DVD Talk
which Matrix boxset are you buying? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : which Matrix boxset are you buying?


ShagMan
11-15-04, 08:20 AM
subject says it all, which one are you buying and why? Price seems a little steep for the one w/ bust, but the case / organization is pretty spiffy too.

QuiGonJosh
11-15-04, 08:30 AM
Probably just the Regular 10 Disc Set. The Gift Set looks nice, but it also looks fragile and easily breakable.

DVD Josh
11-15-04, 08:40 AM
I'm going with the regular version. The bust looks cheap and the book doesn't do much for me.

PixyJunket
11-15-04, 08:40 AM
I'll buy whichever one only contains the first movie. No sequels, no cartoons.

Big Worms
11-15-04, 08:41 AM
The 10 disk "regular" edition. I don't like that plastic thing that the bust comes in.

RockStrongo
11-15-04, 08:54 AM
10 disk giftset without the Ted Logan bust.

RUN-DvdMC
11-15-04, 09:27 AM
Whichever one BBV carries to use my credit on!

DVD Josh
11-15-04, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I'll buy whichever one only contains the first movie. No sequels, no cartoons.

Then you might as well hold onto the first release. :)

Mike Lowrey
11-15-04, 10:12 AM
regular one...I don't like big cumbersome custom cases.

joshualane
11-15-04, 10:33 AM
Regular set for me as well.

SRotblat
11-15-04, 10:48 AM
Non Bust Version

badlieut
11-15-04, 10:52 AM
Non Boob set for me as well.

chente
11-15-04, 12:00 PM
Non bust version.

thelwig14
11-15-04, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I'll buy whichever one only contains the first movie. No sequels, no cartoons.

tek2k
11-15-04, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I'll buy whichever one only contains the first movie. No sequels, no cartoons.
"neither" would have been better than whining

Brain Stew
11-15-04, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by tek2k
"neither" would have been better than whining

You don't understand. He is PixyJunket, whenever The Matrix is mentioned he has to post how much the sequels suck.

Oh and BTW he's right.

Novasonic
11-15-04, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
I'll buy whichever one only contains the first movie. No sequels, no cartoons.

Get off your high horse. The cartoons are good.

PixyJunket
11-15-04, 01:09 PM
Hmm.. all I said was that I wanted just the SE of the first movie.

Where is the high horse, the whining, or the declaration of suck in that statement?

ShagMan
11-15-04, 01:18 PM
PixyJunket: it would seem that you need to buy the "The Matrix/The Matrix Revisited" two-pack that's been out since Feb. 2004?

To everybody else: looks like nobody's forking out the extra $35, not surprising... I'm also getting the "regular" box set w/out the bust.

fumanstan
11-15-04, 01:29 PM
Getting the regular box set. The bust is cool, but if i really wanted it i could buy it on Ebay for around 30 bucks. I dislike the clear plastic case that it comes in.

steebo777
11-15-04, 01:41 PM
I'm with Pixy on this. All I need is an SE of the first film, that's all.

RocShemp
11-15-04, 01:47 PM
Non-bust for me. The bust is good in concept but poor in excecution. The same goes for the packaging in the bust set (it all looks too fragile).

So regular ten disc set for me.

tylerwillis
11-15-04, 02:59 PM
Regular... I have no problem with the bust itself, but I hate the packaging on the special. Already sold all my old discs in anticipation of the new Matrix. :)

TylerDurden_73
11-15-04, 03:09 PM
Regular set for me as well.

Dabaomb
11-15-04, 03:43 PM
just the 10-disc set. No need for the bust for me.

jiggawhat
11-15-04, 04:56 PM
http://dvd.ign.com/articles/566/566215p1.html

They have screenshots comparing the old and new transfer of the first matrix.

g
11-15-04, 05:26 PM
Im getting the bust set at amazon. I was able to use the 20 dollar off coupon that amazon let slip for a brief night in october to order it.

fumanstan
11-15-04, 05:48 PM
Thanks for the comparison shots. Big difference :)

tommy28
11-15-04, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by fumanstan
Thanks for the comparison shots. Big difference :)

Huge difference....

10 disk set for me.

Jboone
11-15-04, 06:03 PM
Regular set for me.

jiggawhat
11-15-04, 06:06 PM
I was surprised that it would be such a huge difference. It's like night and day.

TomOpus
11-15-04, 06:23 PM
I'd like to get the bust but the case is really really REALLY lame. Didn't they even look at LOTR EE, Hellboy or the Monster Legacy gift boxes?

THAT'S how you package a bust with a nice DVD set.

Regular set for me.

jiggawhat
11-15-04, 07:10 PM
Personally I think the bust is useless. It looks terrible.

jiggawhat
11-15-04, 07:20 PM
I wanted to add that IGN has the first part of their review up.

Sonic
11-15-04, 08:18 PM
10 disc version with my eyes closed. I forgot about this! I think Matrix Reloaded is da-bomb!!!

-ant

FatTony
11-15-04, 09:05 PM
I'm all over the 10-disc. Don't need the bust. It doesn't look that cool, but I'm also not really into the super-duper gift sets. Just give me the discs.

Sonic
11-15-04, 09:20 PM
OMGOOOOODness! What a HUGE difference in terms of picture quality of Matrix 1! :eek:

I got the money give me the discs!

-ant

Dead Star
11-15-04, 09:22 PM
The regular version, though I really want to know what the 80 page book in the LE set is all about.

And WOW at those remastered Matrix Screens

Sonic
11-15-04, 09:26 PM
Does anyone know if the regular 10 disc set comes in thin cases? 10 keepcases in a box is pretty fat! :)

-ant

fumanstan
11-15-04, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Sonic
Does anyone know if the regular 10 disc set comes in thin cases? 10 keepcases in a box is pretty fat! :)

-ant

The pictures appear to show seperate digipaks, so each movie has their own little case and a seperate one for the extras discs.

Sonic
11-15-04, 09:40 PM
Oh shit cardboard! :eek: :lol: Oh dag.

-ant

lordzeppelin
11-15-04, 09:56 PM
I'm torn. The design on the LE set is quite cool, but like everyone else, I'm wary of how it will hold up, and the bust looks bad...

Fuck it. Set w/o bust for me.

db27
11-15-04, 10:38 PM
no bust

shizawn
11-15-04, 11:08 PM
Just the regular set for me.

Those screenshots are nice!

PopcornTreeCt
11-15-04, 11:59 PM
While the new transfers look better they also look greener. I don't think I'm gonna fork out all that cash just for a new transfer.

fryinpan1
11-16-04, 08:08 AM
Regular set for me.

Fartface
11-16-04, 08:27 AM
None of the above. Sitting through these boring, crappy, dumb, badly acted, written and directed excuses for films was bad enough once.

Pelayu
11-16-04, 01:50 PM
bust set for me

Mike Lowrey
11-16-04, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
While the new transfers look better they also look greener.

I think that was kind of the whole point. ;)

The issue was that the first was made without any thought of sequals. So when the sequals were made, and they set the color-timing to certain colors, green in The Matrix, blue for real life, the original film didn't have this color-timing and so the W Bros. went back and re-color timed the original to fit in with the sequals. Quite frankly, I'm glad they did. This was one aspect that I couldn't get past when trying to watch the original after having seen the sequals.

As for the better transfer, I couldn't be happier with that as well. When I first bought my original Matrix DVD, I thought it was a bad copy because I couldn't get over the amount of grain in the transfer in dark scenes (which was a good majority of the film).

Having this new "Holy" Trilogy in such a manner (in this 10-disc box set) is going to be a joy owning.

Sonic
11-16-04, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Mike Lowrey
I think that was kind of the whole point. ;)

The issue was that the first was made without any thought of sequals. So when the sequals were made, and they set the color-timing to certain colors, green in The Matrix, blue for real life, the original film didn't have this color-timing and so the W Bros. went back and re-color timed the original to fit in with the sequals. Quite frankly, I'm glad they did.

Me too! It adds to the overall enviornment! I am happy Matrix got revamped...it's gonna be a gem to own this glorious set!!!

-ant

buckee1
11-16-04, 10:13 PM
I had'nt intended to pick this set up but after seeing those comparison shots, I'm defintately picking this one up now. But, just the box set, not the one with the bust.

jiggawhat
11-16-04, 11:21 PM
I am surprised that the film purists haven't gone crazy about the work done to the first movie.


Guess it shows you that Star Wars Fans are crazy.

MJG87
11-16-04, 11:26 PM
I think Neither for me. I'm actually one of the ones that were going to check this out, but mainly for the changes of the first movie, however with the comparison shots I have seen, I don't like the change and I am having 2nd thoughs

Kant
11-17-04, 04:27 AM
The full review is up at www.ign.com now. I doesn't saying anything about PQ of the sequels, I asuming they use the same transfer. Which looked fantastic, but I am fearing that it might look worse because of the lesser space for bit rate. But then again the Seven Platinum and LOTR EE doesn't look any worse! We will see. Hopefully Beaver will do a comparision.

mrchrispy
11-17-04, 11:29 AM
Jiggawhat,

I'll bite on that challenge. This is yet another example of a director with a solution in search of a problem. Doing a new transfer is one thing, but retinting scenes to differentiate the Matrix from the ostensible real world is not only unnecessary, but a poor decision. One of the primary conceits of the first movie was that the audience was introduced to the concept of a simulated reality at the same time as Neo. Central to this process is the film's supposition that the matrix appears indistinguishable from the real world - that your senses can't be trusted. Tinting the matrix to cue the audience as to what is "real" and what is the matrix undermines this whole concept.

The quality of a DVD transfer should be measured in terms of how well it reflects the look of the ORIGINAL FILM. It shouldn't be another round of creative endeavor. Why is this so hard to understand?

At least with this one the original DVD is still available, unlike the embarassment of a trilogy that another revisionist sci-fi director (to remain nameless in this post) has foisted off on us.

majorjoe23
11-17-04, 11:54 AM
NO SPOON = NO SALE!

Jray
11-17-04, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Jiggawhat,

I'll bite on that challenge. This is yet another example of a director with a solution in search of a problem. Doing a new transfer is one thing, but retinting scenes to differentiate the Matrix from the ostensible real world is not only unnecessary, but a poor decision. One of the primary conceits of the first movie was that the audience was introduced to the concept of a simulated reality at the same time as Neo. Central to this process is the film's supposition that the matrix appears indistinguishable from the real world - that your senses can't be trusted. Tinting the matrix to cue the audience as to what is "real" and what is the matrix undermines this whole concept.


I was just going to chime in about not necessarily liking the color change. I've never been a person to get up-in-arms about changes like this made to movies that have already been released. But in this case I don't know that I can look past it. I love the Matrix. One of my favorite movies of the past 10 years, that I've watched a hundred times. I know what it's supposed to look like. That was going to be my only argument (that it's different, changed) but I think your argument is excellent - :thumbsup:. I think you've made a great case for why shouldn't have done this, one that I hadn't thought about initially.

I don't see what makes this so different from the Halloween re-release from a year or 2 ago that had everyone in a tizzy. The color timing got changed on that and everyone got upset. Why not now?

I was hoping for a new, cleaner, transfer but not this.

jiggawhat
11-17-04, 12:17 PM
I was kidding too.

HAHA.

However, you make some great points.

The Matrix is my favorite film so far not just because of the action but also because the story is so intriguing.

PopcornTreeCt
11-17-04, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Jiggawhat,

I'll bite on that challenge. This is yet another example of a director with a solution in search of a problem. Doing a new transfer is one thing, but retinting scenes to differentiate the Matrix from the ostensible real world is not only unnecessary, but a poor decision. One of the primary conceits of the first movie was that the audience was introduced to the concept of a simulated reality at the same time as Neo. Central to this process is the film's supposition that the matrix appears indistinguishable from the real world - that your senses can't be trusted. Tinting the matrix to cue the audience as to what is "real" and what is the matrix undermines this whole concept.

The quality of a DVD transfer should be measured in terms of how well it reflects the look of the ORIGINAL FILM. It shouldn't be another round of creative endeavor. Why is this so hard to understand?

At least with this one the original DVD is still available, unlike the embarassment of a trilogy that another revisionist sci-fi director (to remain nameless in this post) has foisted off on us.

:up: I agree. The original Matrix green tint was nice and subtle, whereas in the sequels it pretty much dominates every scene. The changes aren't as ridiculous as Star Wars but certainly not worth praising.

tommy28
11-17-04, 01:04 PM
I hated.HATED the green tint!!

if thats the way the director wanted it,he was wrong....

im getting the 10 disker:)

marioxb
11-17-04, 01:48 PM
Absolutly love the new transfer, green-ness and all. Honestly I never noticed ANY type of tint in any scene of any Matrix movie. It's not like everyone looks like the Hulk or Shrek!

Anyway, I hate all DVD cases that are not keepcases. Who cares how the discs are packaged? It's all about how much stuff you get. I'm all about having EVERYTHING. I even traded in my Matrix 2 and 3 movie discs only but kept the features discs. Of course I made a DVD-r of the trailers that were on the movie discs. So do what I will do, buy the giftset if you like it, even if you hate the cases, and print out new covers and stick em in REAL DVD cases (aka keepcases).

This is what distrubs me (from IGN):

"Disc two in the set is The Matrix Revisited, a companion disc released a few years back. ."
All of that content is here, save the embarrassing fanboy stuff

WHAT!? I thought they said this and Animatrix were IDENTCAL! I want the embarrasing fanboy stuff! Seriously, was some stuff removed from Revisted? I don't care how stupid the content is, I NEED IT!!!!!!!!!

fumanstan
11-17-04, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by marioxb

Anyway, I hate all DVD cases that are not keepcases. Who cares how the discs are packaged? It's all about how much stuff you get.

That's an interesting contradiction.

marioxb
11-17-04, 02:14 PM
What's wrong with that? I can see how it can be taken that way I guess, but for example, the cases for the Alien Legacy set are much better than the stupid 20 foot long rollout thing the Quad came in, but it all comes down to what you get BESIDES the case. I can easily make my own Matrix covers and put them in a different case. It would be slightly tougher to make my own Neo bust and 80-page book. If you don't like the cases they come in, make your own, it's really not that tough (especially if you find coverart to download).

Besides that, being in that they are not keepcases, the regular cardboard and limited jewel (who came up with that name anyway, did women used to store their necklaces in CD cases or something, or was it the fact that the first CD ever made was released by Jewel?) cases are both crap.

fumanstan
11-17-04, 02:37 PM
You don't see the irony in saying "I hate all DVD cases that are not keepcases" and "Who cares how the discs are packaged?"

Obviously you care. :)

marioxb
11-17-04, 02:49 PM
You don't see where I said "I can see how it can be taken that way I guess"? I understand what you are getting at and it made me laugh. I do care, in a way. I like the crazy packaging, ok. I like it, but NOT to hold DVDs in. I like it to sit empty on the shelf with all of it's loser cardboard friends, the snappers, digipacks and the like. So I prefer keepcases, of course, but like the extra content/fluff/toys etc more. Which is why eventually EVERY DVD I own will be in a keepcase with a beautiful cover.

animatedude
11-17-04, 03:22 PM
ever since they announced the gift set, they didn't release more pix of it..just one pic that don't let u decide....anyone got anymore pix?

Big Worms
11-17-04, 03:27 PM
There is this one.

http://www.freephotohost.com/7/matrixboxopen.jpg

jiggawhat
11-17-04, 07:41 PM
I am not impressed after reading the review over at IGN. I was always hoping for some comments by the brothers and I knew once they wouldn't be commenting or saying anything about it that I would wait until the review was out. I have all the movies, animatrix, and matrix revisited. The other disks don't really add that much value for me. Maybe I will get it used.

Mike Lowrey
11-17-04, 08:09 PM
OK, I'll bite on this challenge of a challenge...

Originally posted by mrchrispy
Jiggawhat,

I'll bite on that challenge. This is yet another example of a director with a solution in search of a problem.

Now see, I disagree with that very premise. A solution in search of a problem? I see a solution, but where's the problem?

Doing a new transfer is one thing, but retinting scenes to differentiate the Matrix from the ostensible real world is not only unnecessary, but a poor decision.

I think you miss the point here. The retinting, or more correctly, re-color-timing, of the original movie was done to more correctly match the look and ideology of the two sequals.

One of the primary conceits of the first movie was that the audience was introduced to the concept of a simulated reality at the same time as Neo. Central to this process is the film's supposition that the matrix appears indistinguishable from the real world - that your senses can't be trusted.

While that's a valid point story wise, in terms of continuity through-out all three movies, it doesn't make sense to leave the original as it was. The sequals clearly defined what the "Matrix" was supposed to look like and so to not have it look like that in the original movie would be (to quote Bill O'Reilly) quite ridiculous.

Tinting the matrix to cue the audience as to what is "real" and what is the matrix undermines this whole concept.

While true when the first movie was released in 1999, that theory no longer holds true after the two sequals.

The quality of a DVD transfer should be measured in terms of how well it reflects the look of the ORIGINAL FILM. It shouldn't be another round of creative endeavor. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'll lump this whole paragraph together, and I'll answer it with a question of my own. Why is it so hard to understand that the W. Brothers re-tinted the original to match the sequals? It's as simple as that.

At least with this one the original DVD is still available, unlike the embarassment of a trilogy that another revisionist sci-fi director (to remain nameless in this post) has foisted off on us.

Well good. Keep your crappy transfer in that spiffy snapper case. I and many others will glady buy this new set with a new transfer and 9 other discs to go with it. :D

And as for that other "namelss director", that other trilogy was also re-color-timed for DVD release.

metaridley
11-18-04, 12:12 AM
I'll be eagerly picking up the "normal" Ultimate Edition. Warner Bros.' website has a pretty good deal with getting the trilogy's shooting scripts for free if you order from them ($59). I might take advantage of that deal.

eau
11-18-04, 12:51 AM
Neither. I'm holding out for the eventual HD release. I have my current releases to keep me company for the time being and I don't feel the need to upgrade, perhaps except there may be a crazy deal somewhere ;)

marioxb
11-18-04, 08:25 AM
Wait, so you guys are saying that all scenes inside the Matrix were green-tinted in both sequels? Really? I thought they looked perfectly natural, same as when I am walking around outside. Give me an example of a green-tinted scene and then without the tint (with the same quality of the transfer on both, so those IGN comparisons don't count).

Rypro 525
11-18-04, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by marioxb
Wait, so you guys are saying that all scenes inside the Matrix were green-tinted in both sequels? Really? I thought they looked perfectly natural, same as when I am walking around outside. Give me an example of a green-tinted scene and then without the tint (with the same quality of the transfer on both, so those IGN comparisons don't count). pick any shot from the car chase in reloaded, then take a shot from the mini documentary on the second disc.

tommyp007
11-18-04, 10:43 AM
neither

mrchrispy
11-18-04, 10:48 AM
Mike,

My point was that there was no problem that needed fixing. The color timing was fine to begin with. I didn't "miss the point." I got the point and disagreed with it. There's a big difference.

And in answer to the question you posed. I fail to see why making two sequels necessitates changes to the original. Any movie should stand alone, regardless of whether it's part of a larger franchise or not. While sequels or prequels might serve to further expound upon it's meaning, a movie shouldn't depend upon another film to create meaning. If a filmmaker wants to maintain a level of artistic consistency he should mold his future works around the style of the original rather than constantly revisiting past work.

I place some value on a movie as an historical document, a record of what it was like to walk into a movie theater at the time of the film's release and experience the movie. I don't say that because I'm some prudish librarian, I say it because I distinctly remember the day I saw the first Matrix movie - it was an exciting experience, one I'd like to have some record of independently of is dispiriting and poorly conceived sequels. It doesn't matter what they now think the movie was "supposed to" look like I want to see what it did look like.

Again, mitigating my criticism somewhat is the fact that the original movie is still available. At least fans can have a choice about what experience they want to have with the movie, but I think that filmmakers in general should be upfront about changes like this and acknowlege that they are actaully releasing a new movie. I'd point to the releases of Lord of the Rings Extended Editions as examples of this done very well.

So I will keep my original movie, which I'll confess I haven't watched in a while. Maybe the transfer isn't perfect. I remember thinking when I watched it that it was great. Maybe my opinion will change with subsequent viewings, but I doubt it. And I don't care about the case at all. I sometimes wonder how long some people on this board spend staring at their DVD shelves in slack jawed wonder.

PS You win no points with me by quoting Bill O'Reilly.

marioxb
11-18-04, 11:00 AM
I don't see it as changing anything, as was done with Star Wars(which I prefer the newer versions anyway) as just enhancing the transfer. I really still don't notice the green.

Richard Malloy
11-18-04, 11:28 AM
The color retiming sucks almost as bad as the edge enhancement. I'm not gonna downgrade my original "Matrix" DVD for this, and I think I'll stick with watching "Reloaded" on the HD channels (even cropped). If I never see "Revolutions" again, I can live with it.

Hopefully a worthy upgrade of the first two films will come with the advent of Blu-ray.

Josh Z
11-18-04, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Doing a new transfer is one thing, but retinting scenes to differentiate the Matrix from the ostensible real world is not only unnecessary, but a poor decision. One of the primary conceits of the first movie was that the audience was introduced to the concept of a simulated reality at the same time as Neo. Central to this process is the film's supposition that the matrix appears indistinguishable from the real world - that your senses can't be trusted. Tinting the matrix to cue the audience as to what is "real" and what is the matrix undermines this whole concept.

Your entire argument is undermined by the fact that never, in any release version of the movie, theatrical or home video, have the inside-the-matrix scenes looked "natural". Ever. They have always looked green. They were photographed to de-emphasize the color blue, which leaves everything with a greenish hue. Scenes outside of the matrix are much bluer and less grainy.

The matrix scenes were intended to look slightly "off" from reality. They were never meant to be "indistinguishable from the real world". The characters in the movie have never lived in the real world, and wouldn't know the difference. To them, the matrix is the real world and it has always been like that.

Your argument is based on false logic. All the new color timing in this transfer does is make the already-present green a little more pronounced, to keep the movies stylistically consistent.

Mike Lowrey
11-18-04, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Mike,

My point was that there was no problem that needed fixing. The color timing was fine to begin with. I didn't "miss the point." I got the point and disagreed with it. There's a big difference.

OK, so you disagree with it. However, it isn't your call to make whether or not such changes can be made. Has it not been "proven" to some extent, or at least accepted, that with all the bickering about that "other" director, that an artist has the right to go back and rework their own work? Musicians do it all the time, re-recording their old songs with new mixes, etc... Granted they may still be available in their original form, but not in the most up-to-date form.

And in answer to the question you posed. I fail to see why making two sequels necessitates changes to the original. Any movie should stand alone, regardless of whether it's part of a larger franchise or not. While sequels or prequels might serve to further expound upon it's meaning, a movie shouldn't depend upon another film to create meaning. If a filmmaker wants to maintain a level of artistic consistency he should mold his future works around the style of the original rather than constantly revisiting past work.

While that may be true in a perfect world, this isn't a perfect world. And it's not a static world either. The world (and visions) change. When the Wahcowski Brothers went out to make the sequals, their vision changed as to what the Matrix world looked like on-screen. So in order to bring the original movie up to snuff with the sequals, they re-color-timed it. This is one change I welcome.

I place some value on a movie as an historical document, a record of what it was like to walk into a movie theater at the time of the film's release and experience the movie. I don't say that because I'm some prudish librarian, I say it because I distinctly remember the day I saw the first Matrix movie - it was an exciting experience, one I'd like to have some record of independently of is dispiriting and poorly conceived sequels. It doesn't matter what they now think the movie was "supposed to" look like I want to see what it did look like.

Well, the US Constitution is a historical document as well, but we both know that it has been changed through-out its history. Averaging once every eight years for the past century. So to hold the belief that historical documents, especially works of art, can not or should not be changed is quite laughable. Simply put, times change. So should everything. Or are you still shopping around for horse buggy whips?

Again, mitigating my criticism somewhat is the fact that the original movie is still available. At least fans can have a choice about what experience they want to have with the movie, but I think that filmmakers in general should be upfront about changes like this and acknowlege that they are actaully releasing a new movie. I'd point to the releases of Lord of the Rings Extended Editions as examples of this done very well.

Well, are they not? Is it not clear that this new release has been remastered and re-color-timed. So where's the mystery? Both versions are available. Just not a remastered version of the original color-timing.

So I will keep my original movie, which I'll confess I haven't watched in a while. Maybe the transfer isn't perfect. I remember thinking when I watched it that it was great. Maybe my opinion will change with subsequent viewings, but I doubt it.

Well, when I first watched my copy of the snapper Matrix disc, I thought it was a bad copy with, with all the grain in the picture.

And I don't care about the case at all. I sometimes wonder how long some people on this board spend staring at their DVD shelves in slack jawed wonder.

You mean you don't look slack jawed at your collection? :hscratch: I do. ;)

PS You win no points with me by quoting Bill O'Reilly.

I don't? Shucks. I thought I'd get a few brownie points for that.

Richard Malloy
11-18-04, 01:21 PM
FWIW, and probably nothing, the new color re-timing fcuking stinks.

But not nearly as bad as the edge enhancement.

I won't be downgrading.

Josh Z
11-18-04, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
FWIW, and probably nothing, the new color re-timing fcuking stinks.

But not nearly as bad as the edge enhancement.

Yes, you already said that.

Have you seen these discs for yourself, or are you basing this on a review? Warner Bros. is generally very good about keeping edge enhancement out of their transfers. I would be very surprised if the new remaster had bad e.e.

Mike Lowrey
11-18-04, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
FWIW, and probably nothing, the new color re-timing fcuking stinks.

So with all the reasoning I and others have laid out in this thread, you still think it stinks because...why? As Josh Z said, "Because of a review?" You haven't even seen it yet. And if you truely don't like the new color-timing, then I guess it's safe to assume you don't like the sequals' color-timing either.

But not nearly as bad as the edge enhancement.

What edge enhancement? :hscratch: What are you basing this baseless statement on?

I won't be downgrading.

That perhaps has got to be quite the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

You get a brand new HD remastered transfer, little to no grain, improved remixed soundtrack, and color-timed to match the sequals, and you call it a "DOWNGRADE"????

Logical statement: "Hello."

Richard: "Good bye."

PopcornTreeCt
11-18-04, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Mike,

My point was that there was no problem that needed fixing. The color timing was fine to begin with. I didn't "miss the point." I got the point and disagreed with it. There's a big difference.

And in answer to the question you posed. I fail to see why making two sequels necessitates changes to the original. Any movie should stand alone, regardless of whether it's part of a larger franchise or not. While sequels or prequels might serve to further expound upon it's meaning, a movie shouldn't depend upon another film to create meaning. If a filmmaker wants to maintain a level of artistic consistency he should mold his future works around the style of the original rather than constantly revisiting past work.

I place some value on a movie as an historical document, a record of what it was like to walk into a movie theater at the time of the film's release and experience the movie. I don't say that because I'm some prudish librarian, I say it because I distinctly remember the day I saw the first Matrix movie - it was an exciting experience, one I'd like to have some record of independently of is dispiriting and poorly conceived sequels. It doesn't matter what they now think the movie was "supposed to" look like I want to see what it did look like.

Again, mitigating my criticism somewhat is the fact that the original movie is still available. At least fans can have a choice about what experience they want to have with the movie, but I think that filmmakers in general should be upfront about changes like this and acknowlege that they are actaully releasing a new movie. I'd point to the releases of Lord of the Rings Extended Editions as examples of this done very well.

So I will keep my original movie, which I'll confess I haven't watched in a while. Maybe the transfer isn't perfect. I remember thinking when I watched it that it was great. Maybe my opinion will change with subsequent viewings, but I doubt it. And I don't care about the case at all. I sometimes wonder how long some people on this board spend staring at their DVD shelves in slack jawed wonder.

PS You win no points with me by quoting Bill O'Reilly.

Agreed. Don't listen to these other posters. Most people forget that movies are experiences, they are time-capsules in their own right.

Basically, it comes down to the fact this movie hasn't just been re-mastered but has been altered. Whether people like it or not, well that's up to them. The simple argument is without tinting it is the transfer of the original theatrical exhibition, the other argument is that its a new transfer and looks great. To me there's no point in arguing it because everyone has their own views on it. I prefer the original, I like to see movies stand alone and not be re-adjusted appear closer to sequels.

undergradsfan
11-18-04, 06:51 PM
If I upgrade, which I might, then the stock version

fumanstan
11-18-04, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Mike Lowrey
So with all the reasoning I and others have laid out in this thread, you still think it stinks because...why? As Josh Z said, "Because of a review?" You haven't even seen it yet. And if you truely don't like the new color-timing, then I guess it's safe to assume you don't like the sequals' color-timing either.


I agree with that statement. I think its a bit of a stretch to make full blown judgement calls on preference when you have yet to see the entire film with the new color timings.

Honestly for me, based on the screenshots i've seen comparing the differences, the change doesn't really jump out at me as much as the far better sharpness and detail. My first reaction was simply "wow, things look brighter." But that's just me :)

jiggawhat
11-18-04, 08:31 PM
I can't believe the firestorm that I started.

Looks like we have a new war starting...

victant
11-19-04, 04:43 AM
Both. One as a gift, though I'm not sure which one to keep for myself.... ;)

SvenL
11-19-04, 07:51 AM
Basically, it comes down to the fact this movie hasn't just been re-mastered but has been altered.

Exactly.

The old DVD represents the movie I watched in the cinema (several times) - the new DVD does not.

If they wanted to preserve continuity then they should have made the sequels look like the original and not do a "George Lucas" and mess up the original movie.

Richard Malloy
11-19-04, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
FWIW, and probably nothing, the new color re-timing fcuking stinks.

But not nearly as bad as the edge enhancement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Josh Z
Yes, you already said that.

Have you seen these discs for yourself, or are you basing this on a review? Warner Bros. is generally very good about keeping edge enhancement out of their transfers. I would be very surprised if the new remaster had bad e.e.
Sorry for repeating myself... it seems I have said that twice in this thread! I don't have the disc to compare myself, I'm going by screenshots that are posted here:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=2461047&highlight=edgeehancement#post2461047

cardaway
11-19-04, 11:47 AM
Under the circumstances I'm fine with the color changes. I suspect they wanted it to be more pronounced in the first place but it wasn't for whatever reason.

ShagMan
11-19-04, 12:41 PM
phew, the edge enhancement is HORRIBLE in that linked thread at HTF... I'm crossing my fingers that it is just a fluke (JPG screenshots).

Mike Lowrey
11-19-04, 12:55 PM
Oh for crying out loud, this arguement is getting ridiculous.

What is it with people who can't accept change? And bets are that these people call themselves liberals. ;)

Let's break down this arguement into the sum of its parts, shall we?

OK, first and foremost, the world public has embraced the DVD format for its superior video and audio quality over previous formats *including* the niche-marketed LD from the early to mid '90s. One of the major discussions about DVDs is the quality of the transfers. Transfers range from barely above VHS quality to absolutely gorgeous.

Second, sound is a major selling point. On DVD we get everything from DD 1.0 or 2.0 mono to DTS-ES 6.1 or 7.1. Each sound mix is different in quality even though they may contain the same number of channels.

So here we have two releases. The Ultimate Matrix set and the previously released Star Wars Trilogy set. Both having new and improved transfers in both in terms of video and audio quality. And people still aren't satisfied because there's been some changes since the original theatrical release.

Well, if you get right down to it, every DVD has been altered since its theatrical release. In fact, every home video release has been altered since its theatrical release. In most cases this has been the difference between celluloid film and video tape or now digital optical disc. We'll never get the same theatrical viewing experience at home until we all have digitial video projectors that can duplicate the digital projections of films like SW: Ep. II & III, and Sky Captain. So we'll all have to make due with what DVD and the soon to be released HD disc in whatever form it may take.

So to complain whether or not this Matrix movie has been altered from its theatrical release is just one of those, "Yeah? And?" moments. But in some cases, the DVD representations are better than the theatrical release and people *still* complain with comments like "Most people forget that movies are experiences, they are time-capsules in their own right." Bullshit.

The Star Wars DVDs are the best those films have ever looked and people still scream, "I WANT THE ORIGINALS!!!" And then the same goes for this new Matrix transfer. The old tranfer sucks by today's standards and people are willing to stick with the old because they don't like the new color tinting. I got some news for you, the Star Wars discs were re-color-timed as well.

Anyway, I just find that all this criticism is a bit hypocritical. We want the best transfer, yet when we get one, we say that it's not like the original. Well...no duh!

Josh Z
11-19-04, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by ShagMan
phew, the edge enhancement is HORRIBLE in that linked thread at HTF... I'm crossing my fingers that it is just a fluke (JPG screenshots).

I don't recall ever seeing a Warner Bros. DVD with as much edge enhancement as that screen cap. I'd bet good money that's a problem with the way the screen cap was made.

fumanstan
11-19-04, 01:21 PM
A note from IGN's review:

While there seemed to be a few instances of edge enhancement and halos on my home system, none of them showed up here at the office. So I will err on the side of the transfer and say this is every bit as good as the transfer in the second and third movie, and those were outstanding as well.

Richard Malloy
11-19-04, 01:25 PM
I don't recall ever seeing a Warner Bros. DVD with as much edge enhancement as that screen cap. I'd bet good money that's a problem with the way the screen cap was made.
I thought the exact same thing, Josh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the screengrab over-enhanced the "enhancement".

But then I thought... oh shit, surely he used the exact same process to take the screenshot from the original Matrix disc. So, it seems to me that both discs may not be as bad as the shots indicate, but the new one is far, far worse than the old.

SvenL
11-19-04, 01:43 PM
The old tranfer sucks by today's standards

Sorry, but the old transfer is still great.

There are DVDs with better transfers, but to say the old one "sucks" is silly.

mrchrispy
11-19-04, 02:02 PM
Mike,

It's only getting ridiculous because you keep a) restating the same opinions and b) keep bringing politics and bad cable news news shows into the argument.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not the box set is a good buy. It's really not a big deal one way or another.

My philosophy is that a dvd transfer should attempt to recreate as closely as possible the experience of seeing the original film in the theater as closely as possible. Obviously it will never be perfect as long as we're dealing with pixels instead of light passing through celluloid, but the goal should still be to get as close as possible.

The fact of the matter is that most film has some grain to it. It's part of the moviegoing experience and I'd like my dvds to reflect that reality. It might "look better" to some people (or even a majority of people) to remove any trace of grain in every movie, but that doesn't make it accurate and accuracy is ultimately what I'm looking for. Can the genre of film noir even be imagined without film grain?

Look, it's perfectly valid for you to say you'd like the scenes to be more blue tinted. It's an expression of opinion. But I think it's also valid to point out what's at stake in pursuing those preferences. Maybe you'd like for Coppola to go scrub the grain out of the Godfather too. While he's at it he can retint the film. Maybe in pink? By your reasoning, as long as its Coppola making the decision it has to be right. Would you still call this an improvement?

By the way hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing it's opposite. I said I wanted dvds that reflected in the best way possible the theatrical experience and criticized discs that didnt' do that. That's not hypocrisy, that's consistency.

ShagMan
11-19-04, 03:03 PM
soooo, I see that this thread has totally become hijacked. Pretty sad to call this my first originating post :(

Mike Lowrey
11-19-04, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by mrchrispy
Mike,

It's only getting ridiculous because you keep a) restating the same opinions and b) keep bringing politics and bad cable news news shows into the argument.

Bad cable news shows? Not. Ratings tell a different story. Bad shows don't get good ratings.

Politics? Perhaps, but I find that most film purists are typically liberals, you know, those people who always talk about change being a good thing?

My philosophy is that a dvd transfer should attempt to recreate as closely as possible the experience of seeing the original film in the theater as closely as possible. Obviously it will never be perfect as long as we're dealing with pixels instead of light passing through celluloid, but the goal should still be to get as close as possible.

Well considering that I don't go to the theater anymore, that point is pretty moot to me. I want the best picture quality, period. If it requires grain removal or re-color-timing to fix things, that's what I want.

In fact, one could say that the entire SW:Ep.IV ANH was re-color-timed to fix the old decaying and fading film.

Look, what you and people like you seem to not understand is that the original theatrical look is NOT the best a film can look. Take for instance most films older than 1980. Especially those from the 1960-1970s, when color film was just beginning to be used. With films like the earlier James Bond films, would you really want those films on DVD to look like they did back on their release dates? I don't. I can't wait for the Lowry Digital remasters of the Bond films. Like I said, I want the films to look as good as possible. And in a lot of cases with older movies, they should look better on DVD than they did originally.

The fact of the matter is that most film has some grain to it. It's part of the moviegoing experience and I'd like my dvds to reflect that reality. It might "look better" to some people (or even a majority of people) to remove any trace of grain in every movie, but that doesn't make it accurate and accuracy is ultimately what I'm looking for. Can the genre of film noir even be imagined without film grain?

Film noir is one thing, but for any other genre is BS. Looking in this paragraph I see you use the words "accuracy". Accurate to what? To the original film stock? BS. I want the best PQ, and if that means making it better than the original, so be it.

Look, it's perfectly valid for you to say you'd like the scenes to be more blue tinted.

No, I want the scenes to be consistant over the entire trilogy. And since the theme of the Matrix is clearly a "raining stream of green text on a computer screen" then I'd expect the scenes in the Matrix virtual world to be tinted green as was established in Reloaded and Revolutions.

Why is consistancy so hard for film purists to understand when dealing with film series?

For instance, do you really want to still see the blue screen boxes around TIE fighters in the OT when the ships in the PT are all CG which obviously don't have such? I don't. I want consistancy across the series.

It's an expression of opinion. But I think it's also valid to point out what's at stake in pursuing those preferences. Maybe you'd like for Coppola to go scrub the grain out of the Godfather too.

Coppola? No, but Lowry Digital, yes. ;)

While he's at it he can retint the film. Maybe in pink?

Pink? Nah, but Sepia I can see for a series like the Godfather. You do know what Sepia is, don't you?

By your reasoning, as long as its Coppola making the decision it has to be right. Would you still call this an improvement?

I'd call it an improvement if the PQ was a good as it could be, considering the medium.

By the way hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing it's opposite. I said I wanted dvds that reflected in the best way possible the theatrical experience and criticized discs that didnt' do that. That's not hypocrisy, that's consistency.

Yes, I know what hypcrisy means. But saying that you want the theatrical experience on a medium other than the original film stock is a bit naive, IMO.

Artman
11-19-04, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by ShagMan
subject says it all, which one are you buying and why? Price seems a little steep for the one w/ bust, but the case / organization is pretty spiffy too.

I'll be getting the regular set, because I don't like the bust or the packaging on the deluxe.

And technically, I'll be 'recieving' it...for Christmas! :)

Richard Malloy
11-19-04, 04:06 PM
Film noir is one thing, but for any other genre is BS. Looking in this paragraph I see you use the words "accuracy". Accurate to what? To the original film stock? BS. I want the best PQ, and if that means making it better than the original, so be it.
I'm so sorry to contribute to the nasty drift of this thread, but I'm not sure the wrongness of the above statement is obvious on its face. Briefly, "better than the original" is impossible. Film grain can be removed, thus providing a "television/video" like look, but not without also removing fine detail. See, e.g., Warner Bros' "Citizen Kane" DVD.

ivelostr2
11-23-04, 02:07 AM
the busts are on clearance at suncoast. I got the neo one for less than 15 bucks a few weeks ago...

Grubert
11-23-04, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Josh Z
I don't recall ever seeing a Warner Bros. DVD with as much edge enhancement as that screen cap.

You don't have Giant, do you Josh? :D

westerbergrules
11-23-04, 10:56 AM
The original Matrix only.

Rypro 525
11-23-04, 02:02 PM
damn, it seems like matrix 1 has that shitty compressed sound that reloaded and revolutions has. (on my system at least, you have to turn the volume up real high to have any good speaker response.

Richard Malloy
11-23-04, 02:17 PM
damn, it seems like matrix 1 has that shitty compressed sound that reloaded and revolutions has. (on my system at least, you have to turn the volume up real high to have any good speaker response.
You've got the "shitty compressed sound" thing backwards. Dynamic range compression occurs when an audio track has been mastered at too high a volume, so high that the full dynamic range has been compressed. That is, the quiet parts are too loud, and as a result the loud parts aren't as loud as they should be (relative to the quiet parts) because the loud parts now exceed the the capacity of the DVD, CD, or other media to reproduce.

This has been a real problem for CDs over the last decade, particularly rock and pop, and has been referred to as "the loudness wars" or "the death of dynamic range". It's a real problem in that in addition to restricting dynamic range, it introduces distortion when the waveforms exceed the top-end of the dynamic range.

So, to sum up, when folks speak of "shitty compressed sound" they mean "mastered too loud, and hence compressing dynamic range".

Unless of course they're talking about lossy compression, and the attendant anemic sound quality as compared to non-lossy formats, which is a whole 'nother can of worms...

Michael Corvin
11-23-04, 02:48 PM
back to the topic at hand...

Which one am I buying?
Neither. Why? I am finally going to win a DVDtalk giveaway.. I can feel it. ;)

Rypro 525
11-23-04, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
You've got the "shitty compressed sound" thing backwards. Dynamic range compression occurs when an audio track has been mastered at too high a volume, so high that the full dynamic range has been compressed. That is, the quiet parts are too loud, and as a result the loud parts aren't as loud as they should be (relative to the quiet parts) because the loud parts now exceed the the capacity of the DVD, CD, or other media to reproduce.

This has been a real problem for CDs over the last decade, particularly rock and pop, and has been referred to as "the loudness wars" or "the death of dynamic range". It's a real problem in that in addition to restricting dynamic range, it introduces distortion when the waveforms exceed the top-end of the dynamic range.

So, to sum up, when folks speak of "shitty compressed sound" they mean "mastered too loud, and hence compressing dynamic range".

Unless of course they're talking about lossy compression, and the attendant anemic sound quality as compared to non-lossy formats, which is a whole 'nother can of worms... alright, maybe i didn't get all the praise for the reloaded sound. particularly this bit from ign.
" There's fight scenes where every punch is punctuated with a thump from the subwoofer, almost to the point of overkill. The Neo vs. 100 Smiths fight sounded like Slayer's drummer double bass drumming, and wait until the building with the mainframe explodes at the end. Advise your neighbors to run. Or come watch it."
unless my system is fucked up (sony home theater in a box), when the fight starts, there is a little bit of bass, not alot, but overkill lfe when ever there is slowmotion.

Matthew Chmiel
11-24-04, 01:06 AM
If they wanted to preserve continuity then they should have made the sequels look like the original and not do a "George Lucas" and mess up the original movie.
You do realize, it's their movie, right?

DeadLamb
11-24-04, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Matthew Chmiel
You do realize, it's their movie, right?

yeah but one can counter that it's also our film, as in the fans, who paid for it in 2 hour chunks to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.. We, the millions of fans, own the original in our minds eye and all the money they made is from us.. We paid for that film..

bottom line is that there will always be two camps for any sort of film reworking.. You don't have to agree with each other but I'm always just shocked that one side can't even seem to see the other sides view point on something this simple

The first camp just want to watch the film they have locked in memory with the best version of that film.. Not a reworked version, not color swapped etc etc.. THAT is the film.. Much like a remix of a song is just that, a remix. Ya might like it better but no one hears a rap version of some Stones tune and thinks it's a "correct" version even if the stones went back and said it was being they "own" the song.. it's would be a simple remix..

The other camp looks at film rework like putting better tires on an old car.. Yeah it no longer handles like a 1970 vette on skinny bias-ply-tires.. errrr would you really want it to?

I personally side with films being a works of art (ya can have good and bad art ya know and it's still art) and should be left alone as far as edit, content changes, color retiming etc.. but that is IMO.. I can understand why others think any changes are ok.. Most don't see film as art they only see film as entertainment, nothing wrong with that, just a different view point. Open for more changes to the film of course.

as for these films.. I'll still buy the first one, even with the rework, if/when it comes out as it's own film.

pagansoul
11-24-04, 08:41 AM
I don't understand this, the origional DVD is still around. You can find it for $10. No one said you couldn't have both versions. Some peoples collections contain multi-versions of their favorite movies. Some people get mad because they feel they have to rebuy every time a new, not always better but different, version is released. Sometimes you just need both, like THE THING. I need both of the MATRIX series. With the Starbust edition of FARSCAPE I'm going to end up getting them all over again. Life is hard but that is what makes it fun.

Josh Z
11-24-04, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Richard Malloy
You've got the "shitty compressed sound" thing backwards. Dynamic range compression occurs when an audio track has been mastered at too high a volume, so high that the full dynamic range has been compressed. That is, the quiet parts are too loud, and as a result the loud parts aren't as loud as they should be (relative to the quiet parts) because the loud parts now exceed the the capacity of the DVD, CD, or other media to reproduce.

I'm going to side with Rypro on this and say that I was unimpressed with the DD 5.1 soundtracks on both Reloaded and Revolutions. They suffer from the same problem as many other generic 5.1 mixes.

While what you say is technically correct, I think many sound engineers misunderstand the purpose of having great dynamic range. Yes, dynamic range is defined as the difference between the lowest low and the highest high, but for audio to sound rich and enveloping it also needs to fill in the middle parts of the spectrum as well. What we get too often are 5.1 mixes that have lots of deep thumpy bass as if that were an end unto itself, but sound dull and hollow in the mid-range, and need to be cranked up to obscenely loud volumes to get any semblance of life out of them.

This isn't a Dolby Digital vs. DTS issue. I've heard some really terrific DD 5.1 tracks that are lively across the entire audio range (the Dawn of the Dead remake really impressed me). It's a sound design issue, and IMO too many engineers think that pumping up the bass is good enough to mask any other deficiencies in the mix.

Kant
11-24-04, 03:03 PM
We have pictures and one more review: Where the pics. came from.
http://www.currentfilm.com/dvdreviews5/matrixcol2dvd.html
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/7964/matrixsetphoto.jpg
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/2696/matrixsetphoto2.jpg

fumanstan
11-24-04, 03:50 PM
I'm loving the artwork on those cases :up:

ShagMan
11-24-04, 03:55 PM
No slipcover :(

illennium
11-24-04, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Mike Lowrey
Bad shows don't get good ratings.

rotfl

Romerojpg
11-24-04, 04:32 PM
The Neo vs. 100 Smiths fight sounded like Slayer's drummer double bass drumming

:) thats funy shit!



hey I guess we are all spoiled a bit, but I wil wait to see his new transfer 1st before I really go crazy and quote like a Mutha! but so far I have the normal set on order as that Bust looks crap and that plastic tower thing is a bit of a joke :)

Lets wait till people get the sets and Notice all the digital changes by Linda and his Bro!

grassmonk
11-30-04, 03:58 AM
I just got $50 for my old Matrix discs, so I guess I'll be picking up the regular box set.

tommy28
11-30-04, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by ShagMan
No slipcover :(

i hate slipcovers;)

marioxb
11-30-04, 09:15 AM
From DVD Review's Revisted Review:

EXTRAS: This time around, the "Revisited" DVD drops some featurettes (such as one about the internet fans) and adds some new pieces, as well as one major new feature.

That Old Exit: Walbash and Lake: This 2-1/2 minute piece takes a look behind-the-scenes at the filming of the sequence where Neo tries to escape the agents and head into the subway tunnel.

Agent Down: This very brief piece chats with actor Hugo Weaving about his leg injury during the production.

The Dance of the Master: This section allows the viewer to watch fight choreographer Yuen Wo-Ping's blocking tapes as the film's fight sequences are planned out. 5 min - 39 sec.

Code of the Red Dress: This very brief piece focuses on filming this minor character.

Bathroom Fight: A smaller documentary about the preparations for the bathroom fight sequence.

But Wait, There's More: Additional random clips of the production at work, cut together into a short featurette.

Take the Red Pill: This section offers us the production featurettes, "What is Bullet Time?" (a look at the film's then-groundbreaking visual effect) and "What is the Concept?" (concept art/some visual effects elements).

Follow the White Rabbit: This section offers short production featurettes: "Trinity Escapes", "Pod", "Kung Fu", "The Wall", "Bathroom Fight", "Government Lobby", "Government Roof", "Helicopter" and "Subway".

Wait a second.. I thought they said that it was the EXACT SAME DISC as the original release? I want EVERYTHING. I want the internet fans thing. I don't care how dumb it is or anything.

On the positive side, it looks as though ALL of the extras minus the alternate audios from the original Matrix are on this disc. That's pretty cool. Anyone know if anything besides the internet fans thing is missing?

Quack
11-30-04, 09:50 AM
IF I even buy this, I would just buy the set without the bust. It looks pretty cheap over at DDD so I will probably flip a coin as to if I will purchase it or not.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0