An American Werewolf in London (1981) (Limited Edition)

[BuraddoRun]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I'm not really seeing it as political to just discuss the meaning of a film and how it relates to the historical events of the time and how the latter may have influenced what the film was saying about society at the time. I think the problem is certain people label anything that dissects or probes into a certain subject as "political" when it's really not, because god forbid someone talk to you like an adult and not a black/white thinking manchild.

Well, to be fair I haven't read it myself yet, so I don't know what it says. But yes, if the political climate influenced the film itself, then it's worth discussing. But sometimes analysts "see" things that aren't there, as well.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

I like how Arrow snuck in that little lobby card/advertisement for the upcoming release for Inglourious basterds. I have a feeling we'll get it in the summer.

The 70s classic or Tarantino?

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

So become an accomplished writer and get Arrow to publish your article in one of their booklets.

I'm not a writer but that doesn't mean I can't express my criticism for this type of writing in something I pay for.

[postmodel]

Yeah I just see that section as giving historical context as to what was going on in the world. It’s no different than when Tobe Hooper, or anyone for that matter, mentions the Vietnam War when discussing Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

I'm not a writer but that doesn't mean I can't express my criticism for this type of writing in something I pay for.

You're not criticizing what they're saying in any meaningful way. You're saying their views shouldn't be heard. Big difference.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

The 70s classic or Tarantino?

QT

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=321305

[Lacrimosa]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I'm not really seeing it as political to just discuss the meaning of a film and how it relates to the historical events of the time and how the latter may have influenced what the film was saying about society at the time. I think the problem is certain people label anything that dissects or probes into a certain subject as "political" when it's really not, because god forbid someone talk to you like an adult and not a black/white thinking manchild.

Or, like in the case of Weird Science, it's applying today's commentary to yesterday's film. It's one thing to discuss the historical context of events. It's another thing to inject today's commentary into that context. This is going to have us debating the relevancy of gender politics in 1985 compared to today. Kelly LeBrock's character building herself out of the tail end of second wave feminism to respond to pervasive conservative ideologies that bookended the Cold War is a way farther reach than just saying she was a product of male fantasy and sexual desire.

Or maybe I'm just a dumb movie watcher.

[hagios]

Rec'd today!

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

I'll add to the growing list of unnecessary political essays in Arrow's booklets and site A Fish Called Wanda. Yep, the writer actually found a way to discuss political correctness and actually criticize A Fish called Wanda
Some of these writes need to come down off their high horse and just enjoy an 80s comedy for what it is without shoving social media type commentary on to them.

The essay for "A Fish Called Wanda" was one the biggest stretches I've read in a while.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

You're not criticizing what they're saying in any meaningful way. You're saying their views shouldn't be heard. Big difference.

I never said that their views shouldn’t be heard, I said I don’t like reading essays they write that criticize a film from over 30 years ago using today’s barometer for political correctness.
To try and say that the film is homophobic because one character says something off-color and then damming Cleese for writing a character the audience relates to that way is just a bit ridiculous.
If you enjoy the essay then that’s totally fine you have every right to and I’m happy for you. But in my case I just didn’t and apparently others share the same perspective as me.
Anyway, can’t wait for my copy of American Werwolf in London to arrive!

[Egbert Souse]

Received today. The new remaster looks amazing. A certain scene involving a hospital visit almost made me gag from how much detail there was.

Also couldn't help nut notice how prominent Universal's logo is on the packaging. Almost seems like these are a sort of collaboration between Arrow and Universal, which would explain why some big recent films are coming like Inglourious Basterds.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

I never said that their views shouldn’t be heard, I said I don’t like reading essays they write that criticize a film from over 30 years ago using today’s barometer for political correctness.
To try and say that the film is homophobic because one character says something off-color and then damming Cleese for writing a character the audience relates to that way is just a bit ridiculous.
If you enjoy the essay then that’s totally fine you have every right to and I’m happy for you. But in my case I just didn’t and apparently others share the same perspective as me.
Anyway, can’t wait for my copy of American Werwolf in London to arrive!

I agree actually. Like, don't need to remind me how much cooler things were back then as opposed to now.

[bonehica]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Received today. The new remaster looks amazing. A certain scene involving a hospital visit almost made me gag from how much detail there was.

OM NOM NOM NOM...

[Show spoiler]

[Luke Dodge748]

I just finished watching. I'm on the bonus material now. Arrow knocked another one on to Eutaw Street....

What a fantastic film. Incredible. This movie scared me senseless as a kid.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Luke Dodge748

What a fantastic film. Incredible. This movie scared me senseless as a kid.

My old man showed it to me when I was like 10...soooooo many nightmares.

[Retroj23]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

My old man showed it to me when I was like 10...soooooo many nightmares.

Your old man has great taste in films. My pops rented Demons by Bava back in '86 for my sister and I to watch. We nearly shit our pants. Good times.

[Narcissus]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

I'll add to the growing list of unnecessary political essays in Arrow's booklets and site A Fish Called Wanda.

Some of these writes need to come down off their high horse and just enjoy an 80s comedy for what it is without shoving social media type commentary on to them.

I emailed them about this. They said they'd pass it on. I, of course, got no response. Retro reacting to a film made in a different time is absurd in the extreme.

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I'm not really seeing it as political to just discuss the meaning of a film and how it relates to the historical events of the time and how the latter may have influenced what the film was saying about society at the time. I think the problem is certain people label anything that dissects or probes into a certain subject as "political" when it's really not, because god forbid someone talk to you like an adult and not a black/white thinking manchild.

The only reason for a studio to put essays like this in a release is to advance a political agenda. And these are from people having already published the same point of view in other non-video publications, so the point can only be political.

And no, I do not have a problem with an adult conversation involving a differing point of view. However, applying a new set of values gained from an over correction of a male dominated planet to a film made during that time is stupid. To subtly or blatantly condemn people in a less enlightened age with a new moral standard is laughably misguided.

Originally Posted by Lacrimosa

Or, like in the case of Weird Science, it's applying today's commentary to yesterday's film. It's one thing to discuss the historical context of events. It's another thing to inject today's commentary into that context. This is going to have us debating the relevancy of gender politics in 1985 compared to today. Kelly LeBrock's character building herself out of the tail end of second wave feminism to respond to pervasive conservative ideologies that bookended the Cold War is a way farther reach than just saying she was a product of male fantasy and sexual desire.

Or maybe I'm just a dumb movie watcher.

Or the phallic missile penetrating the boys room

[Show spoiler]because they forgot to connect the doll

.

[The Herbinator]

Originally Posted by bonehica

om nom nom nom...

[Show spoiler]

"David!"

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by epicfilmguys

Apparently Amazon shipped mine using "Lasership" which I've never heard of. On my Amazon account is says delivered at front door which it shouldn't because I have a note on my account stating not to do that. It's not here.

We have an Amazon hub at our complex and haven't had any recent issues receiving orders. I called Amazon and they said to wait and that it might still be out for delivery. Super frustrating.

Amazon sure seem to be struggling getting this out. Fingers crossed you get it soon. I cancelled my original order as it wasn’t due till Saturday 2nd. I then re-ordered it and it came the next day (Tuesday 29th) one day after release day! Plus I got a tenner off.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Received today. The new remaster looks amazing. A certain scene involving a hospital visit almost made me gag from how much detail there was.

Also couldn't help nut notice how prominent Universal's logo is on the packaging. Almost seems like these are a sort of collaboration between Arrow and Universal, which would explain why some big recent films are coming like Inglourious Basterds.

It's just got the Universal logo on the spine. Waterworld had it too, and most of their MGM titles (LE or not) have the MGM logo on the spine. Same with their Fox titles come to think of it. They have to do whatever the rights holder wants to do under the terms of their licence. Some want their logo more prominent on the packaging, some aren't bovvered, it's not a sign of something being more or less of a collaboration than anything else.

Arrow inked a deal with Universal to licence their stuff and they've got access to plenty of modern content (Children of Men, Crimson Peak, Wolf of Wall Street, Inglourious Basterds) as well as classic catalogue gear, modern stuff being a slam-dunk when it comes to sales figures as they don't have to pay for an expensive new transfer. Make a few new extra features (mostly just talking heads), stick a marvellously 'woke' essay in the booklet, maybe add some collectible tat and boom, there's another 'limited edition'.