http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Bonnie_&_Clyde_Blast_Their_Way_to_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/1221

I can't believe I've never seen this film. Looking forward to my first viewing being on Blu.

One of my fave movies of all time.
And a milestone in American filmmaking.

Just got my BONNIE AND CLYDE this morning inside the new WB BOOK format.Its realy quite nice.Some great on set photos.Glad we are getting more of these.

Going to watch the movie tonight:)

Just got my BONNIE AND CLYDE this morning inside the new WB BOOK format.Its realy quite nice.Some great on set photos.Glad we are getting more of these.

Going to watch the movie tonight:)

Sounds great. Is there a lossless or uncompressed audio track included in this release? I couldn't find this information elsewhere.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Bonnie_&_Clyde_Blast_Their_Way_to_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/1221

I can't believe I've never seen this film. Looking forward to my first viewing being on Blu.

I also can't believe i have never this movie either. For some reason i have managed to watch some most of the obscure french and japanese movies of the 40's and 50's, yet never saw this piece of americana. I can't wait to get my copy i pre odered from amazon months ago.

Onw question about the book format. Are they coming out with a 'Book' version and a lesser movie only version, or is there only one version being released.

Jaffa where did you get yours from?

I saw this yesterday on HDNet. It was pretty violent, so many headshots. Cool movie, Faye Dunaway was super hot. And Warren Beatty was awesome with his accent and delivery.

I'll order this from the W with the B2G1 whenever they add the Orphanage and Gotham Knight. How weird does the 'book' look on the shelf?
Thanks for the info on the Book look jaffa. The case was my biggest concern. Look like I'll start a book section for WBDs.

So now when there are coupons or sales on books, the BDs should count as part of those offers. Sweet. But is it a BD with a book, or a book with a BD?

Jaffa can you post pics of the book. I'm curious as to how the disc is actually secured in there. Is it like the old cardboard cases they used to have, so it would be pages, pages, pages, then a spindle?

Sound is just plain MONO or STEREO which is fine with me.The BOOK is slightly taller than a BLU box and slightly deeper as well.On the shelf it just looks like a hard back book but with a warner logo at the bottom and a BLU logo at the top with the TITLE of the movie in the centre.

Some nice xtras as well:)

Another 3 hours and il watch it.

As far as i know this is the only way you can get the movie.I dont think it comes without the book on BLU-RAY.

Is it possible to post some pics of the packaging?

Ok il keep it brief.Other than a couple of small scratches the print is in great shape.Slight grain but otherwise spotless.If you liked the trasfer for THE WILD BUNCH then im sure you will like this one:)

The mono soundtrack is fine as well.

There's just something about Faye Dunaway in this film...she's stunning.

There's just something about Faye Dunaway in this film...she's stunning.

This was on HDNet the other day and I was stunned by her beauty as well.:)

I am I the only one to think this whole book this is lame? I would rather just get the movie it in a regular Blu-Ray case and have the price lowered some. Warner used those crappy cardboard DVD cases for years now this.:rolleyes:

Tom

I am I the only one to think this whole book this is lame? I would rather just get the movie it in a regular Blu-Ray case and have the price lowered some. Warner used those crappy cardboard DVD cases for years now this.:rolleyes:

Tom

Yeah, I would have preferred a regular version at Warner's normal catalog price. The price is still acceptable though, especially for this particular movie.

I'd also like the movie in a regular case, but I guess I'll be able to live with it as long as the disc SNAPS in (if it's a sleeve, I might not buy) and is of the same height as a normal case. I found the Matrix, That's Entertainment, and Ocean's Trilogy boxed sets acceptable (standard cases in a box), and I'm not really bothered by the Close Encounters boxed set with the foldout cases. On a side note, I just looked at photos of the Dirty Harry boxed set (also a book BTW) and I ask myself what am I going to do with all that JUNK? Wallet? Metal badge? Laminated I.D. card? Ugh. I don't mind lobby poster cards, as long as they're small and fit inside the case (where ads and in the case of DVDs, the chapter listing inserts go). I avoid all tins (ex. Anchor Bay DVDs) and collector boxes (Forbidden Planet HD DVD). These things can make me pretty upset, example No Shame Films with their collectors boxes where they include more video content than without (Red Queen boxed set coming with a figurine (woopee!) and available in no other way, and Dark Waters with a large stone medallion of a face, but includes a second bonus disc with the director's other works..only available in the C.E.).

I am I the only one to think this whole book this is lame?

That's a big 10-4 good buddy!

I'm getting this one despite whatever the dumm-butt package is. My cousin's, now, ex-wife wrote the screenplay. She couldn't sell it and finally got Warren Beatty to take it for $15,000 and no residual rights.

Snappa, Snappa.... :rolleyes: ....they owned the factory that made Snappers and wouldn't quit till they got their money's worth out of it, apparently. They must of bought a book factory....;)

I guess everyone wants to distinguish their releases on the retail shelf. Just one of the things we have to live with to support our love of building a physical media collection.

At least this isn't as bad as the Simpsons "head" cases! Who the heck came up with that brilliant idea? :confused:

Bracke from High-Def Digest has his review up. There's apparently no overt edge enhancement or compression artifacts, and as jaffa said, film grain is well-preserved.

HDD review is up

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1269/bonnieandclyde.html

PQ : 4.5 / 5
SQ : 2 / 5

Unbelieavle, WB still can't get their **** together and put lossless audio on all their discs (or at least major ones such as this).

Um Alex, did you read why? They lost the master years ago, so all they have left is one left over from a previous version. And while a lossless track would be nice,many purists prefer the original soundtrack rather than a 5.1 version. And keep in mind when the film was made, surround sound wasn t even conceived so like many films of the time, they did not bother incorporating surround elements.

Um Alex, did you read why? They lost the master years ago, so all they have left is one left over from a previous version. And while a lossless track would be nice,many purists prefer the original soundtrack rather than a 5.1 version. And keep in mind when the film was made, surround sound wasn t even conceived so like many films of the time, they did not bother incorporating surround elements.
Lossless isn't the same as surround.

You can present a mono track with lossless audio. In fact, they should whenever possible. There are many rich mono tracks out there, considering it was the standard for a long while. When Star Wars was first mixed, the most time was spent on the mono mix.

Of course if they lost the master, they lost the master. Pretty sad if all they have is a lossy version of the mono track though. Especially if it's 192 kbps.

Lossless isn't the same as surround.

Exactly.

All my Laserdiscs movies with their original audio tracks in PCM (be it mono or stereo) sound way better their DVD counterpart.

Solo,

I wasn't complaining about the lack of a resmaster. Actually, just about the opposite, I'm the author of the OST poll for Sony pictures ages ago. I'm always thrilled about the inclusion of the original audio tracks. I have it when we get remixes only on the discs 90% turn out worse than the OST..

Of course if they lost the master, they lost the master. Pretty sad if all they have is a lossy version of the mono track though. Especially if it's 192 kbps.

192 kbps works pretty well for some of their other 1 channel releases. I'm way more concerned about the video. The print that runs on HD Net has alot of speckles and some awful looking burns.

This was on HDNet the other day and I was stunned by her beauty as well.:)
That's why this movie made Faye a genuine Star!!!!!

Um Alex, did you read why? They lost the master years ago, so all they have left is one left over from a previous version. And while a lossless track would be nice,many purists prefer the original soundtrack rather than a 5.1 version. And keep in mind when the film was made, surround sound wasn t even conceived so like many films of the time, they did not bother incorporating surround elements.
Stereo and surround sound had indeed been conceived many years before 1967 when "Bonnie and Clyde" was released. Disney presented the original "Fantasia" in the multi-channel "Fantasound" in 1940!! And stereo and surround setups were utilized many times-- particularly in "road show" presentations (you kids just don't KNOW what you're missing!!)-- like the year-long reserved-seat engagements of "Ben Hur," "Around the World in 80 Days," and "The Ten Commandments"-- all with their own versions of "stereo" or "surround sound."

"Bonnie and Clyde" was a definite milestone in cinema history but not for technical reasons.

I admit I was ignorant, I had been led to believe elsewhere that such was the case. Thanks for clearing that up. It could be that the person that told me this was referring to surround sound as a standard like it is now. As an aside, what would be a comprable movie, just so I know whether to pick this up or not.

I don't care what any of you anal fanatics that need everything to look alike say, I just got the Warner "Book edition" of Bonnie & Clyde, and it is very cool and very classy. Beats the hell out of a plastic and mylar case IMO.

Woo-Hoo! :D

I got mine today too, and I agree - very nice indeed! For those of you who care about such things, it is bigger than a regular blu case. its about 1/3 of an inch taller, and also wider.

Looking forward to more of them!

I don't care what any of you anal fanatics that need everything to look alike say, I just got the Warner "Book edition" of Bonnie & Clyde, and it is very cool and very classy. Beats the hell out of a plastic and mylar case IMO.

Woo-Hoo! :D

Good to hear. I'm glad something is done to give releases a premium touch. The OCD folks can replace it with one of the spare regular cases they certainly have left over from when they bought 'em in bulk when there were still four stickers on all the Sony BDs. ;)

EDIT: Any first impressions of the disc itself?

Why does nobody ever post pics of this? I've seen the one little pic Warner provided when Warner announced this but thats about it. We need more pics!

The first "book edition" from WB, "Bonnie & Clyde" is the same price as their new releases... which isn't bad if it's a true "special edition" and contains a lot of special features...

Personally, I like uniformity in my collection, so I don't want ANY book editions as they would stick out from my collection.

Is this disc in a hub or does it slide into a sleeve?

Pics?

Here's the thread from last week
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=947909&highlight=bonnie+clyde

Why start a new one and not post pics?

Personally, I like uniformity in my collection, so I don't want ANY book editions as they would stick out from my collection.I agree, but I'm planning to segregate them and place them together, so there will be a maintained sense of uniformity. Now, Close Encounters? That's going to be an oddball in my collection.

I agree, but I'm planning to segregate them and place them together, so there will be a maintained sense of uniformity.

But then the collection is not alphabetical anymore! :eek:

Or do you sort by studio because Warner next to Sony just looks cluttered?

How will life go on? :p

This just might be the thing that finally gets me into custom covers after years of curiosity. I have these towers with adjustable shelves where I can fit HDM cases just right, with maybe 1/4" or so between the top of a case and the bottom of the next shelf up. The top shelf has less clearance than that, and I'm almost certain these books won't fit.

I don't see what the fondness is for plastic cases with acetate sleeve-holders. These books are way more sophisticated.

Besides how many times have you had the unstable acetate/mylar on a plastic case develop ripples and wrinkles? The nature of most of that stuff is to warp, get brittle, yellow, and even stick to the paper beneath over time.

There ya go

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg

I wasn't sure if i would like these. I was also worried about where the disc would be kept but looking at the picture they look really nice. What other Warner titles are being released like this?

They really shouldn't have that Hi-Def Sound logo on the cover of this release if it's got a 192kbps soundtrack.

Here's the thread from last week
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=947909&highlight=bonnie+clyde

Why start a new one and not post pics?

Thanks...info can go in the thread linked

What is in the book? is it just pictures? (simliar to the Jaws 30th anniversary?)

I really like the standard cases. I can see why some collectors would like books and other special packaging, but it would be nice if they packaged these things so that you could pull out a standard Blu-ray package and store it with your discs. I don;t know what I am going to do about this movie now.

Don't like it. Looks like I'll wait for the HD DVD.

There ya go



Snaps in case - satisfied. :)

I don't like digipacks, but I do have a Judas Priest CD which comes in a book (but also a sleeve for the disc, I think :( ) and the hardbook covers do manage to stay in good shape unlike a digipak.

Don't like it. Looks like I'll wait for the HD DVD.

FWIW - I think the book style is going to be with the HD DVD as well...

I really like the standard cases. I can see why some collectors would like books and other special packaging, but it would be nice if they packaged these things so that you could pull out a standard Blu-ray package and store it with your discs. I don;t know what I am going to do about this movie now.

I don't know how your storing stuff, but it's only 5.75 x 7 as opposed to 5.5 x 6.75. It's not really going to upset the apple-cart on most peoples shelves.

I don't know how your storing stuff, but it's only 5.75 x 7 as opposed to 5.5 x 6.75. It's not really going to upset the apple-cart on most peoples shelves.
I have almost 110 HD discs and I store them all on a shelf together. The only one is not the same size is the Atlas China series and I store it separate from the other discs. I don't care about the depth, but it would have been nice if they could have stayed with the standard height and width. It just looks nice:o

Don't like it. Looks like I'll wait for the HD DVD.

The jokes on you - the HD DVD version also features the book packaging.

To say that I'm disappointed that it is taller and wider than a normal case would be an understatement. I think a different width is worse than it being slightly taller. If I were to build media shelves of the standard case width, it would be jarring outward compared to all the others. :-/

To say that I'm disappointed that it is taller and wider than a normal case would be an understatement. I think a different width is worse than it being slightly taller. If I were to build media shelves of the standard case width, it would be jarring outward compared to all the others. :-/

Wild, I gotta say I think you guys are being anal to a fault. To each his own I guess. :confused:

I could see if it didn't actually fit, but a 4% size increase? Are we collecting plastic blue boxes or movies? Not to mention that it's kind of an attractive, solid little item.

I have almost 110 HD discs and I store them all on a shelf together. The only one is not the same size is the Atlas China series and I store it separate from the other discs. I don't care about the depth, but it would have been nice if they could have stayed with the standard height and width. It just looks nice:o

There are gonna be variables over time just as with DVD, I don't expect Criterion to adhere to the blue-armory model.

Saw the movie last night. Very good pq!

Nice job by WB.

I hope Dirty Harry movies will be as good.

Did you notice any edge enhancement?

Tom

Did you notice any edge enhancement?

Tom

nope.

And was the audio in crappy 192 kilobits/sec DD or PCM or lossless?

WB and their damn inconsistant audio quality!!

Dolby Digital 1.0 soundtrack. Audio is clean but not great. 40 years old...

And was the audio in crappy 192 kilobits/sec DD or PCM or lossless?

WB and their damn inconsistant audio quality!!

Don't you ever think about anything other than audio? You've become so xenophobic over it.

Don't you ever think about anything other than audio? You've become so xenophobic over it.

I've never seen him have a fear of foreign language tracks. :p

To say that I'm disappointed that it is taller and wider than a normal case would be an understatement. I think a different width is worse than it being slightly taller. If I were to build media shelves of the standard case width, it would be jarring outward compared to all the others. :-/

Yeah, but Blade Runner and other multi-disc sets are wider too, so there's not much point in trying to have storage where you need a uniform width. I think it being a different height is worse, because I believe more people line them up like books, without individual holders for each title.

There will be variants for cases, yes, but with DVD you didn't have different heights for the most part. They would still line up, unless it was something like a tin or other oddball packaging that was designed to be stored horizontally anyway.

I've never seen him have a fear of foreign language tracks. :p

LOL!

Yeah, but Blade Runner and other multi-disc sets are wider too, so there's not much point in trying to have storage where you need a uniform width. I think it being a different height is worse, because I believe more people line them up like books, without individual holders for each title.

There will be variants for cases, yes, but with DVD you didn't have different heights for the most part. They would still line up, unless it was something like a tin or other oddball packaging that was designed to be stored horizontally anyway.


I'm speaking of width as if the case is lying flat. Height and width. The case is thicker, which I'm considering as depth. The Blade Runner case is deeper, and doesn't affect anything when it comes to a shelf. Width would make it stick out further than the other discs when viewing cases by the spine.

I saw the HDNet presentation last night from my DVR. Are the cigarette burns and all the dirt still present on the BD? Other than that, it looked very sharp. I'd consider buying the BD down the line if it's a step up!

I saw the HDNet presentation last night from my DVR. Are the cigarette burns and all the dirt still present on the BD? Other than that, it looked very sharp. I'd consider buying the BD down the line if it's a step up!

Nope. The transfer is abolutely immaculate.

There's just something about Faye Dunaway in this film...she's stunning.

I watched this for the first time last night (great PQ on this BD, BTW), and I, too, was really taken aback by how beautiful she is in this movie. I definitely enjoyed the film, as well.

GREAT film. We watched this in film school and went back and analyzed it shot by shot.

Faye... Meow. Met her in person backstage at work once. :D

Dave, I thought I was the only one who meowed 'round here. You sound like you're kin to Heathcliff... ;)

All reviews list this as 50gb, did they change it at the last minute?

Dave, I thought I was the only one who meowed 'round here. You sound like you're kin to Heathcliff... ;)

Well, I am awful fond of Kate Bush and if there were moors on the upper west side of Manhattan I would probably be wandering them all broody...

:)

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg

#2) Only a Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono track? Are you kidding???

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.



This is on my list, but came across it in my local rental. I'm quite happy with the packaging so I guess to each his own.

ted

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

...

#2) Only a Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono track? Are you kidding???

This is a movie from 1967 - they did the best they could with the materials they had. I believe the original master audio tapes are currently not available.

And even if they were, would a PCM version of the original 1.0 Mono track make that much of a difference? The movie was filmed with old-fashioned equipment (old even in 1967 - it was a stylistic choice). For all the ranting and raving about OAR (not that I disagree), it seems funny how quickly people are to want audio manipulated into modern day multichannel setups.

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.



You're missing a great film but I guess if you're more interested in packaging than content, you probably don't care.

#2) Only a Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono track? Are you kidding???

The original soundtrack was mono.

Am I crazy or do HT enthusiasts as a group have a propensity to suffer from OC disorder? I just can't figure out the furor over packaging.

Am I crazy or do HT enthusiasts as a group have a propensity to suffer from OC disorder? I just can't figure out the furor over packaging.

You're not crazy. You right on the beam!

No need to fret.

I was just reading the Blu-ray custom cover thread (link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13497908#post13497908)) and apparently Kylumi is working on a new cover for 'Bonnie & Clyde'.

I think I might just pick this up. I'll just have to live with the Dolby D 1.0 mono audio track....

Here is a link to my review: http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/themovieroom/

I don't think the packaging is bad at all (but that is just one man's opinion).

David

I think I might just pick this up. I'll just have to live with the Dolby D 1.0 mono audio track....

Unlike you, I want my movies to reflect the way they were originally intended to be seen and heard.

Here is a link to my review: http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/themovieroom/

I don't think the packaging is bad at all (but that is just one man's opinion).

David

I have been checking htspot contantly to check for new reviews from you but I take it you no longer review on that site? Is Chad reviewing still?

Thanks,
Tom

Tom,

Chad has stopped for personal reasons. I have moved to UAV exclusively now. They gave me an offer I couldn't refuse. The reviews are in a blog form for now, but will eventually move to a database type of system in the future. I also have a link in my signature to the movie review blog and there is a way to give feedback as well (please leave feedback!!!).

Thanks,

David

So I blind bought the film a couple days ago...watched it, really liked it, I'll have to watch it a couple more times. Faye Dunaway is freakin' gorgeous in this film. Ok the problem is I tried to watch some of the special features and when they start the screen just turns green and locks up my ps3. I have to reach around the back and turn of the power switch to be able to get it back to normal. I only tried it twice, but both times the same thing happened, it only did this with the extras about the film...the history channel doc. on the disc worked fine. Any ideas on what the hell is going on?

Anybody?

Do you have the latest firmware?

No I don't, not this one that recently came out with all those new features. I guess that's a start to figure out the problem.

I saw this when I ran "Across the Universe" on my Samsung BD-P1000. The menu was fine on the startup, but it went green with some of the buttons partially showing when I went to the pop-up. That one worked fine on the PS3, though.

Unlike you, I want my movies to reflect the way they were originally intended to be seen and heard.


Mono is fine, however it would have been nice if the audio could have been dubbed at a higher resolution.

yep. pcm

yep. pcm

Yes, it would be nice - but it wasn't simply some silly oversight by the studio like on other releases. The original audio elements for Bonnie and Clyde were not available, and they likely only had them in some analog form that's fidelity was less than or equal to 192 kbps. Such is the nature of old films, and it's definitely not something that should get in the way of enjoying such a major restoration of a classic.

Folks sure get contentious about audio formats. Usually it's abouy theory, not practical results. The audio sounded good to me. The dialog was crisp and Flatt & Scruggs' pickin' came off very well. I'm content with the disc.

The original audio elements for Bonnie and Clyde were not available, and they likely only had them in some analog form that's fidelity was less than or equal to 192 kbps. Such is the nature of old films, and it's definitely not something that should get in the way of enjoying such a major restoration of a classic.

I agree that something like this should not get in the way of enjoying a film. And it may be true that the frequency response from the left over audio elements may not have the full frequency range that could benefit from a better audio source or a newer audio source for that matter. In fact, Dolby Digital can do more than reproduce the audio frequency of what's left of the old audio elements.

What I and I think others are trying to say, is the higher sampling rate of the newer "uncompressed digital audio" formats on Blu-ray would allow what ever audio track that's available on the film (optical mono) and make it sound more to it's true analog source.

Because there is much more audio information in the old analog optical mono soundtrack than what even PCM or any of the new higher sampling rates of the UNCOMPRESSED audio formats on Blu-ray...(and I use that term loosely,) can reproduce, there would be a marked improvement in the audio reproduction of the original analog optial soundtrack VS how Dolby Digital can reproduce it...regardless of what ever frequency range is left over on the old soundtrack.

After enduring Warner using only Dolby Digital 640kbps on all of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies, I'm going to have to pass on this. They need to get their act together when it comes to lossless audio. A mono TrueHD or LPCM track would have been tiny and probably a good improvement over the 192kbps track they chose.

I don't mind that it's mono, but the lack of lossless is just annoying.

After enduring Warner using only Dolby Digital 640kbps on all of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies, I'm going to have to pass on this. They need to get their act together when it comes to lossless audio. A mono TrueHD or LPCM track would have been tiny and probably a good improvement over the 192kbps track they chose.

I don't mind that it's mono, but the lack of lossless is just annoying.

So you are missing out on owning a wonderful film simply because of this audio issue? The transfer is terrific for it's age and it sounds like a movie from the 60's. I don't see Warner EVER re-releasing this film because of the audio spec. To each his own I guess.

So you are missing out on owning a wonderful film simply because of this audio issue? The transfer is terrific for it's age and it sounds like a movie from the 60's. I don't see Warner EVER re-releasing this film because of the audio spec. To each his own I guess.

Yep, I don't understand it either. Your other choices are buying the DVD, which doesn't have lossless either or just not buying it at all. I guess he just doesn't care about the film that much.

Movies really worth watching, are worth watching with with whatever deficiencies (if you could even call it that) may be present in the best available version of said movie.

Movies really worth watching, are worth watching with with whatever deficiencies (if you could even call it that) may be present in the best available version of said movie.

Damn, stop making sense! ;) We won't let the invasion of the audio xenophobes get us....they're everywhere, they're everywhere!

Yep, I don't understand it either. Your other choices are buying the DVD, which doesn't have lossless either or just not buying it at all. I guess he just doesn't care about the film that much.

Movies really worth watching, are worth watching with with whatever deficiencies (if you could even call it that) may be present in the best available version of said movie.

People just need to give themselves a reason not to buy something, so they find something to put down about it. Very transparent.

Because there is much more audio information in the old analog optical mono soundtrack than what even PCM or any of the new higher sampling rates of the UNCOMPRESSED audio formats on Blu-ray...(and I use that term loosely,) can reproduce, there would be a marked improvement in the audio reproduction of the original analog optial soundtrack VS how Dolby Digital can reproduce it...regardless of what ever frequency range is left over on the old soundtrack.
Huh? You are not seriously suggesting that analogue optical soundtacks can not be prefectly reproduced with CD quality PCM, not to mention better than CD PCM, are you?

Time to resurrect this thread.

As you all know, Warner botched the cover for this great film by releasing a book-style design using a low resolution photo for the movie art:
http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg

Well, for those who considered that a terrible idea (for whatever reason), there is cause for celebration.

AVS member Kylumi is now hard at work on a custom cover for Bonnie & Clyde (Blu-ray). Here is the actual cover which is still just a concept design, nothing official:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5673/resi3dmd8.png

You can follow the progress to completion on the official AVS Forum custom covers thread here: link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13622114#post13622114)

Well, I think the official cover image is fine. It's the book-type case that I don't like, specifically how it's taller and wider than the standard BD case.

Hey, WB! 192 kilobits/sec DD is NOT high-def sound!! Lossless audio (preferrably 24 bit re-mastered) IS high def sound in my book.

Dan,

They didn't have access to the audio elements (probably lost over the years). That was the best that the audio was going to be.

Dan,

They didn't have access to the audio elements (probably lost over the years). That was the best that the audio was going to be.

The same thing happened with 'The Searchers' on Blu-ray. The original audio elements were lost, and Warner decided on a Dolby Digital 1.0 mono. It sounded fine IMO.

I agree...the sound wasn't great, but it was passable for a 40 year-old movie.

The W could at the least put a PCM 1.0 track though. Ya know... just because.

BDs have space, use it. It's like having a dope sports car and never hitting the accelerator. I'm satisfied with the sound on B&C, but Warner should go all out on every title.

Awesome job on the restores of classics. The old Warners look fantastic.

I agree, even on laserdisc a PCM mono track usually sounded better (somewhat more "full" and clearer) than the DD lossy counterpart on DVD since they were usually 192 kilobits/sec on DVD... and now on WB's classic Blu-rays.

I'm sure they had a PCM master of whatever source elements were in the archive that they used to encode the DD track for the original DVD in the first place. They were just LAZY.

I agree, even on laserdisc a PCM mono track usually sounded better (somewhat more "full" and clearer) than the DD lossy counterpart on DVD since they were usually 192 kilobits/sec on DVD... and now on WB's classic Blu-rays.

I'm sure they had a PCM master of whatever source elements were in the archive that they used to encode the DD track for the original DVD in the first place. They were just LAZY.

Yeah, they're just lazy. :rolleyes:

Other Warner titles that have lossy for whatever reason have 640 kbps Dolby Digital. I doubt they went all the way down to 192 kbps for absolutely no reason. Their audio engineers must have deemed that that was acceptable fidelity for the only low quality copy of the audio they were able to get their hands on. Warner has stated that they were not able to get their hands on the original audio, or anything approaching 'master quality' - I really doubt they're lying about that.

Remember this though, that 192 kbps is for one channel, the 640 kbps is for 5.1. So the one channel is getting A LOT of information.

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg



Have you seen the packaging for "There Will Be Blood" on DVD.

That is BY FAR the most atrocious packaging I have ever seen.

Pathetic.

What's a DVD? ;)

Ridiculous packaging...what a novel way to convince those of us on the fence to not purchase such a great film. Most studios just use high pricing to make the decision for us.

Fix the packaging Warner, and I'm all over this one. Same goes for Natural Born Killers and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's really going to hurt not being able to buy those two, because of this absurd packaging decision. There are people out there who care about the appearance of their collection. We're the same folks who wash our cars, and properly landscape our lawns. Just because some people are okay with a haphazard, shoddy-looking media room, doesn't mean we all are.

Ridiculous packaging...what a novel way to convince those of us on the fence to not purchase such a great film. Most studios just use high pricing to make the decision for us.

Fix the packaging Warner, and I'm all over this one. Same goes for Natural Born Killers and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's really going to hurt not being able to buy those two, because of this absurd packaging decision. There are people out there who care about the appearance of their collection. We're the same folks who wash our cars, and properly landscape our lawns. Just because some people are okay with a haphazard, shoddy-looking media room, doesn't mean we all are.



Are you a movie enthusist or a packaging enthusist? :rolleyes: I'm just fine with the packaging, atleast till the disc spindle teeth break out.

I'd buy Natural Born Killers even if it came in an ammo sack.;) I'm definitely in it for the movies!

Doesn't optical sound film have a frequency response of somthing like 30db or somthing of that sort? 192kbs should be fine in reproducing the audko.

Lossless isn't the same as surround.

You can present a mono track with lossless audio. In fact, they should whenever possible. There are many rich mono tracks out there, considering it was the standard for a long while. When Star Wars was first mixed, the most time was spent on the mono mix.

Of course if they lost the master, they lost the master. Pretty sad if all they have is a lossy version of the mono track though. Especially if it's 192 kbps.

They did make a pretty deal about the surround version of Star Wars, in fact, they only opened it at a few select theaters around the country that had 70mm projection and surround sound, such as the Chinese and the Stanley Warner Paramus.

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg

#2) Only a Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono track? Are you kidding???


you're gonna skip a great film because of packaging :eek:
I actually like the packagaing, but in the end, what does it really even matter??
Oh my god a package is a cm taller or thicker or whatever than another one!

well it was mono to begin with
also notice what happens if you multiply 192*5 and then add in the .1 for a LFE channel....
ok, it's not PCM, but it's not worse than 640 either, and for all we know all they even have left is the audio stored at something like 192, do we even know if the original was carefully recorded?
Not that I want to defend not using lossless, but it seems like a case where it would matter less than in most and to skip such a seminal movie over this seems foolish to me (plus Faye is hot haha).

1) I like the book packaging, and I'm looking forward to the other titles like Dirty Harry.

2) The audio sounds pretty great to me. It can get a tad brittle at times, yet for the most part it holds up very well. I too would like to have lossless mono tracks where applicable, or at the very least lossy at a 384kbps bit-rate, but you don't always get what you want. :D

Question about the extras.

I'm watching using my PC, so it might just be that it is messing up with the interlaced, lower res extras, but most of them are showing weird rippling artifacts for me and they even have screen jumps almost like some old projector reel that is slipping. Did they do this on purpose???? Or is it jusy my software player messing up?

you're gonna skip a great film because of packaging :eek:

No I didn't miss this one. Saw it a few weeks back, so here goes...

Overall, I think most of you guys are making WAY to much of this one. Yes, its a good movie, bordering on great. But definitely not a genre-defining landmark achievement some of you on this thread are making it out to be.

I enjoyed it, yes. Would I ever want to watch it again? Hardly...

For me, repeated viewing is what makes a movie worth owning, sadly, Bonnie & Clyde does not fall into this category.

Overrated flick? No.

Landmark achievement in cinema history? Please...

(and yes, Dunaway, looked hot as hell!!!!)

I won't be buying this for 2 reasons:

#1) Ridiculous packaging, and whoever thought it up should be fired.

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/bonnie.jpg

#2) Only a Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono track? Are you kidding???

After enduring Warner using only Dolby Digital 640kbps on all of the Ocean's 11/12/13 movies, I'm going to have to pass on this. They need to get their act together when it comes to lossless audio. A mono TrueHD or LPCM track would have been tiny and probably a good improvement over the 192kbps track they chose.

I don't mind that it's mono, but the lack of lossless is just annoying.

Ridiculous packaging...what a novel way to convince those of us on the fence to not purchase such a great film. Most studios just use high pricing to make the decision for us.

Fix the packaging Warner, and I'm all over this one. Same goes for Natural Born Killers and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's really going to hurt not being able to buy those two, because of this absurd packaging decision. There are people out there who care about the appearance of their collection. We're the same folks who wash our cars, and properly landscape our lawns. Just because some people are okay with a haphazard, shoddy-looking media room, doesn't mean we all are.


your losses :rolleyes:

Boy I sure am glad I'm not anally retentive. Sure would miss out on some great movies.

Got this last week. It's been a long time since I watched Bonnie & Clyde. I thought about buying the SD DVD for many years but held out for a good release and this sure is good.

for a movie that is 90% dialog the sound is just fine and the picture is damn near perfect and i like the packaging too.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/gnj1958/MIXED%20STUFF/bonniepic3.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/gnj1958/MIXED%20STUFF/bonniepic2.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/gnj1958/MIXED%20STUFF/bonniepic1.jpg

I thought the PQ was very good and the AQ managed to do the job. The film on the other hand is IMO way over rated with bad dialog and bad acting but hey, that's just my opinion.

The key is the actual blu-ray is worth buying if one enjoys this film.