"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX* - Page 31

Fantastic news ! One of the great films of all time IMO.


Art

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yeah, I wish they'd convert it from crappy script to good script.

So... would anyone like to repeat their defense of the old Patton BD?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=679&position=2
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=55325&position=4

Stop using factual information to make a point. You might offend someone.

what's the problem old Patton looked slick

"CGI bullterrier is totally awesome!"

How did Snowy get in there?

There were really defenders of the first BD, now of course they have gone AWOL. The amount of detail in the faces in that one image is stunning considering it's far from a close-up.

A Bridge Too Far really needs the same redo.

I was a "defender" of the first Patton release, but only because people made it out to be much worse than it was. The way people were talking, you'd think it was horrifyingly ugly and completely unwatchable. In fact, I've watched it several times, and my retinas are still intact. I see all the deficiencies with the heavy DNR, and always appreciated the fact that the transfer was a mess, but that didn't mean it wasn't watchable.

The newly remastered version is VASTLY superior. I am glad Fox re-released this classic film and gave it the treatment it deserved, and I will get rid of my older version, but I in no way feel bad about having watched the older version.

By that definition everything is 'watchable', which is the problem.

Yep. I've seen the movie on DVD and VHS, and they were perfectly "watchable". (Hell, the VHS was probably pan & scan.) On the other hand I did, in fact, find the BD unwatchable, simply because my standards are much higher now - or at least my expectations for BD versus my expectations for DVD and VHS.

Well, ok. But a lot of people called the old BD stunning, amazing, perfect, and such.

I understand what you are saying, but I was never a fan of the NTSC formats frankly and avoided it hoping for something better. I bought Untouchables and Cat People before I ever showed on forums and I knew upon first sight they were converted into video in the belief that's what 'modern viewers' want in 1080p and I refused to buy such crap again if I could help it.

My standard is film and what was done to the first Patton BD was a great insult to a 100+ years of film. Still I at least give some credit for somebody at Fox realizing this.

I have never defended the first BD; but I did buy it and watch it a couple of times. As far as I knew, that might have been the end of the road for transfers of Patton. As bad as it was, I still think it looked better than the DVD versions. The new one is a vast improvement. Even my wife noticed the difference when I A/B'd them for her; and she usually does not notice or care about excessive DNR. Patton has gone from an 'F' to an 'A+'.

Never watched that horrible first Blu-Ray but I managed to see it twice in 70mm - now I am ready for the new Blu-Ray :-)

I praised the first release but later learned about DNR and it's aftermath. I am now reasonably educated to detect it and other film artifacts that negatively impacts PQ.

Standard defense of crummy pq, looks better then the awful dvd format.

Just watched the remastered Patton and it looks great ! I watched the "pattonized" Patton several times since it is one of the best films of all time.

Art

Watched the first half Wednesday, got interrupted.
2nd half on tap in a few.
Beautiful transfer to go along with George C. Scott's definitive performance.
In fact, I'm thinking I'll watch the whole thing over just to let it soak in
We're gonna grab him by the nose and kick him in the ass!
I wish I could emulate the trumpet staccato riff ...

Art,

How do I make sure I am picking up the remastered version, is the cover art this one?




Thanks,

Gman

I bought it yesterday, yes, that's the one you're looking for.

Standard holier than thou BS post.

No, I don't think it was. Facts are facts and the first BD is now proven to be an abomination.

The first Blu-ray was a poor transfer. This is undeniable. But it was not an "abomination." There are many far, far worse Blu-rays out there.

I am glad that Fox has finally corrected the problems with the disc.

Well, if Patton wasn't an abomination then The Longest Day sure is. The old Patton has a very flat, smoothed over look, which I don't like but I can tolerate in lieu of anything better, whereas TLD has that horrid smudgy claymation texture which only the crappiest DNR efforts provide.

I don't even like Patton but I'll probably buy the new one just to send a message to Fox.

I'd vote the last "Preditor" and the 1st "Out of Africa" releases as being far worse.

But, the winner by far would be "Guliver's Travels" (the animated version)Not only is it DNR'd into mush, but stretched to 16x9 from its original academy aspect ratio just to make sure the release was completely f-ed up in every way.

The thing is, none of them (including "Patton") should have ever looked that way at all. The fact that you can say there are worse examples than "Patton" is sad on it's own. Someone signed off on every one of those transfers and likely never once considered that it was a poor product they were asking people to pay good money for.

I think magical mystery tour trumps all

I don't disagree. I'm just tired to the hyperbole on this forum.

The problem is, we're so used to it everywhere (not just here) that you almost need to dose it on extra thick in these cases to get people riled up enough to complain when this stuff happens.

And even then you will get the same number of apologists. It does not matter how awful or how wrong they are proven when a new scan comes, they will still excuse it anyway using old standbys like better then dvd or better then nothing. In the end time is the great debunker.