Don't buy Texas Chainsaw Masscre Special Edition!
10-14-03 | 01:45 AM
#1
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't buy Texas Chainsaw Masscre Special Edition!
I just bought the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Special Edition that came out today and it looks worse than the previous version that came out on dvd. It says that it has a new digital transfer supervised by the director, but it looks worse than the one with Leatherface on the cover. Don't buy it! I am going to write the company and ask them why it looks worse.
10-14-03 | 08:07 AM
#4
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
has anyone here ever seen this movie when it first came out in the theater????
I have and belive me the video on this is the best its gonna get in my opinion? Pic quality was never that great to begin with. I still dont see anything wrong wth the first version DVD. The pic looked great to me and has a ton of extras
I have and belive me the video on this is the best its gonna get in my opinion? Pic quality was never that great to begin with. I still dont see anything wrong wth the first version DVD. The pic looked great to me and has a ton of extras
10-14-03 | 08:25 AM
#6
Suspended
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a chance to see the film in a theater once, and Deke is exactly right..
Most of the appeal and what makes the film work, is the gritty look of the film..
Polishing it up, taking out blemishes, blah blah blah, is not gonna help, but take away from the film.
I haven't seen the new version, but i think the old pioneer version was fine..
next we'll hear that it should have DTS sound...ehhhhhhh
Most of the appeal and what makes the film work, is the gritty look of the film..
Polishing it up, taking out blemishes, blah blah blah, is not gonna help, but take away from the film.
I haven't seen the new version, but i think the old pioneer version was fine..
next we'll hear that it should have DTS sound...ehhhhhhh
10-14-03 | 10:32 AM
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
This isn't Attack of the Clones, and it was never meant to look or sound like it. This was a low budge flick and whether the gritty look of the movie was intentional or the nature of the medium, it's ridiculous to want a clean, crisp release when it wasn't ever shown like that in the first place.
You might as well demand Kevin Smith release a remastered and colorized version of Clerks with DTS 5.1
You might as well demand Kevin Smith release a remastered and colorized version of Clerks with DTS 5.1
10-14-03 | 11:19 AM
#10
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I had a chance to see the film in a theater once, and Deke is exactly right..
Most of the appeal and what makes the film work, is the gritty look of the film..
Polishing it up, taking out blemishes, blah blah blah, is not gonna help, but take away from the film.
I haven't seen the new version, but i think the old pioneer version was fine..
Most of the appeal and what makes the film work, is the gritty look of the film..
Polishing it up, taking out blemishes, blah blah blah, is not gonna help, but take away from the film.
I haven't seen the new version, but i think the old pioneer version was fine..
And I suspect that some of you simply don't know the history of the original transfer, how the incorrect work print was used, etc. I believe The Digital Bits describes this in some detail in their review, and of course it's been discussed frequently here.
I think the original transfer is plenty good enough to enjoy this film, even though the restored print wasn't used (by complete accident, apparently). But don't kid yourself by thinking "this is the way Toby intended it to look". It isn't. At least, not quite.
10-14-03 | 01:40 PM
#13
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
Hooper did not intentionally "distress" the film, like Merhige did in "Begotten", for example. These assertions otherwise are bogus, and have nothing to do with the way Hooper intended the film to look.
And I suspect that some of you simply don't know the history of the original transfer, how the incorrect work print was used, etc. I believe The Digital Bits describes this in some detail in their review, and of course it's been discussed frequently here.
I think the original transfer is plenty good enough to enjoy this film, even though the restored print wasn't used (by complete accident, apparently). But don't kid yourself by thinking "this is the way Toby intended it to look". It isn't. At least, not quite.
Hooper did not intentionally "distress" the film, like Merhige did in "Begotten", for example. These assertions otherwise are bogus, and have nothing to do with the way Hooper intended the film to look.
And I suspect that some of you simply don't know the history of the original transfer, how the incorrect work print was used, etc. I believe The Digital Bits describes this in some detail in their review, and of course it's been discussed frequently here.
I think the original transfer is plenty good enough to enjoy this film, even though the restored print wasn't used (by complete accident, apparently). But don't kid yourself by thinking "this is the way Toby intended it to look". It isn't. At least, not quite.
The first Pioneer dvd release was ok in my book.
10-14-03 | 01:56 PM
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Deke Rivers
my point is if there is an alleged better print out there then it hasnt seen the light of day in the theater or on video so why fret over it?
The first Pioneer dvd release was ok in my book.
my point is if there is an alleged better print out there then it hasnt seen the light of day in the theater or on video so why fret over it?
The first Pioneer dvd release was ok in my book.
10-14-03 | 04:47 PM
#17
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by ChrisHicks
screwed mine up trying to remove a stupid CC security sticker.
screwed mine up trying to remove a stupid CC security sticker.
Me too. I spent like 10 minutes at work trying to get if off, and once I did there was goop everywhere. So my sleeve is pretty much ruined. Oh well, I bought it for the movie, not the case. But it's still pretty irritating.
10-14-03 | 04:59 PM
#18
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
Hooper did not intentionally "distress" the film, like Merhige did in "Begotten", for example. These assertions otherwise are bogus, and have nothing to do with the way Hooper intended the film to look.
(...)
I think the original transfer is plenty good enough to enjoy this film, even though the restored print wasn't used (by complete accident, apparently). But don't kid yourself by thinking "this is the way Toby intended it to look". It isn't. At least, not quite.
Hooper did not intentionally "distress" the film, like Merhige did in "Begotten", for example. These assertions otherwise are bogus, and have nothing to do with the way Hooper intended the film to look.
(...)
I think the original transfer is plenty good enough to enjoy this film, even though the restored print wasn't used (by complete accident, apparently). But don't kid yourself by thinking "this is the way Toby intended it to look". It isn't. At least, not quite.
Painstakingly restored from the original 16mm ECO negatives this SE presents Tobe Hooper's classic film as you've never seen it before! Supervised by the director, this letterboxed High Definition SuperScan (??? -me) release minimizes the film grain and gives detail and sharpness not possible with standard film to tape transfers. The film's look was redesigned to reflect Hooper's original vision of higher contrast images and color. The hot sun now casts an amber hue upon the dry Texas landscape...
I don't think anyone is saying he distressed the film, just saying that this movie was not meant to look pristine.
