Enter the Dragon (1973) (40th Anniversary Edition) (Remastered)

[MifuneFan]

This is $29.99 at Wbshop.com. Just add it to your cart and the discount will show up:

http://www.wbshop.com/product/enter+...+1000351089.do

Additionally, if you have $50 worth of stuff in your cart, you can get an additional $10 off your order. So that's $15 off a $50 purchase. Apply code WBAFSAVE10

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

This is $29.99 at Wbshop.com. Just add it to your cart and the discount will show up:

http://www.wbshop.com/product/enter+...+1000351089.do

Additionally, if you have $50 worth of stuff in your cart, you can get an additional $10 off your order. So that's $15 off a $50 purchase. Apply code WBAFSAVE10

I'll keep hoping for ~$20 down the line.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Lantz

A question about the slight cropping of the new bluray:

As seen in comparison caps in this thread the new release crops away picture information from all sides of the frame that was present in the 2007 edition. If one checks the details of both reviews here on Bluray.com on sees that the original aspect ratio of ETD is 2:39, where the old edition frames it at 2:35 and the new one at 2:40.

Anyone informed as to why one would want to alter the ratio?

I've noticed in the old edition with the larger framing that occasionally there's some unattractive lens blur / anomalies at the bottom of the frame (for example when Lee, Roper and Williams first arrive at the island and are taken through the training area). My own personal 'layman'-theory is that the producers may have wanted to hide this and consequently decided to crop it away for a less flawed image. What does anyone else think?

I cannot think of any other reason that one would not go with the original ratio on a 40th Anniversary release.

I believe the cropping is a result of making sure there is no scaling or resolution loss coming from a 4K or even 2K scan since 1080p is 1920x1080. They either have to crop a little to make it fit, or would have to scale it which would cause resolution loss. Joe Kane talked about this recently in an interview in regards to 4K and UHD. I believe the same concept applies here. This is why all of these nice new transfers have a very slight amount of cropping compared to the old release which was scaled down. Very slight cropping is much preferable compared to losing picture resolution.

[saltysam]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

But why did you link saltysam's screencaps? They are ugly and nothing like what this new Blu-ray looks like. They have DNR, poor compression, overblown contrast, etc. He's either taking them from a poor quality torrent, or his video card's setting are wrong. None of that is present on the actual disc. Blu-ray.com's screencaps are MUCH more accurate.

they weren't taken from a torrent and i don't like yours or GeoffD's insinuation that they were.. i'm admittedly no screen cap expert and yes i agree my graphics card settings are no doubt wrong.however can you explain your initial post after seeing my clearly inaccurate caps??

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

While the new release is not the best example of what 35mm film looks like, it's a night and day difference comparing to that old garbage.

[MifuneFan]

Wow, looks like Kenneth Brown played the role of revisionist and went back to his old ETD review and completely revised the PQ section

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enter...ay/358/#Review

Update, 6/10/13: Having evaluated Warner's newly remastered, AVC-encoded release of Enter the Dragon, I decided it was wise to revisit my now-outdated review of the initial 2007 release, as a detailed comparison between the two is worth undertaking. While the bulk of my impressions and comparisons will appear in my 2013 review of the remastered edition, I will say it's amazing how much a new release can render an older release outmoded and inadequate, bringing to light even more of the previous version's flaws and revealing the true severity of its issues. Aliasing, pixelation, contrast inconsistencies, macroblocking, remastering troubles and other problems are even more prevalent when compared to the superior 2013 release, and color and skintones aren't as satisfying as they once seemed. Artificial sharpening was also out in full force in the original 2007 release, wreaking its own particular brand of havoc. Ultimately, Enter the Dragon will never look as crisp or clean as modern filmfans might wish, but for the definitive presentation of Lee's classic beat-em-up, look no further than the new 2013 release. The 2007 edition is bloody and battered by comparison.

I don't believe in such silly revisionism. If you said something back then, leave it as it is. It looks more like damage control for praising the transfer back then more than anything else.

Too bad you forgot to alter your conclusions too:

In case my review hasn't helped you make up your mind, allow me to break it all down into a more digestible morsel. Whether you're a casual or diehard martial arts fan, you owe it to yourself to experience Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon at least once. Warner has even made it easy on the eyes and ears with a faithful restoration, an excellent video transfer, a solid audio track, and a wealth of supplements worth the price of admission alone. It's not only one of the best Blu-ray deals on Amazon, it's one of the best kung fu classics available in high definition. What are you waiting for?

[rickah88]

I think it would be bad if he deleted his previous post and entered new material. He, more or less, just updated his 6yr old review based on new info. I mean the technology is always evolving, so this can, and should, be expected. Six years ago, it did look pretty good...until now. I'm sure in another 6 years it might look even better.

At least that's how I take it.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I think it would be bad if he deleted his previous post and entered new material. He, more or less, just updated his 6yr old review based on new info. I mean the technology is always evolving, so this can, and should, be expected. Six years ago, it did look pretty good...until now. I'm sure in another 6 years it might look even better.

At least that's how I take it.

No part of his picture quality section is from the old review. It's a completely new and revised paragraph. It's blatant revisionism. I have to imagine he changed the score too as it's now 3 stars, and since he concluded that it's a faithful restoration and has an excellent video transfer, I have to assume that his original score was higher than that.

It's like he's ashamed that he scored it so high and wants to erase that from the history books. It's really a shameful practice. There's absolutely no need to alter the review from how it was written originally, and that goes for the score too. You can update it to mention the new remaster, but comppletely changing history? Shameful.

I ask Mr Brown to put the review back to how it was written originally, even if you praised it back then.

[42041]

I don't see what the problem is with revising the review
It's a review. It's meant to guide people's purchases. What is the value of preserving it for posterity, exactly?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

No part of his picture quality section is from the old review. It's a completely new and revised paragraph. It's blatant revisionism. I have to imagine he changed the score too as it's now 3 stars, and since he concluded that it's a faithful restoration and has an excellent video transfer, I have to assume that his original score was higher than that.

It's like he's ashamed that he scored it so high and wants to erase that from the history books. It's really a shameful practice. There's absolutely no need to alter the review from how it was written originally, and that goes for the score too. You can update it to mention the new remaster, but comppletely changing history? Shameful.

I ask Mr Brown to put the review back to how it was written originally, even if you praised it back then.

Ok, I thought he just added what you quoted to the old review. I kind of see what you are saying, but I don't think Ken is trying to "revise history". I mean he makes it very clear that his old review was outdated, and is trying to steer everyone towards the new release.
I guess for historical accuracy, and to see the natural timeline of events...yes the orginal review/score should, probably, remain in place...but I don't think for one minute Ken is trying to mislead anyone. Revision is a pretty harsh word IMO, but I can see where you are coming from.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't see what the problem is with revising the review

It's changing history. The old Patton review has a perfect 5/5 for PQ. It's been discussed heavily on here. Should the reviewer change it to 3 stars just because a new release is out? If reviewers respected themselves, or their readership they wouldn't play these types of games.

If you see no problem here, are you also okay when a filmmaker goes back and changes a film completely from how it was originally presented. You okay with Friedkin taking liberties with the first French Connection release?

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Lantz

Guess I understand the logic in all that. And I respect Brown's infatuation with the new transfer, but I just think it is a bit wrong to "steer" people in certain directions. Especially since there is nothing positive left written about the PQ in the old review, just generally harsh critique and a sort of "forward"-note to the 40th Anniversary edition. Clearly, as you and I and others have noted, there are positives about the old transfer, made evident by comparisons to the 2013 edition. Framing and natural colours are two things that spring to mind.

Well, let's leave it at that.

I agree with your assessment, just as I do with what Geoff D posted below. Ken seems to be very happy with the new 40th anniversary disc, which he has every right to be. At the same time, like Geoff said, perhaps he should've left the original review intact with the update tacked on...

I completely agree in regards to the framing, and I'm simply not going to be swayed on where I stand regarding the colors unless someone comes up with a very reasonable explanation as to why there seems to be so much variation (in the screenshots) in contrast levels, fleshtones (and colors in general) on the new disc. Looking at all of those caps of the new Blu, Lee almost looks orange in some shots, then appearing normal in some, and then pale in others . "Inconsistent" is the only word that I can think of to describe what I'm seeing. Take a look at the the shot of Lee standing talking to the Master Monk...In the new release, his outfit has gone from a dark navy blue, to almost black (or a very dark teal).

2007 Blu:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...358&position=6

2013 Blu:
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...34&position=14

Now, while keeping in mind the two previous images I posted above, compare the 1st image on DVD beaver below (of Lee instructing the young man, pointing his finger), to the first pic in tylergfoster's post (click spoiler to view). Notice on the new Blu, that Lee's uniform is now a teal color (it was much darker in the scene with the Monk), as to where on the old Blu, the color of his uniform in those two shots remained the same (a dark navy blue)...also notice in the shots below, that despite the more filmlike look of the new disc, Lee's complexion looks very unnatural, and a portion of the embroidering on the cuff of his shirt has been blown-out as well...

2007 Blu:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...on_blu-ray.htm

2013 Blu (click spoiler to view):
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=439

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hmmm. I'm not sure about gutting an old review to exhort the benefits of the new one. Tacking on an addendum is fine, but deleting all the previous comments about PQ smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

People may still want an objective evaluation of that particular disc, and while I can appreciate Ken not wanting to steer folks in the wrong direction with his original comments - which may seem somewhat, ah, misguided when looked at 6 years later - they are what they are, and should've been put into context with an update rather than simply erasing them.

I agree. Perhaps he'll revise it...I believe that would be the ideal thing to do.

Originally Posted by reason108

I know that there are people still alive that worked on this movie. Was no one available for input? Why the hell is it so difficult for these people to get something this simple figured out. You would think that they could at least find an older copy of the release and compare it. Why wasn`t Linda Lee there protecting her hubby`s legacy; making sure the movie was exactly as Bruce intended? So, for the 40th we get cropped and off-color images? Or, is this just another cash grab? I hope that the patch makes up for any pq issues. Warners can proudly boast that they have fixed all the previous problems with the 45th anniversary release. Or, perhaps the 50th.

Considering that "ETD" has seen more home-video releases than I can even count, I'd say it's highly likely there'll be more editions of this film to come...I thought Warner would finally leave it alone with the initial release of the film on HD-DVD and Blu-ray, but looks like I was dead wrong...

Originally Posted by Lantz

Another review:

http://nerdreactor.com/2013/06/11/re...ition-blu-ray/

Originally Posted by drees5761

Another pointless review, moaning about the 5.1 sound, when it was originally mono anyhow!!

I personally liked how the reviewer says he has never seen the original Blu-ray (though he has the 2-disc DVD, of which the quality was close to the first HD presentation). The fact that some people aren't noticing the color-grading differences between these releases is really puzzling me ...

Originally Posted by 42041

Looking at the comparisons linked in the caps-a-holic page:
http://kungfucinema.com/forums/showp...3&postcount=77

I wasn't sure going by the blu-ray.com comparisons, but from these I can say that the contrast on the new disc definitely looks better to my eyes. The old one is just flat. This new release better represents the contrasty look of most early 70s films.

While I can't disagree with you in that the new "ETD" release may have more of a 70's style appearance, I don't recall many 70's films that had an orange and teal push to them (certainly not "ETD"), with fleshtones being so inconsistent. Personally, I think that if the original Blu-ray hadn't had the aliasing issue, it would blow away the look of this new 40th anniversary edition. As it is, I prefer the look of the 2007 Blu even with the horrible aliasing . Certainly no offense to your opinion or your expertise in film , as I know your technical knowledge is way above and beyond what mine is, but nice filmic look of the new Blu aside, I just don't care for the way it has been color-balanced.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I believe the cropping is a result of making sure there is no scaling or resolution loss coming from a 4K or even 2K scan since 1080p is 1920x1080. They either have to crop a little to make it fit, or would have to scale it which would cause resolution loss. Joe Kane talked about this recently in an interview in regards to 4K and UHD. I believe the same concept applies here. This is why all of these nice new transfers have a very slight amount of cropping compared to the old release which was scaled down. Very slight cropping is much preferable compared to losing picture resolution.

I don't know about this comment. If this is the case, how come we've seen many 4k transfers showing more information in the frame ("Ghostbusters" comes to mind) . This cropping of an entire frame (from all sides) seems to be something I've noticed that Warner tends to do on its transfers more than any other studio...so, while I don't have the expertise to necessarily disagree with you, I must say I question the validity of your post...

[42041]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

If you see no problem here, are you also okay when a filmmaker goes back and changes a film completely from how it was originally presented. You okay with Friedkin taking liberties with the first French Connection release?

I don't see a parallel between the artistic revision of a film and the revision of a technical review. It's not like the reviewer made some completely silent change anyway, it's noted that the review has been revised since the original score was overly generous.
And yes, I think the review of the original Patton disc should be revised, at least with some sort of addendum. It's just misleading at this point.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't see a parallel between the artistic revision of a film and the revision of a technical review. It's not like the reviewer made some completely silent change anyway, it's noted that the review has been revised since the original score was overly generous.
And yes, I think the review of the original Patton disc should be revised, at least with some sort of addendum. It's just misleading at this point.

It's not misleading, it's simply one reviewers opinion which most believe is wrong. The main reason Brown altered his review and score is because he wrote both reviews. Think about why he would do that. It's not like people are visiting that review now to buy that release. He's doing it because he wants to save face and not look silly for praising it so much in light of this new release.

That's all I'll say on the matter. If people are fine with this, so be it.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't see a parallel between the artistic revision of a film and the revision of a technical review. It's not like the reviewer made some completely silent change anyway, it's noted that the review has been revised since the original score was overly generous.
And yes, I think the review of the original Patton disc should be revised, at least with some sort of addendum. It's just misleading at this point.

I fully agree that the Blu review of the original (DNR nightmare) "Patton" disc needs an apologia of sorts...That aside, MifuneFan makes a good point, in that if Ken is going to leave the 2007 "ETD" review revised as is, he at least needs to (for reasons of consistency) alter his conclusion as well.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Enter...ay/358/#Review

Too bad you forgot to alter your conclusions too:

Agreed. Hopefully he'll revise it, one way or another. But for the time being, I think we need to cut Ken some slack. He's a good guy (and reviewer), and I'm sure his intentions were for the best...

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It's not misleading, it's simply one reviewers opinion which most believe is wrong. The main reason Brown altered his review and score is because he wrote both reviews. Think about why he would do that. It's not like people are visiting that review now to buy that release. He's doing it because he wants to save face and not look silly for praising it so much in light of this new release.

That's all I'll say on the matter. If people are fine with this, so be it.

I agree 100%. A review is a snapshot in time. It's alright to make corrections or revisions, but to rewrite whole sections years later is just wrong, IMO. A simple addendum warning that a better release has come out is fine, if the concern is misleading people. That should be sufficient.

[Lantz]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

It's not misleading, it's simply one reviewers opinion which most believe is wrong. The main reason Brown altered his review and score is because he wrote both reviews. Think about why he would do that. It's not like people are visiting that review now to buy that release. He's doing it because he wants to save face and not look silly for praising it so much in light of this new release.

That's all I'll say on the matter. If people are fine with this, so be it.

I agree. I am sure Ken is a nice guy with the best of intentions but this was a wrong move in my book. Of course video and audio standards keep evolving, but there ARE a few positives about the PQ of the old release regardless, made even more evident when compared to the new transfer, and Ken did recognize them in his old review, but now decided to remove them for posterity, as if they weren't valid observations in the first place. It's not like those positives are no longer there on the old blu.

[Matthias77]

I'm one of those people who like the extra swag that comes with collector's editions, but I just don't like the price of this one. Do you guys think this edition will become cheaper at some point, will they just bring out a disc only version with no swag, or will this edition never see the light of day again after they are sold out? I'd hate to pay $35 for this, but if that's the only way to guarantee this edition, I guess I don't have a choice. I'd prefer to wait for the Bruce Lee boxed set and get them both at the same time, but I'm just worried this edition might not exist by then.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Matthias77

I'm one of those people who like the extra swag that comes with collector's editions, but I just don't like the price of this one. Do you guys think this edition will become cheaper at some point, will they just bring out a disc only version with no swag, or will this edition never see the light of day again after they are sold out? I'd hate to pay $35 for this, but if that's the only way to guarantee this edition, I guess I don't have a choice. I'd prefer to wait for the Bruce Lee boxed set and get them both at the same time, but I'm just worried this edition might not exist by then.

I think a regular edition is pretty inevitable, but probably not for a year or more. I imagine this CE will also drop too as it does seem a bit expensive for what's included. It's certainly not an edition that'll be gone shortly though so no need to worry about that.

As I mentioned a few posts up, you can get it for $29.99 at WBshop.com.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by kdo

I agree with your assessment, just as I do with what Geoff D posted below. Ken seems to be very happy with the new 40th anniversary disc, which he has every right to be. At the same time, like Geoff said, perhaps he should've left the original review intact with the update tacked on...

What concerns me is the precedent that it sets. Will Ken go back and smooth over any more of his old reviews that don't cut the mustard? Will any of the other reviewers on BR.com, for that matter? It just seems like an odd thing to do.

I don't know about this comment. If this is the case, how come we've seen many 4k transfers showing more information in the frame ("Ghostbusters" comes to mind) . This cropping of an entire frame (from all sides) seems to be something I've noticed that Warner tends to do on its transfers more than any other studio...so, while I don't have the expertise to necessarily disagree with you, I must say I question the validity of your post...

I agree with HH. He's not saying that every new transfer HAS to be resized in this manner, but it's a method which I've seen advocated by a veteran VFX supervisor and it does have some merit. 2K is very close to HD in terms of resolution*, so instead of downsampling the image and risking the addition of a new set of artefacts, they can simply shave off the extra pixels. It's quicker too.

Sure, some outfits will have shit-hot algorithms for this kind of work and will set aside the time to use them properly. But with less time and money available, a decision may well be taken to crop a 2K master for HD instead of resizing it.

Anyhoo, EtD is not the first movie to have been cropped in this manner, nor will it be the last. As long as it's not a huge detriment to the framing, I can live with it. Heck, Alien has lost more pic info with every successive new transfer, but I'm not pining for those pixels when I play the blu-ray because it's just so darned good otherwise. And, given a choice of the two, I bet some folks would've preferred the restored-but-cropped Lowry version of GoldenEye on blu-ray instead of the DNR'ed-but-properly-framed version that we ended up with.

*albeit a 1.78, 1.85 or 2.39 deliverable, not a fullap scan

[djariya]

Not sure if any of you may have an answer to this or not.

I know most Hong Kong movies pre-2000 were shot with no audio recording and the audio was later added in post production. Most of the time with new voice over actors.

Just curious, was that the case for Enter the Dragon even though it was released by Warner Brothers? Or was all the audio recorded on set? Some of the actors had to be posted in because they didn't speak English I assume?

I have the Bruce Lee Legendary Collection on BD and it has Enter the Dragon, but with only Cantonese and Mandarin audio.