The Collector (1965) coming November 8th - pre-order

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by Jerrin

Anyone notice that the reviews are starting to contain more and more venom at some segment of the readers? I thought this was a pretty good review, but it kept taking shots at the "video" vs "film" crowd.

I personally don't care about that, but I'm just getting weary of people backhanding other groups in reviews. Anyone else notice this trend?

I may have to re-read the review but I took it as the reviewer was basing his scores for image and audio on the films own presentation and not against clean slick pristine Pixar presentation. I was watching Island of Lost Souls last nite on blu from Criterion and while the image has immense (great looking) grain and film stock issues etc I would still rank the image quality very high, where others may just consider the presentation awful. If that makes sense?

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

All of these stories appear to trace back to an out-of-print book entitled The Unkindest Cuts: The Scissors and the Cinema by Doug McClelland. I don't have a copy, but as far as I can tell from the snippets available on Google Books, McClelland doesn't say the cutting occurred post-release, and I haven't been able to find any listing for an alternate version. In any case, the Blu is the same version that's on the DVD. AFAIK, that's the only existing version.

Good to know, always read on some sites about the film and it's cuts/ and or changes.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Jerrin

Anyone notice that the reviews are starting to contain more and more venom at some segment of the readers? I thought this was a pretty good review, but it kept taking shots at the "video" vs "film" crowd.

I personally don't care about that, but I'm just getting weary of people backhanding other groups in reviews. Anyone else notice this trend? I also noticed this in the review of The League: The Complete Season One. I amost get the feeling that some of the reviews are preaching or rebuking certain segments of readers.

On the whole though, I'd say the site does a good job of reviews.

It's perfectly acceptable, and needed... too many armchair directors think they know everything these days, and love to backhand just about every release for deficiencies like they know the ins and outs of the transfer process, the state the negative was in, the way the film was shot, etc. 99% of those people have no clue what they are talking about, and since these boards run rampant with mis-information, it's nice that a reviewer states the case clearly.

People (the video generation) think that every movie should look like a video game... i mean, that's what blu-ray is for, right? Not everyone, of course, but many, many... and n one can deny that, because the proof is in these pages. Once people start understanding film - which is different than video, and still superior - they might get an insight as to why every shot isn't crystal clear like Avatar, or why there is (gasp!) that awful grain that has always been present but they somehow only just now noticed because a reviewer pointed it out.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by retablo

People (the video generation) think that every movie should look like a video game... i mean, that's what blu-ray is for, right? Not everyone, of course, but many, many... and n one can deny that, because the proof is in these pages. Once people start understanding film - which is different than video, and still superior - they might get an insight as to why every shot isn't crystal clear like Avatar, or why there is (gasp!) that awful grain that has always been present but they somehow only just now noticed because a reviewer pointed it out.

I agree.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

All of these stories appear to trace back to an out-of-print book entitled The Unkindest Cuts: The Scissors and the Cinema by Doug McClelland. I don't have a copy, but as far as I can tell from the snippets available on Google Books, McClelland doesn't say the cutting occurred post-release, and I haven't been able to find any listing for an alternate version. In any case, the Blu is the same version that's on the DVD. AFAIK, that's the only existing version.

There has only ever been one release version of The Collector - whatever was cut prior to that release was the filmmaker's decision and was never part of the film as released. And it certainly was never cut after release and I know this film intimately.

[Zen_Amako]

Looking forward to this. I'm a big fan of Yasuzo Masumura's Blind Beast, which I believe was in part inspired by The Collector.

[Jerrin]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I may have to re-read the review but I took it as the reviewer was basing his scores for image and audio on the films own presentation and not against clean slick pristine Pixar presentation. I was watching Island of Lost Souls last nite on blu from Criterion and while the image has immense (great looking) grain and film stock issues etc I would still rank the image quality very high, where others may just consider the presentation awful. If that makes sense?

Oh yes, and I agree. I understand the debate, I would just take care to phrase things in order to avoid making it sound like one position is superior to the other. I would have just said that this verision looks great and is a faithful reproduction of the original film. No need to go into the "it doesn't have the video sharpness that some of you expect because it was on film." This is stronger than what was actually written, but I wanted to make the point clear.

I'm just saying that in my opinion, the most trustworthy reviewers are those that are neutral (or at least seem to be), and favor/dislike no side or portion of the readers/audience in a review.

[Jerrin]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's perfectly acceptable, and needed... too many armchair directors think they know everything these days, and love to backhand just about every release for deficiencies like they know the ins and outs of the transfer process, the state the negative was in, the way the film was shot, etc. 99% of those people have no clue what they are talking about, and since these boards run rampant with mis-information, it's nice that a reviewer states the case clearly.

People (the video generation) think that every movie should look like a video game... i mean, that's what blu-ray is for, right? Not everyone, of course, but many, many... and n one can deny that, because the proof is in these pages. Once people start understanding film - which is different than video, and still superior - they might get an insight as to why every shot isn't crystal clear like Avatar, or why there is (gasp!) that awful grain that has always been present but they somehow only just now noticed because a reviewer pointed it out.

I think you are correct. However, I also thought that this site attempted to be more objective than subjective (to the extent that is possible of course).

When I read a review, I don't want to read things that are clearly intended to backhand or insult other people. I want to read a balanced, relatively objective summary of the picture and sound quality of a movie. A little subjectivity is fine in the summary of the content itself, but again, I prefer to read things that don't have the "feel" of veiled insults or direct ones. Even though I might disagree with others, I do my best not to belittle them (even if it might be one of the relatively few times I am correct).

[jah13]

Originally Posted by Jerrin

Oh yes, and I agree. I understand the debate, I would just take care to phrase things in order to avoid making it sound like one position is superior to the other. I would have just said that this verision looks great and is a faithful reproduction of the original film. No need to go into the "it doesn't have the video sharpness that some of you expect because it was on film." This is stronger than what was actually written, but I wanted to make the point clear.

I'm just saying that in my opinion, the most trustworthy reviewers are those that are neutral (or at least seem to be), and favor/dislike no side or portion of the readers/audience in a review.

I happen to be in the "film" camp , so perhaps I am a bit biased, but I appreciated Michael's clarity in this case because, as he notes, there are a good number of reviewers and viewers out there who judge the Blu-ray presentation for a film like THE COLLECTOR in the same way that they would for RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. By pointing out that there are two schools of thought, so to speak, he's offering a little more, necessary context to the conversation. His words didn't strike me as being needlessly harsh or condescending; they were, more or less, just stating the facts. Didn't see anything "belittling" in this review; if anything, I and others are probably guilty of doing just that in these forums and others, but, again, the review seems quite informative and objective to me.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Jerrin

I think you are correct. However, I also thought that this site attempted to be more objective than subjective (to the extent that is possible of course).

When I read a review, I don't want to read things that are clearly intended to backhand or insult other people. I want to read a balanced, relatively objective summary of the picture and sound quality of a movie. A little subjectivity is fine in the summary of the content itself, but again, I prefer to read things that don't have the "feel" of veiled insults or direct ones. Even though I might disagree with others, I do my best not to belittle them (even if it might be one of the relatively few times I am correct).

haha well I didn't take it as a backhand, i took it as he was differentiating between a film look and a video look.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

I may have to re-read the review but I took it as the reviewer was basing his scores for image and audio on the films own presentation and not against clean slick pristine Pixar presentation. I was watching Island of Lost Souls last nite on blu from Criterion and while the image has immense (great looking) grain and film stock issues etc I would still rank the image quality very high, where others may just consider the presentation awful. If that makes sense?

It makes perfect sense

This is the reason why one must take into consideration various factors, from age to source conditions to restoration efforts, as you apparently do.

And I don't find The Collector to look soft at all. The transfer boasts very good detail and excellent color-scheme. It is another solid Sony transfer.

Originally Posted by retablo

It's perfectly acceptable, and needed... too many armchair directors think they know everything these days, and love to backhand just about every release for deficiencies like they know the ins and outs of the transfer process, the state the negative was in, the way the film was shot, etc. 99% of those people have no clue what they are talking about, and since these boards run rampant with mis-information, it's nice that a reviewer states the case clearly.

People (the video generation) think that every movie should look like a video game... i mean, that's what blu-ray is for, right? Not everyone, of course, but many, many... and n one can deny that, because the proof is in these pages. Once people start understanding film - which is different than video, and still superior - they might get an insight as to why every shot isn't crystal clear like Avatar, or why there is (gasp!) that awful grain that has always been present but they somehow only just now noticed because a reviewer pointed it out.

As usual, I could not agree any more with you. It is exactly how I feel.


Pro-B

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by Jerrin

Oh yes, and I agree. I understand the debate, I would just take care to phrase things in order to avoid making it sound like one position is superior to the other. I would have just said that this verision looks great and is a faithful reproduction of the original film. No need to go into the "it doesn't have the video sharpness that some of you expect because it was on film." This is stronger than what was actually written, but I wanted to make the point clear.

I'm just saying that in my opinion, the most trustworthy reviewers are those that are neutral (or at least seem to be), and favor/dislike no side or portion of the readers/audience in a review.

And why should reviewers –and their reviews– be "neutral" and not "favoring/disliking no side or portion of the readers/audience"... when, in that perceived "war", one side is RIGHT and the other one is WRONG?

Of course "one position is superior to the other". It is not a matter of different "opinion" or "taste", all of them equally respectable, as you seem to make it. One "side" wants the image to look a certain way they like, the other "side" wants the image to be a true, faithful representation of the source material.

Equity is not giving the same to everyone, but to each its fair own.

[crazyman]

Region free?

[42041]

Wow, looks surprisingly solid for a budget release, judging by the review screens.

[kashif]

Is it Region A locked?

[RupertPupkin]

Originally Posted by kashif

Is it Region A locked?

yes it's unfortunately region A locked.

But I confirm that the picture quality is magnificient...

The only thing which is disturbing is that the English subtitles are English SDH (well, no problem for me to read several times "creaking door" - it's a bit annoying but it's better than no subtitles at all)
The problem is that these white subtitles are over a black band; whereas the Spanish subtitles are classic/common subtitles whithout the black background.
So, it was disturbing to see this movie with such subtitles, so I turned them off.

No bonus beside a trailer.

But I highly recommend this blu-ray for the quality of the transfer. The price is rather cheap.

[kashif]

Originally Posted by RupertPupkin

yes it's unfortunately region A locked.

But I confirm that the picture quality is magnificient...

The only thing which is disturbing is that the English subtitles are English SDH (well, no problem for me to read several times "creaking door" - it's a bit annoying but it's better than no subtitles at all)
The problem is that these white subtitles are over a black band; whereas the Spanish subtitles are classic/common subtitles whithout the black background.
So, it was disturbing to see this movie with such subtitles, so I turned them off.

No bonus beside a trailer.

But I highly recommend this blu-ray for the quality of the transfer. The price is rather cheap.

Thanks.

[DarknessBDJM]

I just got this the other day and took a gander at it yesterday and wow that's a beautiful looking disk. The detail, colors, depth, contrast, everything is immaculate and reference quality. I'm hoping Image can get whoever did this disk to do some Bava color films, because if The Collector is any indication they will be done a true justice.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by DarknessBDJM

I just got this the other day and took a gander at it yesterday and wow that's a beautiful looking disk. The detail, colors, depth, contrast, everything is immaculate and reference quality. I'm hoping Image can get whoever did this disk to do some Bava color films, because if The Collector is any indication they will be done a true justice.

I'm pretty sure that Image is just distributing the transfer handed to them by Sony. They didn't do it in-house.

[DarknessBDJM]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

I'm pretty sure that Image is just distributing the transfer handed to them by Sony. They didn't do it in-house.

Ah ok, but Sony does have distribution rights for some MGM films and MGM has Black Sabbath, Planet of the Vampires, Black Sunday, The Girl Who Knew Too Much, and Baron Blood under their umbrella, so it could be possible (I hope).