torgotom

I read Jamie S. Rich's DVD review of Max Fleischer's Superman: 1941-1942 at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=36901 and...

I was wondering, anything on here that ISN'T on the Superman Movie discs? It appears that this si simple a collection of the docus and toons that made their debut on the Superman set released a few years back.

Cheato

I would also like to know. This seems to be an important question that was ignored in the review. Comparisons to previous releases seem necessary in order for people to determine if they want to upgrade to a new release. Considering the last release was not that long ago, it seems even more necessary in this case. In other words, I bet that a primary reason for MANY people to even read the review in the first place is to get exactly that piece of information.

There's also the question of whether the one episode that lost its intro about Superman's X-Ray vision has had that restored.

David Cornelius

"First Flight" is a holdover from the Superman II two-disc set.

Not sure about "The Man, The Myth, Superman" - Disc 13 of the Ultimate Collector's box set contains something called "The Mythology of Superman" that sounds very similiar but has a longer run time (and different title) than the featurette on this new set.

mdnitoil

From reading other boards, my understanding is that the X-Ray vision bit in Monster Machines has been corrected. This was the only change noted.

Trevor

Exactly Cheato.

Some of the reviewers here do a great job in this matter, and some ignore it.

I agree that checking for differences in the multiple earlier releases will be the only reason that many people read the review.

If a reviewer doesn't own the earlier releases, a simple Google search would help them fill in this important blank.

Note: I have not read this review, so my comments are meant for all reviews in general.

BobO'Link

I've found a couple of "reviews" that seem to answer the questions...

Here are exerpts:

"This new 2009 DVD set features the same versions as was found in the 2006 WB release, only this time as a separate stand-alone collection. For those who own the 2006 WB release, the only new inclusion in this set is "The Man, The Myth, Superman" featurette, which explores the archetype of 'superhuman' heroes on the page and screen."

So the above review indicates the versions are the "same" as the 2006 release on the Superman/II films with 1 additional featurette. BUT... this one disputes that:

"...the prologue for "The Mechanical Monsters" has been corrected from the previous versions released by Warner Bros. The version of "The Mechanical Monsters" previously released by Warner borrowed its prologue from the first Superman short. What is unique about the prologue for "The Mechanical Monsters" is that it is the only time it is mentioned in the prologue that Superman has x-ray vision."

That reviewer goes on to list many problems on the intros of various cartoons but doesn't indicate if these problems are the same as on the '06 release. I'm assuming they are but it's really unclear. Both these "reviews" came from the amazon product page for this title. Many of the reviewers/commenters seem to indicate the Image release is still the best overall although the WB version *does* have a better picture.

I, too, wish reviewers would take some extra time to detail differences/fixes/etc. from previous releases but I also understand that quite frequently the reviewer got a screener copy and has possibly never seen another version of a film, etc. and it can be prohibitive to do such a comparison due to availability of prior product.

Anyway, I have the '06 release on the Superman/II disks and will probably stick with that until much more reliable information is available. The Image release is intriguing and I may pick it up during the next DD sale as it's $6.80 now and would be a steal for ~$5. I doubt I'll double dip on the WB release just for a corrected opening on 1 cartoon and a featurette I'll *maybe* watch once.

John Sinnott

I try to encourage reviewers to compare new releases with older versions, and many of our reviews do just that. I totally agree that it's a valuable addition to a review.

The problem, as you note, is that reviewers may not have earlier copies of a film, and it may not be available for rent. (As I suspect the extras disc from the Superman 4-disc set may not be.) Though we try, in some cases it's just not possible to do a side-by-side comparison.

Trevor

Yes, but when I find a review to be terribly lacking in this important detail, like BobO'Link in this case, I do a simple Google search. And in three minutes I find the answers that the reviewer should have found, and put in their review.

I would say that comparing a release to an older release is a top consideration in the reviews here. We don't want a movie review, we want a DVD/BD review. We want to know if we should buy this particular release of the item. If the reviewer doesn't have access to the older release(s), then they should do the few minutes of research it takes to determine the differences.

If a reviewer can't be troubled to spend a few minutes to have their review answer one of the most important aspects of the item in question, why should we be bothered to read their reviews?

Paul Mavis

Happy Easter, everyone!




Just a small note: I don't think your all-inclusive "we" is valid, Trevor. This issue has come up several times in a couple of different forums over the years, and there's never been a consensus that most of our readers here only want technical details in the reviews, and no personal take on the actual films themselves. In fact, if I remember correctly, the last time we had one of these go-arounds, most people said they liked DVDTalk precisely because we do "movie reviews" and not just technical run-downs.

All things considered, I think we do the best overall job on the net of covering films on DVD -- both from a technical and criticism standpoint. No other site comes close.

Trevor

Totally agree with the last statement. It's just frustrating that the issue at hand can be rectified with a few minutes of Googling, and some reviewers refuse to do it.

And I agree on the "movie vs technical" as well. I didn't mean to imply that it was either/or on what type of review, I think "we" all like the reviews here to touch on all aspects, definitely including the movie itself. But the other aspects are equally important to most of us I imagine.

And in the current market, with possibly every review either a Blu-ray of an earlier DVD, a DVD double dip, or a DVD with multiple versions; the inclusion of comparison info in our reviews is a necessity in my opinion.

Cheato

I appreciate the movie reviews here. I have said before in other threads that I read many/most of the reviews. I rarely read reviews on other sites, actually. And I'm disappointed when I can't find a review of some old DVD in the archives here.

However, a new review of an old thing should not just retread old ground. If I want to read reviews of the Superman shorts themselves, there are already these on DVDTalk:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3283/...y-edition-the/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3876/...hers-superman/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3896/...lost-episodes/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/22303...on-collection/

The last of those actually gave a screenshot comparison to compare video quality.

There are also multiple reviews of the various forms of the Superman movie releases that came out that address the cartoons in question, since they were included as extras. In addition, there are discussion threads in the main DVD Talk forum about these cartoons and their DVD releases.

Basically, the point that others made before me in this thread is key: research MUST be done before doing a review. At the very least, research the related information on THIS WEBSITE to know what this website's frequent visitors are concerned about.

If this is a new review of a new movie, people will probably want to know more about the movie itself. If this is a new review of a new DVD, people will probably want to know more of a combination of the movie itself and how the movie was presented on the DVD.

If this is a review of a new release of a previously released item, can you not see how the focus of the review should shift?

Just post links to the previous reviews, and add a modicum of your own comments if you have something to add. Otherwise, tell us how the new release is different. And when reviewing something, you should at least try to inform yourself about what controversy, if any, surrounded previous releases, and if your review can't address that issue, maybe someone else should be doing the review.


This is a general comment, and not directed to the reviewer whose review resulted in this thread. I just think that by labeling something a "review," there is a certain level of responsibility that goes with that to anticipate people's questions. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the review if, after reading it, I have to go searching elsewhere for the information that I (and I suspect most people, in this case) wanted in the first place.

John Sinnott

This is starting to turn into a thread about DVDTalk's philosophy of reviewing in general, so I wanted to address some points that have been brought up.

I don't want reviewers to just link to an old review and add a bit on their thoughts. I want to see what THAT reviewer thinks of the film. I want to read a synopsis that he's written so I can see what he things the main points are. If I'm on the fence about buying something, I want as much input as I can get, and three full reviews are more helpful than 1 review and two links. Also, I think it looks a looks like the reviewer is taking short cuts if they only link to someone else's review.

Also, I don't want reviewers on DVDTalk to rely on information they find on other web sites about A/V quality or contents. I've been reviewing for a while and have written hunderds and hundreds of reviews. I can't tell you how often I've found incorrect information in other reviews. I make it a point not to read reviews before I write mine up so I'm not swayed by someone else's opinion, but after wards I often see what other people though. I've found everything from incorrect aspect ratios and wrong audio tracks to factual errors on the plot on other web sites and even the back of the DVD case. You don't know if the information in an Amazon review or anther web site is accurate. It's not a matter of not doing their work or being lazy, it's just good practice in my opinion.

Thanks for the kind words about the reviews on the site too. I totally agree with the premise that reviews should comment on earlier editions. (I actually wrote the Superman cartoon review with the screen shot comparisons.) In a perfect world every review would, reviewers would approach each disc with no preconceived notions, and the review staff would all get paid. Unfortunately sometimes we just have to settle for what we can get.

Kurt D

My wife threatened to kick me out of the house if I persisted in googling.