Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Euro Horror' started by Crystal Plumage, Oct 28, 2004.
:lol: Fuck dude, is their kno end 2 yur madnes!!!!!!!!1111 :banana:
--What kind of idiotic comment is that? "You got a better copy in your basements?" I won't even justify that with a response. What does a response like that on your behalf really prove?--
Since you didn't manage to unerstand my point - I'll make it clear for you Why jump all over SS for releasing a "shoddy" product when you have no idea at all that is IT a shoddy product? Youv'e not seen the prints, you don't know the OAR (unless you managed to resolve the huge debate aronud this topic on more than one board), you don't know what original elements have survived, and you don't know what lengths they went to in order to find the bst elements. In fact, we know very little right now, and the moaning starts. That is the point.
To find out the truth on this one we're going to have to wait - all that is announced right now are specs. I'm guessing there is god reason for them being as they are. it's not shoddy, it's just a reality of the condition of this title.
Now, that comment would apply to BU, AB or Criterion. It's got nothing to do with whether I like SS or not. I rate SS in the same way I do any other label as it happens
Spelling mistakes, at the end of the day, don't bother me greatly. I'm buying movies, not handing out gold stars
I just wonder where Meddle got his info....
I know that SS has had a very ahrd time securing a print for this release. Ive spoken to them at several chiller cons (probably wills ee them again tonight). I am guessing that their inability to obtain an uncut widescreen print is waht led to the decision to include a cut widescreen version...
After all this time Im in the camp of people who just want to see the damn film!!!!
I'm with you MarcX. If a better print crops up somewhere in the future, I'll snag that too. But this one has been missing for too long. Let's drag it out and see it, we won't know the quality until the disc in is our hands.
If the uncut version could only be found on video, it might have been nice to do branching for some people - to be honest, I've not been impressed with video inserts, they're often too distracting.
Does anyone know how much is cut between the Us and italian versions? Im just curious as Ive never been able to see either...
hmm i saw this on imdb--not always relaible but..
The American version released in 1973 (as Schizoid) was actually seven minutes longer than the current Italian print of that time. AIP restored some self-censored erotic footage (mostly in the orgy and dream sequences) and marketed the film to the swinging Euro/trash/nudity enthusiasts of the era.
If quality doesn't matter to you then so be it. Waste your money on inferior releases. Since you missed my point, Better materials do exist! How can I simplify that any further for you? Surely you can comprehend that? (They still aren't in my basement though).
As for your Shriek Show love, I'll search later and find various threads where you come to their defense rather quickly. It's all available for reading, quite humorous really.
Your last comment is absurd. You could care less if they spell check covers, titles, botch dialogue in films, that certainly affects the viewing pleasure of the film, does it not?
We have been waiting a very long time for this movie to be released on dvd.
Something to do with rights and a proper print etc.But if Shriek Show has the rights for Region1,who has the rights for R2?
Could it perhaps be that some R2 company (Medusa,XRated,Raro,Koch Media,Marketing or Dragon)has a complete and uncut widescreen (OAR) print?
Just a thought.......
Andrew, your avitar is interesting.....
--If quality doesn't matter to you then so be it. Waste your money on inferior releases. Since you missed my point, Better materials do exist! How can I simplify that any further for you? Surely you can comprehend that? (They still aren't in my basement though).--
Where are they? How do you know they exist? Has you considered contacting SS to let them know where it is?
I don't know where this idea that I love SS comes from. All I've ever said is that they don't deserve the slagging they usually get. Still, if you don't like them, don't buy their DVD's. The point being missed here as far as I'm concerned is that this is not a "Shriek Show" thread but a "Lizard In a Woman's Skin" thread. This DVD is not out. We don't know what it looks like. We don't know how the cover reads. It's purely speculation at this point.
--Your last comment is absurd. You could care less if they spell check covers, titles, botch dialogue in films, that certainly affects the viewing pleasure of the film, does it not?--
No - I can honestly say that a spelling mistake on cover art has never - EVER - affected my enjoyment of a movie. I've even bought secondhand DVD's without a cover. The cover is - the cover. Some are better than others, but if I want the film I wouldn't make a purchasing decision based on it.
Jason and Dwatts I agree with both of you on several points.
I don't own many SS releases and the ones I have are OK to very good.
But there are obviously some titles they screwed up.Other companies do that too every now and then.
Spelling errors are not a big problem for me,I can live with that.
But if a film is released in Italian (or any other language I can't understand) I want to read correctly translated and spelled subtitles.
But this dvd isn't released yet so we just have to wait and see.We already have waited 3+ years so no real drama.
Don't let one movie ruin your day....
Read my post. A man who worked for Shriek Show knows about it, so obviously they have at some point. And I don't believe anyone ever argued for 1.33 to be the OAR; the debate was between 1.85 and 2.35 if I remember correctly.
Who's your Daddy Andrew?
I love the picture even though I look a little different now. It is amazing how mean these boards have become. But since we are going in that direction...lets go.
So you believe that there is a longer cut because an ex-employee told you and because someone has a composite VHS.
Who is this ex-employee? Kit who never was an employee but a freelancer? Who? Also you know what, here is the challenge to anyone out there, find a longer cut in better condition than mine I will re-release it. So come on guys you know better and can do better...help your release.
Now about the cover...it is like the zombi 2 cover where it is a sleeve over the real cover...we had the cut out of the lizard so we could still use the nudity in the image.
Now back to the picture...I guess I am your daddy since you like looking at me so much. I am your Daddy Andrew...you have a crush on me?
-john sirabella :fire:
Just release the movie and I'll be buying it. While others might have preferred Brentwood to have snagged it, with a special feature of 9 other movies, I think I'll put my faith in SS. Without any evidence to the contrary, I simply don't believe SS know there is a better print out there, and they just can't be bothered to release it. The "someone told someone" is not proof, it is not evidence. Others might feel differently.
Still, you know what we have here, a difference of opinion
What about this one?
Well, I never considered buying a bootleg. They arn't even bothering with a case
I'll never buy a bootleg either but they state it's uncut AND widescreen.
But hey this is ebay.
Other problem with this item is there's no info on language and/or subtitles..
Ofcourse I'll buy the Shriek Show disc,I've been waiting for it too long...
And I guess any self respecting Giallo geek will pick it up eventually...
You're missing the point. If an uncut bootleg exists that is in Widescreen (and it does, I have a copy), then there's obviously a print out there in Widescreen. If someone knows where it is, even more so someone who was working with you for the DVD release, shouldn't you know about it's existence (or, if the case may be, the lack thereof)? I mean this was first due to be released at least a year and a half ago, so I would assume after talking to MGM everything would be settled. To be playing the "find it and we'll release it" game this late is pretty silly in my opinion. If you can honestly come right out and say "Kit's lying, we checked into it and no such print exists" then I will accept your answer. And did I ever say "ex-employee?" No, I said someone who worked for Shriek Show, which Kit did in fact do. Somehow I doubt that someone working on a release could know about a print that surpasses the one in your possession and not tell you about it.
And I'm sorry if I've offended you, Daddy. (Where did that come from? Did you have a crush on your daddy?) I have 30 Shriek Show discs and a handful of Tokyo Shock titles, so I've plenty supported your product, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be disappointed when a title that many of us have been waiting for will be released in less than optimum quality.
It upsets me that someone working for a DVD company can be this immature. I'll also be buying your Lizard DVD, uncut or not, but don't you think you should at least check into it if some people believe an uncut widescreen print exists?
It is kind of an odd release, but not unheard of; Dune comes to mind, although I know I've heard of other such cases. I bet dollars to donuts there is a better print out there, and the owner might not even know it. Why Richard Haines here owns several more complete movies on films than what's on DVD (probably not Lizard mind you), so hopefully this release will help shake it loose for a future release.
I'm of the mind that if that's the way it is, that's the way it's going to be. I'd rather have something than nothing. But I think Shriek Show has come off as lazy, they've made just a few too many errors. Anchor Bay's made plenty, infact I think there's something to debate on all their releases of Fulci, Argento and Romero. Why, thier Director's Cut of Army of Darkness was taken from a video source, when we all know a film print exists because MGM released a remastering from it in HK. While some people have waken up to AB's faults, there's still a lot of love for that distributor. I don't think people have come down too hard on Shriek Show, just not hard enough on other distributors when they make mistakes.
Shriek Show comes off to me as the horror fan who just wants that quick fix, to hell with the rest. Where as I'm more of a detailed oriented fan. I want 1.33 window boxed, I want the original mono, I want OAR down to the decimal. (Which is why I could kiss Synapse Films over and over again) Shutting up about it won't get us better releases. So I think Andrew's in the right, because all we have is what Shriek Show gives us. We can't go down to their office and meet with every employee and watch them make the calls to film vaults in Italy or see the restorations in progress. What we have is what's dropped in our laps: spelling mistakes, cut "uncut" version, messed up aspect ratios, cropping, flubbed audio and strange colorations. They done all of that multipul times. I've read an interview where they admit they've had more than average amount of mistakes and consider themselves haunted or something because they do have QC that they keep trying to step up.
Even their latest greatest Zombi 2 is slightly blown out, a little more cropped then Bu and lacks progressive scan support. And if you include all the audio BU had, they've made a single disc I consider worth buying over the SS SE. BU's also the ones who secured the camera negative with real rights, while SS secured false rights and a print not up to par with BU's. It seems only by the grace of BU that they could put on their release. I think it just goes to show that SS has a lot more to learn.