Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Q?]

Hi Bill or Jeff, can you guys vouch for the review of Taken here on blu-ray.com?
Here the review praises the PQ to near reference quality, 4,5 stars.
But elsewhere the PQ only got 3,5 stars, Idk if I'm allowed to post the link.
Or is it possible there are diff. releases of it?
Thanks in advance

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Q!

Hi Bill or Jeff, can you guys vouch for the review of Taken here on blu-ray.com?
Here the review praises the PQ to near reference quality, 4,5 stars.
But elsewhere the PQ only got 3,5 stars, Idk if I'm allowed to post the link.
Or is it possible there are diff. releases of it?
Thanks in advance

DVDBeaver has a review as well, which seems to agree with the one on this site.

Taken seems pretty competent on Blu-ray. Like the seedy back-street locales Bryan is venturing the quality can have a rougher edge at times. This is dual-layered and seems to cover all areas appropriately. Colors seem bright and true while fine grain exists - more so in the darker scenes. Skin tones don't appear overly warm - contrast exhibits healthy, rich black levels. As usual, daylight scenes are impressive and detail in close-ups is strong. This Blu-ray has a nice realistic feel and is probably very accurate to theatrical. Fox has been doing a great job with hi-def transfer - and this is no exception.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

DVDBeaver has a review as well, which seems to agree with the one on this site.

ok... thanks

[Doctorossi]

Bill or Jeff, before too much longer, we're going to start to run into the download cut-off dates for the digital copies included with a number of discs (rendering those discs useless to new purchasers). Unless some action is taken, a lot of sets with these unusable digital copies will remain in the retail channel. Have you heard anything about studios' plans for this expiry? Will they repackage these releases or send retailers a bunch of stickers to put on the boxes which say "Well, actually, no... it doesn't include a digital copy..." or will they just brace for a bunch of phone calls from irate customers?

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm sure the Bandai remaster was approved as well, and probably was given closer scrutiny. A foreign release of a show isn't nearly as important as a domestic one, especially with all the merchandise still being sold in Japan.

True, Shin did work closely with them though. Bandai didn't approve it, it was Ishiguro and I believe Kawamori and a few others

Not to say Bandai Visual's DVD remasters are always perfect, a lot of them have EE and their Patlabor OVA/TV discs were full of jaggies. Overall they do a much better job on their Blu-rays, though, which is what really matters.

I remember a friend picked up the legit Taiwan release of Patlabor 1, said that it was better than the Japanese release at the time. I never saw the J-disc to compare.

I see PBS has been putting out videos with some regularity on Blu-ray (Story of India is the one that sparked this post) and I know Ken Burns' stuff was filmed on "film" so I was wondering if there was any discussion of remastering his works (Baseball, Civil War, and Jazz to name a select few of the many I'm eagerly awaiting) and releasing them on Blu-ray????

I know they remastered Civil War 4-5 years ago because their master tapes were literally worn out. However I'm pretty sure virtually alll of his classic stuff was posted on video. I don't know if PBS is going to be able to spend the money to go back and have them literally re-create it.

The one thing that I think makes a legitimate argument is that many of the continuity/science of Trek things are the reasons why the franchise had become so tired. (That and having the actors come up with the plots of the movies). We may not like some of the changes made, but given this or the alternative, isn't this better than nothing?

No Do it right or don't do it at all

The franchise became "tired" because of 2 series written by bad and burned out writers (yes I know people liked Coto's stuff, you can keep a person alive on life support too ), and because there was never a rest period between them. Had they let things sit after DS9, brought out Voyager 2-3 years later with a fresh team, things might have been very different. Enterprise screwed with things a bunch too, trying to bring in that "new" audience.

Doctor Who has succeeded very well in bringing in new people by taking a fresh, modern take on the concept, while advancing the clock forward. It's far enough that it has its own set of worries and concerns (just like TNG), and nothing but a bit of exposition is required to fill in the newbies.

Really, is knowing that warp nacells aren't thrusters so hard? After spending 5 bloody minutes docking at the pod port on the neck in ST:TMP, knowing that that isn't an escape pod hatch? That phasers are beam and not pulse weapons? That the viewscreen isn't a windsheild, and that having one is a bad idea in space? There's a lot of them. How about how Kirk gets in 16,000 fights in the movie, not one shirt rip across the pecs? Not one spot of blood at the corner of the mouth? No axehandles, dropkicks or judo chops? These are trademark moves here.

All of the above is the usual talking points given about people who want to screw with a show in order to "make it their own". There is absolutely no reason why a slavishly faithful prequel film could not have been written, and been just as successful in reaching Joe 6-pack. Shows and concepts have to change their clothes to get with the times, and only a fool would argue with that, but the person underneath those clothes can still be the same.

Bill or Jeff, do you have any insight into the reasoning behind the timing of the impending release of M*A*S*H? I ask because I am anxiously awaiting the eventual release of McCabe and Mrs. Miller and I can't foresee many good tie-in/promotional opportunities for release on the horizon (40th Anniversary in 2011, anyone?). Accompanying M*A*S*H would have been a nice, obvious move, but it doesn't look like that's happening. Maybe it'll just be another generic batch catalog release... ?

MASH was delayed I believe

Hi Bill or Jeff, can you guys vouch for the review of Taken here on blu-ray.com?

As a representation of the theatrical experience, yeah. It looks the way it does intentionally

[Jeff Kleist]

Bill or Jeff, before too much longer, we're going to start to run into the download cut-off dates for the digital copies included with a number of discs (rendering those discs useless to new purchasers). Unless some action is taken, a lot of sets with these unusable digital copies will remain in the retail channel. Have you heard anything about studios' plans for this expiry? Will they repackage these releases or send retailers a bunch of stickers to put on the boxes which say "Well, actually, no... it doesn't include a digital copy..." or will they just brace for a bunch of phone calls from irate customers?

Digital copies don't really expire. Those dates are more "best if used by". Basically that support is guaranteed till that date. Least that what Fox told me when the question originally came up. If they were to end their contract with Apple, the copies would stop working after that date.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Digital copies don't really expire. Those dates are more "best if used by". Basically that support is guaranteed till that date.

Ah, ok. So, they can elect to keep them available longer if they want to and can respond to catalog "afterlife" sales rates. That's good. Thanks!

[Doctorossi]

Jeff, since you bring up Doctor Who...

I've been meaning to ask you, since it sounds like you've seen the new Trek now, are any of the changes on your gripes list inappropriate to you for reasons of conflict with the greater purpose/intent/spirit/meaning of the show or just continuity/internal logic/plotting?

For example, you mentioned a big spoiler a while back. Does that event bug you solely because it contradicts the existing storyline or does it contradict what Star Trek is or should be about, in some way?

A lot of people bring up the Doctor Who re-start as an example of 'doing it right' when arguing re-boots like Trek and, while I (quite a Doctor Who nerd) largely agree, there's a very major element of the new show which doesn't sit well with me because I feel it is entirely contrary to the show's very premise. I find it a little shocking to feel this way because one of the reasons I love Doctor Who so much is the incredible flexibility of its format and the vast number of directions it can be appropriately bent in. In other words, one has to really go out of their way to come up with something I consider to be "breaking the format". I think they've found one and it makes me say "Fine if you want to write that somewhere else, but it ain't Doctor Who." or "Why do you want to write Doctor Who if this is what you want to do with it?"

I'm curious if anything in the new Trek movie is like that for you or if it's all just functional/consistency issues (I can imagine how either problem might be equally annoying).

[Jeff Kleist]

I've been meaning to ask you, since it sounds like you've seen the new Trek now, are any of the changes on your gripes list inappropriate to you for reasons of conflict with the greater purpose/intent/spirit/meaning of the show or just continuity/internal logic/plotting?

For example, you mentioned a big spoiler a while back. Does that event bug you solely because it contradicts the existing storyline or does it contradict what Star Trek is or should be about, in some way?

Both really. The "science" changes strike me as lazy, simple lack of understanding (or caring) how the whole Trek universe operates. For example Pike says "The Federation is a vast peacekeeping armada". That's Starfleet, the Federation is the governing body to whom starfleet answers. This was, in the end a rollicking popcorn film, but Trek has always been about examining the human condition. What little examination there was went out the window pretty fast in favor of gunplay, and superflous crab monsters. Vulcan is always a centerpiece of the Federation, a bedrock senator who often sees all sides of a problem, and a source of many great storylines. You can still examine the human condition and make it fun mind you. They're digging under the foundation with a lot of the alterations. Had they advanced it to the 25th century and blown up Vulcan there, I would not have had a problem with it (thought i would have hoped that some lame boob like Nero would not be the one to do the deed)

A lot of people bring up the Doctor Who re-start as an example of 'doing it right' when arguing re-boots like Trek and, while I (quite a Doctor Who nerd) largely agree, there's a very major element of the new show which doesn't sit well with me because I feel it is entirely contrary to the show's very premise. I find it a little shocking to feel this way because one of the reasons I love Doctor Who so much is the incredible flexibility of its format and the vast number of directions it can be appropriately bent in. In other words, one has to really go out of their way to come up with something I consider to be "breaking the format". I think they've found one and it makes me say "Fine if you want to write that somewhere else, but it ain't Doctor Who." or "Why do you want to write Doctor Who if this is what you want to do with it?"

What do you feel is breaking the Who format? They went to an hour and introduced season spanning story arcs, but everything in the original still happened. Is it that people on Earth are aware of him? Or the destruction of Gallifrey and the other time lords?

Frankly I don't think they're really gone, he just thinks they are

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

... Enterprise screwed with things a bunch too, trying to bring in that "new" audience. ...

Okay, assuming you are talking about discontinuities, I'll bite: Can you name three or five?

They (no longer?) stick out to me, so either they weren't that important (to me) or, more likely, my memory is fuzzy.

Cheers!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

For example Pike says "The Federation is a vast peacekeeping armada". That's Starfleet, the Federation is the governing body to whom starfleet answers.

Ouch. Within the realm of incidental and low-impact, that's a pretty bad one! Can you imagine a US Navy captain saying "The United States is a vast peacekeeping armada"?

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

This was, in the end a rollicking popcorn film, but Trek has always been about examining the human condition. What little examination there was went out the window pretty fast in favor of gunplay, and superflous crab monsters.

Yeah. That's exactly what I was afraid of.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You can still examine the human condition and make it fun mind you.

I know- I've seen TOS.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

What do you feel is breaking the Who format? ... the destruction of Gallifrey and the other time lords?

Ding ding ding!

Yes, the whole timewar nonsense.

*Ahem*

The entire purpose of the character of The Doctor- what distinguishes him from us, allowing us to gain something by observing his behavior- is his different relationship to time. This is a character who lives for centuries, watching all his acquaintances live and die, and who flits about time with no linearity at all. Those friends who have died can be seen again- he can go back to them. Because of this life, The Doctor has an entirely alien perspective on the meaning of event and experience. What Davies has done with the new show is immediately written himself a flimsy excuse to trade that unique perspective for a typical and familiar human one.

Why?! That's every other show on tv!

From my perspective, it's an utterly useless thing to do with Doctor Who and, on top of that, it follows no story-logic, whatsoever, so it feels like a cheat. A cheat created for the purpose of removing the most unique and interesting quality of the show.

I could go on, but I'm sure you catch my drift.


Actually, I will go on just a little because I just realized that this makes for a perfect analogy to my question to you about the new Trek.

All the Doctor Who fans screamed bloody murder when Philip Seagal allegedly "humanized" The Doctor with that one throw-away line in the 1989 tv movie. However, that change was purely a continuity rewrite and had little apparent impact on the meaning of the character or his role in the show.

Now, Russell Davies actually radically humanizes The Doctor's behavior, causing a tremendous impact on the meaning of his character and his role in the show and no one really seems to care.

This is the kind of distinction I was talking about. I can usually pretty easily ignore continuity discrepancies if they have little impact on the actual spirit of the show.

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Okay, assuming you are talking about discontinuities, I'll bite: Can you name three or five?

They (no longer?) stick out to me, so either they weren't that important (to me) or, more likely, my memory is fuzzy.

Cheers!

Enterprise was more of an exercise in bending canon more than breaking it. The problems with the show were more tonal, I think, in an effort to bring the illusion of change without actually changing how the writing was approached. It was still far too safe and comfortable, which is what killed Voyager for me.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Michael.Schinke

It was still far too safe and comfortable, which is what killed Voyager for me.

Yeah, I really liked the original premise of Voyager, but that went out the window pretty quickly, in favor of warmed-over TNG rehashes at their mediocre-est.

[Jeff Kleist]

Okay, assuming you are talking about discontinuities, I'll bite: Can you name three or five?

Romulans, Ferengi for example. The watchword was "I'm not touching you!", where they never gave their names, but they were there anyway, long before humanity had contact with them. The Borg episode was a similar huge stretch, though with First Contact there it wasn't quite as full of it. Basically they were so bankrupt of ideas that they didn't know/want to write something new, and fell back to the same old.

That's off the top of my head.

All the Doctor Who fans screamed bloody murder when Philip Seagal allegedly "humanized" The Doctor with that one throw-away line in the 1989 tv movie. However, that change was purely a continuity rewrite and had little apparent impact on the meaning of the character or his role in the show.

Well, according to Davies's stand-in, Vince in Queer as Folk "Paul McGann doesn't count"

I see your point, but I do remind you that with every re-generation comes a new personality. The Doctor has an attachment to Humanity, but I've never felt that outsider perspective is lost, merely that it's been brought closer to the surface. Don't forget that the time war made him a very changed man, affected him deeply.

I agree that Davies can be a bit too silly, and I really look forward to Moffet's stuff. His episodes have been almost uniformly excellent

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I haven't seen the G/B/U disc so I can't comment

Have you seen this yet Jeff?
Plenty of reports of noticable DNR.
Did I read somewhere that the Italian release is excellent, with (practically) no DNR applied??

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm not a western fan in general, with maybe a half dozen exceptions so no, I didn't request G/B/U.

I had heard several months ago from a reliable source that it was bad, but I wanted to wait until someone actually saw it to confirm. A real shame. MGM has a lot of discs that were done during the hiatus that they're re-slotting, this is probably another one of them

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't forget that the time war made him a very changed man, affected him deeply.

That's the problem. It changed and affected him as it would people who are subject to that kind of thing happening. However, the whole point of The Doctor is that he's not subject to that kind of thing happening.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I agree that Davies can be a bit too silly, and I really look forward to Moffet's stuff. His episodes have been almost uniformly excellent

Say it again, for it is the truth!

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I'm not a western fan in general, with maybe a half dozen exceptions so no, I didn't request G/B/U.

If G/B/U is not among your half-dozen exceptions, I hope it isn't for lack of trying it. I imagine there are probably a lot of folks like you who have westerns only on a short-list, but a lot of those lists likely feature G/B/U- it's the kind of movie you want to make exceptions for.

[Jeff Kleist]

No, I've seen it. I just don't care to own it. The fact that it's dubbed drives me crazy as well.

Maverick, Quick and the Dead, How the West was Won, I tend to like my westerns pulpy, and I like the samurai movies most of the classic westerns were ripped from

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Really, is knowing that warp nacells aren't thrusters so hard? After spending 5 bloody minutes docking at the pod port on the neck in ST:TMP, knowing that that isn't an escape pod hatch? That phasers are beam and not pulse weapons? That the viewscreen isn't a windsheild, and that having one is a bad idea in space? There's a lot of them. How about how Kirk gets in 16,000 fights in the movie, not one shirt rip across the pecs? Not one spot of blood at the corner of the mouth? No axehandles, dropkicks or judo chops? These are trademark moves here.

Hmmmm..... I didn't notice the nacells used as thrusters in the movie. With that, the pod port and the phasers I agree with you - although I would hold out on the phasers that they were just on a different setting. After all, phasers also have stun and kill settings, and IIRC can disintegrate a body or not.

For the viewscreen, I didn't see it as a windshield, more like a plasma screen that cracked. For the fights, I thought all the fights were homage in themselves, at least a little. Young Spock had the spot of blood on the corner, but that doesn't really count.

The biggest complaint I had (after the "you can beam planet to planet/planet to ship in warp" issue), along with many others, was the chase on the ice planet. You can almost see the spitballing session. "We need to get Kirk off the ship and then we need to get him to run into another character. How can we do that without involving other actors." The path they chose was the easiest and simplest. What alternatives could they have gone to that wouldn't have added subplots or slowed the pace of the movie.

Basically, I think I'm with you. It's a fun summer movie. I'm not sure if it's Star Trek. I'm withholding judgement until the next installment.