Heat 4K UHD (1995)

[PNguyen]

Originally Posted by vector72

The press release copied on this site lists it as "Previously Remastered in 4k" as opposed to newly remastered.

It's simply the first time the 2017 version will be screened in public.

He posted 2 stills of the 4K transfer on Twitter. It looks quite different from the one on iTunes.

[GRSN]

Originally Posted by MachinesofHate

Michael Mann is very much the sort of person who could sway a studio like Disney to allow him to go back and produce a new master. Would also go
a long way in explaining why it has taken all of 63 years for the 4K release (other than to tie-in with Heat 2 novel, of course ). I guess we'll find out closer to release date whether it's an entirely new master or the same one from Fox BD with a HDR grade (which I wouldn't complain about as I quite liked that transfer)

I hate Steelbooks as a general rule so I hope for a standard UK edition in August.

Exactly why this might be a entirely new master,
he's not like Mr. Spielberg with his Jurassic Park 4K transfer
where Universal just slapped whatever was laying around on disc.

Originally Posted by vector72

The press release copied on this site lists it as "Previously Remastered in 4k" as opposed to newly remastered.

It's simply the first time the 2017 version will be screened in public.

Press release that came from Disney,
might as well have said "Remastered in 4K from dogshit"
just saying: don't believe a "press release"
i'd rather have information from the Director's social media itself.

And, no, like i said before, the previous screening (Oscars Q&A)
was in public, which was the 2017 master.

[blackprojection]

Originally Posted by PNguyen

He posted 2 stills of the 4K transfer on Twitter. It looks quite different from the one on iTunes.

source: https://twitter.com/MichaelMann/stat...41831305121792

[Geoff D]

Ummmm....those are photos from the set, not stills of the actual transfer.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by PNguyen

He posted 2 stills of the 4K transfer on Twitter. It looks quite different from the one on iTunes.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ummmm....those are photos from the set, not stills of the actual transfer.

PNguyen, you had one job.

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thank you also for the correction. But it begs the same question: if they are so vested in home video then why did/does poor compression keep on being a thing after all this time? Could it be that they don’t see it either, even with their massive home cinemas?


Oh it’s gonna be so joyful in here when the UHD hits the streets

My guess is that it comes down to the fact that most directors A: are not true videophiles and B: really, really don't enjoy viewing their own material once it's been released to the world. Bryan Singer mainly uses the actual, full-size theater built into his home to watch Rick and Morty on Hulu. Friedken told me that The Exorcist blu-ray is "perfection" and that he wouldn't revisit it again "for a million bucks." Del Toro (coolest person ever btw) loves the Criterion disc of Pan's Labyrinth and wasn't even consulted on the 4K.

Also it's not really that they are so "vested" in home video as much as it is that they simply have a lower tolerance for s**t presentations compared to the average Roku-wielding, VIZIO-owning consumer.

[PNguyen]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ummmm....those are photos from the set, not stills of the actual transfer.

Damn, maybe he posted those as a reference to what this 4K master will look like? I guess we’ll find out after it’s screened.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, the Fox/MGM deal expired in June 2020. Fox don't control nada when it comes to MGM. Anything that Fox distributed for them that's been kept in print by Warners is the same Fox discs in Warners packaging, true, but that's because there's no point in re-authoring a disc just to remove a logo.

Oh, and Towering Inferno is with Warners outside the US.

1. So aside from Amazon, who has deals with MGM now?
2. What Fox titles does WB have in print?
3. I keep forgetting about the Fox/WB arrangement on The Towering Inferno. I’m surrounded by a shitload of Fox copies of it. Is WB using the same transfer outside the US that Fox used on the Blu-ray?

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

1. So aside from Amazon, who has deals with MGM now?
2. What Fox titles does WB have in print?
3. I keep forgetting about the Fox/WB arrangement on The Towering Inferno. I’m surrounded by a shitload of Fox copies of it. Is WB using the same transfer outside the US that Fox used on the Blu-ray?

1. WB distributes MGM physical media. That’s the only relevant detail now.
2. WB does not print Fox titles. There is no such thing as a Fox MGM title. New printings and new releases of MGM titles are simply branded with SDS where once they said Fox. That’s all that has changed from the consumer’s perspective.
3. Why, exactly, are you “surrounded” by a bunch of copies of the same movie?

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by suspiciouscoffee

There is absolutely no way a 4k master of the theatrical cuts of Star Wars exist outside fan projects. Anything Disney/LFL say about a 4k master existing is referring to the 19SEs. Which is fine, I gave up years ago and am (mostly) happy with the 4KXX series. Even JJ Abrams says he watches Despecialized because he just couldn’t get anything out of Disney/LFL “for reasons I don’t entirely understand”.

I couldn’t make sense of Disney having 4K unedited transfers either. Let’s call a spade a spade, the originals are never coming back out legitimately. My only thought is they were restored, copyrighted, and being sat on. Otherwise, why would they preserve something they have no intention of releasing? Same thing with Song Of The South. It was restored, in 4K, off the negative...and then they just sat on it. It’s not like they’re going to look prettier in their cans on a shelf in the Disney vaults, it’s probably just to meet some legal requirement to keep the films under their control for a longer period of time. Legally, it makes sense. From a film lover’s perspective, it’s just same shit different day at Disney.

I came up with my own little conspiracy theory regarding the Star Wars edits, and it makes more sense than the official explanation. Lucas has constantly defended the edits as him making Star Wars better, and that is simply not true. He also claims that, while some people complain about the edits, most fans love the edited versions more. This is also untrue. Then it hit me: every time he changes something, it counts as a new movie, which makes it a new derivative work, and it qualifies for a new copyright. And the copyright protection of the new work (the edit in question) extends to the old work (the original movie). While the copyright law seems strict at maximum 95 years, they’ve already extended it to 95 years because of rich people (Disney) throwing their money around, why not extend it some more? As is, the first three Star Wars movies are protected until at least 2114, 95 years after the most recent versions came out. It’s a hokey theory, but it makes slightly more sense than “They’re better! They’re better! They’re better!”

[suspiciouscoffee]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

My guess is that it comes down to the fact that most directors A: are not true videophiles and B: really, really don't enjoy viewing their own material once it's been released to the world. Bryan Singer mainly uses the actual, full-size theater built into his home to watch Rick and Morty on Hulu.

Oh, I don’t think Hulu has what Singer is really into.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Blu-Curry

^ Yeah it's a really interesting situation. I previously noticed on Disney+ that all 5 Die Hard films had a 4K version to stream. Made me wonder if that meant 4K UHD releases of the last 4 were on the way, but still nothing. I read a long time ago that Heat was on the way, so awesome that it's finally getting released.

Die Hard is on Disney+? Sure it’s not on Hulu? I can’t imagine anything R-rated on super-PC Disney+.

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

Die Hard is on Disney+? Sure it’s not on Hulu? I can’t imagine anything R-rated on super-PC Disney+.

All the Netflix marvel shows are on Disney plus, those are rated M.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by Kinsella5

Whenever I see comments like this I think back to 2010 when I met Cameron and his wife, I asked him about The Abyss and when it would be out on Blu-ray and how much I had enjoyed how Aliens came out in the Alien Anthology set. He smiled and said he was getting readyto oversee the Blu-ray transfer and if I liked what I saw with Aliens, that I would love how The Abyss would look and sound. Approaching 12 years since that evening and The Abyss has yet to be released on Blu-ray. I do hope that the 4K version is in the works based on the tidbits that have gotten out there. Jim was really friendly that night, taking the time to chat with me, sign some stuff that I had, etc.

Regarding Heat 4K, I am eagerly looking forward to it. Perhaps because the Heat 2 novel was expected last year, and I recall reading that the 4K release was planned as well, the delay in the novel perhaps caused the studio to delay the 4K release so that they both could be released the same day.

I really wish James Cameron would come on this site. Not only to see how many people want his movies on 4K and Blu-ray, but to see how many people are truly laughing at him for his inaction over the years. The first time the ever-trusty Digital Bits teased this as coming soon was 2009 (that article is pretty funny if you haven’t read it), and here we are 13 years later. The most-repeated story in the last few years is True Lies and The Abyss were going to get restored after the Avatar sequels were done filming (which they are) and Avatar 1 was on 4K (which that’s starting to become a rumor mill as well). So the sequels are done, Dances With Smurfs Part 2 has a release date, and Dances With Smurfs Part 1 is ALLEGEDLY being prepped for a 4K release as we speak. Then he’s going to do True Lies and The Abyss.

[Kinsella5]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

I really wish James Cameron would come on this site. Not only to see how many people want his movies on 4K and Blu-ray, but to see how many people are truly laughing at him for his inaction over the years. The first time the ever-trusty Digital Bits teased this as coming soon was 2009 (that article is pretty funny if you haven’t read it), and here we are 13 years later. The most-repeated story in the last few years is True Lies and The Abyss were going to get restored after the Avatar sequels were done filming (which they are) and Avatar 1 was on 4K (which that’s starting to become a rumor mill as well). So the sequels are done, Dances With Smurfs Part 2 has a release date, and Dances With Smurfs Part 1 is ALLEGEDLY being prepped for a 4K release as we speak. Then he’s going to do True Lies and The Abyss.

I agree, it is quite frustrating, while I would enjoy True Lies on 4K, my top choice of the two would be The Abyss. Perhaps there is more going on with the delays than we aren't privy too, I just hope perhaps we could get them by year's end, but I know its probably too much to ask. I still can't believe it's been over 30 years since Abyss was released, seems literally like yesterday I was watching that in the theater. Then again, I say the very same thing about Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Road Warrior, etc.

[Deciazulado]

The Heat is on again

Heat 4K Blu-ray

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by SpazeBlue

???

In 2002, Reservoir Dogs hit DVD and VHS from Artisan for the 10th anniversary. While the special features were bountiful, the transfer was simply awful. Awful picture, awful sound, awful, awful, awful. The black suits are dark gray,

[Show spoiler]the blood surrounding Mr. Orange changes shades of red, to black, and back to red,

and the various tweaks in post to let you know this happened on one summer afternoon were gone because the team screwed with the color timing. And they had access to some unedited source (as in before post-production unedited, not they changed shit unedited), because the lighting changes mid-scene and changes back a few minutes later, and that mistake is on no other copies. Somehow, they managed to get extreme grain, extreme noise, and extreme DNR all into the same shots with each other; which I didn’t even know was possible and haven’t seen before or since. Several lines were missing from the soundtrack. And while there’s features aplenty, the discs are so clunky that it’s annoying to try to access them. No joke, the VHS tapes are better than this DVD.

Tarantino did some interviews for the 2002 set, but wasn’t involved with the transfer. In 2006, he oversaw a new transfer for the 2006 DVD and Blu-ray, and it’s beautiful. It sounds perfect too, especially that DTS track. That’s the only reason no one complains about the 2002 DVD anymore. If there weren’t a newer better copy out there (like two certain titles from another certain director), it would probably be the most hated DVD ever.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by GRSN

Yeah, i'm saying this a newer master,
because the last conversation they had was also "public".

George Lucas Jr. hard at work. I’ll wait for the reviews, sadly.

[Shane Rollins]

Originally Posted by chewbabka

1. WB distributes MGM physical media. That’s the only relevant detail now.
2. WB does not print Fox titles. There is no such thing as a Fox MGM title. New printings and new releases of MGM titles are simply branded with SDS where once they said Fox. That’s all that has changed from the consumer’s perspective.
3. Why, exactly, are you “surrounded” by a bunch of copies of the same movie?

If WB/SDS is distributing MGM now (by that I mean post May 1986 MGM and UA), there’s a lot of potential there. The Alamo, Pink Floyd - The Wall, better versions of the Man With No Name movies. The possibilities are endless.

As for the multiple copies thing, I’m a big collector/amateur archivist, and I eventually wind up with several copies of the same movie. Record for one unedited movie is the original 101 Dalmatians (15 copies, 9 of which are the 1992 VHS), record for an edited movie are the original three Star Wars movies with over 20 copies each (although few are of the same cuts). Over 3,500 movies overall, and counting.

[chewbabka]

Originally Posted by Shane Rollins

If WB/SDS is distributing MGM now (by that I mean post May 1986 MGM and UA), there’s a lot of potential there. The Alamo, Pink Floyd - The Wall, better versions of the Man With No Name movies. The possibilities are endless.

The distribution deal has NOTHING to do with what is restored or released. Zero, nilch, nada.

As for the multiple copies thing, I’m a big collector/amateur archivist, and I eventually wind up with several copies of the same movie. Record for one unedited movie is the original 101 Dalmatians (15 copies, 9 of which are the 1992 VHS), record for an edited movie are the original three Star Wars movies with over 20 copies each (although few are of the same cuts). Over 3,500 movies overall, and counting.

That’s not archiving…