Blu Ray movies NOT worth buying

I think that it is a great idea that you started up this thread. Like many other people, the poor economy has kicked me in the ass. For that reason, I have severely reduced my spending on movies, books, and collectibles. My Blu ray player was my last big purchase. So staying away from crap transfers is something we may all want a heads up on.  Boy, times have changed for me.  If a film looks like crap, I would not even want to pay $10 for it at this time.  And, this is comming from a guy who owns at least four versions of shit films like "Highlander 2" and three versions of "Highlander 3"....  This curtailing of my entertainment related buying habits is very displeasing, and quite uncharacteristic.

So far, I only own 5 Blu ray titles. Baraka, Blade Runner (5 disk set) , The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Thunderball.

The only one of them that I have seen on other formats is "Thunderball", and it looks great on Blu ray!  I've heard mixed reviews on some of the other Bond titles, and I will not be buying every film in that series (yet once again) on Blu ray format. I'll just be getting my personal favorite films that have positive fan reviews on the visual aspects. 

Unlike most people, I deplore renting movies. I feel that it is somhow a huge waste of cash, and would rather shell out a few more bucks to own the thing.  Also, I have an enormous problem with not returning over-due movies, and in the past have racked up late fee totals that rival the national debt. I also suspect, that I am banned from borrowing from public libraries in at least seven communities across the United States. *wink*

It's been real hard, but I'm holding off on the new "Godfather" set. Surprisingly, I have seen enough negitive comments about the restoration and transfer to make me actualy give in and consider first renting the films. For some of the high priced titles, I can see a sort of logic in first renting the Blu ray version, and then comparing them to my standard DVDs at home.  

Hmm, I have the older DVD boxset, which I only bought recently because I, too, am broke, and it was extremely discounted after the new release.  I don't have Blu-Ray, so I didn't figure I'd just buy the new DVD set when it was already outmoded.  Went for price, and I'd actually never seen the movies before the prior DVD set.

I looked at all the links you sent out, Chainsaw, and I have one question:  how come the subtitles only appear in the old Region 1 DVD but not in the old Region 2 or the new version?  Are the subs not burned into this new version (which, if you've noticed my opinions in the Star Wars releases)?  If not, it automatically loses several points in my book, better colors or not... Hell, I'm colorblind anyway! =P

There are different schools of thought on the Godfather restoration.  Some say that the older DVD release is a more faithful representation because it was scanned straight from an actual print and dumped onto DVD, without any fiddling around.  

For the new set, they put the original negative into a computer (which was not color corrected) and adjusted the colors, contrast, etc. to best approximate how it would have been color-timed photochemically.  They blew out some whites that were definitely not blown out in the original, and fixed the scene where Michael guns Sollozzo and the policemen down, which was grainier in the original release because of a printing error in the lab.  

Also, the early DVD's have the original burned in subtitles (because it was scanned right from a print), but the new restoration has differently formatted, player-generated subtitles. 

BUT, the restoration is good because it has the original mono version.  

What I want to do sometime is synch up the mono mix from the restoration with the earlier DVD release.

ChainsawAsh said:

If you're even a slight fan of the Godfather films, buy the Blu-Ray set.  You will not regret it.

On this title, I sure will take your word and those screen shots as evidence in this set's favor.  There are a few used sets listed for just under $30 on Amazon, and I just might go for it.  I have been having rather good luck and saving sometimes over 40% to 60% on normal MSRP, by buying slightly used things from the better rated sellers on Amazon.  But there is a risk on getting damaged goods (beyond the description provided by the seller), or not getting anything at all.

FanFiltration said:

I have been having rather good luck and saving sometimes over 40% to 60% on normal MSRP, by buying slightly used things from the better rated sellers on Amazon.

I have stuck to used stuff my whole life. Started this trend when I was a kid and discovered I could buy a lot more Nintendo games by getting them used rather than new. VHS tapes were always a little iffy, I had bought a few used ones that had problems, so I stopped with those. But I have never had any problems with used CDs, DVDs, or CD/DVD-ROM games. Most places won't buy things that are badly scratched, and I have never found a used place that won't take things back if they don't work.

Through amazon I have never had any serious problems either, just stick to people with good feedback. Any times I have had problems, I have never had any trouble getting my money back.

In fact, in all my years of buying used stuff, the only time I ended up with some badly scratched discs and a seller unwilling to do anything about it, was when I bought the collector's edition of Halo 3 on ebay for $15 bucks. The seller listed it as "very good" condition, but due to the H3 collector's edition tin being really poorly designed, and not holding the discs very tightly, they became disloged during shipping and got the shit scratched out of them (turns out this was a huge issue when the game was first released too, many people picked the game up on release day and were unable to play it because it was so badly scratched). Fortunately, they still work well enough and I got a good deal on them, but it was still disappointing.

I though the problems with some blu ray releases were 2 things.

1. Dumping Old HD transfers to blu ray disc instead of using the state of the art current technology and doing new transfers

2.  Digital Noise Reduction or DVNR.

These can be either deal breakers or not.  What if the blu rays are better than the dvd's but still not up to blu ray par like the star trek 1-6 set.  Where Trek II still has dnr to it only on a much more restrained basis so it is the only transfer that is really blu ray qualty.

Still worth it for the steal of a price amazon in the usa is offering it for though.

Either you buy , or wait for the so called double dip release that is fixed that may never come.

I don't have a blu ray player and an HDTV but if i did and bought the trek set i would feel like i was saying to paramount. 

"Hey here's my money i know you did a shitty job but you can have my money anyway. Does not matter that this set was planned for more than 3 years, or that you guys threw 200 million dollars at jj for that new movie. "

What would a  restoration frame by frame from the oneg cost them, millions?

The fact that they rushed them out just to meet the deadline of the new movies release does not sit well with me.  I know its a business decision, i still think it was a lame thing to do.

What i Lol'ed at was that people think these are better now that they have had harsh digital scrubbing done to them.  Movies should not have grain.  Grain is dirt on the image and a defect, type of people.

ChainsawAsh said:

No, the subtitles in the new set aren't player generated, they're on the film itself IIRC.  If you look closely at the links I posted, it's not the exact frame - the only one where the subtitles are visible in the comparison is the old NTSC set, even the old PAL set is a frame or two off and doesn't show the subs.

If they aren't player generated (which I thought they were), they are still computer generated.  It's a different, newer looking lettering, differently formatted.

I've heard that the Blu-Ray transfer for "Patton" was awful, mostly because they went nuts with trying to remove grain and ended up losing a lot of detail.

Was Stargate remastered under the supervision of the director?

Sometimes even the directors don't know any better and ask for dvnr on their films.

A lot of these earlier HD scans made years ago are only know being found at once released on blu ray at full resolution that the degraining caused lack of fine detail that DVD quality would mask or could not show.

So the studios either need to do a new scan of the negatives, prints or ip or just dump the master they already have on blu ray.

If you cannot get a fucked up dvnr'ed release on blu ray for cheap, don't even bother.  Sometimes they look marginally better than the dvd or a lot better but not film like.  The only reason to buy the star trek set for instance is you can get it for so cheap.  The only real restoration in that set is 2, the rest are all previous HD masters.  Me peronally i don't want to give Paramount my money for a set they obviously rushed out in time for JJ's action spectacle.

I hope when Lawrence of Arabia comes to Blu RAY the transfer is supervised by Robert Harris who did the original restoration, because i know just what these studios like to do with over zealous use of digital noise reduction. 

These computer programs,like the one Lowry's employees wrote the code for are algorithms that do an automated process that sometimes or a lot of the time can' t tell video noise and dupe grain from film grain that is supposed to be there.

You see dupe grain on older films was printed in with each generation of the  processed opticals or printed in at the stage when release prints were struck.  Hair dirt and grime were also printed in when labs were not exactly as clean and careful as they were supposed to be.

The more popular a film the worse its original elements will be.  Star Wars o-neg and ips were used so many times to stike re-release prints and the film  stock used on the opticals and live action phototography was so unstable as to almost make the film a lost cause.

At least older films have the advantage of being on film to make them future proof and blu ready.

Later films that were made with non HD resolution cgi need the effects to be either mathmatically upscaled or re rendered.  Some films use so many effects this redoing of the effects would not  be cost efficient, or would almost be like remaking the whole film except for the live action photography.

TV series where the effects were done on standard def video or the final edit and conform was done on standard def video are a problem when making them ready for blu ray.  Nevermind shows shot on video before the age of HD or independants.

Star Trek the next generation the tv show intance was shot on 4:3 35mm PANAVision but the effects and final broadcast edits were done on standard definition video which would have been up to the broadcast standards of the time.  For a show like that to be on Blu RAY not only do the effects need to be redone but the show has to be re-edited from scratch using the broadcast master tapes as a guide when recutting the 35mm live action footage.  The original series had the fortune of to have been both shot and edited on 35mm motion picture technicolor film as well as the special effects, even so they redid the effects in cgi.

I just finished watching "The Final Countdown", on Blu-ray.  Was not overly impressed.  Lots of blurry shots, and the stock footage stands out. But the BR disk is not a total wash up.  The flying scenes did look great, and if you can find it at a low price...