Anyone interested? I like the 1925 version the best, so I'm not too keen on a 1930's special edition that only offers the 1925 version as a side by side extra.
Frankly, it's scandalous that fans of any film let alone one eighty years old should be asked to contemplate what is now (at least) a treble-dip. This release sounds great but is there no end to the money-grabbing schemes in the form of small silver discs?
No one is forcing anyone to double dip and I'm sure completists don't mind having superior transfers, extended versions, and a previously unreleased on DVD 2nd Lon Chaney feature. Especially considering that the film is over 80 years old - I don't think anyone is going to call improved restorations of a cinema classic a bad thing. If double dipping causes studios to invest money in restoring these old films I'm all for it. Personally even though we already have the excellent criterion release of METROPOLIS I am looking forward to the upcoming release of an extended version with restored footage that hasn't been seen in wide release for 80+ years. Now releasing dozens of near-identical versions of EVIL DEAD, HALLOWEEN, RE-ANIMATOR and ARMY OF DARKNESS? THAT'S gouging.
Yeah, there are chunks of things missing from these flicks. It's nice they are trying to make them complete as possible.
A year and three months later I finally got around to seeing this. ReelClassicDVD.com also added a 4th disc with the original 1925 version. The differences aren't many, but the duality of watching both at the same time can show a variety of performances between takes. What was pointed out by the commentary was that Chaney's performance is almost beat for beat identical between different takes. If it weren't for other actors on screen changing you'd never notice the difference. A lot of the older actors were also nearly identical if only slightly different. On the other hand Mary Philbin's reactions could vary widely between different versions. Although people dump on her poor acting, this could have been due to different direction given for different takes. While I prefer the 1925 version, there is no "complete" version in my mind because sometimes the 1930 version has the better takes. It's been said before but a true restoration is sorely needed for this film. There's been some admirable work done to save this film, but what needs to happen is Universal stepping up to the plate on this and opening up their vaults.
