Originally Posted by nut bunnies
They had this and Goonies finished and partially printed, but then they started doing a remaster so they decided to just throw it at Target.
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
if there hadn't been that statement by joe dante about them having done a version which he the saw and went "woah!" about and a 2nd version done I don't think anyone would think anything. but i wouldn't past a studio if they had pressed some copies already to do something with them other than just chuck them. not saying it is likely, just possible...
Like Michael Corleone circa Godfather III... Just when I thought I was out.
Of, let's line up the facts, because it's easier to weed through than conjecture (although the conjecture will be all that follows this release throughout its life).
It's already been established in this very thread that the Gremlins Blu-ray has a last modified date of July 2009, meaning these discs weren't pressed until August 2009.
Dante's comments are from back in April (the report is from the set of The Hole and that finished principal photography back at the end of February, so you actually have to attribute this conversation to February or earlier) and at that point he's confirmed that "We’ve been involved quite a lot" and "I’ve seen the (new) transfer. We did them over."
It's not, "we're planning to do" or "we're just starting to do." It's "THIS IS DONE."
So why would anyone assume, given that the newer, better transfer was already completed before this Blu-ray was created, that the discs just released to Target are something that's been sitting around in a warehouse somewhere for years (which we know is impossible given the dates on the discs themselves)?
And by the way, Dante never says that he saw a version of the Blu-ray and when "Whoa." Dante attributes Warner and Amblin for delaying the originally planned release because they knew they "can make it look better." He never says he saw the original transfer at all.
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul
Maybe Xylon or someone can do a comparison with the broadcast HD version.
When did Xylon become the Messiah? It's like a bizarre Children of the Corn "And just as the Blue Man was offered up unto He Who Walks Behind the Rows, so shall be the unbelievers!"
You can't compare two still images from two different mediums and come to any sort of rational conclusion about the hows and whys of the finished product. Were they sourced from the exact same transfer? Was the same element used for all versions? Was the same telecine equipment used for each version? Have you accounted for the fact that the broadcast version is probably a 1080i HDCAM or HDCAM SR while the Blu-ray is a completely different 1080p24 HDCAM SR and the DVD is a downconverted DigiBeta? Were all of the different versions handled by the same dub or post house? Is the broadcast version processed in anyway? What was the original camera used to shoot the film? What film stock did they utilize? Who approved the transfer (or transfers if there have been more than one- Braveheart has had at least three high def transfers that I know of in the past 14 years)? Were the any special demands by those who approved? There are so many variables to these different releases that to be able to make definitive declarations about the quality of one versus the other is impossible. No matter what screen shots Xylon or anyone else posts, anyone with free will and a knowledge of and desire to actually enjoy films should be able to see that this is a great release of Gremlins. Is it too dark? I don't know... compared to what- a 35mm presentation that might have been projected too brightly? I saw a new print of Ghostbusters recently and the Blu-ray is not as blown out as people would have you believe. While I used to find these screen shots interesting and amusing, I now find them virus-like and incredibly dangerous.
And while I'm at it, let me just get this out of the way. Anyone who tells you they remember how something looked theatrically 5, 10, 20 or more years ago is full of s#!t. The last new movie I saw that was shot on film and projected on film was The Hangover. I couldn't have told you a week later exactly how that movie was supposed to look from shot to shot. And if I did, what could I explain... how a 3rd, 4th or 5th generation dupe (and probably a high-speed one, at that) looked projected? When someone tells you that "this scene was really grainy theatrically" what they're most likely actually saying to you is, "my expectation
is that this scene should be grainy, so I guess I remember it being grainy. But it's not grainy, so the studio has obviously botched it because my memory of a 4 second moment from 7 years ago can't possibly be wrong."
Sorry to unload all of that, but it's been a while since I wanted to be here. I just think more and more people are missing the forrest for the trees and it seems to be getting worse and worse.