Enter the Dragon (1973) (40th Anniversary Edition) (Remastered)

[Lantz]

A question about the slight cropping of the new bluray:

As seen in comparison caps in this thread the new release crops away picture information from all sides of the frame that was present in the 2007 edition. If one checks the details of both reviews here on Bluray.com on sees that the original aspect ratio of ETD is 2:39, where the old edition frames it at 2:35 and the new one at 2:40.

Anyone informed as to why one would want to alter the ratio?

I've noticed in the old edition with the larger framing that occasionally there's some unattractive lens blur / anomalies at the bottom of the frame (for example when Lee, Roper and Williams first arrive at the island and are taken through the training area). My own personal 'layman'-theory is that the producers may have wanted to hide this and consequently decided to crop it away for a less flawed image. What does anyone else think?

I cannot think of any other reason that one would not go with the original ratio on a 40th Anniversary release.

[Lantz]

A question about the soundtrack of ETD:

I remember back in the day when I got Enter The Dragon on VHS in Sweden (my country) there was no music played in the scene where Williams beats up the police offers - just sound effects and no music. In the 2007 blu (and the 2010 re-press) there's some music by Schifrin added to that scene. Basically, what I consider an improvement.

Later on in the film, when Roper is taken to the arena meeting the captured Lee held by Bolo, there is no music at all in the 2007 blu. But I remember clearly there was music by Schifrin played in the beginning of this scene on my VHS that I watched 1000 times. Personally, I felt this scene needed some music, and therefore was not an improvement on the blu.

Anyone has any clue what the deal was here?

Also, what is the situation with the 2013 blu? Music in both scenes this time around?

[Lantz]

...Looks like Kenneth Brown felt the need to go back to his review of the old edition, which gave that transfer great marks, and remove his one-time praise of that transfer and instead forward people to the new edition.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by DavePS3

Here's a weird thing... I have the first version... 2007 and I wanted to do a quick PQ comparison on my own. This earlier BD will NOT play in either PS3 I have (earlier fat 60g or the newer 320 slim. It also will not play in either Samsung BluRay players I have and on one player it comes up as an unreadable data disc. On the PS3's, one was updated, one was not but neither PS would even bring up an icon on screen and both just wanted to spit it out. The 2010 Samsung player did in fact eject it saying disc cannot be played. Kinda makes me wonder what other discs I might have that will not play any more!

I have the 2007 disc and it has never given me a bit of trouble on my Sony BD player...

Originally Posted by Lantz

Bluray rot???

I highly doubt it.

I own the 2010 re-press and it plays fine. I just wondered if his copy is of a very old batch of the earliest blurays that came out. DVD rot was a common problem with old DVDs and people keep reporting now that even Blurays may suffer the same fate. Depressing.

Rot was a problem with Laserdisc, and even then it was rare, as it was pretty much limited to only select batches of discs that had glue-related issues. This isn't to say that some DVD's didn't also have defects, but they were extremely miniscule, and I have never had a DVD not play, even though a couple of DVD's in my collection show signs of oxidation of the reflective layer. The odds of having a defective disc are astronomical, and when people say they can't get a disc to play, I've almost always found that it has to do with either the equipment on which they're playing the disc and/or how they have cared for the disc (and equipment) itself. This isn't to say that it can't happen, but yeah, extremely rare.

A question about the slight cropping of the new bluray:

As seen in comparison caps in this thread the new release crops away picture information from all sides of the frame that was present in the 2007 edition. If one checks the details of both reviews here on Bluray.com on sees that the original aspect ratio of ETD is 2:39, where the old edition frames it at 2:35 and the new one at 2:40.

Anyone informed as to why one would want to alter the ratio?

I've noticed in the old edition with the larger framing that occasionally there's some unattractive lens blur / anomalies at the bottom of the frame (for example when Lee, Roper and Williams first arrive at the island and are taken through the training area). My own personal 'layman'-theory is that the producers may have wanted to hide this and consequently decided to crop it away for a less flawed image. What does anyone else think?

I cannot think of any other reason that one would not go with the original ratio on a 40th Anniversary release.

Good question...All I can say is that this type of cropping tends to happen on many releases. As to why it does, I'm not sure. I do feel that the cropping on the new "ETD" 40th Blu borders on excessive, considering the 2007 Blu (which shows more frame) actually had less frame itself than the HK Blu...

[Lantz]

Originally Posted by kdo

... the 2007 Blu (which shows more frame) actually had less frame itself than the HK Blu...

That's interesting, kdo. I didn't know. Is that the one inside the Kam & Ronson box from a few years back? I own it but haven't watched it.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Lantz

A question about the soundtrack of ETD:

I remember back in the day when I got Enter The Dragon on VHS in Sweden (my country) there was no music played in the scene where Williams beats up the police offers - just sound effects and no music. In the 2007 blu (and the 2010 re-press) there's some music by Schifrin added to that scene. Basically, what I consider an improvement.

Later on in the film, when Roper is taken to the arena meeting the captured Lee held by Bolo, there is no music at all in the 2007 blu. But I remember clearly there was music by Schifrin played in the beginning of this scene on my VHS that I watched 1000 times. Personally, I felt this scene needed some music, and therefore was not an improvement on the blu.

Anyone has any clue what the deal was here?

Also, what is the situation with the 2013 blu? Music in both scenes this time around?

There have been a few different versions of "ETD" released, with additional footage having been added back into the film for its debut on DVD back in 1998 (the 25th anniversary edition). While I can't personally speak for the differences which you have pointed out, I will admit that it wouldn't surprise if there is some variation...

Originally Posted by Lantz

...Looks like Kenneth Brown felt the need to go back to his review of the old edition, which gave that transfer great marks, and remove his one-time praise of that transfer and instead forward people to the new edition.

Yes, it does look like that's what he has done, and in all truthfulness, I'm fine with it (as I too have tweaked some of my user reviews from time to time). Plus, his original review score of a 4.0 for that release was way too high to begin with considering the shortcomings of the disc (I gave the initial release a 2.5 on video quality myself), so I'd say he has every right to correct an old review which was written at a time when the standards for HD home-video releases were a little different, with only DVD to compare to...He's also probably wanting to clarify for readers, the difference in transfer strength (since someone looking at the original review and seeing a 4.0, might think a 4.5 isn't worth upgrading).

Frankly, I think the new transfer's greatest strength (aside from the correction of the aliasng issue that plagued the 2007 Blu) is that it has a much more filmlike appearance than the previous disc. However, this still isn't going to change my mind regarding the colors and somewhat blown-out contrast of the 40th anniversary edition, which I do not particularly care for.

As I said before in a previous post, based on what I've seen in screenshots, I'd probably give the new "ETD" 40th Blu a 3.0 or 3.5 in terms of video quality (as to where I gave the 2007 release a 2.5). Still though, not enough to warrant an upgrade for me, especially considering that the majoity of the time I put in the disc, all I watch is Bruce vs. Kareem in the "Warrior's Journey" doc ...to me the real star of the film was Jim Kelly, and since his screentime is rather limited, I don't feel the need to rebuy this one again (like I did on DVD a couple of times)...nope, the 2007 Blu works fine for me .

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Lantz

That's interesting, kdo. I didn't know. Is that the one inside the Kam & Ronson box from a few years back? I own it but haven't watched it.

Here you are my friend . Obviously, there's several more caps to compare on there, but I linked this one in particular:

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich


Compare to the shot of the 40th ann. edition as shown in member tylergfoster's caps here (click on spoiler to view):

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=439

[Lantz]

Originally Posted by kdo

Yes, it does look like that's what he has done, and in all truthfulness, I'm fine with it (as I too have tweaked some of my user reviews from time to time). Plus, his original review score of a 4.0 for that release was way too high to begin with considering the shortcomings of the disc (I gave the initial release a 2.5 on video quality myself), so I'd say he has every right to correct an old review which was written at a time when the standards for HD home-video releases were a little different, with only DVD to compare to...He's also probably wanting to clarify for readers, the difference in transfer strength (since someone looking at the original review and seeing a 4.0, might think a 4.5 isn't worth upgrading).

Guess I understand the logic in all that. And I respect Brown's infatuation with the new transfer, but I just think it is a bit wrong to "steer" people in certain directions. Especially since there is nothing positive left written about the PQ in the old review, just generally harsh critique and a sort of "forward"-note to the 40th Anniversary edition. Clearly, as you and I and others have noted, there are positives about the old transfer, made evident by comparisons to the 2013 edition. Framing and natural colours are two things that spring to mind.

Well, let's leave it at that.

[Geoff D]

Hmmm. I'm not sure about gutting an old review to exhort the benefits of the new one. Tacking on an addendum is fine, but deleting all the previous comments about PQ smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

People may still want an objective evaluation of that particular disc, and while I can appreciate Ken not wanting to steer folks in the wrong direction with his original comments - which may seem somewhat, ah, misguided when looked at 6 years later - they are what they are, and should've been put into context with an update rather than simply erasing them.

[Lantz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hmmm. I'm not sure about gutting an old review to exhort the benefits of the new one. Tacking on an addendum is fine, but deleting all the previous comments about PQ smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

People may still want an objective evaluation of that particular disc, and while I can appreciate Ken not wanting to steer folks in the wrong direction with his original comments - which may seem somewhat, ah, misguided when looked at 6 years later - they are what they are, and should've been put into context with an update rather than simply erasing them.

Absolutely.

[reason108]

I know that there are people still alive that worked on this movie. Was no one available for input? Why the hell is it so difficult for these people to get something this simple figured out. You would think that they could at least find an older copy of the release and compare it. Why wasn`t Linda Lee there protecting her hubby`s legacy; making sure the movie was exactly as Bruce intended? So, for the 40th we get cropped and off-color images? Or, is this just another cash grab? I hope that the patch makes up for any pq issues. Warners can proudly boast that they have fixed all the previous problems with the 45th anniversary release. Or, perhaps the 50th.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by slamkeys

That's the missing piece. I had no idea SF was doing that, but they're asking top dollar to get it that early. Do they have a coupon or something that brings it down to Amazon rates?

You could check their website, or post in the SF thread. Cliff, a member here, is a SF insider and could probably answer that. I highly doubt they have any sort of coupon, as they don't really do that kind of thing.

[pedromc69]

Still no news on Universal releasing Dragon the Bruce Lee story.

[newgen2005]

I guess the price didn't go down after all!! usually save a few $ when pre-ordering!!

Greetings from Amazon.com.
 You saved $0.03 with Amazon.com's Pre-order Price Guarantee!
 The price of the item(s) decreased after you ordered them, and we gave you the lowest price.
 The following title(s) decreased in price:
 Enter the Dragon: 40th Anniversary [Blu-ray]
              Price on order date: $34.99
        Price charged at shipping: $34.96
 Lowest price before release date: $34.96
                         Quantity: 1
                    Total Savings: $0.03

With shipping it cost me a few £'s. Reading the above makes me a little disappointed

[nagysaudio]

No reason to be disappointed. The picture quality is GREAT! One of the better releases this year.

[bruceames]

Price is way too high considering it has fewer extras (in running time) than an old 2007 release. I'll probably bite when the price drops to about $15.

[42041]

Looking at the comparisons linked in the caps-a-holic page:
http://kungfucinema.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=77

I wasn't sure going by the blu-ray.com comparisons, but from these I can say that the contrast on the new disc definitely looks better to my eyes. The old one is just flat. This new release better represents the contrasty look of most early 70s films.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by 42041

Looking at the comparisons linked in the caps-a-holic page:
http://kungfucinema.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=77

I wasn't sure going by the blu-ray.com comparisons, but from these I can say that the contrast on the new disc definitely looks better to my eyes. The old one is just flat. This new release better represents the contrasty look of most early 70s films.

The old one is flat, dull, ugly, boring, and dusty. Plus it has the jaggies and lossy sound. This new release is a night and day difference. In motion, it looks like a normal 35mm film. Great sound as well. 9/10 presentation all the way.

But why did you link saltysam's screencaps? They are ugly and nothing like what this new Blu-ray looks like. They have DNR, poor compression, overblown contrast, etc. He's either taking them from a poor quality torrent, or his video card's setting are wrong. None of that is present on the actual disc. Blu-ray.com's screencaps are MUCH more accurate.

[42041]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

But why did you link saltysam's screencaps? They are ugly and nothing like what this new Blu-ray looks like. They have DNR, poor compression, overblown contrast, etc. He's either taking them from a poor quality torrent, or his video card's setting are wrong. None of that is present on the actual disc. Blu-ray.com's screencaps are MUCH more accurate.

Since I'm on my phone, I'm only looking at the color, which seems reasonably in line with the BD.com caps.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by 42041

Since I'm on my phone, I'm only looking at the color, which seems reasonably in line with the BD.com caps.