few more people before I double dip, even though this is one of my all time favorites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Yep, this is a thing to be excited for. The original broadway recording of Into the Woods is coming to BD. ...for some reason. It was shot on videotape, so this isn't going to be much of an upgrade. Talk about a cash-in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Has anyone picked up the new BR for the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre today? I'd like to know how the image stacks up against the old BR, and the blu-ray.com thread is seven thousand insufferable pages of people sperging out over the minutae of packaging without so much as a mention of the transfer. It's the best it's ever gonna look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
I'm a Not Star Trek fan and here is my correct opinion. Star Trek ruled, Star Trek Into Darkness sucked real bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Fayez Butts posted:I'm a Not Star Trek fan and here is my correct opinion. Star Trek ruled, Star Trek Into Darkness sucked real bad. I am a Star Trek fan and I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:They're good at what they do, what they do just isn't what loud internet fans tend to want from these franchises. Are they though? The films succeed because of directing, effects and star appeal. Everyone pans the writing of their stuff (look up their filmography), the films succeed despite them. Thing is, I would prefer it if reboots/adaptations strayed from the source material for the sake of interesting new stories. I'm the least precious person when it comes to adaptations. What I hate is lazy writing, which is those guys' MO. Everything they've ever written has been a plotty mess and a failure of basic storytelling for the sake of set pieces. Lindelof at least feels like he's trying, even if he is hopeless and doesn't understand the fundamentals of his favourite tropes of mystery and myth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Are they though? The films succeed because of directing, effects and star appeal. Everyone pans the writing of their stuff (look up their filmography), the films succeed despite them. I know their filmography, that's what I was referring to. I suppose you're right if by "everyone" you mean Rotten Tomatoes critics, but so what? They have a specific, recognizable style and formula- they write what you uncharitably call "plotty messes" with big set-pieces. If you don't like that style you won't like anything they put out, of course. But if you do like that sort of thing, then who's better at it then they are? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Are they though? The films succeed because of directing, effects and star appeal. Everyone pans the writing of their stuff (look up their filmography), the films succeed despite them. This is always what happens- when people like a movie they praise the director, when they hate it they blame the writers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:...for some reason. It was shot on videotape, so this isn't going to be much of an upgrade. Talk about a cash-in. Well, at least it will be relatively durable, and less lossy than a DVD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I don't care about old Star Trek (except for the whale movie) at all ... it was basically just a crappy remake of Wrath of Khan. These do not compute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Eraserhead is now available from Criterion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:The previous blu-ray was also sourced from the original 16mm negatives so I'm wondering how much better it can look, especially considering that that version was quite good. That being said, the blu-ray.com review says this new release is superior. I still would like to hear the opinions of a few more people before I double dip, even though this is one of my all time favorites. I have it coming on Thursday from Amazon, and if no one else has chimed in by then I'll let you know how it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:This is always what happens- when people like a movie they praise the director, when they hate it they blame the writers. Possibly, but plenty of people are savvy enough to spot which part of a film is letting it down. True, people tend to notice poor writing over solid writing but that's the way it goes. Most people don't notice editing until it's really badly done. My point is that the films they've been associated with would likely have made a bunch of money regardless of who wrote them due to the director attached, casting and marketing (including brand recognition). If their writing is what continues to be criticised as the weak link, why not hire someone else? You'd never hire an effects house again if people praised the writing but slammed the vfx. Lord Krangdar posted:
Well... Yeah? I probably won't. But I'm not against big blockbusters at all, I really like them. Doesn't mean they can't have coherent characters and an actual story. All the most successful blockbusters, the ones that make serious bank and are remembered for years do this. No one will give a poo poo about Cowboys and Aliens in a year's time, and that was one of their better efforts. Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Possibly, but plenty of people are savvy enough to spot which part of a film is letting it down. True, people tend to notice poor writing over solid writing but that's the way it goes. Most people don't notice editing until it's really badly done. My point is that the films they've been associated with would likely have made a bunch of money regardless of who wrote them due to the director attached, casting and marketing (including brand recognition). If their writing is what continues to be criticised as the weak link, why not hire someone else? Writing credits reflect at best a sliver of how a script was actually developed. For a major blockbuster like Into Darkness the script likely passed through many, many pairs of hands before it was filmed, most of whom didn't meet WGA minimums for screen credit. That's why blockbuster movies are so often bland and watered down, and frequently why they have plot problems- the writing has been focused on throwing things in that the studio thinks they need, and sometimes they don't get that last pass to tie it all together. I'm just always skeptical when people rush to blame the credited writers, because writing credits are almost never completely accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Writing credits reflect at best a sliver of how a script was actually developed. For a major blockbuster like Into Darkness the script likely passed through many, many pairs of hands before it was filmed, most of whom didn't meet WGA minimums for screen credit. That's why blockbuster movies are so often bland and watered down, and frequently why they have plot problems- the writing has been focused on throwing things in that the studio thinks they need, and sometimes they don't get that last pass to tie it all together. This is fair and I agree. But I am trying to judge them on a body of work with reoccurring styles and themes
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Cross-posting from the Horror thread: European goons: Universal Classic Monsters: The Essential Collection Blu-ray is only 15£/19€ at Zavvi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I don't care about any of that stuff. I liked Star Trek '09 a lot, too. But Into Darkness was a really badly written movie. Also I think it had more of Lindelof's stink on it than Orci and Kurtzman's. Nah, Lindelof was just brought in to help (He did the same on the first movie by trying to patch together the different scripts they had). Into Darkness is their work through and through. They're like really good spec writers who know how to nail down a story, but they shouldn't be given more responsibility than that. I like Trek '09, but Into Darkness is a mess. I'm not even a Trek fan but I disliked so much of that movie. I think it starts well (And Orci's politics show through) but all the Khan stuff is just bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Nah, Lindelof was just brought in to help (He did the same on the first movie by trying to patch together the different scripts they had). Into Darkness is their work through and through. They're like really good spec writers who know how to nail down a story, but they shouldn't be given more responsibility than that. Into Darkness has a lot of the same problems Prometheus had, where things are happening only because the writer says they are happening, with no rhyme or reason. Why on Earth would McCoy ever think to inject a dead tribble with Khans blood other than they needed him to do it to set up later plot points? It was just a fan servicey mess of a movie. The first one I liked because it took risks and didn't seem to be afraid to piss off the hardcore fans, then this one was nothing more than a lovely Wrath of Khan remake without any actual new ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:this one was nothing more than a lovely Wrath of Khan remake It really wasn't, though. It had a character named Khan and half-assed an attempt at recreating a single scene from the original, but beyond that they don't really have anything in common. Into Darkness sucks all on its own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
It didn't spend any time in Space, at least not more than it had to. The characters were written with excuses to not be wearing their iconic uniforms. It was a Star Trek film that was trying to avoid being a Star Trek film. I don't hate it, but it definitely wasn't good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
sethsez posted:It really wasn't, though. It had a character named Khan and half-assed an attempt at recreating a single scene from the original, but beyond that they don't really have anything in common. Into Darkness sucks all on its own. Which makes that Khan stuff even worse. It's pointless. Star Trek 09 does a great job of making sure that it's own entity and can tell the story it wants by branching off from the original show and movies - like, that's ultimately the point of it by the end. So the first thing they do is bring back arguably Star Trek's most well known villain in a way that's meant to blow the minds of fans. Into Darkness is basically a false flag movie, which is right in Orci's wheelhouse. He and Adam Baldwin should get together.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:47
|
|