If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Short List)   The 50 coolest Blu-ray and DVD covers ever. Floating heads and eerily photoshopped faces be gone   (shortlist.com) divider line 50
    More: Cool, Blu-ray, DVD  
•       •       •

6382 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 31 Aug 2013 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-31 10:11:29 AM
I could pick 50 criterion releases alone better than the ones they listed.

Also, F*CK the memento box they have.  I have that piece of shiat... that is the most annoying, stupidest dvd box I've ever encountered,
 
2013-08-31 10:20:50 AM
Wow, great list! I might actually have to check out a few of those
 
2013-08-31 10:44:09 AM
List fails without Donnie Darko
 
2013-08-31 10:49:48 AM
cdn.shortlist.com

Love that soundtrack.
 
2013-08-31 10:55:50 AM
www.examiner.com
g-ecx.images-amazon.com
/hot
 
2013-08-31 10:59:21 AM
Steelbooks and Criterions.  What a sad testament to the state of regular releases.
 
2013-08-31 11:12:26 AM
So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...
 
2013-08-31 11:20:20 AM
Those sucked. I could go to Hastings and find 50 others.
I stopped clicking after 10 but if they don't have the SE7EN one, they failed.
 
2013-08-31 11:22:34 AM
That was mostly a fail, but I will give them credit for having The Great Dictator on there. Chaplin's best.
 
2013-08-31 11:23:35 AM

Skarekrough: So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...


Someone with more knowledge than me explained that the film used for anything shot for cinema has a far higher resolution than blu-ray, if you were to do a side by side comparison.  Therefore they are easily able to produce a blu-ray resolution copy from the original master.  However, variations will occur depending on the condition of the original master (or masters) and how well the studio produce the blu-ray.

I own several older films on Blu-ray that look very crisp.  The colors are not always as vibrant and some special effects or practical effects don't always look as good but the quality is there.  'The thing' is a great example.  It was shot about 30 years ago I think, but the blu-ray looks great.  The colors aren't as vibrant and lush as something like Prometheus but the picture is very crisp and you can easily see the difference between the blu-ray and DVD versions (I owned the DVD years before and upgraded so for a time I had both to compare).
 
2013-08-31 11:23:37 AM

Skarekrough: Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.


Absolutely.  Especially on an older film.  Newer films, the differences tend not to be as noticeable.

There is a flip side.  If the transfer is shiatty to begin with, it will be easier to see in HD.  For example I have a cheap dvd of The Rocketeer... it's really really REALLY farking grainy and ugly.  It's very noticeable in HD but it probably wouldn't be as bad in SD.
 
2013-08-31 11:26:08 AM
I pay little to no attention to what's on the cover of my DVD's. As far as I'm concerned they're almost as pointless as those annoying animated menu screens.
 
2013-08-31 11:29:37 AM

Skarekrough: So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...


It depends on the source that they use on the Blu-Ray. Good quality film stock is around 4k resolution so if they master the Blu-Ray from a very good quality film print then it will look very good on your TV, if its from a poor quality print then it won't look any better than the DVD.
 
2013-08-31 11:47:15 AM
They forgot one of the first covers for Return of the Living Dead. It looked normal, but actually glowed in the dark. They never advertised it. I found out years after buying it when I left it out and it had charged up enough to glow when I shut off the lights.

They did it again with a later cover. But I'm talking about the one with the movie poster image:

horrorfansreview.tripod.com
 
2013-08-31 11:57:18 AM

Skarekrough: So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...


Depends on how much effort the studio feels like putting into the release.  The Blu-Ray releases of Casablanca and Gone With the Wind are absolutely gorgeous.  Very vibrant color and detail like you have probably never seen before.

Things to be more wary of are older films (80s/90s/00s) that were released early on in Blu-Ray's lifecycle.  Oftentimes, they were just up-converted from the existing DVD releases.  Sometimes worse than that are films that got a lot of digital noise reduction so the picture looks too sharp without actually having much detail.

If you're curious about a particular film before picking up the Blu-Ray of it, I highly recommend heading over to Blu-Ray.com and checking out their reviews.  They do an excellent job of breaking down the video and audio quality of every release and give you a very good idea of whether or not it's worth picking up to replace your existing DVDs.
 
2013-08-31 12:28:27 PM

NeoCortex42: Things to be more wary of are older films (80s/90s/00s) that were released early on in Blu-Ray's lifecycle. Oftentimes, they were just up-converted from the existing DVD releases. Sometimes worse than that are films that got a lot of digital noise reduction so the picture looks too sharp without actually having much detail.


the blu-ray release of the BTTF movies are damned gorgeous.  I had an HD release of Jaws that made my DVD look like garbage.  I have an HD release of Ghostbusters that makes the movie look like it was filmed last week.  I have an HD release of Total Recall that makes the film look MODERN.  My Gone with the Wind and Ten Commandments releases are beautiful and much better than any DVD I have seen..  My HD Goonies is amazing to look at.

And then I have the HD Robocop, which really looks like the up-rezzed the DVD, and there are quite a few 80's movies that just look like sluddge when transferred because 80's film stock was notoriously crappy.
 
2013-08-31 12:29:16 PM

Skarekrough: So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...


The BRs for Jaws, Alien, and Aliens were revelations for me as far as the potential quality of the format.  As other folks have mentioned, a lot of it is going to depend on how much work they put into restoring it (or, in some cases, if any work at all went into it).  I remember hearing complaints that the Miami Vice BR looked worse than the DVD.

As NeoCortex42 mentioned, it's worth the effort of doing a bit of research.

Sometimes it's worth it just for the extra material.  Jaws comes with "The Shark is Still Working," which is a really great doc about the legacy of the film.  Hell, I bought the Clerks BR just because it was easier than messing around with the multi-disc Clerks X DVD
 
2013-08-31 12:31:47 PM
You know what is cool?

People who know the difference between a gallery and a slideshow.
 
2013-08-31 12:34:58 PM
Since the topic of blu ray quality with older films has come up, thought I'd take a shot at asking about a particular issue I have with the star wars blu ray box set.

Episodes 4-6 look absolutely fantastic, with one minor exception.  In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them.  It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them.  It's annoying when everything else looks so good.

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.  I did google it a few times but didn't find any specific references to the problem (not the easiest thing to specifically search for so I just had to search for 'picture problems').  I can't imagine it's a defect of the disc since it seems way too much of a specific problem.
 
2013-08-31 12:44:30 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: Since the topic of blu ray quality with older films has come up, thought I'd take a shot at asking about a particular issue I have with the star wars blu ray box set.

Episodes 4-6 look absolutely fantastic, with one minor exception.  In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them.  It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them.  It's annoying when everything else looks so good.

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.  I did google it a few times but didn't find any specific references to the problem (not the easiest thing to specifically search for so I just had to search for 'picture problems').  I can't imagine it's a defect of the disc since it seems way too much of a specific problem.


It's the matte for the effects shot you're seeing.  It's the result of compositing the video of the model ship with the scene.  It was very noticeable in the older versions of Star Wars.  The Blu-Ray editions did try to reduce it a bit, but they did not clean it up enough to negate it entirely.

Star Wars has had the most farked up "restoration" process of any film I can think of.  Over the years, more effort was put into adding extra CGI aliens and ships than just cleaning up the existing films.

/Thank goodness for the Despecialized HD editions.
 
2013-08-31 12:53:44 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them. It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them. It's annoying when everything else looks so good.


NeoCortex42: It's the matte for the effects shot you're seeing. It's the result of compositing the video of the model ship with the scene.


Go back and watch the old vhs versions.  The matte was freaking RIDICULOUS.  Huge shapes around all the ships.
 
2013-08-31 12:56:46 PM

NeoCortex42: The sound of one hand clapping: Since the topic of blu ray quality with older films has come up, thought I'd take a shot at asking about a particular issue I have with the star wars blu ray box set.

Episodes 4-6 look absolutely fantastic, with one minor exception.  In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them.  It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them.  It's annoying when everything else looks so good.

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.  I did google it a few times but didn't find any specific references to the problem (not the easiest thing to specifically search for so I just had to search for 'picture problems').  I can't imagine it's a defect of the disc since it seems way too much of a specific problem.

It's the matte for the effects shot you're seeing.  It's the result of compositing the video of the model ship with the scene.  It was very noticeable in the older versions of Star Wars.  The Blu-Ray editions did try to reduce it a bit, but they did not clean it up enough to negate it entirely.

Star Wars has had the most farked up "restoration" process of any film I can think of.  Over the years, more effort was put into adding extra CGI aliens and ships than just cleaning up the existing films.

/Thank goodness for the Despecialized HD editions.


I haven't gotten around to upgrading my PC disk drives to blu ray burners yet, but I'm very tempted to, if only to have the despecialized editions.
 
2013-08-31 12:59:41 PM

NeoCortex42: The sound of one hand clapping: Since the topic of blu ray quality with older films has come up, thought I'd take a shot at asking about a particular issue I have with the star wars blu ray box set.

Episodes 4-6 look absolutely fantastic, with one minor exception.  In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them.  It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them.  It's annoying when everything else looks so good.

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.  I did google it a few times but didn't find any specific references to the problem (not the easiest thing to specifically search for so I just had to search for 'picture problems').  I can't imagine it's a defect of the disc since it seems way too much of a specific problem.

It's the matte for the effects shot you're seeing.  It's the result of compositing the video of the model ship with the scene.  It was very noticeable in the older versions of Star Wars.  The Blu-Ray editions did try to reduce it a bit, but they did not clean it up enough to negate it entirely.

Star Wars has had the most farked up "restoration" process of any film I can think of.  Over the years, more effort was put into adding extra CGI aliens and ships than just cleaning up the existing films.

/Thank goodness for the Despecialized HD editions.


Ah, OK, thanks, that makes sense.  It's funny how I never noticed them before until I watched the blu-ray.  But that's probably a result of me paying more attention to the picture quality.

Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions.  Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.
 
2013-08-31 01:05:30 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions. Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.


they are fan edits and overall pretty good at restoring the films to the original release versions.
 
2013-08-31 01:08:38 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions.  Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.


They're a fan-edit project. Search online for Harmy's Despecialized edition. He used everything from the old DVD, Laserdisc, and Blu-Ray sets to get a very nice HD version of the original cuts of the films, with various audio and commentary tracks.

It is exactly what Lucas should have done
 
2013-08-31 01:14:42 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: NeoCortex42: The sound of one hand clapping: Since the topic of blu ray quality with older films has come up, thought I'd take a shot at asking about a particular issue I have with the star wars blu ray box set.

Episodes 4-6 look absolutely fantastic, with one minor exception.  In many of the space battles, the smaller ships have a very noticeable block around them.  It's like the ships are entirely separated from the background on their own little dark grey square that moves with them.  It's annoying when everything else looks so good.

I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.  I did google it a few times but didn't find any specific references to the problem (not the easiest thing to specifically search for so I just had to search for 'picture problems').  I can't imagine it's a defect of the disc since it seems way too much of a specific problem.

It's the matte for the effects shot you're seeing.  It's the result of compositing the video of the model ship with the scene.  It was very noticeable in the older versions of Star Wars.  The Blu-Ray editions did try to reduce it a bit, but they did not clean it up enough to negate it entirely.

Star Wars has had the most farked up "restoration" process of any film I can think of.  Over the years, more effort was put into adding extra CGI aliens and ships than just cleaning up the existing films.

/Thank goodness for the Despecialized HD editions.

Ah, OK, thanks, that makes sense.  It's funny how I never noticed them before until I watched the blu-ray.  But that's probably a result of me paying more attention to the picture quality.

Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions.  Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.


You may also want Adywan's Revisited Editions. Very nice blending of all the fixes without as many of the changes.
 
2013-08-31 01:17:04 PM

NeoCortex42: The sound of one hand clapping: Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions.  Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.

They're a fan-edit project. Search online for Harmy's Despecialized edition. He used everything from the old DVD, Laserdisc, and Blu-Ray sets to get a very nice HD version of the original cuts of the films, with various audio and commentary tracks.

It is exactly what Lucas should have done


Actually, I have always felt that Lucas didn't go FAR ENOUGH.  He changed shiat that didn't need to be changed (Han shooting first, Anakin at the end of Jedi) and then didn't FIX the shiat that should have been.  EVERY SINGLE ALIEN from the original trilogy should be replaced with a living, breathing CGI version (barring stuff like Jawas and the Ewoks).  Those old rubber masks look dead.
 
2013-08-31 01:36:23 PM
The Blade Runner case is awesome.
 
2013-08-31 02:05:46 PM

frepnog: NeoCortex42: The sound of one hand clapping: Also, I wasn't aware that there were Despecialized HD editions.  Kinda wish I'd got them since I don't care much for all the extra CG stuff added.

They're a fan-edit project. Search online for Harmy's Despecialized edition. He used everything from the old DVD, Laserdisc, and Blu-Ray sets to get a very nice HD version of the original cuts of the films, with various audio and commentary tracks.

It is exactly what Lucas should have done

Actually, I have always felt that Lucas didn't go FAR ENOUGH.  He changed shiat that didn't need to be changed (Han shooting first, Anakin at the end of Jedi) and then didn't FIX the shiat that should have been.  EVERY SINGLE ALIEN from the original trilogy should be replaced with a living, breathing CGI version (barring stuff like Jawas and the Ewoks).  Those old rubber masks look dead.




Jar Jar Binks gives a thumbs up!

I don't know, I find that the rubber mask practical effects have a certain timeless charm to them, while CG aliens wind up getting dated pretty quickly.

It'll be intesting to see how the latest state-of-the-art CG characters standup over 10 to 20 years. I thought that Avatar would hold up pretty well due to all of the detail and prep that Cameron did for that movie. But then you get to the end fight with the dwith the head of the military guy being obviously CG-ed into a CG scene, and I wonder...
 
2013-08-31 02:14:14 PM
For some strange reason, I can't get quoting to work today. Anyhow, to Frepnog - have you seen the Universal Monsters Bluray set? 8 movies from the 30s-50s and all look amazing. Sure, some of the picture is grainy (particularly Dracula), but overall everything looks way more fantastic than it should.
 
2013-08-31 02:15:39 PM
cdn.shortlist.com

Yeah, packaging looks nice and everything but it's still the worst formatted DVD in history.
It kinda defeats the purpose when you need to find instructions on the internet on how to actually play the friggin' discs.
 
2013-08-31 02:35:44 PM

snowshovel: I don't know, I find that the rubber mask practical effects have a certain timeless charm to them, while CG aliens wind up getting dated pretty quickly.


On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  Bad CGI sucks.  But it doesn't suck any worse than Greedo's rubber ear things quivering when talking to Han, or most of the aliens in the cantina OBVIOUSLY looking fake.
 
2013-08-31 02:39:08 PM

Former Lee Warmer: have you seen the Universal Monsters Bluray set? 8 movies from the 30s-50s and all look amazing. Sure, some of the picture is grainy (particularly Dracula), but overall everything looks way more fantastic than it should.


My mother has them.  Ya, they are pretty good.  The old "but it wasn't shot in HD" bullcrap cracks me up every time.  So many people have no idea that film is so much higher res than "HD".
 
2013-08-31 04:08:52 PM

frepnog: Former Lee Warmer: have you seen the Universal Monsters Bluray set? 8 movies from the 30s-50s and all look amazing. Sure, some of the picture is grainy (particularly Dracula), but overall everything looks way more fantastic than it should.

My mother has them.  Ya, they are pretty good.  The old "but it wasn't shot in HD" bullcrap cracks me up every time.  So many people have no idea that film is so much higher res than "HD".


It all depends on the filmmaker and studio. If they kept the original film stock, if they bother to do a good transfer, etc.

And of course if it's a TV show or TV movie that was shot in the 60s, 70s, or 80s on videotape, it's unlikely there will be an HD version worth viewing.
 
2013-08-31 04:25:20 PM
Yeah, I bought one and I farking love it.


www.filmbuffonline.com
 
2013-08-31 04:30:09 PM

frepnog: snowshovel: I don't know, I find that the rubber mask practical effects have a certain timeless charm to them, while CG aliens wind up getting dated pretty quickly.

On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  Bad CGI sucks.  But it doesn't suck any worse than Greedo's rubber ear things quivering when talking to Han, or most of the aliens in the cantina OBVIOUSLY looking fake.


At least with practical effects, it looks like the actors and the effect are in the same room.  Even great CGI usually looks really dated within a few years.
 
2013-08-31 05:20:06 PM
www.criterionforum.org
 
2013-08-31 05:21:22 PM
Also, the different colored DVD covers for each person in "Reservoir Dogs".
 
2013-08-31 06:47:52 PM

The sound of one hand clapping: Skarekrough: So, I kinda need to ask this.....

I got ahold of a Blu-Ray player a few months ago.  Yes, I'm late to the game but I'm here at least.

Do you really get much better picture over the DVD's from older films?  I keep seeing Blu-Ray's that might be good picks but I'm wondering if something wasn't shot for HD to begin with if you'll really see the difference in picture between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Now, something like Avatar I know was shot with the intention of Blu-Ray.  But something like Videodrome, which was sort of low-budget to begin with, is it worth kicking in the extra cash for the higher resolution?  And if this is true, what is the cut off point?

Thanks to all...

Someone with more knowledge than me explained that the film used for anything shot for cinema has a far higher resolution than blu-ray, if you were to do a side by side comparison.  Therefore they are easily able to produce a blu-ray resolution copy from the original master.  However, variations will occur depending on the condition of the original master (or masters) and how well the studio produce the blu-ray.

I own several older films on Blu-ray that look very crisp.  The colors are not always as vibrant and some special effects or practical effects don't always look as good but the quality is there.  'The thing' is a great example.  It was shot about 30 years ago I think, but the blu-ray looks great.  The colors aren't as vibrant and lush as something like Prometheus but the picture is very crisp and you can easily see the difference between the blu-ray and DVD versions (I owned the DVD years before and upgraded so for a time I had both to compare).


Unless they have come out with a new bluray my copy has color timing issues throughout. Doesn't ruin the film for me, but it's definitely there on The Thing...
 
2013-08-31 08:21:50 PM
i104.photobucket.com

Have to throw some respect in Scream Factory's wheelhouse. They release awesome special editions of cult favorite horror films, but they also sport some sweet cover art, melding original cover art with original art work as well.
 
2013-08-31 08:43:53 PM

frepnog: snowshovel: I don't know, I find that the rubber mask practical effects have a certain timeless charm to them, while CG aliens wind up getting dated pretty quickly.

On the one hand, I get what you are saying.  Bad CGI sucks.  But it doesn't suck any worse than Greedo's rubber ear things quivering when talking to Han, or most of the aliens in the cantina OBVIOUSLY looking fake.


my 2 cents: fake practical effects beat fake CGI effects any day of the week. To me, it at least looks like something that physically exists, and that's an advantage.
 
2013-08-31 09:43:59 PM
Came for the original Fight Club DVD, leaving satisfied. That edition is amazing...even the Blu-Ray edition feels crappy in comparison.
 
2013-08-31 09:54:05 PM

ZeroCorpse: They forgot one of the first covers for Return of the Living Dead. It looked normal, but actually glowed in the dark. They never advertised it. I found out years after buying it when I left it out and it had charged up enough to glow when I shut off the lights.

They did it again with a later cover. But I'm talking about the one with the movie poster image:

[horrorfansreview.tripod.com image 300x300]


*runs off to find my copy*
 
2013-08-31 10:09:26 PM
No Book of the Dead editions of Evil Dead/ED2? This list sucks.
 
2013-08-31 10:26:25 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: my 2 cents: fake practical effects beat fake CGI effects any day of the week. To me, it at least looks like something that physically exists, and that's an advantage.


Each have different types of flaws. CG motion tends to be too fluid and unnatural. Stop motion tends to be jerky and also unnatural. It just depends on what you're used to.
 
2013-08-31 11:27:52 PM

GungFu: Yeah, packaging looks nice and everything but it's still the worst formatted DVD in history.
It kinda defeats the purpose when you need to find instructions on the internet on how to actually play the friggin' discs.


I assume you have to play it backwards.
 
2013-09-01 12:44:38 AM

Mugato: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: my 2 cents: fake practical effects beat fake CGI effects any day of the week. To me, it at least looks like something that physically exists, and that's an advantage.

Each have different types of flaws. CG motion tends to be too fluid and unnatural. Stop motion tends to be jerky and also unnatural. It just depends on what you're used to.


And on the skill of the artists involved. I've seen CG that looks incredible and CG that looks like a PS1 game. I've seen stop motion that was fluid and beautiful, and stop motion that looked like a lazily-made episode of Robot Chicken.
 
2013-09-01 08:56:03 AM

movieman_1979: original


lolol
 
2013-09-01 09:17:05 AM
i won't go into cover art since fan-made stuff is almost always superior,
but to those asking about/commenting on the quality of Blu-ray for older films. ...

I suggest you check capsaholic, blu-ray.com and dvdbeaver and look into examples of the amazing work on classics like

Metropolis, (some of) the earlier Hitchcocks, Seventh Seal, BenHur, Lawrence of Arabia, Repulsion, Once Upon a Time in the West, 2001 , etc. 

You can watch (and hear) these gems in significantly higher quality than anyone who ever saw them before until now.
Of course, if you're watching them on a laptop, that's moot anyways...
 
2013-09-01 12:56:03 PM
Not really huge on cover art (though I do love when they get it really, really right), but I'm a sucker for cool packaging. A few of my favorites from my collection:

www.darkrealmfox.com
www.beast.com

The mechanism doesn't really latch tightly, but the idea is that you have to jam the screwdriver into the eye to be able to open it up.

www.tvserieguiden.se
onceuponageek.com
www.blogcdn.com
www.verticalpixel.net

The US Book of the Dead Edition for Army of Darkness was designed by Anchor Bay, but didn't make it to production before they lost the home video license. A UK outfit licensed the artwork and designs from them and released it last year overseas, but by all accounts it's awful quality.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report