DVDizzy Forum

First, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and MGM will be releasing more MGM catalog titles on Blu-ray Disc on 3/9, including All Dogs Go to Heaven, All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, Picture This, The Secret of NIMH, Material Girls, Teen Wolf and Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde (SRP $19.99 each). They're also releasing Norman Jewison's musical Fiddler on the Roof on Blu-ray as a new 40th Anniversary Edition on 4/5 (SRP $29.99).

jrboy wrote:

First, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and MGM will be releasing more MGM catalog titles on Blu-ray Disc on 3/9, including All Dogs Go to Heaven, All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, Picture This, The Secret of NIMH, Material Girls, Teen Wolf and Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde (SRP $19.99 each). They're also releasing Norman Jewison's musical Fiddler on the Roof on Blu-ray as a new 40th Anniversary Edition on 4/5 (SRP $29.99).

Sotiris wrote:

jrboy wrote:

Thanks for letting us know! Could you also give us the link to the above news?

jinkinquackers wrote:Sotiris, here is the link: The Digital Bits.

MJW wrote:Someone over at Blu-ray.com posted about the colorful cover not really reflecting the mood of the film. I'd have to say I agree; if I didn't know about this film already, I might skip over this on the shelf because the cover makes it look like a cheap direct-to-video movie. It's not really a big deal, and isn't the first or last time someone doesn't get a cover right, but it would have been nice to get something that reflected the film properly.

Either way, I'm still glad it's coming to Blu-ray and hope that more Bluth films, and more animation in general, make their way onto the format.

Sotiris wrote:It looks like it will be a single Blu-ray disc (no combo pack).

MJW wrote:This title would probably already be in my collection if it weren't for what I've read to be horrible video quality. Maybe if I can get it for about $5, I'd grab it, but until then, I'm not interested.

KubrickFan wrote: Well, from what I've read the Blu-ray looks far from horrible. It's not a grain-removed, color adjusted Disney Classic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

MJW wrote: The review at Blu-ray.com (2.5 out of 5 stars for picture quality) says the transfer shows scratches, color flickering, and telecine wobble. Grain I am fine with (even though the review says this grain present is thick and inconsistent), but print damage should not be there.

According to Don Bluth's website, MGM is said to have mentioned that they would spend 3 days to a week tops on the restoration of this film. The source material would have had to have been in excellent condition to be transferred with that little attention to detail, and from what I hear, it wasn't.

Top notch video quality and sound are the signatures of the Blu-ray format, and when multiple reviews state that we're better off sticking with our DVD copy of this film instead of upgrading to BD, that's not a good sign.

KubrickFan wrote:Print damage and specks are nearly unavoidable when you're dealing with film. It costs an extraordinary amount to clean it all manually, and can lead to removing other things that are part of the film when done automatically.
The three days to a week comment is only about the transferring. No restoration was made because a film that age doesn't need one. I'm not an expert on this, but I have a hard time believing a transfer really takes that much time. Gary Goldman, the producer was involved in the color correction that happened, and some clean up of the film was done. You have to understand that MGM was working with a limited budget here. We're not talking about a Snow White too. It's nowhere near that popular.

Also, what does top notch video mean? Something that has been cleared of all its grain? Something that looks like film? I agree that it's not perfect by any means, but definitely not the disaster some make it out to be just because mainly they expect something else like what Disney has given them.

MJW wrote: I agree that overscrubbing can remove detail from a film, and in no way do I dislike grain and think it should be abolished just for the sake of it.

I think the advantage of Blu-ray's video quality is that a film can be presented as it premiered in theaters or as the director's originally intended. I am aware that dirt is embedded in every frame, but I am also sure that the print or negative used for this transfer was in better condition in 1982 (when the film premiered) than it was a few years ago when they scanned it to digital files (not sure when this took place). Multiple reviewers have reported scratches and/or other flaws from damage, and it's unlikely the film showed like this on its first run in theaters with fresh prints.

Filmmaking/home video presentation has come along way in 29 years, so unless they had some kind of "virgin" source, there would be print damage that should be fixed. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, this isn't Snow White or another highly regarded classic, so I can see why they didn't give it much attention. Plus, I'm not sure MGM has loads of money to throw around.

I guess my main point is that when buying a Blu-ray (or at least when I do), you expect to receive the best quality video/audio presentation available at the current time. Scanning a film and throwing it onto Blu-ray isn't a benefit to the consumer if it isn't an improvement over what is/was already available. I think that the general consensus is that this release is a bit of a dissapointment, not because it didn't receive Disney-level clean-up, but that it appears like it didn't receive enough clean-up to remove flaws that aren't supposed to be there.

I should probably just stop reading the reviews and take a look for myself before I continue to overanalyze all of this. It wouldn't be the first time that a reviewer was harsh on something that I ended up being satisfied with. Thanks for your input, KubrickFan, hopefully I didn't come across as argumentative as it was not my intent at all!