Once Upon a Time in America (1984) (Extended Director's Cut)

[Rocky01542]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Man that airbrushed giant face artwork is awful. This would've been better:

[Show spoiler]

Exactly what I was thinking. Not sure what the studios are thinking by using such generic photoshopped crap.

[TheHutt]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Man that airbrushed giant face artwork is awful. This would've been better

[studio marketing exec mode]
A blu-ray cover without a big actor face is not a proper blu-ray cover.
[/studio marketing exec mode]

[alexpeden2000]

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmovi...5#.U5B6rSjlFco

This article suggests it will be 2 discs which would make sense given the film (and the price!)

When it says 1984 theatrical version - does anyone know if that means the 229min version or this awful US version people talk about? Surely if the former...

[Rocky01542]

Originally Posted by alexpeden2000

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmovi...5#.U5B6rSjlFco

This article suggests it will be 2 discs which would make sense given the film (and the price!)

When it says 1984 theatrical version - does anyone know if that means the 229min version or this awful US version people talk about? Surely if the former...

It doesn't say that the Director's Cut will have two discs, it says the set will have two discs. That could mean that both cuts could have their own disc.

[Akijama]

Originally Posted by alexpeden2000

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmovi...5#.U5B6rSjlFco

This article suggests it will be 2 discs which would make sense given the film (and the price!)

When it says 1984 theatrical version - does anyone know if that means the 229min version or this awful US version people talk about? Surely if the former...

According to above posted link/press release, EDC is 251 min. long, and not 269 min. as reported by Warner's press site.

[alexpeden2000]

Originally Posted by Rocky01542

That could mean that both cuts could have their own disc.

That's what I was getting at, as long as its a BD50 the film should be fine on one disc I would have thought?

[Rocky01542]

Originally Posted by alexpeden2000

That's what I was getting at, as long as its a BD50 the film should be fine on one disc I would have thought?

I think people are worrying about compression issues if the Director's Cut will be on one disc, since the Italian disc was full of artefacts.

[Illy Scorsese]

Intrigued...

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by alexpeden2000

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmovi...5#.U5B6rSjlFco

This article suggests it will be 2 discs which would make sense given the film (and the price!)

When it says 1984 theatrical version - does anyone know if that means the 229min version or this awful US version people talk about? Surely if the former...

Here's a clue: The "awful US version people talk about" has been shown theatrically exactly once for one week in the US. It had one VHS and Beta release and when the longer version came out, was pulled and never seen again. As far as I know the short version has never been shown since the long version came out. And funny for all those supposed people "talking" about the "awful US version" I'd wager not a one of them know what they're talking about because not a one of them have seen it. I saw it six times during its one week run and I still have the Beta tape. Warners should, in fact, include it in the set as a curio, as it is an entirely different film and one that is historically interesting in what they did to Leone's film. But, no, of course it will be the long version and this longer version which was put together not by Leone at all but by others - in fact, I see no difference to what the hackers did back then to other hands editing in scenes that Leone never included in his film. How he would have edited them and put them in is anyone's guess and anyone has guessed, but anyone isn't Leone. Having seen the Italian abomination of a Blu-ray (horrid color and looking nothing like the film ever looked) and seen how haphazard the new footage was assembled, with one particular scene at the mortuary being so amateurishly edited and with its original production sound and no foley or attempt to integrate it smoothly into the film, and with quality that makes the mind boggle - well, I'll be curious to see what Warners does with it. At least their element was properly color-timed.

[Bonzi]

The shot of De Niro's face on the cover looks like it was taken from The Untouchables

[I KEEL YOU]

Assuming that it will have a single DTS-HD MA English track and just a Dolby Digital Spanish and French tracks for the North American market like most US Warner releases do, the extended cut could have a video bit rate of 18 mbps if all the space on the disc is used and no other extras are on the disc. I'm judging this based on the Italian release of the extended cut. IF encoded properly, that should be enough to make it look good. Warner have done some amazing encoding jobs in the past. I still can't figure out how The Shining can look that good on just a measly 15 mbps video bit rate. The Italian release of the extended cut is however not encoded properly and uses VC-1 instead of AVC.

[Akijama]

Originally Posted by Farid

Don't you think Warner's press site is more accurate about the runtime?

No. WB's press site has been wrong before.

Apparently, the 269 min. cut is just a myth (?) http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

Granted, I'm no expert in this field, so maybe some other folks, with more knowledge on a subject matter, could insert additional information about the cuts.

[JackKnightStarman]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Here's a clue: The "awful US version people talk about" has been shown theatrically exactly once for one week in the US. It had one VHS and Beta release and when the longer version came out, was pulled and never seen again. As far as I know the short version has never been shown since the long version came out. And funny for all those supposed people "talking" about the "awful US version" I'd wager not a one of them know what they're talking about because not a one of them have seen it. I saw it six times during its one week run and I still have the Beta tape. Warners should, in fact, include it in the set as a curio, as it is an entirely different film and one that is historically interesting in what they did to Leone's film. But, no, of course it will be the long version and this longer version which was put together not by Leone at all but by others - in fact, I see no difference to what the hackers did back then to other hands editing in scenes that Leone never included in his film. How he would have edited them and put them in is anyone's guess and anyone has guessed, but anyone isn't Leone. Having seen the Italian abomination of a Blu-ray (horrid color and looking nothing like the film ever looked) and seen how haphazard the new footage was assembled, with one particular scene at the mortuary being so amateurishly edited and with its original production sound and no foley or attempt to integrate it smoothly into the film, and with quality that makes the mind boggle - well, I'll be curious to see what Warners does with it. At least their element was properly color-timed.

HBO back in the day ran both US theatrical and the longer cut. They did the same for Saturday Night Fever, pg version during the day, r version at night. Same with Excalibur.

All of these were shown in the early '80s. With I think both versions of Once airing from '85-'86.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

They are cheap when doing double dip re-releases. Arguably the worst, since they have taken so many old discs and then released them as "digibooks" or "collectors editions" for a ridiculous premium.

I don't think they are so bad at doing new transfers. Or at least not as bad as some other studios - lets face it, they all have their misses.

I agree. I meant to say they are very cheap when it comes to remastering previously released titles. (And where is a remaster of Goodfellas?!)

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Assuming that it will have a single DTS-HD MA English track and just a Dolby Digital Spanish and French tracks for the North American market like most US Warner releases do, the extended cut could have a video bit rate of 18 mbps if all the space on the disc is used and no other extras are on the disc. I'm judging this based on the Italian release of the extended cut. IF encoded properly, that should be enough to make it look good. Warner have done some amazing encoding jobs in the past. I still can't figure out how The Shining can look that good on just a measly 15 mbps video bit rate. The Italian release of the extended cut is however not encoded properly and uses VC-1 instead of AVC.

WB is the worst when it comes to having a consistency in quality transfers mainly because they have released a lot of titles with poor encoding. Their recent crop of releases have tended to be better than that, but there are exceptions. Even the recent release of Sorcerer was a good example - given that was put on a measly 25 GB disc (!) for a collector's edition with extras.

The studio spends more time on the packaging division and coming up with add-in collectibles for "Ultimate" sets of movies than on presenting them as best as they can.

Having said that, they have done good on some releases (of course). But I wish they would do better and focus more on the PQ/AQ than they do. I've never seen a low bit-rate transfer that I thought was every 'bit' (pardon the pun) as good as one with better encoding. Every release should at least be in the mid to high 20's at a minimum and at this point I think a majority of films (though there are exceptions) should be on 50 GB discs. Long films should be split across two discs. Studios used to do this for DVD all the time with some collector's edition DVD sets... why not Blu-ray? They figure Blu-ray is good enough no matter what, but if we are talking about giving a film as good as a presentation as possible, there are ways (which really wouldn't be too difficult for WB to do) for them to make additional improvements. All it takes is a bit better effort in encoding and sometimes an extra Blu-ray disc. And if those extras are in HD, they could always use 25 GB discs JUST for making-of materials instead of throwing them on the same disc as the film.

I'm going off on another one of my rants, apparently... but WB needs to do something about their release plans of a lot of their films. (And to anyone saying that a good compressionist and encoding technique can make a compressed picture quality be exactly as good as something that isn't, I do not agree.)

[stlcards]

So this will contain 2 different versions than the current release?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Man that airbrushed giant face artwork is awful. This would've been better:

[Show spoiler]

That's the first thing I thought when I saw it. It's too bad they're only using it on the disc art. It would look beautiful on the front of the book.

I do wonder if this is a Digibook or not though. Typically Diibooks don't come with additional boxes (unless other physical extras are included). The packaging looks similar to the Ultimate Gangster's Collections, which had a similar looking book inside a box, and the movies in a regular case.



edit: The press sheet lists it as a "Blu-ray Book" which is what warner calls their digibooks, so that's a promising sign.

[Saccharin]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I bought the existing Blu-ray of Once Upon a Time in America only a couple of months ago, but I'm cool to double-dip if the transfer is improved and if this film is closer to the original premiere length.

Not the original American 1984 theater release, because that one was about 2 hours and killed the whole story and Oscar awards.

[Saccharin]

Originally Posted by lolwut

Man that airbrushed giant face artwork is awful. This would've been better:

YEP you very right what where they thinking

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by GenPion

WB is the worst when it comes to having a consistency in quality transfers mainly because they have released a lot of titles with poor encoding. Their recent crop of releases have tended to be better than that, but there are exceptions. Even the recent release of Sorcerer was a good example - given that was put on a measly 25 GB disc (!) for a collector's edition with extras.

The studio spends more time on the packaging division and coming up with add-in collectibles for "Ultimate" sets of movies than on presenting them as best as they can.

Having said that, they have done good on some releases (of course). But I wish they would do better and focus more on the PQ/AQ than they do. I've never seen a low bit-rate transfer that I thought was every 'bit' (pardon the pun) as good as one with better encoding. Every release should at least be in the mid to high 20's at a minimum and at this point I think a majority of films (though there are exceptions) should be on 50 GB discs. Long films should be split across two discs. Studios used to do this for DVD all the time with some collector's edition DVD sets... why not Blu-ray? They figure Blu-ray is good enough no matter what, but if we are talking about giving a film as good as a presentation as possible, there are ways (which really wouldn't be too difficult for WB to do) for them to make additional improvements. All it takes is a bit better effort in encoding and sometimes an extra Blu-ray disc. And if those extras are in HD, they could always use 25 GB discs JUST for making-of materials instead of throwing them on the same disc as the film.

I'm going off on another one of my rants, apparently... but WB needs to do something about their release plans of a lot of their films. (And to anyone saying that a good compressionist and encoding technique can make a compressed picture quality be exactly as good as something that isn't, I do not agree.)

Sorcerer came with zero extras. A 25-GB disc is more than adequate for a film of its length with no extras.