Texan26

What movies had the opening movie logo with the running pegasus horse? I can't remember seeing that opening since the 90s. Have they removed that opening movie logo from blu-ray releases?

Supermallet

Gremlins 2 on BD retains the film version, and has the VHS version as an extra. Personally I didn't have a problem with the VHS release of Gremlins 2, it was a fun addition that was in the spirit of the sequence and actually made sense since you were not watching the film in a theater if you were watching it on VHS. It was also clearly made by the filmmakers and wasn't some kind of WB thing (I doubt WB would have cared enough to make the change, honestly).

I can understand why they didn't redo this for the LD/DVD/BD releases.

Jay G.

A fan made a DVD version of the scene, with new footage inserting gremlins in old films:

Alan Smithee

That's always been one of my favorites. (Remembering now that Terminator 2 originally started out with that, but it's missing from all video editions.)

I've never seen The Exorcist with that WB 75th Anniversary opening before, but that's REALLY out of place now as it's no longer their 75th anniversary and The Exorcist came out before that. The 2000 theatrical re-release had a special WB shield logo that looked like it was designed for that version. Ironically "The Nice Guys" started out with the 70s "W" logo because it took place in the 70s, so it gets to keep that logo, but movies from that actual time period have the new opening! Seriously, W(B)TF!

orangerunner

Tri-Star was the distributor for a lot of films that ended up Lion's Gate Blu-ray such as Terminator 2, Basic Instinct, Johnny Handsome, Red Heat, The Running Man, Angel Heart etc.

I think the Tri-Star logo was omitted from all of them probably due to the fact that Tri-Star was no longer financially tied to those releases any longer.

andicus

I'd certainly like everything to stay the same.

The one thing that really bugged me was the colour change in Do The Right Thing.

The original tint really went a long way towards conveying the heat of the day in the film.

Coral

As long as the studio logo wasn't being used as part of the film (ie. altered to fit the theme of the film, or with a score playing) - I don't see the big deal if they use a new logo on an old movie. Other than the examples I just mentioned - the film starts after the logo... the logo has no importance to me at all.

inri222

It sure does : http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ng_blu-ray.htm

Shooba

One little example that bugged me was on the Beauty and the Beast blu-ray (the previous release, not the current one): as the end credits begin there's a pop up letting you know to insert disc 2 for bonus features or something.

Totally unnecessary and should not be there.

For the most part, the theatrical presentation should be preserved.

The logo change on, for example, recent Disney releases isn't the end of the world, but I'd still vote for keeping the original. Star Wars without the 20th Century Fox logo is going to feel incomplete, as eventually only Episode IV will retain it.

Back to the Future II was always one case where I wished they would remove the promo for part III. Yes, that was part of the theatrical experience but it just doesn't make sense to include it now. It feels kinda spoiler-y, having a commercial for a movie you presumably own as part of the set and will presumably be watching regardless of any advertisement.

Alan Smithee

I always thought "Dazed and Confused" looked TOO good on video- the 35mm prints had an intentional soft-focused and washed-out look that was cleaned up on video. I've heard the 1979 version of Dracula was shot with intentionally desaturated color and video transfers just cranked the color back up.

I heard about that Beauty and the Beast thing- that would've pissed me off to no end. I heard that only came up the first time you played the disc, but if you're going to skip the end credits why would you care about the bonus features? Disney's "FastPlay" DVDs have a subtitle track that displays "Stay tuned for bonus features" during the end credits, so I have to make sure that's turned off when starting the movies (I generally check to make sure subtitles are turned off anyways.)

rbrown498

It's actually the other way around, Alan--Badham wanted to shoot the film in black and white, but Universal said no, so it was shot (and printed and released) in Technicolor. I saw it in its theatrical release, and it was as colorful as any Hammer film.

Badham went back to the negative later and made a new master, which he desaturated. That master has been used for all releases since, what, 1991 or so? Any home video releases in the 1980s had the full, rich color.

Alan Smithee

Hmm, that's interesting- in that case I'd go with the ones with full color, as that's how it looked in theaters regardless of how the director wanted it.

PhantomStranger

Olive Films just put out Mankillers on Blu-ray from a PAL Beta SP videotape source!? With tracking errors and everything. Apparently it's the only existing source that can be found but I still find it very strange. So if you ever happened to catch Mankillers in widescreen, you are very lucky. This BD is in 1.33:1.

http://doblu.com/2016/09/23/mankille...lu-ray-review/

Alan Smithee

Remembering a funny mistake on some editions of "Phantasm"- as you know, there's a few seconds where the entire screen goes black and there's just sound- during one transfer someone who wasn't familiar with the movie just snipped that whole part out!

rw2516

Yes. You need to track down an old VHS if you want the full Technicolor version. Even though all DVDs were desaturated, it still showed up in full cover on cable before all channels switched to HD and 16x9.

This particular version of Dracula is based off the stage version Langella was appearing in. The play was presented in black and white. Costumes, sets and props were colored such to give the play a black and white appearance. That is why Badham wanted to film in black and white.

It's a shame because the Technicolor was gorgeous. The deep blood red of the opening credits in particular.

milo bloom

That sounds like the perfect opportunity for a dual version special edition like Fury Road.

orangerunner

While I appreciate your sentiment remember that the theatrical version is always the version that the studios released as a good business decision based on marketing and test-screenings - not how the writer and director necessarily envisioned it.

The censors at the MPAA have a strong influence on what is shown in the theatre as well.

What would you rather watch? Natural Born Killers: Director's Cut or Natural Born Killers: Jack Valenti (MPAA President, at the time) Theatrical Cut?

rbrown498

I had an Embassy VHS tape with that issue. I was really mad, too, because I had bought it (at the then-princely sum of $20) to replace my CED version, only to find out that it had been cut. Grrrrr.

dom56

I wish that Warner would have put on the film title The Road Warrior instead of using Mad Max 2 on the blu-ray release. It a much better title IMO.

Solid Snake

Fuck that. It's Mad Max 2. Fuck The Road Warrior. They only use The Road Warrior cuz of what they decided to do to it at the time. And I HATE that it stayed on the cover.

Alan Smithee

In those cases, it's still part of a movie's history. If the end result is radically different then BOTH versions should be included, but if the director strongly objected to how the theatrical release turned out they could do whatever they could to stop its release or put an "Alan Smithee" credit on it. What if home video had existed in the days of the Hays code and alternate versions of movies of that era were widely available but the theatrical versions impossible to find?

I feel the same way about cutting movies to avoid an NC-17 rating- if they had any balls at all, they'd just go ahead and release it with that rating. Blockbuster was the main reason for avoiding getting that rating and they're history now. I never worked at any theaters that would not play NC-17 movies, though they were considered a pain since IDs had to be checked more strictly for them. When Showgirls was out it was played at a single-screen theater to avoid the problem of kids buying tickets for another movie and sneaking in. (And a CUT version of that was put out on VHS specifically for Blockbuster!)

Jay G.

Getting your name removed from a film isn't that simple or easy. It basically becomes a negotiation between the director, the producers, and the DGA. Tony Kaye, for example, tried and failed to take his name off of American History X:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...y_X#Production

It's also a pretty poor business move by directors, especially for something fairly minor like color grading. Hell, the Coen Brothers allowed a color version of The Man Who Wasn't There to be released in international markets.
http://www.slashfilm.com/see-some-of...n-color-video/


That said, once a version is released theatrically, that becomes part of the film's heritage, and even when subsequent versions make changes meant to "fix" a film and/or put it closer to what the director would've preferred had they had complete creative control, the original theatrical version should still made available.

Shannon Nutt

The new 30th Anniversary release of LABYRINTH retains the Tri-Star opening logo as seen above.

Corey31

The rights to that movie still belong to Sony who use the Columbia Tristar name for their movie wing. No reason to change the logo on it.

Unlike Terminator 2 and all the other movies someone mentioned earlier which are now with Lionsgate and have absolutely nothing to do with Sony/Columbia Tristar.

Texan26

Cool. Now I have to buy it. The old blu-ray or the digital version on Vudu does not have it.