The Terminator & Terminator 2 HD Releases!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:16

romerojpg wrote:Yeah becuase their mouths soo sinc up with the animation in the origanal language

It's less to do with synch and more to do with people wanting to watch a film in its original intended form.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:17

I don't mind anime dubbed into English, it's much more watchable than live action dubbed but I've still been unable to watch more than a few minutes.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:21

gasteropod wrote:
romerojpg wrote:Yeah becuase their mouths soo sinc up with the animation in the origanal language
It's less to do with synch and more to do with people wanting to watch a film in its original intended form.

Well its good that we have the option then

as with Mono, if its there a few peeps can listen to that if they want, but the vast majority will never ever put it on.

Unless the remix is crap, which most aint.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:23

bradavon wrote:I don't mind anime dubbed into English, it's much more watchable than live action dubbed but I've still been unable to watch more than a few minutes.

Right, so animation is a less important than other film mediums? Bollocks. A director's intentions are important no matter how a film is made. The original performances by the original actors are part of that.

Oh yeah, actors can (and do) express intense emotion clearly through voice alone. Professional voice actors can be just as talented, if not more so, than their live action counterparts.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:33

Indeed, and the Japanese voice actors are usually superior to the English dubs.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:49

EvaUnit02 wrote:Right, so animation is a less important than other film mediums?

You what? You read that from my comments. All I was saying, was I find it much easier to watch Anime dubbed than Live action, which I find impossible to watch.

gasteropod wrote:Indeed, and the Japanese voice actors are usually superior to the English dubs.

Not understanding the language I doubt I could really tell the difference.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 08 Feb 2009, 18:24

Well you often get corny American voices which don't suit the character they're portraying, you don't need to understand the language to hear when a character sounds right and has realistic emotion.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Feb 2009, 19:26

Oh right, that. Agreed.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 08 Feb 2009, 21:41

romerojpg wrote:Few films are ever presented in what they were made in, its never gonna happen on 99% of all films.

Of course they are. Don't be dumb.

romerojpg wrote:A good quality remix is all that is needed.

For you maybe, but not for me. I want the original soundtrack. It has been on 2 editions of the DVD, so its not like it would be hard to source for the BD.

romerojpg wrote:Mono is not needed as so few people would bother with it, its a waste of their time and energy spending cash on it, as it aint cheap to add stuff onto any disc.

You're telling me its expensive for them to add a mono soundtrack to a BD? Sorry but thats just cobblers.

Loads of people who watch DVDs / BDs don't even have a surround setup! In their case the mono track would be better suited to their TV. Why do you think so many DVDs come with Dolby 5.1 and Dolby 2.0 soundtracks?!

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 08 Feb 2009, 21:49

romerojpg wrote:Unless the remix is crap, which most aint.

Except in the case of The Terminator, (which is the subject of this thread) the remix is awful.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Feb 2009, 22:15

Original mono is a must. Romero is talking thru his arse as usual. Remember this is the man who thinks Super 35 movies should be reformatted to 1.85 (from 2.35). Unfortunately people like him are the reason why in the UK we often get original tracks dumped. I really hope the new T1 BD in the USA is region-free because you can bet that the mono will be AWOL on any European release.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Feb 2009, 23:26

The 5.1 remix that really gets on my nerves is Taxi Driver. The original DVD had a perfectly good Stereo remix but the SE has only a 5.1 remix.

While it could've been a whole lot more in your face, it's still very much unnecessary. I ended up putting up with it as the SE picture is a marked improvement but really they should've kept the perfectly fine Stereo remix too.

That said, nothing compares to Anchor Bay's hideous Withnail and I 5.1 remix, talk about a disaster. The rain is so loud you cannot hear them speak. Thankfully Stereo is also included.

I thought you were holding off until you got a MR Player Mark? It should be Region Free, it's Sony, who so rarely use region coding. The Terminator 2 SE BD could be locked though (Lionsgate).

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 08 Feb 2009, 23:34

bradavon wrote:It should be Region Free, it's Sony, who so rarely use region coding.

They use it 1/4 of the time.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Feb 2009, 23:35

A quarter is a bit steep, unless you know better. I'd say nearer 10% of the time.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Feb 2009, 23:53

bradavon wrote:I thought you were holding off until you got a MR Player Mark?

I'd still like one but I have to confess there's very few Reg A titles I'd buy. Mostly they're multi-region and I have to weigh that up against the extra cost/hastle.

It should be Region Free, it's Sony, who so rarely use region coding.

It's MGM who own The Terminator (they got it as part of their Orion Pictures catalogue) and MGM = Fox.

The Terminator 2 SE BD could be locked though (Lionsgate).

On the plus side the original release (whcih I have still sealed on my shelf) is Reg-free.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 09 Feb 2009, 02:08

IronMonkey wrote: You're telling me its expensive for them to add a mono soundtrack to a BD? Sorry but thats just cobblers.

Yes, it costs loads. Obviously you have never seen budgets and how they are split up before for any discs, I have many times and just adding small things can costs some of them many thousands.
Big films its not bad as they are probibly not too bothered and have large budgets, smaller films/companies have no cash for everything.

Markgway wrote:Remember this is the man who thinks Super 35 movies should be reformatted to 1.85 (from 2.35).

Get your facts right man, I have never in my life said anything of the sort

I have said "some" films (films I have seen in various aspect ratios) look far better reformatted to a different aspect ratio, not all as many look like shit when you chop, change and move.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Feb 2009, 09:00

romerojpg wrote:
Yes, it costs loads. Obviously you have never seen budgets and how they are split up before for any discs, I have many times

where have you seen these budget figures?are you an insider? don't you prefer the Matrix in 1:85:1 rather than 2:40:1 as intended

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 09 Feb 2009, 10:15

Markgway wrote:It's MGM who own The Terminator (they got it as part of their Orion Pictures catalogue) and MGM = Fox.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. I think MGM were bought by Sony and in the USA Sony distribute MGM films, but in the UK they hand the publishing rights over to Fox, or something like that.

romerojpg wrote:Obviously you have never seen budgets and how they are split up before for any discs, I have many times and just adding small things can costs some of them many thousands.
Big films its not bad as they are probibly not too bothered and have large budgets, smaller films/companies have no cash for everything.

Instead of talking complete cobblers like usual, how about you actually back up your statements with some evidence? Give us a link to a website that tells you these things.

How is a mono track (which the company already has the rights for) going to cost "many thousands" to put on a BD? Thats just rubbish.

Oh, and its "probably", not "probibly".

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Feb 2009, 12:09

IronMonkey wrote:Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that. I think MGM were bought by Sony and in the USA Sony distribute MGM films, but in the UK they hand the publishing rights over to Fox, or something like that.

Sony bought MGM, but the latter sold their distribution rights to Fox worldwide. That's why most of the 007 series are distributed by Fox and thus coded. No reason to believe The Terminator will be any different.

How is a mono track (which the company already has the rights for) going to cost "many thousands" to put on a BD? Thats just rubbish.

Sounds like rubbish doesn't it?

Why don't they leave off one of the foreign language remixes? These countries get their own editions regardless.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 09 Feb 2009, 12:20

Of course it doesn't cost thousands of pounds to slap a mono track they already have posession of onto a bleedin' disc. To say romero hasn't got the slightest clue on this subject is the understatement of the century.

None of us have any real insight into the world of DVD/BD production, but at least we have the common sense to know that much!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Feb 2009, 13:41

Markgway wrote:It's MGM who own The Terminator (they got it as part of their Orion Pictures catalogue) and MGM = Fox.

My mistake. The current BD is Sony but you're right it's likely to now be Fox.

Markgway wrote:On the plus side the original release (whcih I have still sealed on my shelf) is Reg-free.

USA or UK? The USA one is shit.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 09 Feb 2009, 15:44

Lionsgate. Not sure about the UK release code. I wanted the theatrical cut. Mind you any new SE release should have both TC and SE cuts would one expect.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 09 Feb 2009, 16:01

IronMonkey wrote:Oh, and its "probably", not "probibly".

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 09 Feb 2009, 16:26

i own the current Terminator BD,it's not great that's for sure.the uk T2 director's cut BD looks nice though.not bothered about extras.i still have the hd dvd of T3.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 09 Feb 2009, 18:09

Yeah it costs about £5 to stick a mono track onto a Blu Ray Disc

Rights to use these things on Big films by Big companies cost a lot (obviously small, shitty little companies owning little films dont need massive budgets, esspecially when stars etc.. are not involved), people need paying for every format an extra goes onto, every copy on every format sold get that person involved more cash etc...

To clear rights for re-use even when an extra has already been made and used previously is not cheap and all has to be worked out.
You think they can just get a mono track stick it on in 5 minutes and thats that ready for pressing.

Do you seriously think it costs a few quid to just make a new dvd like we can at home and then just run off a few hundred thousand copies? They do not have space issues? they do not have to pick the exact right sized disc?
Your telling me its just a simple case of making a simple disc in a few hours, slapping down all the extras they can find, withour clearing every single thing and getting everything signed and dotted, by everyone involved. I am sure thats cheap.

Ever wondered why Blu Ray's do not just copy over all the extras from the old special edition dvds its called CASH! it costs them a fortune to re-use all them extras on another format, do you think they just leave them all off for a joke, or becuase they want to rip everyone off.

and yes I have many times seen budgets for discs and how they are split up, and talked to people who are involved in said discs on forums and asked them about things.
Many people on here go to the same forums as me and will have read the info, you just dont obviously take any of it in and remember it.

Mmm pot, kettle, black....

IronMonkey wrote:
Digtital