Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Priest 3D, which I own but have not watched, is alleged to be both a terrible movie and one with very bad 3D effects. The blu-ray.com review scores both the movie and the 3D video quality 1.5/ 5.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pries.../25974/#Review

You own a film you haven't got around to watching yet? You surprise me!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You own a film you haven't got around to watching yet? You surprise me!

I bought that one because it was deeply discounted at the time. I was just showing a little bit of love for the 3D format as I really do not have that much interest in this movie.

I continue to watch an average of two movies per day, but this one may have to wait awhile.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

anyone that has a passion for a work of art will react in horror when some idiot decides to "fix" it

That example was meant to show the original producer of a film can be not satisfied and uses it as a basis for a changed work.

I don't think we want to stretch the discussion to encompass conservators that are not the original owners of a film. Thats a bad perspective to have against a studios work to be in the hands of lien holders or banks. MGM holdings is a modern day example. Still old films stored in a vault get damaged because something unfortunate happens (fire, water pipe burst). Sometimes there is no way but to guess what the film exactly looked like during a restoration. In that context you would react in your manner when it is repaired and rereleased.

But I don't think we generally want to refer to people that attempt to fix a damaged film as idiots just because stodgy old conservators don't like that!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

No one should be allowed? That's fairly strong. It seems to go well beyond mere moral suasion or voting with ones wallet. What kind of enforcement mechanisms do those of you who believe this advocate to ensure that no one is allowed to edit things that have already been released?

your point makes no sense what so ever.

now you did not say legal enforcement. But let's go there since you seem to be removing ethical and economic enforcement from the mix. The law is perfectly clear you are not allowed to go over the speed limit, you are not allowed to jay walk, in the US you are not allowed to make a copy of a BD..... But none of them are really enforced when done within reason. That is when people talk about what is tolerated.

I honestly don't mean this sarcastically or snarkily: kudos for being honest about your motivation.

that would be a first

'I wanted something else' is a perfectly valid reason to not like edited or altered versions of this, that or the other thing. I didn't like New Coke and I really don't like the Special Edition of the Original Star Wars films.

But that said, if we're going to go beyond 'I don't like this' or 'I'm not going to buy this' and say that changes should not be allowed don't we have to come up with something a little more compelling than 'it's not exactly how I want it'?

At least the 'moral rights of artists' crowd can hang their hat on something beyond 'I don't like the changes'. Don't get me wrong, I don't find the moral rights of artists argument all that compelling but it is an argument.

And to be clear, I don't necessarily believe the property rights of the owners are absolute. The people/entities that own films, particularly those that own significant film libraries, do have at least some ethical/moral obligation to be responsible stewards of those properties.

Can I envision some extreme hypothetical under which the public might have a legitimate interest in telling property owners 'no, sorry, you may not do this to your own stuff'? Sure.

But barring that I'm (obviously) in the camp that thinks property owners should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own stuff.

I thought including LOTR and saying How I own both the TC and EC would have made my point clearer. There are many films where I bout different cust of the film.

I just believe a film once it reaches the theatre becomes a fixed work of art and should be available as it was shown. Now I don't have an issue if an altered version also exists, then people can choose which one interests them the most.

If the guy in charge of the Louvre decided to pay a forger to make a prefect copy of the Mona Lisa and then tells him to add a moustache to it, and people can go and see Mona Lisa and Mona Lisa with a moustache I have no problem with that , they are both different works of are even if the later is "inspired" from the former. On the other hand if he decides to get the forger to add a moustache to the original Mona Lisa because he likes moustaches then I have a huge issue (even if for some reason I think it looks incredible) because IMHO it dos not really "belong" to him or the louvre but to humanity which means every human being out there and every human being yet to be born. And if absolutely everyone does not say "yes" then it should not be messed up for the people that (would) say "No I prefer it the way it was originally"

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

That example was meant to show the original producer of a film can be not satisfied and uses it as a basis for a changed work.

I don't think we want to stretch the discussion to encompass conservators that are not the original owners of a film. Thats a bad perspective to have against a studios work to be in the hands of lien holders or banks. MGM holdings is a modern day example. Still old films stored in a vault get damaged because something unfortunate happens (fire, water pipe burst). Sometimes there is no way but to guess what the film exactly looked like during a restoration. In that context you would react in your manner when it is repaired and rereleased.

But I don't think we generally want to refer to people that attempt to fix a damaged film as idiots just because stodgy old conservators don't like that!

But I did not say movie scenes should be limited to their first take or to the first script. By the time the film is released in theatres I hope the producer was satisfied by it.

In your link most of them where about painters that did not like a painting they did (either because of esthetic or financial reasons) that used the old canvas to make something completely new. Except for the last one that was about a crazy lady that decided to "fix" a painting and just to be clear



on the left is the original and the right is her "restoration" so I give two thumbs up to stodgy old conservators, too bad she was able to do what she wanted.

[Lee A Stewart]

So what about the 4 different versions of BLADE RUNNER? Each was shown in theaters and the home video versions did very well even though the originals (USA and European) did not. Personally, I am very glad R. Scott chose to "tinker" with the film. IMO the Final Cut is a much better movie than the originals and even better than the Director's Cut.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

But I did not say movie scenes should be limited to their first take or to the first script. By the time the film is released in theatres I hope the producer was satisfied by it.

I imagine there are a lot of films that get released where the studio wants to go back and redo it because it just was executed poorly, or poorly marketed. Look at John Carter, its not bad but Disney PR folk didn't at all attempt to show what the film is actually based on.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

In your link most of them where about painters that did not like a painting they did (either because of esthetic or financial reasons) that used the old canvas to make something completely new. Except for the last one that was about a crazy lady that decided to "fix" a painting and just to be clear

on the left is the original and the right is her "restoration" so I give two thumbs up to stodgy old conservators, too bad she was able to do what she wanted.

Yes this is probably one of the worse or most tragic examples of things that happen to a work of art, but one conciliation is that other regional church's probably never allowed anything similar to happen.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

All four are reference in my opinion.

Thanks for the detailed response.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Priest 3D, which I own but have not watched, is alleged to be both a terrible movie and one with very bad 3D effects.

It is but I have several bad movies that I like. Example, Legend with Tom Cruise, when it was released Siskel & Ebert said it was one of the worst movies that had ever reviewed. I like Tangerine Dream and I like Legend. As mentioned before, another bad movie that would love to get on disc in OAR is The Keep.

[cheez avenger]

Priest is atrocious. Legend, the ultimate cut, and parts of the original version are not, though.

Priest was directed by the guy that did Legion, which was also godawful, and another film, that I haven't seen called Dark Skies.

There is no alleging that Priest is a bad film and I like my share of "bad" films, too.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Thanks for the detailed response.

No problem.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

It is but I have several bad movies that I like. Example, Legend with Tom Cruise, when it was released Siskel & Ebert said it was one of the worst movies that had ever reviewed. I like Tangerine Dream and I like Legend. As mentioned before, another bad movie that would love to get on disc in OAR is The Keep.

I like Legend and The Keep, also.

Here's my copy of The Keep in its OAR:

TheKeepLaserdisc.jpg

I backed it up to DVD, but the laserdisc was never a reference disc; it is rough looking. This movie was supposedly released on DVD only in Australia in its OAR; but not on blu-ray which is maddening and mystifying.

This link is for the Amazon.au listing for the March 4, 2020 DVD release. Note that most of the reviews pre-date this release and are for a different edition. The product listing does not specify the aspect ratio, though.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Keep-Micha...s%2C183&sr=1-1

There is also this listing from JB Hifi:

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/keep-the-1983-dvd

I think that both of these links are for the same DVD release, but the latter came from the thread on this subject:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...he+keep&page=3

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

your point makes no sense what so ever.

That would be a first

Originally Posted by Anthony P

now you did not say legal enforcement. But let's go there...

Yes, let's. When you say 'no one should be allowed' are you suggesting there should be some legal mechanism that enforces this?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...since you seem to be removing ethical and economic enforcement from the mix.

I don't think I took ethical or economic enforcement/persuasion out of the mix. I think the word 'allowed' did that.

It's one thing to say 'people shouldn't smoke'. It's another thing entirely to say 'people shouldn't be allowed to smoke'.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The law is perfectly clear you are not allowed to go over the speed limit, you are not allowed to jay walk, in the US you are not allowed to make a copy of a BD..... But none of them are really enforced when done within reason. That is when people talk about what is tolerated.

So how - if at all - does any of this apply to editing content that has already been released?

Are you suggesting there should be laws against editing content that has already been released but authorities shouldn't go overboard in enforcing them?

It might sound like I'm being pedantic here but I'm really not. I really can't tell if 'no one should be allowed' was just a rhetorical flourish or if you really mean that.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I thought including LOTR and saying How I own both the TC and EC would have made my point clearer. There are many films where I bout different cust of the film.

Well, it did and it didn't. It made it clear that you were willing to make exceptions to the 'no one should be allowed to edit' rule but it didn't really speak to whether you believed that rule should be a suggestion or a mandate.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I just believe a film once it reaches the theatre becomes a fixed work of art and should be available as it was shown. Now I don't have an issue if an altered version also exists, then people can choose which one interests them the most.

I'm not unsympathetic. As a general proposition I (naturally enough) prefer more choices to fewer choices and would prefer that whenever feasible studios try as best they can to preserve and disseminate films as they were originally presented.

But at the end of the day that's really all it is: a preference.

I would love a BD release of the unaltered Star Wars OT but I don't know that Disney is obligated to offer such a release. I would have loved for HBO to have included an OAR version with their BD release of The Wire but when all is said and done that was their call.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If the guy in charge of the Louvre decided to pay a forger to make a prefect copy of the Mona Lisa...

What is it with you guys and the Mona Lisa?

I'm not sure I'm willing to go so far as to say 'humanity' owns the Mona Lisa but as I said earlier, I don't necessarily believe the rights of property owners are absolute.

Can I envision some extreme hypothetical where there could be a legitimate public interest in restricting what the owner(s) of the Mona Lisa were allowed to do with their own property? Sure, I suppose.

But I think it would be a lot harder to make a similar public interest argument when it comes to telling Disney they may not cover Daryl Hannah's butt. Or that they have to also make Daryl Hannah's unconvered butt available.

And I say that with all due respect to the butt in question. It's magnificent.

I just don't think my interest in seeing it trumps Disney's right to do what they want with their own stuff.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

But customers should be able to do whatever they want with the copies of those movies and TV shows they've purchased.

Well, withing reason. If we let people start showing Blu-rays on oil rigs who knows what kind of madness could follow. People might start retransmitting or rebroadcasting accounts or descriptions of Major League Baseball games without the express written consent of the Commissioner.

And then where would we be???

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

But I also won't buy any products that customers don't have control over.

I would hope this is obvious but I'm a big fan of physical media. I have not yet purchased a digital title nor do I redeem digital copies. That said, I would still say I'm the 'never say never' camp on this.

If Disney were to offer a beautifully restored high-definition (or better) copy of the unaltered Star Wars films only as digital downloads or the like I don't think I would turn my nose up at that. Not for long, anyway.

I might not like it but my pique would not likely carry the day.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

This link is for the Amazon.au listing for the March 4, 2020 DVD release.

Thanks for the info.

The $19.98 version list the aspect as 2.35, PAL format, is from Madman Entertainment, 95 minutes, is Region 4 and has a M rating. The $35.88 version list aspect as 4 x 3, NTSC format, is from La Entertainment, 96 minutes, is All Regions and has a MA rating. If it were certain this version was a 2.35 anamorphic DVD then I would order today. If it is a letter boxed 2.35 in a 1.33 screen then I will pass. Same if it is a P&S.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Thanks for the info.

The $19.98 version list the aspect as 2.35, PAL format, is from Madman Entertainment, 95 minutes, is Region 4 and has a M rating. The $35.88 version list aspect as 4 x 3, NTSC format, is from La Entertainment, 96 minutes, is All Regions and has a MA rating. If it were certain this version was a 2.35 anamorphic DVD then I would order today. If it is a letter boxed 2.35 in a 1.33 screen then I will pass. Same if it is a P&S.

Both of the links, JB Hifi and Amazon.au, list the Madman Entertainment release. At Amazon.au, look at the DVD priced at $19.98; the first one listed with ASIN B083TMYV86.

According to comments in the thread here at blu-ray.com, the DVD plays on region 1 players. One person says it is even NTSC. A DVD released this year is all but certain to be anamorphic and there would be some loud complaining in the thread if it were otherwise.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=67

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=69

https://www.amazon.com.au/Keep-Micha...s%2C183&sr=1-1

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/keep-the-1983-dvd

The "model" listed at JB Hi Fi, VVE2005, matches that listed at the Via Vision website and also at Madman Entertainment's website:

https://viavision.com.au/shop/the-keep/

https://www.madman.com.au/catalogue/view/51790/the-keep

^ They list the aspect ratio as 2:35 and also NTSC.

[Vilya]

Walmart has dumped Vudu afterall; Fandango bought it.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=683

[stonesfan129]

I want cheaper rentals. $5.99 or more for a digital rental is ridiculous.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Both of the links, JB Hifi and Amazon.au, list the Madman Entertainment release.

The thing that concerns me is the version from Madman Entertainment has a run time of 95 minutes and has a M rating. The La Entertainment is 96 minutes (same as IMdB listing) and has a MA rating. I get the feeling the Madman version has been edited. IIRC my LaserDisc version was R rated (same as the movie).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Walmart has dumped Vudu afterall; Fandango bought it.

Interesting because it is a duplication of services.

I have noticed Walmart has added more physical racks across the isle from their new disc displays. Does the Walmarts in your are have the new displays?

[Show spoiler]