Grease 4K UHD (1978) (40th Anniversary Edition)

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by worldchmps

Will the regular Blu ray be based on the 4k?

I have Grease on digital. Will it become the new standard transfer automatically?

Yes.

Digital doesn't count.

[F34R]

I want a steelbook for this (USA).

[DiscoDan]

Any reason why all the preorders have been taken down?

[Promo_Cop]

Pre-orders are back up, but Amazon has the wrong edition pictured

[fonzie]

Anyone have any idea if the Spanish audio track will include the songs sung in Spanish as well?

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

They legally had to blur it so nothing to fix: a deal with Pepsi was made for product placement but the production designers weren't told. So the only option was to blur the biggest one and block the smaller ones as best as possible.

Randal Kleiser may have altered the blurring for this restoration but he's never done it in the past with other restorations & remasterings. So the chances of him doing it this time are nil.

There is no law that says you need permission to show a sign or product in your film or TV show. If they blurred the sign, it's because they chose to voluntarily, perhaps due to a deal perhaps with Pepsi, who didn't like that the Coke sign was visible. A company can request a sign or logo be removed, but the film maker has no legal requirement to do so, generally speaking.

https://nofilmschool.com/2015/02/ent...logo-trademark

"Generally if you are using a product or showing a place as it is commonly portrayed, and the logos are visible, you're on pretty good legal ground (for example, someone driving a Chevy car to a Chili's or drinking a Coke)."

If they did strike a deal with Pepsi, there they may have a legal obligation to follow the terms of the agreement, if money was involved. That may have been what happened.

Now, if somebody is representing the company in the film/TV show as bad - like, if somebody in the film paints the company in a bad light, states the product is poor, etc., then the company has some legal ground. But just showing a sign in the background - there is nothing that states they have to blur it. Maybe they received a request form Coke to blur it and the person in charge wasn't aware of their rights and didn't know they could tell Coke to go fly a kite. Or maybe they did it to keep the peace.

[redxrebellion]

Is this gonna have Dolby Vision?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by redxrebellion

Is this gonna have Dolby Vision?

Probably.

[jono3000]

Now also available to pre-order from Zoom in the UK

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[SplitScreen]

Originally Posted by jono3000

Now also available to pre-order from Zoom in the UK

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I noticed that. I've cancelled my Amazon US pre-order and ordered from Zoom instead. Amazon seems to have been messing around with this pre-order and doesn't even have the right cover up anymore. Don't trust them lol.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There is no law that says you need permission to show a sign or product in your film or TV show. If they blurred the sign, it's because they chose to voluntarily, perhaps due to a deal perhaps with Pepsi, who didn't like that the Coke sign was visible. A company can request a sign or logo be removed, but the film maker has no legal requirement to do so, generally speaking.

https://nofilmschool.com/2015/02/ent...logo-trademark

"Generally if you are using a product or showing a place as it is commonly portrayed, and the logos are visible, you're on pretty good legal ground (for example, someone driving a Chevy car to a Chili's or drinking a Coke)."

If they did strike a deal with Pepsi, there they may have a legal obligation to follow the terms of the agreement, if money was involved. That may have been what happened.

Now, if somebody is representing the company in the film/TV show as bad - like, if somebody in the film paints the company in a bad light, states the product is poor, etc., then the company has some legal ground. But just showing a sign in the background - there is nothing that states they have to blur it. Maybe they received a request form Coke to blur it and the person in charge wasn't aware of their rights and didn't know they could tell Coke to go fly a kite. Or maybe they did it to keep the peace.

Law? What law? When I say legally, I'm talking about contractual legality.

Here is the longer explanation compiled from multiple sources:

The producers approached The Coca-Cola Company for a product placement deal. The Coca-Cola Company was about to agree to one but pulled out at the last minute over objections to the content of the film.

The production designers designed the sets with the idea of Coke being the product placement partner. Since Coke revoked the rights abruptly, the designers were not able to start a new. Producer Alan Carr ordered all references to Coke be removed by any means necessary from the film.

A new product placement deal was made with Pepsi who agreed to sign the contract with the producers. This meant that only Pepsi products would be visible in the film and again, why Carr would have Coke references removed.

Hence the blurring and Randal Kleiser never removing it over the years. Contractually, Pepsi can say that the producers promised they would be the only soda company seen in the film. Coke who objected to the use of their product can also sue the producers for using their copyrighted logo and designs without permission (ever wonder why TV shows have generic food?). Carr was protecting his film from legal ramifications.

Kleiser and by extension, whoever Paramount hires to handle Grease after Kleiser's passing, may not be able to ever remove the blurring. It could be altered but again, Kleiser has not done that in the many times he has approved and overseen the home video releases.

[Pieter V]

4K source confirmed:

The beloved high-school musical has been given a 4K tune-up ahead of its big birthday and is now running better than ever. This souped-up digital print is racing into cinemas like Greased Lightnin' and will hit screens around the world from March.

http://www.parkcircus.com/latest/144...ting_materials

[Geoff D]

Grease - official 40th anniversary trailer - YouTube

Trailer for the anniversary re-release to cinemas. Badly compressed youtube shit will only tell you so much but damn, that looks good. The colour, oh mai.

[xSAMCOx]

Not the biggest fan of the movie but i do se the nostalgia in it.
Im to Young to Enjoyed it back in the day.

[OutOfBoose]

Looks DNR'ed to shit.

[xSAMCOx]

To much processing i rather enjoy the original looks with better colours to smooth is a let down...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Looks DNR'ed to shit.

ahem

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Badly compressed youtube shit will only tell you so much

[OutOfBoose]

Come on, T2 trailers didn't lie. I remember the same mantras "don't judge by the trailers". Maybe it's not the new transfer (and I hope that it's not), but if it's what's going to arrive on UHD, then RIP.

If there's filmic grain, it will be more or less visible on youtube too (see Silence of the Lambs trailer or Terminator 1).

[Geoff D]

I'm not judging the grain, detail etc from the trailers with any finality because you just don't know what's been done to them, whether it's the trailer or the underlying transfer. It's why I didn't even mention such things in my post above.

But the colour here is interesting because it's definitely not what's represented on the Blu-ray at the moment, and if that's a taste of what we're in for then I can't ****ing wait.

[OutOfBoose]

If it's DNR'ed like this, colors won't save it. Just like they didn't save T2.