Badmovies.org Forum

Im afraid im slowly becoming a blu ray snob. Ive spent many years and dollars collecting certain b-movies on dvd. For example; howard the duck. When i bought this movie back in the day i paid a premium price for this out of print jem. Now, i see it at walmart on blu ray! Dammit! Im seeing more and more of my rarieties on blu ray. Part of me is exited to see that something obsure that only i like getting some kind of recognition and restoration. Part of me is angry that i have to spend money on the same movie again. 

Some movies actually do look and sound better but it seems as though it has made some movies look much worse by really bringing out the flaws. 

in my opinion some older films really benefit from a remastering, some don't.

watching HOSPITAL MASSACRE in its restored/digitally polished up form just seemed totally wrong. I loved the grainy early 80s-ness of the standard version, it was somehow part of its charm. it lost something by being tampered with.

then you have a movie like WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SOLANGE? which I thought benefitted massively from being glossed up and restored.


same thing happens with music. some albums sound much better after being digitally remastered, some sound worse. (some don't really sound any different)

Because my PS3 plays both DVD and Blue Ray, I don't think I've bought a movie on blue ray that I already have on DVD.  I take that back, I have one.  King Kong 05, because it had the extended cut, and I seem to be one of the few people that really liked that movie.

I've re-bought plenty of movies because the first version I had was on VHS tape though.  But that's because I can no longer watch them.  (No VCR player)

I'm just so stoked to have it in my collection finally so I'm not bummed about not having the VHS.

My experience is more movies had issues going from VHS level to DVD level than DVD level to bluray.  I can't think of too many films that are seriously damaged by Blu Ray's presentation.  I also do think it's worth a note that that's how it would have looked theatrically, so...

My favorite example of this, from DVDs, is still War of the World's, where when they merged and stabilized the three strip technicolor it made the wires visible.  Really damages the film.

It may depend on the format to which you're accustomed for different movies.  Every format (VHS, Beta, DVD, blu-ray) has a particular look that influences the way we remember a movie.  If you're used to watching a movie with that VHS softness, going to a full HD remaster might be jarring, even though that may be the way it was theatrically intended to be viewed.

The first time I saw Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce (1985), it was on a rented VHS.  Typical VHS softness.  When I got the laserdisc, it was a considerable improvement.  Lately, I've acquired the remastered blu-ray, and the clarity is fantastic.

On the other hand, i watched Wesley Snipes Blade (1998) over and over again on VHS until I saw the DVD.  The DVD was so clear that you could almost see the makeup and special effects, and the CGI looked more fake than before.  It was similar to the effect that The Hobbit (2012) in 48fps 3D had on audiences, where they could see the makeup and everything looked like 'reality', rather than a theatrical movie.

As an aside, go to YouTube and look at super 8 film footage that has been shot recently.  It looks very much like the footage taken in the original days of super 8, with all the quirks of colour, motion cadence and dynamic range.  It really surprised me to realize that those are the characteristics of super 8, rather than the degradation of film over time.

The Hobbit at 48 FPS really makes all the props and costumes look way faker, especially armor - you can easily tell the weight is way off on a lot of things, which is normally covered up by the slight blur.  24 FPS feels a lot better for it.  Not a fan of high frame rate in general, but ESPECIALLY not for fantasy and other epics with lots of fake stuff that's made even more fake.  Hardcore Henry might have been cool at 48 FPS>