It is currently Sun May 19, 2013 5:16 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm
Some screenshot comparison between the UK and US blu-ray. Already stirring up some controversy... most people seem to dislike the contrasty look of the new restoration done by Fremantle. Am I the only one to feel the UK one is more filmlike than MGM?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
andyli wrote:
Some screenshot comparison between the UK and US blu-ray. Already stirring up some controversy... most people seem to dislike the contrasty look of the new restoration done by Fremantle. Am I the only one to feel the UK one is more filmlike than MGM?

No way, the Fremantle UK disc boosted the image, blowing out a LOT of detail that's clearly seen in the MGM disc.

To be fair, I've never seen this movie, so maybe this was how it's supposed to look, but I seriously doubt it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:41 am 
wax on; wax off
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: BOO duh Pest
hearthesilence wrote:
andyli wrote:
Some screenshot comparison between the UK and US blu-ray. Already stirring up some controversy... most people seem to dislike the contrasty look of the new restoration done by Fremantle. Am I the only one to feel the UK one is more filmlike than MGM?

No way, the Fremantle UK disc boosted the image, blowing out a LOT of detail that's clearly seen in the MGM disc.

To be fair, I've never seen this movie, so maybe this was how it's supposed to look, but I seriously doubt it.

I can't help but wonder whether andyli is comparing the US blu with the UK DVD--there's simply no way that the UK blu can be considered anything other than an abomination. Not an 'IMHO' matter either; it was mis-handled--this is a quality control issue. Completely blown out. Looks like a public domain handling of an Italian horror film. The UK DVD is pretty true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm
Beaver on the Freemantle Blu..... Uhh,

Perhaps the best part of the review (leave it to either a Gary Tooze-ism or creepiness on Freemantle's part for highlighting it)... but apparently film restoration has the added effect of augmentation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
So glad I didn't order that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Although there is a surprisingly large amount of extra information at the top and left side of the frame (EDIT: and the right - in the capture of Susan George at the church social you can see both eyes of the woman in the background to the right of the frame) of the Freemantle Blu captures, just as there had been on the Freemantle DVD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:50 pm
andyli wrote:
... most people seem to dislike the contrasty look of the new restoration done by Fremantle. Am I the only one to feel the UK one is more filmlike than MGM?

I dislike it too, but I saw the film theatrically from a restored 35mm print in Brighton in 1995 and that's pretty much how it looked.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
RossyG wrote:
andyli wrote:
... most people seem to dislike the contrasty look of the new restoration done by Fremantle. Am I the only one to feel the UK one is more filmlike than MGM?

I dislike it too, but I saw the film theatrically from a restored 35mm print in Brighton in 1995 and that's pretty much how it looked.

So not only did they do the transfer from a theatrical print (as opposed to a low-contrast print specifically designed for the purpose), but that theatrical print was too contrasty to begin with?

No wonder it's such a disaster - this should have been seen coming a mile off.

Incidentally, can anyone confirm whether the MGM release really is region-free? I've had my fingers burned too often trusting the Beaver on this issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Incidentally, can anyone confirm whether the MGM release really is region-free? I've had my fingers burned too often trusting the Beaver on this issue.

blu-ray.com is good about this type of thing, it says "Region Free".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:55 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Yeah, Blu-ray.com is usually always on top of it when it comes to region coding. I recall it having the ABC logo on the back when I saw it at Best Buy, but haven't picked it up yet so can't confirm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:25 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:07 am
MichaelB wrote:
Incidentally, can anyone confirm whether the MGM release really is region-free? I've had my fingers burned too often trusting the Beaver on this issue.

I can certainly understand about Beaver - Planet Axel confirms Straw Dogs as region free, but there is an "A" logo on the back cover displayed there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:50 pm
Location: London
It's definitely region free as I played it in my Sony SDP370 here in London.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 182 Straw Dogs
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Location: sd, ca
Reading over this thread after having seen the film again (what better to watch after Puss in Boots?) I feel like bringing up something that's always bothered me over the initial reaction to the feel (as demonstrated by Ebert's comment quoted on the previous page), but how could anyone feel that Pechinpah is sympathizing with David when from frame one he is comparing Hoffman's acting to George's (easily the most complex character of the film)? George gives a typical performance (of absurd quality) of naturalism and what would seem like a normal performance while Hoffman is almost bad. He's robotic in even his most emotional scenes and moves like he's a robot or just following stage direction. David's this passionless thing. Even more than the climax or rape I find one of the shots in their sex scene to be the most disturbing. George is there like a blanket loose and comfortable and than in the background Hoffman comes up angular and robotic like a rusted stick figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection