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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, the US Constitution is a historical document as well, but we both know that it has been changed through-out its history.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 So to hold the belief that historical documents, especially works of art, can not or should not be changed is quite laughable.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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

If I upgrade, which I might, then the stock version

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

I can't believe the firestorm that I started.

Looks like we have a new war starting...

Both. One as a gift, though I'm not sure which one to keep for myself....

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.

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/htfo...nt#post2461047

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.

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).

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!

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.

A note from IGN's review:

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.

Sorry, but the old transfer is still great.

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

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.

soooo, I see that this thread has totally become hijacked. Pretty sad to call this my first originating post

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?

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.

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.

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.



Coppola? No, but Lowry Digital, yes.



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



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

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.

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!