Hallo,

just watched "Wall Street" on Blu-ray (European Release) and the quality is bad; actually it looks pretty much like the DVD (and the DVD doesn't look good to begin with); the image is soft and fuzzy all the way, no depth at all; instead of grain you get video-noise like with DVD; for such an important movie the HD-presentation is a shame - they didn't properly remaster the movie (check out the huge hair on the right hand side at 47:22); now I didnt exspect a picture like "Pirates of the Caribbean" but I exspected much more than what Fox has given us here
Rating: 2.0/5
Sound: the 5.1-Mix sounds pretty bad too; no dynamics, no directionality, and the quality of the sound elements (dialog, effects, music) is very poor;
Rating: 1.5/5
Extras: great, you get everything from the 2-Disc-DVD
Rating: 4.0/5

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

^Yeah, all those "wonderful" Universal HD-DVD catalog titles just lit up the five star PQ ratings. :rolleyes:

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.


Were you alive during DVD? I am just asking because maybe you forgot all the crap transfers that came out (on the one format DVD), later replaced by better transfers, collectors edition, SuperBit, all that, because the crap transfers were no longer selling because they were unacceptable to consumers.

i guess i will reconsider this purchase since i dont want to pay fox prices for a subpar release. I'll hold out for a bogo with commando

^Yeah, all those "wonderful" Universal HD-DVD catalog titles just lit up the five star PQ ratings. :rolleyes:

LOL, very true! If I'm worried about 1 studio shoving crap quality it would be Universal with their DNR restorations. It's like watching "House of Wax" all over again :rolleyes:

Were you alive during DVD? I am just asking because maybe you forgot all the crap transfers that came out (on the one format DVD), later replaced by better transfers, collectors edition, SuperBit, all that, because the crap transfers were no longer selling because they were unacceptable to consumers.

I remember that. I was the first person in school to own DVD and spent $$$$ to buy those first generation release (you have to flip side :)).
PQ wasn't good and it sux.

Later I have spent $$$$ again to "upgrade" (collector's edition, superbit....) and now here it goes again for BD/HD-DVD :p

Hallo,

just watched "Wall Street" on Blu-ray (European Release) and the quality is bad; actually it looks pretty much like the DVD (and the DVD doesn't look good to begin with); the image is soft and fuzzy all the way, no depth at all; instead of grain you get video-noise like with DVD; for such an important movie the HD-presentation is a shame - they didn't properly remaster the movie (check out the huge hair on the right hand side at 47:22); now I didnt exspect a picture like "Pirates of the Caribbean" but I exspected much more than what Fox has given us here
Rating: 2.0/5
Sound: the 5.1-Mix sounds pretty bad too; no dynamics, no directionality, and the quality of the sound elements (dialog, effects, music) is very poor;
Rating: 1.5/5
Extras: great, you get everything from the 2-Disc-DVD
Rating: 4.0/5

Thanks for the heads up on your review. I'll rent this one and see how bad it is.

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE


One bad release doesn't speak for either format as a whole. Both sides have stinkers. Universal catalog titles are notorious for taking you on a roller coaster ride from looking great to looking mediocre(being nice "In Good Company"). I don't know how often some studio's are recycling Master's of DVDs that were "Mastered in HD". I have noticed that Universal does it. One of my favorite comic book movies is The Hulk. I know that everyone has this title high on there demo list. I was disappointed because while it does look amazing I did notice dirt throughout the HD version that I thought I had remembered from my SD copy. I've checked a few spots on the movie and I am pretty confident that the HD and the SD version are from the same master. I am sure other studio's do it. I would hope that both formats rethink this policy on catalog titles like Indiana Jones and Alien. I understand that movies that don't have the following or clout like the two franchises I mentioned will not get the red carpet treatment. And don't get me wrong some recycled masters the hulk included look absolutely stunning on a properly tuned set.

Another example is from Warner. It looks like they used the DVD master's for the Harry Potter films as you can see banding and macro blocking that has been amplified on the HDM versions.

Something about Michael Douglas flicks tanking on high-def....he's like the anti-Christian Bale.

Wall Street
Traffic
The Game

Weird.

Were you alive during DVD? I am just asking because maybe you forgot all the crap transfers that came out (on the one format DVD), later replaced by better transfers, collectors edition, SuperBit, all that, because the crap transfers were no longer selling because they were unacceptable to consumers.


:D You truly believe that? They were "replaced" so you can be "milked" again and again.

Were you alive during DVD? I am just asking because maybe you forgot all the crap transfers that came out (on the one format DVD), later replaced by better transfers, collectors edition, SuperBit, all that, because the crap transfers were no longer selling because they were unacceptable to consumers.

I was looking a bit into this the other day. For the most part, a lot of titles haven't been replaced. And many that were, it was likely because the old ones were not anamorphic.


Also...

MRMOTA: Whatever Fox used for Alien: Director's Cut looks great. I own the D-Theater tape of this and I cannot complain about it. Still one of the best looking HD releases I have seen. I really don't care if a future BD looked exactly the same - I just hope other movies in the series are of at least similar quality.

i guess i will reconsider this purchase since i dont want to pay fox prices for a subpar release. I'll hold out for a bogo with commando

LOL. Those are the EXACT 2 upcoming Fox catalog releases that I want on a BOGO also.

I bought the latest dvd special edition which wasn't too long ago reletively speaking so I assumed they would use the same transfer. Based on that I knew it wouldn't be much to look at. Not a pretty film by any means. Still dig it though.

Something about Michael Douglas flicks tanking on high-def....he's like the anti-Christian Bale.

Wall Street
Traffic
The Game

Weird.

Now the questions begs: what about the films with Catharine Zeta-Jones (his wife)? How have they fared? Because poor transfers with any film with her in it in seem like sacrilege...

And yes, my sig-other knows about my obsession...

shinksma

The OP needs to post some screen caps so we can see how bad it is ourselves.

^Yeah, all those "wonderful" Universal HD-DVD catalog titles just lit up the five star PQ ratings. :rolleyes:


It's not that HD-DVD is perfect either but I would bet that the presence of HD-DVD as competition will improve Bluray's quality. Remember how poor 5th Element in Bluray was? It was compared to other HD-DVDs movies at that time and we did not understand why it looked so bad. Eventually Sony had to re-release a remastered version for free. Imagine if HD-DVD did not exist.

There is something to be said for old fashion competition.

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

I'm not sure what "competition" there is supposed to be in this context. Fox owns the rights to its movies and presumably makes the same transfer quality / restoration decisions regardless of format given that the formats are generally equivalent. The studios have a monopoly on the rights to their films regardless of format. How is this a Blu-Ray issue?

I am confused.

Now the questions begs: what about the films with Catharine Zeta-Jones (his wife)? How have they fared? Because poor transfers with any film with her in it in seem like sacrilege...

I thought Chicago looked great, although some will complain about the grain.

That's too bad about Wall Street, one of the few Fox titles I was anticipating. I wonder if it's another old transfer like Edward Scissorhands. The DVD came out a long time ago, but there was a special edition recently. Did that one look any better than the original release?

The OP needs to post some screen caps so we can see how bad it is ourselves.

Or we can rent it and see for ourselves.

I don't think every review posted NEEDS to be accompanied with screencaps.


Besides that's xylon's job.;)

It's not that HD-DVD is perfect either but I would bet that the presence of HD-DVD as competition will improve Bluray's quality. Remember how poor 5th Element in Bluray was? It was compared to other HD-DVDs movies at that time and we did not understand why it looked so bad. Eventually Sony had to re-release a remastered version for free. Imagine if HD-DVD did not exist.

There is something to be said for old fashion competition.

Dude. :confused:

Or we can rent it and see for ourselves.

I don't think every review posted NEEDS to be accompanied with screencaps.


Besides that's xylon's job.;)

I think its a pretty damn good idea. It goes a lot farther than trusting what some random guy on a forum says. ;)

Has there ever been a high quality transfer of any Stone movie other than Alexander (which is a train wreck of a film, so it gets a great transfer - right?)

Has there ever been a high quality transfer of any Stone movie other than Alexander (which is a train wreck of a film, so it gets a great transfer - right?)

From what I remember seeing, the HD DVD of Born on the Fourth of July looks great.

Something about Michael Douglas flicks tanking on high-def....he's like the anti-Christian Bale.

Wall Street
Traffic
The Game


The Game does not look that bad.

Does Traffic even count as a HD release? :D

I'm not sure what "competition" there is supposed to be in this context. Fox owns the rights to its movies and presumably makes the same transfer quality / restoration decisions regardless of format given that the formats are generally equivalent. The studios have a monopoly on the rights to their films regardless of format. How is this a Blu-Ray issue?

I am confused.

It makes even less sense when someone is using an example of a bad transfer while both formats exist as proof that competition is needed. Huh? This thread is about how bad "Wall Street" looks on Blu-Ray. So, how did a bad transfer squeak by with the present "competition" of HD-DVD?

And, as others have pointed out, the format war has done nothing to entice Universal to put forth the best possible presentation on their catalog titles. All of their releases are as good as the last transfer and, for many, that was a lonnnnnnnng time ago and those transfers were created with SD in mind.

A format war has nothing to do with studios putting forth quality product. That is what the marketplace is for. Their incentive to release quality product is that people will BUY their product and continue to buy their product. If there was one format and the transfers look like crap, that format has a problem. The assumption in the "need for competition" argument is that consumers will be "forced" to take whatever the studios dish out. It doesn't work that way.

Thanks for the heads-up. Moved from Amazon to Netflix. Of course, by the time I get it from Netflix, Amazon will likely have it on BOGO.:D

Get the hair gel and comb out. Find that French cuff shirt you thought you'd wear more than once and dry clean the power suit.

Now the questions begs: what about the films with Catharine Zeta-Jones (his wife)? How have they fared? Because poor transfers with any film with her in it in seem like sacrilege...

And yes, my sig-other knows about my obsession...

shinksma

Legend of Zorro had great quality.

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

said it yourself bad quality = no sale, so why would studios put out piss-poor efforts just b/c the format war may be over? i've not yet heard bad word of mouth on either HD format when compared to DVD. HDM doesnt need to completely replace DVD b/c all HDM players play DVDs. because of this there's no need to bring out some catalog titles that have been released on DVDs already and just focus on future titles instead.

I'll wait and see for myself what Wallstreet looks like. All I know is every transfer I've seen in HDM looks better than the DVD version - even the worst ones I've seen such as Total Recall and T2 were at least somewhat better. Wallsteet was shot on 80's stock film which will have that grainier, softer look to it.

I'll wait to see what HDD has to say, but if the transfer is bad I won't be buying either and I would hope that others do the same. At the rate Fox is cranking out the movies:rolleyes: thay can probably free up some time to do some work on the transfers.

Were you alive during DVD? I am just asking because maybe you forgot all the crap transfers that came out (on the one format DVD), later replaced by better transfers, collectors edition, SuperBit, all that, because the crap transfers were no longer selling because they were unacceptable to consumers.

Exactly! How else is a studio going to get us to double/triple/quadruple dip?!!

If the transfers are bad, people won't buy them. Simple! Cause people check site reviews and forums before making up their minds.

If the transfers are bad, people won't buy them. Simple! Cause people check site reviews and forums before making up their minds.

agreed, knowing what a transfer is like has kept me from buying HOFD, XXX, just to name a couple. I'll never buy them even at $5.

Unfortunately, many, many blu-ray consumers will not read a review before blind buying a movie. It's sad, but true.

Hallo,

just watched "Wall Street" on Blu-ray (European Release) and the quality is bad; actually it looks pretty much like the DVD (and the DVD doesn't look good to begin with); the image is soft and fuzzy all the way, no depth at all; instead of grain you get video-noise like with DVD; for such an important movie the HD-presentation is a shame - they didn't properly remaster the movie (check out the huge hair on the right hand side at 47:22); now I didnt exspect a picture like "Pirates of the Caribbean" but I exspected much more than what Fox has given us here
Rating: 2.0/5
Sound: the 5.1-Mix sounds pretty bad too; no dynamics, no directionality, and the quality of the sound elements (dialog, effects, music) is very poor;
Rating: 1.5/5
Extras: great, you get everything from the 2-Disc-DVD
Rating: 4.0/5



What size dispay are you using? A pq review without telling us this is useless. The only reviews I take with more than a grain of salt are the ones using 1080p projectors on large screens. As picture size grows the improvements of HD over sd dvd's becomes more cear. Almost always when someone says there isn't a difference it's because their screen is too small to see it. I will be buying this sight unseen as it is a great movie.

It is a blind buy for me as well, as I'd like to see it again and there's no sense in watching it in SD if there's another option. Almost regardless of the transfer, it will surely be the best version of the movie available.

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

Sony has done very well with a lot of their transfers.

You might want to watch some of them.

If the transfers are bad, people won't buy them. Simple! Cause people check site reviews and forums before making up their minds.

Actually it's not so simple. A bad HD transfer could still be noticeably better than SD. It could be HD-lite. As such this "bad" transfer could be the best that one can buy. So most people will still buy it because it is the best out there.

The competition between Bluray and HD-DVD helps motivate the two camps to provide the even better material. Granted, some of the studios are providing the material for both camps but overall competition is great.

The competition between Bluray and HD-DVD helps motivate the two camps to provide the even better material. Granted, some of the studios are providing the material for both camps but overall competition is great.

"Competition" between the formats has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of individual transfers by the studios that have a monopoly on the rights. If there's a plausible argument to the contrary, I've love to hear it. But there's not.

"Competition" between the formats has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of individual transfers by the studios that have a monopoly on the rights. If there's a plausible argument to the contrary, I've love to hear it. But there's not.

I am curious, do you think that Sony would have replaced "The Fifth Element" if it wasn't for the fact that a big fuss was raised when it was introduced? Why did we not like the first version of this movie. We did not like it because this first version was poorly mastered. A lot of us compared it to HD-DVDs which had been released then and some even thought that there was fundamental flaw in the Bluray format. Mind you this was not a format issue but rather simply the mastering of the movie. However, Sony was not about to let HD-DVDs get the upper hand in perception. So lo and behold they replaced this version for free.

Obviously you may disagree with this analysis but I would dare to guess that early HD-DVD quality had something to do with this.

I am curious, do you think that Sony would have replaced "The Fifth Element" if it wasn't for the fact that a big fuss was raised when it was introduced? Why did we not like the first version of this movie. We did not like it because this first version was poorly mastered. A lot of us compared it to HD-DVDs which had been released then and some even thought that there was fundamental flaw in the Bluray format. Mind you this was not a format issue but rather simply the mastering of the movie. However, Sony was not about to let HD-DVDs get the upper hand in perception. So lo and behold they replaced this version for free.

Obviously you may disagree with this analysis but I would dare to guess that early HD-DVD quality had something to do with this.

Agreed that there was a big fuss and it was re-issued. Disagree that there was some comparison with HD-DVD that made that happen. Even if we indulge in the notion that this was relevant way back with the first few titles, how could it possibly be relevant now, when both formats have been shown to have the capability to have superior audio and video transfers? If the "format war" had any relevance to individual release quality in 2006, it diminished completely in 2007, and is non-existent in 2008.

Agreed that there was a big fuss and it was re-issued. Disagree that there was some comparison with HD-DVD that made that happen. Even if we indulge in the notion that this was relevant way back with the first few titles, how could it possibly be relevant now, when both formats have been shown to have the capability to have superior audio and video transfers? If the "format war" had any relevance to individual release quality in 2006, it diminished completely in 2007, and is non-existent in 2008.

I think the comparison to HD-DVD was done here on AVS. Not a direct comparison with the same material but there was a lot of upset folks who were not happy with the early Bluray releases when compared to HD-DVDs. It is my opinion that this made a difference with perception.

I agree that it is becoming less relevant today as we know Bluray can be as good if not better due to the larger capacities of the discs. Nevertheless, I like the idea of HD-DVDs keeping Sony on their toes.

If and once HD-DVDs disappear I am a bit concerned that Sony will have a attitude of take it or leave it. Afterall, a poor Bluray disc will still be better than a SD DVD.

If and once HD-DVDs disappear I am a bit concerned that Sony will have a attitude of take it or leave it. Afterall, a poor Bluray disc will still be better than a SD DVD.

This thread is about Fox. And we agree that format "competition" has nothing to do with the quality of individual releases these days.

This thread is about Fox. And we agree that format "competition" has nothing to do with the quality of individual releases these days.

I said "less relevent" not irrelevent. I still think it makes a difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. ;)

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

There is no competition with DVD either. There are bad transfers for regular
DVD's as it is. Competition doesn't change what studios own what properties.
Information is the key, reviews are critical. The DVD transfer of Wall Street was not too good as reviewers have mentioned. If and when it is released domestically I wouldn't touch it unless a reviewer says the picture quality is good. As I would any movie where I wanted picture quality over the movie itself.

I concur with the OP. PQ is quite terrible. I bought it since it is one of my favo movie, but the quality is not impressive at all....

DVDBeaver still can't do direct captures.

Sorry Kram. But I consider dvdbeaver as a legendary site for comparison.

The only site I really trust for High Def reviews is highdefdigest.com so I will hold out for that review before purchasing.

Sorry Kram. But I consider dvdbeaver as a legendary site for comparison.

And I totally agree. Their dvd comparisons are invaluable. It's their HDM reviews that suck because they haven't figured out how to do proper screen captures yet.

To me it seems like all the problems are with the source material. I will happily pick up the Blu-ray version if it lacks EE and DNR or any other post-processing defects.

The only site I really trust for High Def reviews is highdefdigest.com so I will hold out for that review before purchasing.
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/traffic.html

^Yeah, all those "wonderful" Universal HD-DVD catalog titles just lit up the five star PQ ratings. :rolleyes:


What does this have to do with Blu-ray software?

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/traffic.html

They also gave the correct review for Halloween (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/966/halloween1978.html) on Blu-ray where other sites such as blu-ray.com completely ignore the color timing issue.

highdefdigest.com is the only place I trust for HD reviews

HDD is a joke. Traffic got 4 stars for video. Almost all the filtered Warner titles got high scores. Do they watch everything on a 13" tv over there?

HDD is a joke. Traffic got 4 stars for video. Almost all the filtered Warner titles got high scores. Do they watch everything on a 13" tv over there?
They list the hardware they use as the following:

Peter uses a 70" Sony SXRD LCoS Rear-Projection 1080p
Kenneth uses a 52" Sony XBR LCD Flat-panel 1080p
Josh uses a BenQ W10000 1080p DLP projector

However, they don't say whether any of the displays are ISF calibrated.

HighDefDigest has posted the review (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1222/wallstreet.html), and sure enough it's not good.

He says it's 2.35:1 though. I assume that's a mistake in the review.

So it rates higher than the original Full Metal Jacket but isn't as good as Traffic. Okay...

So it rates higher than the original Full Metal Jacket but isn't as good as Traffic. Okay...

Yeah thats pretty stupid. A DVD upconvert (Traffic) has rated higher than a true high-def release.

HighDefDigest has posted the review (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1222/wallstreet.html), and sure enough it's not good.

He says it's 2.35:1 though. I assume that's a mistake in the review.

IMDB lists this as 1.85:1 . There is no way it is 2.35:1. I have this recorded on HD DVHS and even that recording on my 92" screen is considerably better than the SD DVD. I know from past experience that the disc will look better than the HD DVHS cable recording.

Tom

Exactly why I think one format (Blu Ray) would really stink. There would be no competition and Sony and Fox will shove us crap quality all over the place whitout bothering the expense and time to do a proper restoration.

And that's why the % of high def sales to regular DVD will remain below 2% total (I have my extreme doubts that High Definition Media will replace DVD). Bad word of mouth is deterring sales.

BAD QUALITY=NO SALE

^Yeah, all those "wonderful" Universal HD-DVD catalog titles just lit up the five star PQ ratings. :rolleyes:

dpags, you have both missed daniels1994's point and made it.

dpags, you have both missed daniels1994's point and made it.

I think the point is that Blu-ray is not the sole format at fault here. Bad quality releases are as much a problem on HD DVD as it is on Blu-ray. So obviously it has nothing to do with there being only one format.

Anyone actually bought this title?

I rented and thought I was watching a SD DVD! I feel bad for anyone who purchased it!

If it is as bad as they are saying I hope that it takes a good beating in the press and no one buys it. I'd like to see the word get out that we aren't ready to put up with the same crud they were passing off when DVD first came out. People who have players now aren't likely to want to put up with this.

I will continue to advocate that the firm that does the video transfer should be held accountable. They are in business to make money. If the name of the engineering firm were cross referenced to PQ then we could all steer our $$$ away from BDs utilizing that firm. Sooner or later the movie studios would figure out that employing a crap engineering firm equals NO SALE.

If a certain Director (Ridley Scott, for example), or actor (like Denzel Washington), or soundtrack composer (Hans Zimmer), and to a leeser extent the movie studio (if it's by Sundance I know I will hate it) is involved in a film...I kind of know whether it will be a great effort...worthy of a rental and possible purchase.

The engineering firm should be held accountable and put out of business if they are not up to the job of quality BD transfers. The free market will win this one.

The format has absolutely nothing to do with it.

marcus

When will the studios get it? If the movies look like crap, we're not going to bother getting the blu-ray upgrade!

I will continue to advocate that the firm that does the video transfer should be held accountable. They are in business to make money. If the name of the engineering firm were cross referenced to PQ then we could all steer our $$$ away from BDs utilizing that firm. Sooner or later the movie studios would figure out that employing a crap engineering firm equals NO SALE.

The engineering firm should be held accountable and put out of business if they are not up to the job of quality BD transfers. The free market will win this one.


Right on. By the way, the "engineering firm" that encoded & authored "Wall Street" is the same one that did all the Pirates of the Carribean movies and other PQ turds like F4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Sunshine, Mr & Mrs Smith, From Hell and Prison Break.

What do they know, right?

Or, maybe, just throwing this out there, Wall Street is just a very soft 80s movie that is very well reproduced by the BD, which, coincidentally, while very soft, still looks very film-like and free of obvious compression artifacts.

I just got done watching Wall Street on Blu-ray (the first time ever in fact) and I have no complaints with the way it looks. Looks very film-like which is good enough for me. I'd rather it be like this then EE and DNR'd to hell. The menu system is pretty cool too.

I'd rather it be like this then EE and DNR'd to hell.

Amen.

The transfer used in the BD of Wall Street is just plain awful, and I'm not someone who agrees with most of the transfer criticisms I've heard. The last disc that looked anywhere near this bad was the initial Fifth Element disc, which barely looked better than the up-converted Superbit edition, this is easily my most lackluster HDM purchase Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, hands down. Simply unacceptable.

I was going to buy this movie for the first time on Blu-ray. After all the reviews here, I was not going to pay $40 for it, so I bought the 2 disc dvd and get the extras to boot for 1/4 the price. Maybe the BR double dip will get it right.

The transfer used in the BD of Wall Street is just plain awful, and I'm not someone who agrees with most of the transfer criticisms I've heard. The last disc that looked anywhere near this bad was the initial Fifth Element disc, which barely looked better than the up-converted Superbit edition, this is easily my most lackluster HDM purchase Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, hands down. Simply unacceptable.

Did you see any obvious compression artifacts? Any blocking, macroblocking, noise that's not grain? Any EE or DNR? (Serious question; it's been a while since I saw it.)

If not, would it be possible that there is no sharper, more colorful or grain-free master or old answer print etc. hidden in a vault somewhere so that the movie will never look significantly "better" because it is simply the way the movie looks. Would that also be "unacceptable"? How should these movies be handled? No BDs? Is DVD "good enough" then? Let Michael Douglas shoot up some more Botox and do HD-friendly re-shoots?

Did you see any obvious compression artifacts? Any blocking, macroblocking, noise that's not grain? Any EE or DNR? (Serious question; it's been a while since I saw it.)

If not, would it be possible that there is no sharper, more colorful or grain-free master or old answer print etc. hidden in a vault somewhere so that the movie will never look significantly "better" because it is simply the way the movie looks. Would that also be "unacceptable"? How should these movies be handled? No BDs? Is DVD "good enough" then? Let Michael Douglas shoot up some more Botox and do HD-friendly re-shoots?

That's what I'm thinking. This movie apparently got a new transfer for last fall's DVD release. Now, maybe they didn't restore it like Warner did with Blade Runner, but this is probably the best it's going to look for a long time. I'll rent it to see for myself, but I'm not opposed to buying this if it's an improvement over the DVD (though I don't have the SE).

That's what I'm thinking. This movie apparently got a new transfer for last fall's DVD release. Now, maybe they didn't restore it like Warner did with Blade Runner, but this is probably the best it's going to look for a long time. I'll rent it to see for myself, but I'm not opposed to buying this if it's an improvement over the DVD (though I don't have the SE).

I don't think you will be disappointed if you keep in mind that this is the way the movie looks. It was enough for me.

Right on. By the way, the "engineering firm" that encoded & authored "Wall Street" is the same one that did all the Pirates of the Carribean movies and other PQ turds like F4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Sunshine, Mr & Mrs Smith, From Hell and Prison Break.

What do they know, right?

Or, maybe, just throwing this out there, Wall Street is just a very soft 80s movie that is very well reproduced by the BD, which, coincidentally, while very soft, still looks very film-like and free of obvious compression artifacts.

+1. saw this in theaters 20 years ago. it was very soft, also had lots of grain in outdoor scenes in the hamptons. great movie, m. douglas is awesome. In the intro Stone says that this is as good as movie has ever looked.

Did you see any obvious compression artifacts? Any blocking, macroblocking, noise that's not grain? Any EE or DNR? (Serious question; it's been a while since I saw it.)

If not, would it be possible that there is no sharper, more colorful or grain-free master or old answer print etc. hidden in a vault somewhere so that the movie will never look significantly "better" because it is simply the way the movie looks. Would that also be "unacceptable"? How should these movies be handled? No BDs? Is DVD "good enough" then? Let Michael Douglas shoot up some more Botox and do HD-friendly re-shoots?

Good points.

I haven't seen it yet, but I bet there is at the very least *some* improvement over the SD DVD version.

I love this film however the only version I own is an old Laserdisc, given that should I just buy the Blu-ray? For anyone who has seen it is there anything that would make it worse than owning the DVD? Granted it might not be much of an improvement over the DVD but I don't own the DVD and it certainly will look better than my ancient LD. I've got a couple of coupons floating around still so the cost difference between the DVD/Blu-ray is going to be minimal.