criterionforum.org

Right in time for Halloween. No word on extras?

It would be amazing if they could include Mike Mignola's comic adaptation of the film, as well as the concept art he did for the production. I read a recent interview with Mignola where he said that Coppola would actually come ask his opinion about a lot of stuff during postproduction (Mignola was at the studio night and day looking over rough footage and stills to get the comic completed by the time the movie opened).

I hope thats not the cover art because thats one of the worst covers I've seen.

Prince Vlad is sure to cover his face at that monstrosity of a cover art. Who came up with that concept?!

Anybody care to weigh in on the transfer controversy with regards to this new edition (as documented on the DVD Talk Forums)? That and a number of reported pixellation problems and one chapter not working on the SD version have me uncertain about this one (that and the generally poor prices on it).

I don't really have anything to say that hasn't already been said about the transfer, other than I'm passing on this release.

mind if i ask what the problem with the transfer is?
i've been thinking of picking this up, but if it's flat out terrible then i won't bother.

s.j. bagley wrote:mind if i ask what the problem with the transfer is?
i've been thinking of picking this up, but if it's flat out terrible then i won't bother.

It's a pretty radical change from the Superbit/other previous transfers, much darker and less colorful (if the reports and screencaps on the web speak the truth). The BR edition has been savaged all over the web for being one of if not the worst BR transfer to date (a muddy mess). I don't have any of the links handy, but check out the DVD Talk forums for more info, screencaps, etc. And, as I mentioned before, the standard DVD edition seems to be poorly encoded (one chapter won't work, there's pixellation at a number of chapter transitions). Not only that, but the subtitle font for the non-english dialogue has been changed from (I believe) an Arabic font to Sony's usual big ugly yellow (which makes no sense given that all accounts seem to indicate the previous font was integral to the film) All the Zoetrope people (Kim Aubry, Coppola [seemingly, and why would he not, given that it's his damn company], et al) and Robert A. Harris (the Vertigo "restoration", anyone? And he surely wouldn't rock the boat with Zoetrope with the lucrative Godfather restoration ongoing) are supporting the transfer, but a lot of others seem to think very little of the changes made (and given Zoetrope's DVD track record- the AR and colour changes on Apocalypse Now, the AR change on Tucker, etc-makes me dubious).

so, in your opinion, would the superbit edition be the way to go for the film itself, and the new 2 disc set for the extras?
(i've seen the new edition for under $14.00 around here, so i'd be pretty much okay with buying that and a used copy of the superbit ed.)

s.j. bagley wrote:so, in your opinion, would the superbit edition be the way to go for the film itself, and the new 2 disc set for the extras?
(i've seen the new edition for under $14.00 around here, so i'd be pretty much okay with buying that and a used copy of the superbit ed.)

That indeed sounds like the best route: the Superbit also has DTS sound, so it's pretty much the overall technical winner (as well as being all over the place used as well as cheap), and if you're inclined towards the extras on the 2 disc, then I'd say go for both if you can. I personally can't stand owning 2 editions of the same movie, but that's just me.

What are the extras?

Commentary/Intro by Coppola, 4-Part Doc (running just over an hour and incorporating a lot of the CC Laserdisc content in a different form), 30 minutes of deleted scenes (including some with Tom Waits as Renfield), and a number of trailers (including a few for Dracula itself).

Can someone please post some screen grabs for comparison sake? No one seems to be doing that anywhere online. Which sounds kinda stupid, if you ask me.

Delete (repeat of post directly below-thanks for the reformatting)

Lino wrote:Can someone please post some screen grabs for comparison sake? No one seems to be doing that anywhere online. Which sounds kinda stupid, if you ask me.

A bunch on the DVD Talk Forum.

Perhaps it is a case of personal preference: the new CE is a big change in many ways, and (to my mind) not for the better. I'm a terrible person to judge (I haven't even yet seen the film), so take what I say with a grain of salt, but most signs point to the Superbit being overall superior (just look at how the Harker journal superimposition is ruined in the CE, among numerous others).

Cronenfly wrote:(and given Zoetrope's DVD track record- the AR and colour changes on Apocalypse Now, the AR change on Tucker, etc-makes me dubious).

I'm pretty happy with my 2 disc Dracula dvd. The commentary and the 1hour+ worth of featurettes are pretty good for $15. Deleted scenes are substantial but nothing that great. I only had an old vhs to compare to, so can't say much about comparisons to earlier dvds. But luckily my copy (standard dvd) has NO pixellation or chapter stop problems.

BUT about Apocalypse Now: Could someone elaborate on the color issues with Apocalypse Now. Because I did notice a big color improvement on the 1st Redux dvd, but the 2 disc set looks completely different. I never heard or read anyone mention this though. (I'm relatively new to these boards)

Thanks

Hi, I know this was a bit off topic, but the Apocalypse Now thread was mostly old, and I figured one of you guys knew the deal on this.

I'm Tony, a new post-er. I've been checking in here for a few months, to get the "informed opinion" on decent films/dvds.

I must admit that I posted that bit about Apocalypse Now's color scheme based on little evidence beyond an e-mail Glenn Erickson (AKA DVD Savant) sent to a DVD Talk Forum member in regards to the new Dracula transfer. In it, Erickson used the example of Apocalypse Now as being a film that Coppola's made many color changes to over the years. I don't know this for certain, though: can anyone substantiate AN's color pallette changing over time (i.e. seen all the DVDs, the original theatrical print, Redux, etc), either here or on AN's thread? I know that Redux definitely was changed at least due to the Dye-Transfer process, but I'm unsure otherwise. Sorry for any confusion.

A blogger recounts his experience as an extra on the film.

For what it's worth, I've also heard that the Superbit transfer was never authorized/approved by Coppola, which adds another twist.

The debate over this disc has really made me worried about the future of HD transfers, since it seems like certain people expect everything to look like digital video - I really think they'd be happy with transfers with tons of edge enhancement and noise reduction with the colors boosted to a ridiculous level, as if every film should look like Transformers.

EDIT: It looks like Pro-Bassoonist posted much of what I was talking about over there on the DVD Talk forum, and it kind of shocks me that some people over there apparently think that they know what's "best" for the film, even if it wasn't what the director envisioned.

patrick wrote: The debate over this disc has really made me worried about the future of HD transfers, since it seems like certain people expect everything to look like digital video - I really think they'd be happy with transfers with tons of edge enhancement and noise reduction with the colors boosted to a ridiculous level, as if every film should look like Transformers.

Good points all, but how do you explain the new transfer ruining the Harker/journal superimposition scene, for example?

Can anyone authoritatively vouch for which transfer more accurately represents the original theatrical presentation?

There is a lengthy discussion of the transfer and numerous comparison pictures on this threadover at the AVS Forums.