criterionforum.org

8/12/14

The Avengers (1998)
Rush Hour 2 (2001)


The Avengers is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, LOL

According to Warner Archive (via Facebook), Akira Kurosawa's Dreams is "under consideration for Blu" by Warner Home Video.

What exactly does WB legitimately mean by "under consideration for blu". Another words, I'll believe it when I see it.

Calvin wrote:According to Warner Archive (via Facebook), Akira Kurosawa's Dreams is "under consideration for Blu" by Warner Home Video.

That would be outstanding. I wish they had put more consideration into releasing the Avengers and decided otherwise.

FrauBlucher wrote:What exactly does WB legitimately mean by "under consideration for blu". Another words, I'll believe it when I see it.

I think you mean, "In other words?"

FrauBlucher wrote:What exactly does WB legitimately mean by "under consideration for blu". Another words, I'll believe it when I see it.

it probably means they have finite financial resources they can allocate towards a slate of bluray releases and whats the tradeoff of committing resources to one title over another title.

Zot! wrote:

Calvin wrote:According to Warner Archive (via Facebook), Akira Kurosawa's Dreams is "under consideration for Blu" by Warner Home Video.

That would be outstanding. I wish they had put more consideration into releasing the Avengers and decided otherwise.

Yeah, Warner has said they have no plans to let a director's cut of The Avengers see the light of day, so it's particularly insulting that they're releasing the same butchered cut that virtually no one liked, while so many more popular older films they could be releasing languish or take years to trickle out. (Not that I'd be interested in seeing the director's cut, personally, but a many others would, and Warner should try to have a bit more integrity in general.)

Maybe the Avengers is getting released because some executive's twelve-year-old son walked past the movie poster hanging in some godforsaken hall of shame in Warners HQ and pressured his pop to release it! I mean, could there be any other explanation?

It makes more money per year than Dreams?

Considering Dreams has been out of print for years, even one copy sold would merit it that distinction!

domino harvey wrote:I mean, could there be any other explanation?

Maybe they just want to take advantage of the vast market of confused elderly people who want to buy The Avengers for their grandkids but won't know it's not THAT The Avengers.

Dreams is just one of the many Warner titles crying out to be licensed to a company like Criterion, which they really should do if they are even remotely waffling about releasing it themselves.

The Avengers probably just hit the right cycle time. They seem to be choosing titles from the early DVD era (1997-2004) that were new release at the time and have not been re-issued since then: The Avengers, Conspiracy Theory, Get Carter (2000), Torque, Rock Star, Rush Hour 2, The Man Who Knew Too Little, and Exit Wounds all fit that pattern.

I wonder: what about the Big Parade? Did it sell enough to make them release more silents? Or should we wait for those films to come out at the Archive?

8/12/14

Elvis: That's the Way It Is (1970)

Also, a re-packaging of the 40th Anniversary set of Woodstock (1970) with another bonus disc of concert footage.

The Big Red One BD @ DVDBeaver

domino harvey wrote:Considering Dreams has been out of print for years, even one copy sold would merit it that distinction!

...althought it has never really been unavailable, as it was relegated to the Warner Archives as soon as the manufactured discs had been sold off.

It's the one Warner's title (after The Devils) that I had hoped Criterion had successfully negotiated along with Badlands...

Viva Las Vegas repackaged as a digibook: 08/12

Elvis must be a big seller for Warner. It's just odd that Fox's output has been so light.

Unfortunately the English audio track is the dubbed US version and not the original audio intended by the director. This dubbing affects the opening scene when Carter's employers are trying to convince him to stay in London, the men having been dubbed with badly-acted faux-Cockney accents which flatten the spontaneity of the scene and simplify the dialogue.

Good old Warner, always helping me buy fewer movies.

Wait, the Get Carter story is not over : in France, it seems all the remake discs actually contains the files of the 71 version. \:D/

tenia wrote:Wait, the Get Carter story is not over : in France, it seems all the remake discs actually contains the files of the 71 version. \:D/

Wow. Someone at a replication plant screwed up big in mixing up the disc image files there.

As for the dubbing section, no surprise that it's the same disc world wide. That's one advantage of having a single HD standard across the world and leaving a disc open region - no need to make region specific disc images. It's unfortunate that they pulled an audio file that had a dubbed section, but I'd wager the people who were in charge of doing so had no idea there was a variation.

captveg wrote:I'd wager the people who were in charge of doing so had no idea there was a variation.

It's their job to get it right.

peerpee wrote:

captveg wrote:I'd wager the people who were in charge of doing so had no idea there was a variation.

It's their job to get it right.

These are technicians, not film scholars. The expectation is that they compile the cataloged files onto a home video release, not become experts on every nuanced variation of a film they are being tasked to prep for release.

99.9999% of titles they'll pull elements/files for have a singular English audio track. Why would they expect there to be two versions for one title as opposed to another?

Maybe if that person was specifically aware of these alterations for this title as a fan, but not as a random title among hundreds being prepared for video/streaming/etc. distribution.

People outside the home video industry expect that those who work in it are all super enthusiasts and have minutia about every film and its quirks memorized. For most people it's a job and unless what is sitting in front of them is incorrect on its face they won't know it's different from what's intended. Hundreds of films have bad ADR dubbing as the only English audio track, so why would this one be different to a techguy?

Sometimes these quirkier things get caught because things align and the worker has more familiarity with it specifically, but that's more of a stroke of luck than anything that can be planned for.