mzupeman2

Yeah, I was gonna say. It's not as if the entire season was done that way.

anticastropgeon

Uh, not to make you look ignorant here, but you do realize that in the mind of consumers who are paying attention here, 480p is "High-Definition"? This was coined back when we were still in the days of 320i, and DVD was a great leap forward. So, technically, the Twilight Zone is already in high-definition (at least according to the marketing folks).

I agree with jackrabbitslim, but not necessarily for the same reasons. You can have maximum resolution of something that still doesn't look great. The Twilight Zone was never about great photography or acting or production design, or really anything where resolution really mattered. It was about story, which isn't improved no matter what resolution we're at. And remember, just because it's film doesn't mean it's going to look good - there's plenty of ways this could have gone wrong. For instance, are they mastering it at 2k or 4k and then stepping it down for blu ray, or is this a straight 1080p telecine?

I really wouldn't want to purchase this on blu ray for two reasons. One, the photography isn't all that spectacular, so upconverting existing DVDs won't gain much. And, two, it seems like they're just trying to cash in on the recent Pavlovian response from the 10% install base who will buy anything on blu ray, either because they automatically assume it's better, or because the thought of having different-sized plastic cases on their shelves sends them into fits of hand-washing, toothpick-counting, and perfect-square-recitation.

doctorthodt

It's so funny when people argue for technological regression.

anticastropgeon

How am I arguing for technological regression? I want a gigantic 8k screen to fill an entire wall (see: Fahrenheit 451). I'm just saying that we don't have to make super-high resolution versions of everything. Until we can no longer read mpeg-2 transport streams, why bother upgrading something that doesn't gain much from the improvement?

Besides, physical media is on the way out anyway.

doctorthodt

Because this is your own personal opinion and is in no way reflective of any kind of objective truth?

anticastropgeon

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that this was a message board. And, as I'm to understand it, a message board is a place to post opinions. I guess I made an assumption that most people on here would know what a message board is.

doctorthodt

You asked me a question. I answered it. Well, in a sort of roundabout way; which is to say, I obviously disagree that things shouldn't be upgraded when they don't "gain much from the improvement" (a vaguely paradoxical statement when you think about it, since the term "improvement" really necessitates "gain").

Film is film, regardless of its content, and thus all film can/does benefit from proper high-def restoration. To say that certain film elements shouldn't be restored to meet new standards of video presentation because they don't meet your arbitrary benchmark for upgrade-worthiness is to argue for technological regression, whether you care to admit it or not.

anticastropgeon

Wow, you're really taking this personally. I was simply saying that I don't see a need for this to exist and therefore I will not be purchasing it. I guess I forgot to drink the blu ray Kool-aid before I signed up.

Film is film? Well, yes, technically, it's all celluoid, but there's a huge difference between, say, super 8 and 70mm. And just because a print exists doesn't mean it's in good condition. Sure, there's plenty you can do to restore it, but that's really just the analog version of DNR. Great, go ahead and spend your money. Perhaps I'm not as financially as stable as you are (or at least appear to be), so I was merely pointing out that 1) I don't think that the difference in quality here would be dramatic enough to consider spending the amount of money it will ultimately cost, and 2) that I have specific standards for individual blu ray purchases I make, and that because of these standards, 3) I will not be buying the Twilight Zone on blu ray. Objectively, is blu ray better? Well, with 2.3 more lines of horizontal resolution, I guess that it is. But as far as I'm concerned, this is a classic example of GIGO. I would have said "you can't polish a turd", but I think Jamie and Adam proved you can.

doctorthodt

Personally? No, I actually couldn't care less what some dummy account or lurker has to say, especially when they start resorting to inane/irrelevant hypothetical arguments about poor 8mm prints in a thread about a 35mm tv show which the most recent releases have shown to be in rather good shape and, in fact, conducive to HD presentation. I just think it's kind of retarded when the first sentence in somebody's first post begins: "Uh, not to make you look ignorant here," which is internet speak for "Uh, you look ignorant here."

anticastropgeon

Gee, you guys sure roll out that welcome mat for people who've just discovered your site. I'm almost at a loss for where to begin.

First of all, fine, you win. I will cower at the sight of your username and tell my grandchildren stories of how I was almost slain by the great doctorthodt. I guess if you're unwilling to see what my points are, then you can have this victory.

But I think that ultimately, you missed the largest thrust of my argument, which is that the fact that it's a print is irrelevant. Yes, I guess they can make a really great transfer of this show. Fine. I was never disputing that point. What I was ultimately driving at is that just because you can make a wonderfully restored print doesn't mean it's something that I would buy, which I think I made clear in my previous post when I said this:

I'm not saying nobody should buy it or that this is a crime against nature or anything. I was merely stating that I do not wish to buy it. I also said this:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you meant the same thing when you said that the Twilight Zone was

.

I'm reminded of a moment in Anchorman. Sure, it was a terrible movie, but there is a scene where they're all yelling, and suddenly Steve Carrell blurts out "WHAT ARE WE YELLING ABOUT?" I'm kinda at that point here. Seems like we're only at odds with our decisions about whether or not we're planning on buying this set.

mzupeman2

Hold on a minute...

I made a point that the average consumer has no clue what high definition really means, at which point you call me ignorant in a roundabout way... yet your reasoning basically explained in greater detail that we were in agreeance on that one basic point. You were rude for no reason at all, and you're honestly going to question why people haven't rolled out the red carpet for you? Even in your last post, you come off as highly abrasive. Tone your superiority down just a tad, and you might get kinder responses.

anticastropgeon

*sigh*

I will use small words this time and simple sentence construction. I will not buy this. The photography was not all that great. I choose to save money and buy blu rays of movies I personally feel have wonderful cinematography. This is strictly nothing more than an OPINION. You guys can do what you want with your money, and I will do what I want with mine.

And I resent the implication that I was rude. I was singled out as a "lurker" and then called a retard. I think I've done my best to remain as civil as possible and make sure to speak directly to specific examples of arguments made in an attempt to back-up my assertion that I was not all that interested in this set. I also made sure to refrain from attacking word choice and misused words and turns of phrase. If you've found anything I said offensive, you really should reassess your own priorities in life, because if someone disagreeing with you is offensive, you won't do very well in life.

Trevor

This thread will not be used as an example of how to introduce yourself to a forum.

anticastropgeon

...yeah, in hindsight, fighting snark with snark probably wasn't the nicest way to say hi.

Also, did no one see the irony in my first post? No one at all?

Gizmo

Yep - $100 msrp. Destined to fail.

mzupeman2

Yeah, the MSRP is nutty. So much for me hoping to hold out for a $39.99 price tag on the shelf somewhere. Ah well.

kstublen

With a $100 MSRP there is no way enough people buy this title to warrant another release. I mean, Blu-ray is still a niche format and The Twilight Zone is an old *gasp* black and white television show. Put both of those together and your average consumer is likely to see this in stores and say "How can a black and white show benefit from HD? Why would I pay $100 to watch a black and white show?" Granted, this title doesn't scream HD to the uninitiated, but it will obviously benefit from the treatment. As someone who has held off on buying the Complete Series (not exactly intentionally...it seems I always miss the sales on this show), I was looking forward to picking it up on Blu-ray, but with the high price tag and the very likely non-release of Seasons 2-5 on Blu-ray due to poor sales, I'll hold off.

kstublen

Here's the cover art, courtesy of TVShowsOnDVD.com



More Information: http://tvshowsondvd.com/news/Twiligh...-Blu-ray/13874

b2net

and another thread digresses.. is there something in the water?

Gizmo

I just read 50+ new audio commentaries will be on this Blu-ray (with 36 episodes from Season One). I guess fans will love it...but damn, that price is still too high. I think I ordered it from Amazon at around $69ish when it popped in my goldbox - hoping it goes down before release. If not, I'll just cancel. This really should be $40ish, not $70ish at retailers.

Ahab

Yup, that is my feeling too. Around $40 sounds about right. Will plan on passing on this for now.

JckRbbitSlim

50+ New commentaries?! Guess Martin Landau really does have nothing better to do! Took quite a long time for the original DVDs to head down in price, but at the rate Blu-Ray drops in price, it could be a possibility. Still sticking with my original consensus though.

drq2

You tell him Trevor! BTW I just open a new roll of TP and stand ready and willing to help you in your time of need master no need for those little blu-ray robots.


on Topic. My ex hmmm ex was able to cart away about 200 DVD this was a set she got away with. I came very close to buying it again on DVD, Amazon had it for $100 twice. To me I do not care if they upgrade the picture or not. Out of all the shows from this time line. These all seem to be really good. I also like the odd way they come across. The black and white bad acting etc.

bboisvert

anticastropgeon:
cinematography ≠ resolution



Your "point" for lack of a better term, doesn't make much sense to me. TZ was filmed in such a way that it will benefit from the additional resolution. Even having not seen these BDs, I can pretty much guarantee you'll see an improvement over the (already pretty damn good) DVD releases.

So... if we accept the reality that these will look better in BD than DVD, what's your point? That BD should only be for Bergman, Kurosawa, Kubrick, and others for whom cinematography is a priority? That you should have just stuck w/VHS for your TZ collection? What?

If you're complaining about lack of artistic merit or camera work, I have to wonder why you'd care about TZ at all. And I expect to see you posting in all of the Kevin Smith BD threads. And for most of the POS movies that got released in 2007.


If not, this seems like pretty like a pretty arbitrary stance because the material is old and B&W. Which is actually what I suspect.

anticastropgeon

Well, considering those are directors and not cinematographers, I would replace the names with Deacons, Lubezki, and whoever is currently shooting Breaking Bad.

The point here is that I am MERELY VOICING MY OPINION, which apparently vastly differs from everybody else. Which I believe I stated as clearly before:

To cover the next point:

Obviously. High-res for the sake of high-res is irrelevant. Would you like a blu-ray of Kim Jong Il wandering around his palace thingy in that ridiculous grey jumpsuit and hilarious sunglasses he always wears simply because it's in high-definition? I'll even say it's in 8k, and you'll be able to watch it on a screen that does eight thousand lines of resolution natively at whatever framerate you choose. Still interested?

My point was never about whether or not the resolution will be any good. So you can make super-sexy high-res telecine of the original 35 prints, which everybody assures me is in great shape. Okay. That's nice. But my point was not whether or not the resolution will look good. It was whether or not the quality of photography would meet my completely proprietary standards for what medium I purchase the product on (if at all). Again...

I'm sorry that 1) my point doesn't make a lot of sense to you, and 2) you enjoy comma splices. My point makes plenty of sense to me, who will be spending my money selectively on things that will belong in my collection. If I had a much larger disposable income, I would buy everything in my collection on blu ray. I don't. So...

Now, as long as I'm up, 2 more points.

Because I like the ideas Richard Matheson comes up with, and there were some wonderful Twilight Zone episodes. Bad photography doesn't necessarily make something bad.


Uh...Alfred Hitchcock basically created the rules for composition, and he didn't shoot color until the 50's, AND returned to black and white for Psycho (to save money, which is also why he shot it with the Alfred Hitchcock Presents crew, and you'll notice that the focus-pulling is mediocre in that movie...). Plus, Citizen Kane was absolutely spectacular. "old and black and white" has absolutely nothing to do with it. And hell, "old" and "black and white" have nothing to do with it, either. I happen to love the look of Kodak's 7265 and 7266 filmstocks - reversal is absolutely gorgeous when the exposure is nailed.

Where was I? Ah, yes.


Okay, strictly on cinematography (and off the top of my head), for 2007 we have:

-Children of Men (wide release, anyway - limited in 2006)
-No Country for Old Men
-There Will Be Blood

...only one of which I own on blu ray, because, well...

And I happen to like Kevin Smith, though I don't think of him as a candidate for blu ray. Yet, anyway. Who knows, maybe he'll surprise us. WAIT, LOOK! FLYING PIGS!!!