Twilight Time Discussion Thread

[bdgking]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Except my issue wasn't about shipping: it was about the site constantly crashing when trying to place or pay for an order, which was a problem both before and after they used Amazon's servers for many on this site whenever TT or other limited editions went live.

You really should stop trying to be a back seat moderator . A moderator you are not .
I do not need you to put words in my mouth .

You can keep your rudeness to yourself and move on .

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by bdgking

You really should stop trying to be a back seat moderator . A moderator you are not .
I do not need you to put words in my mouth .

You can keep your rudeness to yourself and move on .

(1) He wasn't talking to you, he was referring to someone else's post.
(2) In reference to what I've highlighted in bold from your previous post: what are you, Yoda?

[VideoPhonic]

apologies in advance for any redundancy, but is there a specific reason as to why blu-ray.com is not reviewing twilight time discs?

[Zen_Amako]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

apologies in advance for any redundancy, but is there a specific reason as to why blu-ray.com is not reviewing twilight time discs?

This site does review Twilight Time releases, but I don't know if the reviewers receive screeners or if they have to buy the discs themselves.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by bdgking

You really should stop trying to be a back seat moderator . A moderator you are not .
I do not need you to put words in my mouth .

You can keep your rudeness to yourself and move on .

The rudeness is purely your own, and both substantial and unwarranted: as pointed out, unlike your pompous attempt to play front seat moderator in the rudest fashion possible, I was replying to another post about generalizations and mu own experiences with SAE. That's not, despite your paranoia and obvious arrogance, putting words in your mouth or being a backseat moderator. I'm sorry if my reply to another post didn't fit in with your narrow view or if in your egomania you seem to think everything is about you, but I'm not the one making posts insisting what posts are unacceptable. You know, like a back seat moderator.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Zen_Amako

This site does review Twilight Time releases, but I don't know if the reviewers receive screeners or if they have to buy the discs themselves.

Let's say it comes down to bad blood in the past that has yet to be fully mopped up. It's probably best to leave that particular can of worms at that.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by bdgking

You really should stop trying to be a back seat moderator . A moderator you are not .
I do not need you to put words in my mouth .

You can keep your rudeness to yourself and move on .

WTH? Aclea was pointing out an example of rudeness he also had with SAE. Is that how you thank people who back you up?

[VideoPhonic]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Let's say it comes down to bad blood in the past that has yet to be fully mopped up. It's probably best to leave that particular can of worms at that.

Fair enough. Should be mopped up though, it's pretty silly to not review discs that often feature the first appearances of new Sony and Fox 4K masters.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

Fair enough. Should be mopped up though, it's pretty silly to not review discs that often feature the first appearances of new Sony and Fox 4K masters.

To be fair there's not much to say about Sony 4k remasters other than "they look amazing."

[VideoPhonic]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

To be fair there's not much to say about Sony 4k remasters other than "they look amazing."

Sure but my point was really that these discs often represent the first public presentations of new 4K remasters/restorations. I appreciate reading any technical discussion of those remasters/restorations (and how they're represented on disc) beyond the beav, RAH, etc. especially on a site like this that functions as a database. Regardless of the content of the review, I feel that it's it's a waste to not use this site as a platform (beyond the forums) and resource for information on these remasters/restorations/discs. In the larger context of online film discussion, the kind of titles that Twilight Time puts out (and have received major restoration work) go unnoticed. Since this site acts as as good of a resource as any for information on new 4K remasters/restorations, ignoring these titles (for whatever reasons) is missing an opportunity to keep building up the site as a valuable database. And more non-beav screenshots never hurt anyone.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

Fair enough. Should be mopped up though, it's pretty silly to not review discs that often feature the first appearances of new Sony and Fox 4K masters.

A rep from the company has made it quite clear that it's not getting mopped up any time soon.

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

Sure but my point was really that these discs often represent the first public presentations of new 4K remasters/restorations. I appreciate reading any technical discussion of those remasters/restorations (and how they're represented on disc) beyond the beav, RAH, etc. especially on a site like this that functions as a database. Regardless of the content of the review, I feel that it's it's a waste to not use this site as a platform (beyond the forums) and resource for information on these remasters/restorations/discs. In the larger context of online film discussion, the kind of titles that Twilight Time puts out (and have received major restoration work) go unnoticed. Since this site acts as as good of a resource as any for information on new 4K remasters/restorations, ignoring these titles (for whatever reasons) is missing an opportunity to keep building up the site as a valuable database. And more non-beav screenshots never hurt anyone.

While I agree 100%.

Is the burden not really on the users then to make the reviews and updates, if TT isn't sending out a screener copy?

I think the site is a bit of a community. So releases that are not sent to the site for "free" the burden is basically on us to provide that feedback, right?

[RalphoR]

To my own experience I haven't had a bad disc/scan ever from TT so I don't really use reviews to make my decisions in regards to their titles. I just purchase them. To be fair and balanced my TT collection consists of under 25 titles so take it with a grain of salt.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by VideoPhonic

Sure but my point was really that these discs often represent the first public presentations of new 4K remasters/restorations. I appreciate reading any technical discussion of those remasters/restorations (and how they're represented on disc) beyond the beav, RAH, etc. especially on a site like this that functions as a database. Regardless of the content of the review, I feel that it's it's a waste to not use this site as a platform (beyond the forums) and resource for information on these remasters/restorations/discs. In the larger context of online film discussion, the kind of titles that Twilight Time puts out (and have received major restoration work) go unnoticed. Since this site acts as as good of a resource as any for information on new 4K remasters/restorations, ignoring these titles (for whatever reasons) is missing an opportunity to keep building up the site as a valuable database. And more non-beav screenshots never hurt anyone.

From a personal standpoint, I like to read reviews and look at the screencaps but I find that the forums are a much more reliable resource for uncovering issues. I've read too many site reviews where obvious issues were overlooked for whatever reason to not depend on them for that reason.

That being said, in the general scheme of things I do think it hurts the site's credibility not to have reviews of all of those Twilight Time discs. I don't know what the site's budget is but if TT are not sending screener copies, then they [blu-ray.com] should be purchasing all those and, if need be to recoup costs, re-selling them once they are reviewed. There are some major titles released by TT and considering the limited nature, price, etc. people will want to read reviews before buying them and in doing so, they will bring traffic to the site.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

That being said, in the general scheme of things I do think it hurts the site's credibility not to have reviews of all of those Twilight Time discs. I don't know what the site's budget is but if TT are not sending screener copies, then they [blu-ray.com] should be purchasing all those and, if need be to recoup costs, re-selling them once they are reviewed. There are some major titles released by TT and considering the limited nature, price, etc. people will want to read reviews before buying them and in doing so, they will bring traffic to the site.

Also I am sure the vast majority of the site's profit is from Amazon links, which don't apply to TT releases. There would probably be less interest in reviewing them in general, even if they were provided free, let alone when they are not.

[VideoPhonic]

Appreciate the responses, I've been curious about this. Personally, I believe it'd be mutually beneficial for both bd.com and TT to work this out. If there's any burden at all it's on TT for needing more exposure for their products and bd.com for providing resources to its users (I honestly do think any site, if they wish to remain relevant, should pay out of pocket to review an item that its users would deem worth reviewing if said item is not offered for review by the manufacturer. This is a whole other matter though and not where I was trying to push the conversation). Obviously the community here and on other forums is what keeps conversations on these films alive and ultimately provides us fans with the details and nitpicks we want and need to be satisfied by any purchase. Essentially I was lamenting the fact that the arrivals of new 4K restorations often go unnoticed (and almost always ignored by the larger online film community), so for an outlet like bd.com, from where an official review could provide a title and its restoration with even just a little more exposure, to not review these discs seems silly. Alright, I'm off the soapbox but I do feel that when there are these rifts between distributors, sites, fans, etc. it only pushes the discussion of actual content further and further to the sidelines... as evidenced by my long posts about sites and distributors. New 4Ks are a big deal, that's just a sentiment I hope everyone shares.

[bruceames]

Well only Jeffrey Kauffman was doing the reviews anyway, and it's not like discontinuing TT reviews has dropped his workload any. Other labels are getting more of his attention now and he's also reviews 4K titles. There's really only a handful of high-volume reviewers on this site, and he's one of the most productive even without TT.

I ended up paying scalper's price for The Mad Magician on Amazon as I was too slow. Somebody bought at least 10 copies and was selling them on Amazon for $50 each (I think they are gone now). I did get Miss Sadie Thompson and A Member of the Wedding during the sale though, so I'm just going to pretend I got them all at (near) full price as they did all arrive on the same day.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Well only Jeffrey Kauffman was doing the reviews anyway, and it's not like discontinuing TT reviews has dropped his workload any. Other labels are getting more of his attention now and he's also reviews 4K titles. There's really only a handful of high-volume reviewers on this site, and he's one of the most productive even without TT.

I ended up paying scalper's price for The Mad Magician on Amazon as I was too slow. Somebody bought at least 10 copies and was selling them on Amazon for $50 each (I think they are gone now). I did get Miss Sadie Thompson and A Member of the Wedding during the sale though, so I'm just going to pretend I got them all at (near) full price as they did all arrive on the same day.

That's no worse than the $70 I paid back in January for Leave Her to Heaven. I passed on it when it was available obviously, but I ended up really wanting it well after it was sold out and obviously have nobody but myself to blame. As long as it's a good disc and something we really want (and will get plenty of use out of), then I guess there are worse things than paying a lot for a sold out release.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

While I agree 100%.

Is the burden not really on the users then to make the reviews and updates, if TT isn't sending out a screener copy?

I think the site is a bit of a community. So releases that are not sent to the site for "free" the burden is basically on us to provide that feedback, right?

It isnt, simply because nobody expects people here to be as precise and thorough and trustworthy like an official reviewer.
It's up to TT and blu-ray.com to find how they can get to trust each other, one by making fair reviews and the other to accept the reviews as fair.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

That's no worse than the $70 I paid back in January for Leave Her to Heaven. I passed on it when it was available obviously, but I ended up really wanting it well after it was sold out and obviously have nobody but myself to blame. As long as it's a good disc and something we really want (and will get plenty of use out of), then I guess there are worse things than paying a lot for a sold out release.

I paid $80 for The Egyptian a few years back, but with so many sales and lower prices these days, it does make it a little easier to justify to pay OOP prices once in a while. I might have just waited on this for a likely Indicator release, but I don't know if they'll include the 3 Stooges 3D shorts and I didn't want to take a chance