Sleepy Hollow Re-issue?

[RoboDan]

Hey folks. Have a curious question here.

Recently picked up a copy of Sleepy Hollow for Blu. Haven't seen too many reviews of the transfer around online, but coming across this site here, it mentions that a re-issue was released May of 2008.

Is there any info on what differences the '08 re-issue has. (I have the '06). Or is the reviewer just reffering to the new stock Amazon.com had received up to that point? Thanks!

[wnicholas76]

Originally Posted by RoboDan

Hey folks. Have a curious question here.

Recently picked up a copy of Sleepy Hollow for Blu. Haven't seen too many reviews of the transfer around online, but coming across this site here, it mentions that a re-issue was released May of 2008.

Is there any info on what differences the '08 re-issue has. (I have the '06). Or is the reviewer just reffering to the new stock Amazon.com had received up to that point? Thanks!

It's the same exact copy as the '06 version. The only difference is the cover artwork. Whereas your copy has the artwork with the silver-embossed "Paramount High Definition" logo on your copy, the re-issue does not have said logo on the cover art. But other than that, it's the same exact copy with the special features, audio tracks, and all.

Hope this helps!

[Siri]

At one point Paramount went HD-DVD exclusive, that was when the Paramount Blu-rays that were out then had the silver border on them, since they re-issued their Paramount Blu-rays they removed the silver border. I don't think there are any differences to them.

[RoboDan]

Ah, thanks very much for the info. Greatly appreciated!

[Underworld54]

Let me know how you liked it. I just picked it up an have not watched it yet.

[darkpoet25]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Let me know how you liked it. I just picked it up an have not watched it yet.

It's one of my favorite Tim Burton/Johnny Depp films. Don't expect too much as far as PQ goes. The film has a gritty, grainy look to it which was intentional. Which I feel adds to the overall atmoshpere of the movie. There are those who didn't care too much for the PQ, but I thought it was far better than the dvd.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Let me know how you liked it. I just picked it up an have not watched it yet.

I thought the movie itself was pretty good, it is on sale @ Best Buy this week for $13.99 too...

[RoboDan]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Let me know how you liked it. I just picked it up an have not watched it yet.

Due to my work schedule, I might not be able to spin it until the weekend. So you'll probably see it before me. I'm a big fan of Burton's work, and I can't wait to see the HD version of this.

Of all the reviews I've read so far, the transfer is nowhere near reference quality, but I'm thinking they are confusing the film grain as being an 'inconvenience' rather than a true representation of the way the film should look on Blu.

[doug2k4]

Yep, DP25, you're right on! I really liked the SD version, but it is great on Blu. I've only previewed it so far today, but it's my BD of the week later tonight!

[Penitus]

Hmm..
Look at the reviews on this site. It is sort of odd that they are virtually all negative up to a certain point, and then the newer reviewers (1) find no major problems with the PQ and (2) state that the previous reviewers statements about the movie's PQ are wrong.

[Heart&Soul]

Interesting catch, Penitus.

[aqupunk]

EEEwwwwwww 5.1 dd audio? This is begging for a rerelease!

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Penitus

Hmm..
Look at the reviews on this site. It is sort of odd that they are virtually all negative up to a certain point, and then the newer reviewers (1) find no major problems with the PQ and (2) state that the previous reviewers statements about the movie's PQ are wrong.

The movie was not really filmed as HD eye candy. The current Blu-ray is faithful to the look of the movie which might turn off some of the lesser informed viewers.

[Penitus]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

The movie was not really filmed as HD eye candy. The current Blu-ray is faithful to the look of the movie which might turn off some of the lesser informed viewers.

So you believe the sharp turn in reviews is coincidence?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by aqupunk

EEEwwwwwww 5.1 dd audio? This is begging for a rerelease!

It also has a 1536 kbps DTS track.

[Penitus]

I retract anything I said previously. I nabbed this yesterday with Cloverfield for 30 bucks at WalMart and the PQ is the worst I've ever seen on Blu.



What a waste!

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Penitus

I retract anything I said previously. I nabbed this yesterday with Cloverfield for 30 bucks at WalMart and the PQ is the worst I've ever seen on Blu.



What a waste!

That bad huh? Bummer!

[Siri]

I thought most of the two packs were $20 at walmart, I got this two pack at best buy for $23...

[haste]

yeah, sleepy hollow is one of the worst transfers ive seen. macroblocking EVERYWHERE.

[Ex Accountant]

Originally Posted by Penitus

Hmm..
Look at the reviews on this site. It is sort of odd that they are virtually all negative up to a certain point, and then the newer reviewers (1) find no major problems with the PQ and (2) state that the previous reviewers statements about the movie's PQ are wrong.

I'm sorry to hear about the poor quality of Sleepy Hollow, especially because I already bought it (but haven't watched it). I'm posting here to point out that the movie reviews aren't sorted by review date. Instead, they appear to be sorted by other people's opinions of the reviews. The more green bars, the higher the review. Nonetheless, even though the newer reviewers aren't materially giving Sleepy Hollow higher marks, it is interesting that the more positive reviews are garnishing the majority of the +1's. Hmmm, back to where we started from.