Page 10 of 13
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:50 pm
by dwk
From October's titles, both Uncut Gems and High Sierra are US only titles.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:19 pm
by Chull
Crash as well, I believe.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 5:35 pm
by yoloswegmaster
Crash wasn't available in Canada until just recently. Mulholland Drive is a weird case since Unonatructed View have the listings for the original Blu/DVD, so I have no idea why the 4K wouldn't be released here.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 6:47 pm
by dwk
I wonder if it was because the initial release was licensed from Universal and when their rights expired Criterion/Janus were only able to acquire the US rights?
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:13 pm
by cdnchris
A different distributor (not Universal) owns/owned the Canadian rights to the film. I had the original DVD, which was distributed through TVA/Columbia Tri-Star, though it was ultimately just a port of the Universal disc. It's possible the rights have jumped around up there like it has here and that's the reason for no 4K disc now.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:10 pm
by johnmovie15
Here are the rare finds: "Mulholland Drive" U.S.TV commercials (for U.S. theatrical release) , sadly Criterion didn't get them.
https://youtu.be/D1FXQWKnC0Q
https://youtu.be/QJ3XXz5ZM3Q
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:37 pm
by J M Powell
Interesting how the first of these trailers reassigns the line "Whoever you're hiding from, they know where you are" from the character of Cookie (Geno Silva) to Mr. Roche (Michael J. Anderson) through editing trickery. Trailer-making is a strange sport indeed.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:12 pm
by omegadirective
I just popped in the blu ray and noticed that there is no “timeline” nor “chapters” option.
Strange.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:31 pm
by Drucker
omegadirective wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:12 pm
I just popped in the blu ray and noticed that there is no “timeline” nor “chapters” option.
Strange.
This is at the direction of Lynch.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:32 pm
by therewillbeblus
What Drucker said, Lynch feels all films need to be consumed at once without breaks/skipping around, and this is a stipulation for all his home video releases, at least with Criterion
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:40 pm
by omegadirective
Oh wow, I never noticed this before.
Based on what you said, I just checked, and there is actually no chapter breaks in the film at all.
Very interesting!
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:14 pm
by swo17
The very first DVD release of the film was like this, including a director's statement about it
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:23 pm
by colinr0380
Also see Polanski's Knife In The Water for similar.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:25 pm
by flyonthewall2983
Wonder if the 4K disc just starts with the movie playing, and no menu at all
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:23 pm
by hearthesilence
IIRC this was the main reason for anyone to get the budget-priced standard BD of Blue Velvet's 4K restoration. Same master as Criterion's (albeit with noticeably different grading), but with chapters authored into the disc.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:40 pm
by dwk
The two Blue Velvet Blu-rays are absolutely not the same transfer.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:12 pm
by hearthesilence
dwk wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:40 pm
The two
Blue Velvet Blu-rays are absolutely not the same transfer.
I stand corrected! I just looked at Blu-ray.com's captures of the earlier BD's actual packaging and no mention of 4K restoration anywhere. (Though FWIW, both are personally supervised Lynch and include the newly-discovered outtakes film that Lynch put together.)
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:44 am
by FrauBlucher
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:01 pm
by tenia
It really starts to show that Svet has not enough technical grounds to handle properly UHD reviews, since he doesn't know what to look for, and even so doesn't know how to describe it textually (the film is now a lot smoother ? It has impressive fluidity ?), but it certainly doesn't help that he seemingly didn't take enough time to type this one (I suppose in order to be the very first one to have the review up), since he falsely claims (either this or Criterion screwed up) that this is the same restoration from 2015... but he also wrote a typo and wrote it's a 4k restoration from... 2001 !
And of course, with all this, no idea how the UHD, based on the newer restoration, compare to this DF BD, likely to be the same as before but I don't think it has been 100% confirmed.
What an informative review...
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:10 pm
by Finch
On top of that, the screenshots are useless too for a 4k disc as they're downconverted to 1080p (and even for standard Blu-Rays I find caps a holic more helpful than BR's screenshots which are also distractingly watermarked). The best and frankly only suitable space on this forum for Atanasov's garbage is the Professional Bassoonery thread.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:39 pm
by black&huge
Svet should stop reviewing discs while drunk
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:46 pm
by nredding
Nw_jahrles wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:24 pm
Unobstructed View confirmed this. It's not the first time it has happened. The last title I can think of that this happened to was Me and You and Everyone We Know. Someone else controls the rights in Canada in these instances.
The Amazon.com page for the 4K version indicates they will deliver it to Canada.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:49 am
by tenia
Chris, now that you've received a copy with a booklet, could you post here the tech details ? I'm curious about who encoded the UHD (though I guess it'll be Pixelogic), but also the tech details since the UHD should be using the new new 4k restoration (something blu-ray.com's review doesn't even mention). I'm also curious about whether the BD has also been updated but the specs make it looks like it hasn't.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:00 am
by EddieLarkin
I believe Radius 60/Pixelogic have been confirmed. Which isn't such a bad thing as although they are naff at BD encoding, they seem to be perfectly competent with UHD (see Apocalypse Now, where the UHD is problem free but the new Blu-rays are horrendous). Though it will still likely be the case that David M's disc will be superior.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:02 pm
by cdnchris
Yes, it's listed as Pixelogic Media.
On my first viewing I thought this looked really, really good, though. On average it's darker than the Blu-ray, as I would have expected for the film, but range is impressive, shadows look nice. I also liked that it didn't go too nuts with brightness; a handful of lights stick out but they're still fairly subdued, not an intense bright. I haven't looked to closely yet, but grain/compression, as one would hope, looks substantially better. The opening car crash and the theater, and a lot of the darker sequences honestly, stuck out to me as noisy on the old Blu-ray (and it looks worse now on my 4K TV) but it's far cleaner here. Again, on my TV it looks fine, I haven't looked at it on anything else just yet. The opening dance number still has those blocky patterns in the silhouettes, but I'm still sure that is due to the computer effects work, nothing to do with the encode or mastering. It's always looked like that.
Also of note: the Blu-ray is technically not the same as the old one but the encode's no better. The disc opens with an old StudioCanal logo instead of the Universal one, but everything else looks the same. I compared that opening car crash and the theater between the old disc and the new one and they're still pretty noisy on the new disc. I think all they did was change out the logos. I also tested out the "resume" feature, and stopping on the old one and then putting in the new one it resumed probably about 5-10 seconds off of where I left off on the other disc, more than likely because of the time difference between the StudioCanal and Universal logos.