The Sinbad Trilogy (1958 - 1977) - Indicator / Powerhouse

[ravenus]

Cine Outsider has a review and makes no mention of any issues with EotT (unless the "so sharp..." refers to edge enhancement):

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger also sports a hugely impressive 1.66:1 1080p transfer from a 2K Sony restoration, one whose detail is so sharp in places that you risk cutting your eyeballs. The contrast is once again perfectly pitched and the colours are often as rich as the contents of Sinbad's treasure chest. The image is largely clean, but there are a surprising number of dust spots and even the occasional scratch on some of the process shots, which I'm assuming were on the background plates or were picked up in the process of creating the original mattes and would require a frame-by-frame restoration to remove.

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Cine Outsider has a review and makes no mention of any issues with EotT (unless the "so sharp..." refers to edge enhancement):

yeah they give it a good review....to buy or not to buy!

[tenia]

Trust me, the only reviews that will mention what is perceived here as issues will come from reviewers who are also active in dedicated boards like here (like me, for instance).

Reviewers don't often do the kind of comparisons needed here to detect these issues, and seemingly, they see the rather generic "bigger picture" which makes them fall short of being accurate in cases like this (they should definitely detect the use of a 12 years old master instead of a recent 2K restoration).

[javi92]

Sadly, I don't see this mistake being corrected. I also thought there would be a little more reaction here on these boards about such a major error. The pitchforks come out every time there is a framing discrepancy between a new and old release, but a label uses an older master ** after advertising the newest one ** and everyone just takes it in stride and worries what number they have on their box.

[tenia]

I've said this numerous times, but I would wait longer before believing Indicator definitely chose not to do anything about this.

For all we know, they're still discussing with Sony to understand what happened there.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

Since I can't really comment on the transfers, the only thing that bothers me is the packaging and the use of the word 'trilogy'. One of those modern buzzwords that didn't really take off until the 00's. I can't and won't speak on behalf of Mr. Harryhausen but I think 'The Sinbad Collection' would be more apt.

Probably me being a bit nitpicky though.

Modern buzzword? The term trilogy when applied to an art form dates back to Ancient Greece. It's likely only because there were very few actual movie trilogies in existence that you might not have heard the term, but the Star Wars trilogy was referred to that in the 80s when I was a kid. And three movies starring the same main character, produced by the same production company and released by the same studio are most certainly a trilogy.

Originally Posted by tenia

Trust me, the only reviews that will mention what is perceived here as issues will come from reviewers who are also active in dedicated boards like here (like me, for instance).

Reviewers don't often do the kind of comparisons needed here to detect these issues, and seemingly, they see the rather generic "bigger picture" which makes them fall short of being accurate in cases like this (they should definitely detect the use of a 12 years old master instead of a recent 2K restoration).

That's because most reviewers are just in it for the sweet free screener copies and either do no want to risk that by handing out scathing reviews, or simply have no idea what they're talking about.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

Modern buzzword? The term trilogy when applied to an art form dates back to Ancient Greece. It's likely only because there were very few actual movie trilogies in existence that you might not have heard the term, but the Star Wars trilogy was referred to that in the 80s when I was a kid. And three movies starring the same main character, produced by the same production company and released by the same studio are most certainly a trilogy.

Now that you mention it, I didn't think about Star Wars, but you're right there, the first three were always released as a trilogy. Although I can't recall Indiana Jones and Rambo being called trilogies except on the DVD packaging (prior to 2008).

I didn't mean 'trilogy' was a buzzword, however the regular and sometimes (more often than not) improper usage of calling non-trilogies trilogies could be mistaken for one or a marketing tool. One I'm still uncertain about is The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien called them duologies, but the films are Peter Jackson's babies so I don't know about that one.

But really the transfers are the top priority and this was me being a bit precious.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

That's because most reviewers are just in it for the sweet free screener copies and either do no want to risk that by handing out scathing reviews, or simply have no idea what they're talking about.

Part of it has to do with this (though I'm wondering if there still are so many reviewers "just for the screeners"), but I also think that many, while relatively efficient and accurate, too often don't do much research. They can be precise enough in their routine reviews, but lack the type of research people like us do.

That's why I keep spending time around here : it would probably be best for my free time to reduce significantly the time I spend here, but it allows me to gather elements like this one, keeping a consumer-focus opinion and trying to ensure I encompass the most numerous references possible.

I always hate missing something, especially when it can be found on a public domain like here.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You are clearly mistaken. I guess you forgot about the original Star Wars and Back to the Future, both of which were always referred to as trilogies. There are others, but that pretty much kills the 00's comment.

Not really.
Star Wars and Back to the Future are proper trilogies with each movie continuing the same story.
The Sinbad trilogy is not. I think it is in that sense he means the word is now over used for commercial reasons.
Even the original Indiana Jones films might be called a trilogy correctly as there are common elements connecting the series all the way through.
Again, the Sinbad films have absolutely no connection to each other at all beyond the hero of each movie having the same name - not even played by the same actor.

[Shingster]

Thematic trilogy. They do exist you know? You aren't the arbiter of the use of the term "trilogy" Shillingbury, and UpsetSmiley's comment that the term "trilogy" is mostly a new millennium thing could only have come from someone who either doesn't have much knowledge of cinema or is too young to remember that both hollywood and film fans have been applying the term "trilogy" to film series for decades. Such an absurd statement to make!

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Thematic trilogy. They do exist you know? You aren't the arbiter of the use of the term "trilogy" Shillingbury, and UpsetSmiley's comment that the term "trilogy" is mostly a new millennium thing could only have come from someone who either doesn't have much knowledge of cinema or is too young to remember that both Jollywood and film fans have been applying the term "trilogy" to film series for decades. Such an absurd statement to make!

Leone had no qualms about referring to his Eastwood films as a trilogy and referred to his Once Upon a Time films (in the West, in the Revolution/Duck You Sucker and the then-unmade in America) as a trilogy. You Only Live Twice, OHMSS and Diamonds are Forever are regularly referred to (even in the 70s) as the Blofeld trilogy despite having two different actors in stories linked only by the central villain. And back in 1934, Raymond Bernard's Les Miserables was referred to both as a 'film in three parts' and a trilogy in the original marketing.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Thematic trilogy. They do exist you know? You aren't the arbiter of the use of the term "trilogy" Shillingbury, !

Actually I am when some people seem to deliberately misunderstand what the OP was saying so they can sit on their pedantic high horse.
I can't think of any other "trilogies" where the films that form it were made 20 years apart

The Dollar films weren't and neither were any of the other titles mentioned

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

Now that you mention it, I didn't think about Star Wars, but you're right there, the first three were always released as a trilogy. Although I can't recall Indiana Jones and Rambo being called trilogies except on the DVD packaging (prior to 2008).

I didn't mean 'trilogy' was a buzzword, however the regular and sometimes (more often than not) improper usage of calling non-trilogies trilogies could be mistaken for one or a marketing tool. One I'm still uncertain about is The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien called them duologies, but the films are Peter Jackson's babies so I don't know about that one.

Yes you're spot on. Ignore the pedants

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

The Dollar films weren't and neither were any of the other titles mentioned

Because naturally you know better than Sergio Leone or Raymond Bernard.

some people seem to deliberately misunderstand what the OP was saying so they can sit on their pedantic high horse

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

Actually I am when some people seem to deliberately misunderstand what the OP was saying so they can sit on their pedantic high horse.

From my understanding of the term, "pedantic" would be what you would use to describe the person analyzing whether or not a trio of connected films can be called a "trilogy", not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

I can't think of any other "trilogies" where the films that form it were made 20 years apart

The Dollar films weren't and neither were any of the other titles mentioned

How is that relevant? The Color of Money was released 25 years after The Hustler, does that disqualify it from being called a sequel?

Oh, and the Godfather Part III was released 18 years after the first film, just one year less than the span of time between 7th Voyage of Sinbad and Eye of the Tiger.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Because naturally you know better than Sergio Leone or Raymond Bernard.



Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

I think you need to read the post again. I can see how you pick up your inaccurate guesswork if this is the level you read at

[UpsetSmiley]

Right, well I'm getting a good grilling here. I guess I only speak for for a minority of people when I made those posts.

I know what a thematic trilogy is, Scorsese for instance has made several Gangster films (Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino) with a very familiar theme, but to call them a trilogy just doesn't sit right with me. To me they're genre films, apart from a recurring cast and director they're completely unrelated to one and other. The dictionary definition has probably been lost over time like the words literally and figuratively, but I'm pretty sure most people would define or expect film trilogies to closely follow one and other, like chapters. To me 'The Sinbad Trilogy' is a collection of stories, this is the first time I've ever heard these films be refereed to as a trilogy. Anyway, I didn't mean to bore or offend anyone, I like this place, I want to be in the cool club!

Besides, I can't recall the last trilogy we had? The Human Centipede? It's all about the expanded universe films these days.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Shillingbury Tales

I think you need to read the post again. I can see how you pick up your inaccurate guesswork if this is the level you read at

I leave the inaccurate guesswork and pedantry to you. And the vast deficiencies in your reading comprehension skills are only too obvious from the 'assumptions' you make which directly contradict information in posts you reply to but clearly haven't read before getting on your pedantic high horse and pronouncing your own inaccurate guesswork as holy writ.

But hey, that's just business as usual for you. You'll just continue to sulk and pontificate in the hope that your imagined superiority on all things will be acknowledged as you try to drag debate down to playground insult level.

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

From my understanding of the term, "pedantic" would be what you would use to describe the person analyzing whether or not a trio of connected films can be called a "trilogy", not the other way around.



How is that relevant? The Color of Money was released 25 years after The Hustler, does that disqualify it from being called a sequel?

NO and where did I say it did?

The original post mentioned the use of the word trilogy to describe the Sinbad films. Trilogy usually refers to a series of interconnected stories which is why the Star Wars films and Back to the Future films , the Omen films etc.

The Sinbad films are not connected in any way other than the lead character is the same name.
There is no other connected elements.

Sure a series can become a Trilogy if 20 or 30 years later the same characters return and there are references and links to the previous story and the story or characters continue.

The bottom line is that calling this release a Trilogy is insinuating that there is some link between the 3 films from a narrative point of view. But there isn't.

After Return of the Pink Panther it could have been called The Clouseau Trilogy (which it may have been at the time).
Characters, story links , even the same actors could be enough. But the Sinbad trilogy has none.
However it is called that anyway so the argument is moot.
Lifes too short so lets move on

[Shillingbury Tales]

Originally Posted by Aclea

I leave the inaccurate guesswork and pedantry to you. And the vast deficiencies in your reading comprehension skills are only too obvious from the 'assumptions' you make which directly contradict information in posts you reply to but clearly haven't read before getting on your pedantic high horse and pronouncing your own inaccurate guesswork as holy writ.

But hey, that's just business as usual for you. You'll just continue to sulk and pontificate in the hope that your imagined superiority on all things will be acknowledged as you try to drag debate down to playground insult level.

If you're too stupid to work out that the post said the Dollar Films were not made 20 years apart rather than they were not a trilogy that's you and your school teachers problem.
Now off to bed with you.

And thanks for mentioning the Bond films which confirm precisely what I've been saying about requiring links from stories or characters and not just the name of the hero but I guess you're not even clever enough to work out that when you're trying so desperately to disagree with me you actually have confirmed my point so thanks for that