Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'High Definition' started by Steel76, Oct 14, 2010.
Supposedly this is going to cost around $32!!! Fuck that.
NO SALE! :fuck:
So Amazon still lists this as unavailable but Diabolik has had them in stock since Saturday, if not sooner, and I believe my copy shipped today! I love the way they did this release in that it was less than 6 weeks after the initial announcement that the disc was shipping, even with whatever delay caused them to miss the release date they announced. More companies should do it like this instead of announcing titles months before they have a release date and/or announcing release dates that are months away!
$32+ for a questionable movie I've never even seen before? No chance.
$20 or less on Amazon in the future...maybe I'll chance it.
If they really will have 30,000 copies of the movie to sell, this has to be the biggest "limited edition" joke in Blu-ray history.
I'll agree when you have received it and let us know if it is worth the $32
Do you feel the power? :evil:
I know. They have to be dreaming thinking this will actually be limited. At that price they wont be selling out for a very long time.
The movie is unknown and the cover they used looks cheap. $15 would be more like it.
I am exactly the target audience for this Blu and even I'm not buying. I will own this someday, but I will wait for a used copy or a serious price reduction.
This is idiotic beyond belief.
Criterion Blu-Ray's are cheaper than that, for fucks sake.
Also I'm reading the company's restoration text and it is actually very funny:
"The transfer was completed on a Spirit Datacine from the original 35mm camera negatives. The 2K scan DI was then processed to reduce minor scratches, dirt, and in one instance, a rather huge emulsion mark that encompassed 2/3 or the screen and lasted for exactly one frame. Three entire passes of color correction were applied, not only to restore the colors, and wear and tear a thirty year old negative normally endures, but also to ensure that color timing matched in all similar sequences, and that reference blacks and reference whites were attained."
What's this? The restoration work for Antonioni's L'aventura? A huge emulsion mark that lasts for exactly... one frame actually adds to the trashy experience. I think of Grindhouse and all the digitally added marks and I laugh my ass off.
But the BEST part was this:
"There were a few instances that contrast manipulation was necessary to correct abnormally bright scenes that fell victim to unavoidable shooting conditions."
Oh really? I am amazed they didn't run to ILM to correct the special effects! Shooting conditions reflect the budget, the cheapness, the gung-ho approach to shooting and all these things are essential to the AESTHETICS of a film of this... caliber. You don't correct the mistakes that derive from the shooting conditions. You just DON'T! If THIS is the reason I must pay 32$ well, these guys gotta be out of their fuckin' minds.
Wow. Just read that DOLPH CHIARINO guy's rant on dvdmaniacs.
It must be hard being better than anyone else. I pity this guy's girlfriends.
What's funny about that one is that it is thee shortest amount of time such frame damage could happen: one frame. So they're making a dramatic thing out of something the effected the least amount of running time as possible. That problem was probably one of the easiest to fix.
All that their overstatements mean is that they're doing what any company who gives a rat's ass does. Which is commendable I'll give you, but it's what the industry has been doing for the past ten to twenty years (including LDs).
I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't mess with the essence of the film, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that turning down the contrast on a few shots is off limits. I think everyone here would agree that going back into a movie and changing the special effects, and that includes using CGI to erase wires holding up the models and such, goes against the spirit of film preservation. But adjusting color, contrast, brightness, etc to ensure a uniform image is pretty much par for the course. Pretty much every "restored" DVD in any of our collections has been tinkered with in that respect.
The reality is that if you looked at the negative for almost any film, you'd find shots that are too bright or too dark, or where he color is too blue or too yellow. That's not a budgetary issue, that's a fact of filmmaking, especially when you are shooting outside with changing light and weather conditions. Take JAWS for example, the second half of that movie was filmed on the water over an extended period of time, and in New England where the weather changes at the drop of a hat. If you looked at the negative for that you'd likely see all sorts of crazy differences between each shot. But audiences never realized it because each shot was fixed when the film was printed and telecine'd. Now that's an extreme example, but if you looked at the negative for pretty much any film, even big budget ones like SALT or SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD, you'd find shots that are too light, too dark or miscolored, but which were fixed in theatrical prints and home video. You might also find that the negatives might have a completely different color scheme than what appears in the final movie or lack tinting effects that are found in the final version, as those are rarely done in-camera.
Now, for ALIEN 2, Midnight Legacy claims they were working off the original negative, which, if true, means there were probably a lot of shots that had to be tweaked and tinkered with. For all we know, the shots that needed the contrast adjusted might also have been adjusted and darkened by the lab in Rome when the film was printed thirty years ago. I don't know, I haven't seen the Blu-Ray or the previous home video editions, but I'm not willing to go out on a limb and assume that what ML claims to have done represents a major heresy.
Just so you know, Amazon now has this title in stock!
I bought it, hopefully I will get it next week.
Looks like its being sold by Midnight Legacy and serviced by Amazon.com...
Not sold directly through Amazon.com. That means no discounts off MSRP.
I was in denial that this title would actually sell for $32.99 and assumed we would see a 20 - 33% discount through Amazon.com. I will definitely pass for now.
Same here. $33 is just too much for something like this. If it was a movie that I loved, I'd probably pay that. I'd get free shipping since I'm a Prime member and it's fulfilled by Amazon, but still...
I am intrigued by this film, but I've never seen it either. If it would have been $22 or less with a typical Amazon discount on a newly listed title, I might have chanced it. I can get Blu-ray TV sets for $33! :sleepy:
And they're actually still believing they'll sell 30,000 of these at $30+ each? Man, get your head out of the clouds Midnight Legacy!
33 bucks? Hells no! If I order a DVD or blu-ray costing more than 20 dollars from amazon.com and it is snatched up in customs, I end up paying 35 dollars extra to import it. Something tells me Alien 2 ain't worth that.
This will be in the delete bins soon very soon.
Yeah, as much as I want to see this again...$32 is way too much for me. Ten years back I used to make foolish mistakes all the time and basically blind buy (or semi-blind buy) stuff like this.
33 bucks? No fucking way...
I can get Back To The Future trilogy for less.
I'd be quite interested in just how many (truthfully) they've sold thus far. Hopefully they'll get smart soon and reduce the price. Even most Blu-ray imports I buy from overseas are far cheaper...shipped!