random questions and rants...

...don't know if this is the right forum, but didn't see anything else where what I wanted to say would fit, so here goes!

I just had a few observations/questions to throw out to everyone who reads these boards, which I might add, after all these years, is still the best that I have been able to find as far as respect and excellent conversations/discussions goes, and it's always good to see people acting their age.

1.) The package for the brand new Event Horizon has no evidence on the back that it has a dts soundtrack. Unless I am missing something, I was disapointed when I picked it up and saw only English 5.1 and 2.0 and a French 5.1. I read Eddie's review, and he mentions a dts track being present. When I popped in the disc and went to setup, I was pleasantly surprised to see the option for English dts, as well as the other labeled soundtracks. Why was this left off of the package? Deliberately, or accidentally?

2.) 20th Century Fox has done enough to get us a few hundred different packaging options for their beloved Independence Day, with the first being their best, the Five-Star Collection. Now, I'm almost positive all editions of this movie, except the full-screen version, are anamorphically enhanced. Now, The Abyss, which has quite a few incarnations I believe, was never released in an anamorphic widescreen format. I had a single disc widescreen version, but it was non-anamorphic. I believe the Five-Star Collection's was non also. Why would that be....I remember, maybe incorrectly, that they were released on dvd around the same time. Now there is an Awards Edition, which seems like the single disc release with the same package, listing the movie as letterbox, or non-anamorphic, with a gold cardboard sleeve thrown on advertising it as anamorphic! Somebody said somewhere on another site (I think it was digitalbits.com) that this new version is the same as the other ones, and the gold sleeve is wrong. WHY DO THIS??? Curious.

3.) Columbia/Tri-Star or whatever they are now, has re-released some of their older catalogued movies (8MM, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and The Fan) and labeled them as "mastered (or remastered) in high definition." Now, the 8MM was obviously to capitalize on the straight-to-dvd 8MM 2, if I'm not mistaken, and is offered in widescreen, but the Frankenstein one is always listed as remastered and such but only in 1.33:1 ratio. I've NEVER seen a widescreen version of the re-mastered movie on dvd. Is it hard to find, or does it not exist? And does anyone know how much of a difference there is in picture quality between the original dvds and their re-mastered counterparts?

If anyone has any insight....you know what to do!! Thanks!

-Dave

1) If something isn't listed on the DVD packaging, then it's considered an inconvenience rather than a legal liability. On the other hand...

2) Listing something that isn't there is false advertising. You could sue Fox, but it's not likely to be a very cost-effective option for most people.

Fox packagings have mistakes from time to time. The single-disc release of "Patton" lists the subtitles twice! This leads me to believe that the people whom Fox uses don't double-check their work all the time.

(A similar incident happened with Paramount's 2-disc release of "Star Trek: Generations". The first pressing of the cover art listed theatrical trailers, but the trailers were not on either DVD. Therefore, Paramount delayed the release by a few days in order to get new covers printed to avoid false advertising.)

3) The first release of Branagh's "Frankenstein" was in 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen. However, Sony has decided to release some titles in pan-and-scan only. This is an incomprehensible decision.

Hey Eddie, I remember the whole "Generations" thing. That was corrected rather quickly, right? And the whole thing with Lions Gate's "Lord Of War" with the film being in the incorrect aspect ratio!! That's been fixed too, correct?

My copy of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is in 1.85:1. You say there's a version in 2.35:1? Weird as well.

These newer releases of these older films are not even advertised as being re-released. You just find 'em on shelves one day with no mention of them anywhere. For example, any dvd website that talks about new releases and such! Isn't the point of the re-release to generate some buzz, and make money? It just seems like they're thrown out there for anyone, or no one to find!

Well, whatever, my copy's fine. I was just curious. Thanks Ed!

-Dave

I'm sorry--I meant to write that Branagh's "Frankenstein" was released in 1.85:1 when it first came out on DVD.