DavidH

I watched 'Gump' on my setup last night (Panasonic RV80 DVD Player, Sony 61" ISF'd display) and I was slightly disappointed with the video quality. It didn't look bad, but for a film relatively new (about 7 or 8 yrs old when the DVD was released) I was surprised at the amount of dirt and the somewhat "digital" look the film exhibited. Overall, it looked decent. But, for a huge movie like this, I guess I expected more.

Robert

Forget the picture quality problems, the surrounds are virtually nonexistant throughout the entire film, even during the Vietnam sequences.

Hubcap

Yea i agree on both aspects of the film. I recently watched it and the video quality is just horrible.

Simpson Purist

True, of course this was back in the day when many Paramount DVDs were mixed too much towards the front surrounds (Enemy at the Gates is another one that comes to mind).

The Infidel

Just my own little IMO:

I'm a DVD collector myself, and I appreciate a great picture and superior sound quality as much as the next person, but it seems that a movie like this can, and maybe should, be appreciated for its overall story, and not whether you can actually hear bullets flying by your head, or whether you're able to count the hairs in Forrest's high-and-tight.

Sorry. You may go back to your ranting.

DWilson

Speaking for myself, I happened to see "Gump" originally in a theater with a top-notch sound system, and so the "bullets whizzing by my head" is a part of my overall experience seeing and enjoying the film the film. Its that experience that I'm using as my "yardstick" to judge the transfer quality. If I'd seen a lesser version of it first, it might not matter all that much...

CKMorpheus

They fixed that vietnam sequence, I'm sure, it sounds incredible on my sound system.

Simpson Purist

True, but sometimes the audio/video experience adds to the story. Personally I don't think movies like Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down would be appreciated much if their sound was improperly mixed or if the colors were more saturated.

abintra

I look at the audio aspect the same way I do video. That it was made with a certain intent and it should be properly realized in order to appreciate the story.

DavidH

I didn't have much of a problem with the audio or lack of surrounds. This wasn't an action movie or anything (despite the battle scenes). However, the video should have been better. Edge enhancement was noticable in addition to the other problems I noted.

jough

Paramount has never been known for great quality releases, and as one of their few 2-disc Special Editions at the time, they're not likely to re-release it any time soon.

I guess we'll have to wait for HD-DVD to get a decent transfer.

scroll2b

What do you mean the fixed that Vietnam sequence? Anyway, they got an Oscar just for that sound mix. I remember seeing the making of on ABC, I think...

Anyway, when I first picked this up, I was pretty dissappointed with the picture. I couldn't believe the look of it, compared with Shawshank Redemption from the same year. I don't remember the extras being so great, or the commentary.

A little off topic, but wasn't Cast Away shown in theaters at 2.35? I really, really, really thought so.......

DavidH

I agree another version of Gump is unlikely on the current format. It's good enough I guess and it's only .002 percent of the buying population that complains about these things. Not to sound like an elitist (or maybe so), but the masses with their cranked up contrast and brightness levels can't tell the difference anyway. LOL (I was complaining to someone recently about how bad American Wedding looked for a new release and her response was, "how do you know it looked bad? How can you tell the difference between any DVD?" My response was, "by simply looking.")

Concorde

I agree. You guys need to check out Windtalkers if you're interested in a good story and lots of noise going on with your surrounds.

Concorde

In regards to Forrest Gump--I never noticed that the picture was all that bad, nor the sound. It's been a while since I've watched that one, so I'll have to dust it off one night this week.

PatrickMcCart

No, it was 1.85:1. The original 2-disc DVD of the film mislabled the AR as 2.35:1.

Doughboy

Nope. Cast Away was shown in 1.85:1. The back cover of the 2-disc set said it was in 2.35:1 though, so that could be the cause for any confusion.

And on the topic of Forrest Gump, I agree that the DVD had a disappointing transfer. I'm usually pretty lenient when it comes to things like dirt and edge enhancement, but there was simply too much on this disc.