Gladiator (2000)

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by bandit29

Less than 8 months and already a remaster? Way to go Paramount!

I hope there is an exchange program for those of us who were ripped off with the stellar "Sapphire Edition".

Yeh, epic phail! :P

[42041]

Originally Posted by bandit29

Less than 8 months and already a remaster? Way to go Paramount!

I hope there is an exchange program for those of us who were ripped off with the stellar "Sapphire Edition".

Seriously? No company is going to admit their product is lousy, that's why you independently verify their claims by reading 3rd party reviews. You weren't ripped off, you got a working HD disc that doesn't look that great.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by 42041

Seriously? No company is going to admit their product is lousy, that's why you independently verify their claims by reading 3rd party reviews. You weren't ripped off, you got a working HD disc that doesn't look that great.

I agree that anyone who posted here at the time of its initial release wasn't ripped off -- we knew what we were getting into.

But the average person doesn't post here. The average person bought the "Sapphire Edition" believing the warranty on the product, and was duped. Paramount's release to correct the problems is a blatant admission.

There should be an exchange, pure and simple.

No one (who isn't being obstinate for obstinate's sake) should oppose this.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by bandit29

Less than 8 months and already a remaster? Way to go Paramount!

I'll believe it when I see it. So far it's just rumors.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

The average person bought the "Sapphire Edition" believing the warranty on the product, and was duped.

Actually, the regular consumer (if you meant that by "the average person"),
would not only believe the title they gave the release,
but they'd go like "Woah, dude, that looks awesome!" at their screens, too.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Actually, the regular consumer (if you meant that by "the average person"),
would not only believe the title they gave the release,
but they'd go like "Woah, dude, that looks awesome!" at their screens, too.

LOL perhaps.

But they'd only be referring to the added parts, which look completely different (i.e., better) than the original footage.

[nathan28]

Im sure they will rip us off!!!! But what makes this a true rip off is the promise of quality of the sapphire edition.

[hagar852]

I agree..

False advertisement. Especially if they release a remastered edition, as stated before admission of poor transfer of first disc.

[kolasi]

im looking forward to the remastered version.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by O_V_N

I agree that anyone who posted here at the time of its initial release wasn't ripped off -- we knew what we were getting into.

But the average person doesn't post here. The average person bought the "Sapphire Edition" believing the warranty on the product, and was duped. Paramount's release to correct the problems is a blatant admission.

There should be an exchange, pure and simple.

No one (who isn't being obstinate for obstinate's sake) should oppose this.

I have to agree with this. I find it odd that people oppose the exchange program.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I find it odd that people oppose the exchange program.

Especially since Sony did the same thing for The Fifth Element and was praised for it.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

Especially since Sony did the same thing for The Fifth Element and was praised for it.

Though that was an authoring error, wasn't it? Technically, there's nothing wrong with Paramount using an older master, so I don't think they'll offer an exchange program.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Though that was an authoring error, wasn't it? Technically, there's nothing wrong with Paramount using an older master, so I don't think they'll offer an exchange program.

An authoring error? I thought the original release of TFE was a old, dirty substandard print.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

An authoring error? I thought the original release of TFE was a old, dirty substandard print.

From what I've been told that's what it was. Just a beat up old print. Plus some EE was applied if I remember right.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Though that was an authoring error, wasn't it? Technically, there's nothing wrong with Paramount using an older master, so I don't think they'll offer an exchange program.

And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm all for studios doing the right thing when it's an error on their part (like with Pirates of the Caribbean and the framing error, TFE was an old print IIRC), but when it's presumably because it's and old master then that's a different story. If Paramount had said "brand new transfer" and then dumped this one on us, fair enough, but they didn't. It may have been released under the Sapphire Series label (and I think that's what has got most people fired up), but again that's not a guarantee of quality outright.

Paramount's original press release for the Sapphire Series stated that the releases would have "optimum audio and video". Optimum normally means best, but it can be a little misleading. A quick trip to dictionary.com confirms optimum's definition as "the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions". Paramount's conditions at the time were an old master. Should they have done a new master for the initial release? Absolutely. Do I sympathise with people who bought the first release? Definitely. Does Paramount have to offer a replacement program? No. They released the best product given what transfer they had. Was that a smart idea on their part? Not really, especially given the fact that Blu-ray is for video and audiophiles and that the Sapphire Series is meant to represent quality. Still, it simply doesn't mean that just because it wasn't smart that it was an error.

I sincerely hope they do offer up a replacement program for everyone, but in this case, all I'm saying is I don't think they're obligated to.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by atexp80

And that's exactly where I'm coming from. I'm all for studios doing the right thing when it's an error on their part (like with Pirates of the Caribbean and the framing error, TFE was an old print IIRC), but when it's presumably because it's and old master then that's a different story. If Paramount had said "brand new transfer" and then dumped this one on us, fair enough, but they didn't. It may have been released under the Sapphire Series label (and I think that's what has got most people fired up), but again that's not a guarantee of quality outright.

Paramount's original press release for the Sapphire Series stated that the releases would have "optimum audio and video". Optimum normally means best, but it can be a little misleading. A quick trip to dictionary.com confirms optimum's definition as "the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions". Paramount's conditions at the time were an old master. Should they have done a new master for the initial release? Absolutely. Do I sympathise with people who bought the first release? Definitely. Does Paramount have to offer a replacement program? No. They released the best product given what transfer they had. Was that a smart idea on their part? Not really, especially given the fact that Blu-ray is for video and audiophiles and that the Sapphire Series is meant to represent quality. Still, it simply doesn't mean that just because it wasn't smart that it was an error.

I sincerely hope they do offer up a replacement program for everyone, but in this case, all I'm saying is I don't think they're obligated to.

Not exactly. It said the best picture, therefore, blatantly misleading.

“It’s absolutely fitting that we’re presenting the best films in the Paramount library on the finest home entertainment format available,” said Rob Moore, Vice Chairman, Paramount Pictures. “Because of Blu-ray’s phenomenal capabilities, the Sapphire Series will deliver the best pictures in the best picture.”

You shouldnt say that when you know darn well you are using a dated master that doesnt hold up to the remastered extended scenes.

[42041]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Not exactly. It said the best possible picture, therfore, blatantly misleading.

Well, it was I believe the official platform of the pro-Gladiator crowd was that it's the best possible version of the movie you can get.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Not exactly. It said the best picture, therefore, blatantly misleading.

“It’s absolutely fitting that we’re presenting the best films in the Paramount library on the finest home entertainment format available,” said Rob Moore, Vice Chairman, Paramount Pictures. “Because of Blu-ray’s phenomenal capabilities, the Sapphire Series will deliver the best pictures in the best picture.”

You shouldnt say that when you know darn well you are using a dated master that doesnt hold up to the remastered extended scenes.

I agree that saying that can lead people to think one thing, however even saying that's subjective. "Best picture" can mean that it's the best period, or the best picture quality released for consumers thus far. Now if he had said "best possible picture", well then he would have been flat out lying. Rob Moore should choose words more carefully and we shouldn't assume anything when it comes to a product just because of a catchy title like "Sapphire Series". We've found special editions that aren't that special before and other releases pumped up to be fantastic when they are simply average.

I used to be a regular visitor to The HD Room back around the time the Sapphire Series was announced and the initial report on the press release is where I remember the optimum statement from. I found the link here. You'll notice in the article that it states that "In Paramount's words: Each film in the collection will have optimum audio and video and extensive extras in two-disc sets." Both the statement above and Rob Moore's statement indicate a great release, but neither state that it's perfect. While that's what we were hoping for (or as close as is possible) there's nothing that states outright that's what they were going to provide. I imagine when the re-release is announced it will be populated with statements such as "best possible picture quality", "highest achievable quality" or "brand new optimal transfer" etc to indicate the difference between the new release and the old.

As with any product, words can always have some many different interpretations so I choose to always let the product speak for itself.

[ClaytonMG]

Alright, so lets say this isn't even a remaster. Shouldn't people be upset that a studio would be double dipping on a film that was released only 8 months ago as the ultimate top of the line Sapphire edition?

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's absolutely disturbing that people are AGAINST an exchange program. It wouldn't have any effect on them one way or another so why be against it?

[STARSCREAM]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Alright, so lets say this isn't even a remaster. Shouldn't people be upset that a studio would be double dipping on a film that was released only 8 months ago as the ultimate top of the line Sapphire edition?

I said it before and I'll say it again, it's absolutely disturbing that people are AGAINST an exchange program. It wouldn't have any effect on them one way or another so why be against it?

+1 on all said! No reason at all people should be against an exchange program. Also, it's absolutely absurd they are re-releasing a movie only 8 months later. That should be admission enough the first was a failure. To top it all off, this was released in the Sapphire Series which is supposed to mean something, like quality PQ!