 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope CREATURE is a genuine 3-D Blu-Ray, and not merely the anaglyph version with a few cheap pairs of glasses thrown in the case.
If this signals the beginning of the release of classic 3-D titles on 3DBD, I'm pretty excited. I've never seen any of the 1950s or 1980s 3-D flicks projected with a polarized 3-D system, but I'll gladly take them on a modern 3DTV, since that's a pretty similar experience.
Kind of disappointing the sequels aren't included, though. On the Legacy Series DVDs (which I have), you got all the sequels along with the original film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the Universal Monsters catalogue first showed up on DVD, I bought them at Suncoast Video (remember them?) for thirty bucks a crack. Or about 240 bones. As far as I'm concerned, getting them all on BR for half that is a steal. A steal, I tell you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope CREATURE is a genuine 3-D Blu-Ray, and not merely the anaglyph version with a few cheap pairs of glasses thrown in the case.
It's the real deal, NOT anaglyph.
That's incredibly good news, and as a result I'll probably buy this set on day 1. I need to show my support for classic 3-D films on the 3DBD format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 29, 2012 - 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I suspect we've reached the tipping point for 3-d on Blu-ray, with more and more players and TV sets having support for it. At this stage I don't think we'll see many (or any) more anaglyph releases, except possibly for releases that might've been specifically intended to be seen with anaglyph systems as opposed to polarized lenses or whatever.
There may well be plenty of older 3-d titles that get released only in 2-d, though (because of market concerns or unavailability of 3-d elements or whatever), but I'd bet that from here on out, if a movie is released on BD in 3-d at all, it'll be "proper" 3-d and not anaglyph, 99 times out of 100 or better.
Oh, and this specific set looks really cool. A shame I can't afford it - not anytime soon, anyway, but we'll see about later on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why include the Spanish DRACULA? What's the point really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why include the Spanish DRACULA? What's the point really?
Because its a terrific, different take on the story and their print looks fantastic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 29, 2012 - 8:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
Why include the Spanish DRACULA? What's the point really?
Because it's fascinating to compare the two. In some ways it's practically the same production - shot on the same sets, with the same props, using a translated version of the same script, and using some of the same establishing / long shots, yet with a completely different cast and crew; it really helps one to see and understand exactly what certain parts of the production contribute. It's also arguably a better movie than the more famous, acknowledged classic English version with Lugosi. I personally think Bela Lugosi is better in the title role, but in most other respects the Spanish version is better (better supporting cast, better camerawork, better pacing, etc.). Furthermore, it also retains scenes cut from the English one. And the two versions easily fit on a disc together. Why not include it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about this & I think I'll stick with the DVD's. The Blu's won't be a huge upgrade (nothing like), & the amount of time I watch any of them, maybe every two or three years, it's not worth it. I'm going through the Mummy films right now...& only the first one is in the box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
