First Post Bleat - comparisons to original movie release

[sfdoddsy]

I know it is bad form to make one's first post a criticism, but I couldn't help myself.

As a long time reader of HDD, I'm obviously a big fan of the site and reviews.

However, one thing has always bugged me and today's review of The Hunt For Red October brought it back.

The Video section makes an explicit comparison of the quality of the disc to the original theatrical release. I quote:

"...the end result is sharp, clean, and precise, offering a remarkable approximation of the film’s theatrical presentation."

How on earth can this comparison be made with a movie that is 16 years old? Has the reviewer seen it in theaters recently? Video memory is notoriously fragile and it really is impossible to make such statements without direct reference.

I have no idea whether the BR is as good as the original theatrical presentation. I suspect it is better. But that doesn't matter. Such statements do no service to those looking at HDD as an objective rather than subjective source of picture quality reviews.

I feel the same about the over-praise and insistence on 'HD' soundtracks compared to their poor compressed brethren, even when the playback system isn't up to it, but audio is even more subjective so I'll kind of shut up.

If Kenneth recently viewed the original theatrical release I take it all back. If not, please stop using 16 year old video memory as a reference.

Rant over.

Thank you.

[Rishi]

Comparisons to the theatrical presentation also assume that, whatever the time frame, the presentation was perfect. This is obviously a vary rare case and it seems to silly to assume that the theatrical presentation that ONE person experienced at one particular theatre is the reference standard. I can go to 5 different theatres and see presentations that vary greatly. How am I to know which is one is "the original theatrical experience"?

[Badger3920]

To begin, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions. However,

Originally Posted by sfdoddsy

Such statements do no service to those looking at HDD as an objective rather than subjective source of picture quality reviews.

Movie ratings and reviews are always subjective, and should never be read as anything other. Read the most recent Top Gun review. That's an American classic, and Peter mentions that - but trashes the holy p*ss out of the movie anyway. It's clear he didn't like it, but in NO WAY is the movie objectively trash.

Originally Posted by sfdoddsy

I feel the same about the over-praise and insistence on 'HD' soundtracks compared to their poor compressed brethren, even when the playback system isn't up to it

This is highdefdigest, where it's assumed that you have the ability to take advantage of hidef. In general, if you only have an HD set, then you should ignore the audio section. That's pretty much a given.


I think that you could be a great poster here, especially because you can clearly voice your opinion intelligently - but I do feel that both of your complaints are pretty nitpicky, and nothing that I'd recommend the reviewers work on.

Welcome to the forums

[Rishi]

I would like to add that in spite of my frequent griping I greatly enjoy the service provided here by Josh, Ken, and Peter.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by sfdoddsy

I know it is bad form to make one's first post a criticism, but I couldn't help myself.

As a long time reader of HDD, I'm obviously a big fan of the site and reviews.

However, one thing has always bugged me and today's review of The Hunt For Red October brought it back.

The Video section makes an explicit comparison of the quality of the disc to the original theatrical release. I quote:

"...the end result is sharp, clean, and precise, offering a remarkable approximation of the film’s theatrical presentation."

How on earth can this comparison be made with a movie that is 16 years old? Has the reviewer seen it in theaters recently? Video memory is notoriously fragile and it really is impossible to make such statements without direct reference.

I have no idea whether the BR is as good as the original theatrical presentation. I suspect it is better. But that doesn't matter. Such statements do no service to those looking at HDD as an objective rather than subjective source of picture quality reviews.

I feel the same about the over-praise and insistence on 'HD' soundtracks compared to their poor compressed brethren, even when the playback system isn't up to it, but audio is even more subjective so I'll kind of shut up.

If Kenneth recently viewed the original theatrical release I take it all back. If not, please stop using 16 year old video memory as a reference.

Rant over.

Thank you.

Your frustration is well-placed considering how you took the statement!

Recent transfers (the other three Jack Ryan films for example) have been scrubbed and sharpened so zealously, that the pictures don't look like filmic presentations anymore -- they look smudged and artificial. 'The Hunt for Red October,' on the other hand, approximates the expected look of a theatrical print.

So when referring to "a remarkable approximation of the film’s theatrical presentation," I was attempting to describe the filmic appearance of the transfer. It didn't occur to me people would take it as they did (even though I can easily see how it was read that way), so I'll be sure to word this sort of observation differently in the future.

As for DVD audio vs. BD audio, the differences can be quite staggering in direct comparisons. I have a ton of DVDs and a great local video store with hundreds of obscure catalog releases, so I always try to scoop up a Blu-ray release's standard-def cousin and do a quick comparison. When in doubt, I drag my wife downstairs to see if I'm getting caught up in placebo indulgence

Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding in regards to the video statement. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Rishi

I would like to add that in spite of my frequent griping I greatly enjoy the service provided here by Josh, Ken, and Peter.

No, no... thank you, sir (and sirs). Believe me, the "griping" -- as you put it -- is very valuable and keeps us on our game. I actually enjoy reading feedback, criticism, and complaints so long as they're polite and civilized.

I appreciate this thread because it made me realize a statement I sometimes use in reviews misleads people and doesn't properly convey my actual observations.

Thanks to everyone for posting!

[Ken Brown]

Last response, I swear.

I went back and updated the "theatrical presentation" sentence in 'The Hunt for Red October' review. Let me know if it's still misleading. Thanks again.

[sfdoddsy]

Thanks Ken, that does indeed clarify your intent.

Regarding the audio issues, as a long time audiophile I do have a very high end audio system. I just don't think there is a leap out and grab me difference between DD and TrueHD. Except where studios deliberately goose mixes as they did when SACDs first came out, 'Dark Side of the Moon' being a prime example.