Your 5 most wanted dvd/HD releases for 2008?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Dec 2007, 14:49

saltysam wrote:Where is this anamorphic Hard Target that dvdvison talks about?

He was on about Hard Boiled. Not Hard Target as has been said a few times now, but Brad edited the posts.

There is only 1 version of Hard Target in anamorphic WS, the Korean one, it went a long time ago.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:03

I edited the post based on your and other replies

There is no French Hard Boiled from Columbia Tri Star you fool (they don't and never have owned the rights). He was on about Hard Target, which Sony do own the rights to. Why would he suddenly be talking about Hard Boiled out of the blue.

Admit it you fucked up

. You what? -

romerojpg wrote:Hard Target, not Hard Boiled

romerojpg wrote:He was on about Hard Boiled. Not Hard Target as has been said a few times now, but Brad edited the posts.

Grim: I guess it's OOP.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:09

Hard Target is listed on Amazon.fr -it's been released a couple of times but by universal not columbia-dvdvision needs to clarify his post and maybe provide links.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:17

bradavon wrote:I edited the post based on your and other replies

There is no French Hard Boiled from Columbia Tri Star you fool (they don't and never have owned the rights). He was on about Hard Target, which Sony do own the rights to. Why would he suddenly be talking about Hard Boiled out of the blue.

EXACTLY

THERE IS NO HARD TARGET FRENCH ANAMORPHIC!

HE was talking about Hard Boiled. Muppet.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 16:43

Care to explain "your" contradiction Romero? Of course not

I've edited the post back.

saltysam wrote:Hard Target is listed on Amazon.fr -it's been released a couple of times but by universal not columbia

They do work together at times.

Unlike TF1 (Hard Boiled) who're only a French label.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 23 Dec 2007, 20:31

there was much talk on here of an anamorphic Hard Target a while back and it was pretty much established the only one was an oop korean dvd.i find it hard to believe there was a french anamorphic version under our noses all this time.either dvdvision is mistaken or he is on about Hard Boiled.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Dec 2007, 21:29

DVDVision where are you?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:09

Eating Christmas frogs no doubt

saltysam wrote:either dvdvision is mistaken or he is on about Hard Boiled.

That would also not fit. There is no Hard Boiled labelled as a Director's Cut and Sony certainly don't hold the French rights.

Why would it be important if it featured an English soundtrack? Something he says. It would be important for Hard Target though.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:35

bradavon wrote:
saltysam wrote:either dvdvision is mistaken or he is on about Hard Boiled.
That would also not fit. There is no Hard Boiled labelled as a Director's Cut

there is no Hard Target labelled as a director's cut either.just that the usa release suffered mppa cuts,the rest of the world didn't.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Dec 2007, 22:39

I know. DVD Vision has confused us then buggered off

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 23 Dec 2007, 23:54

I'm most looking forward to Batman Begins on Blu Ray.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 24 Dec 2007, 00:21

IronMonkey wrote:I'm most looking forward to Batman Begins on Blu Ray.

If Warner don't stuff it up that is.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 24 Dec 2007, 00:34

I want that, and also The Matrix on Blu-ray (just the first one!).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Dec 2007, 00:56

gasteropod wrote:and also The Matrix on Blu-ray (just the first one!).

I seriously doubt that will happen. You're more likely to find the Trilogy box set cheap.

I picked up the HD-DVD box set for £18

. I only really want the first one too (I still own the Single Disc R4) but at £18 I couldn't resist.

EvaUnit02 wrote:If Warner don't stuff it up that is.

They better get their production department back on track!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 24 Dec 2007, 05:08

bradavon wrote:Both HD resolutions are in the 16:9 aspect ratio so any ratio that doesn't fit gets pillar boxed/window boxed, as has happened for 2.35:1 for years.

When have 2.35 films been pillar/window boxed? It only affects films that are less than 1.78.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Dec 2007, 15:14

Some people are easily confused

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Dec 2007, 16:24

I said pillarboxed/window boxed to illustrate my point, to make things easier. You knew what I meant right?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Dec 2007, 16:35

I never saw this page, was replying to the last one haha

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Dec 2007, 02:31

bradavon wrote:I said pillarboxed/window boxed to illustrate my point, to make things easier. You knew what I meant right?

No.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 Dec 2007, 21:09

The aspect ratio differs from the TV's physical shape (i.e - 1.78:1/16:9) so black bars are there to compensate.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 00:38

That's called letterboxing then in relation to 2.35.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Dec 2007, 02:04

bradavon wrote:I said pillarboxed/window boxed to illustrate my point, to make things easier.

You asked a question I answered it, sorry it wasn't picture perfect for you. I didn't have to answer your question

. Letterboxing refers to non-anamorphic material (in any aspect ratio) so technically your statement is wrong anyway but I'm bored, you understand me (I'd wager you always did), moving on . . .

Jeez and you have a go at me for being pedantic.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Dec 2007, 10:50

If you're gonna answer a question... might as well get it right.

You talked about pillarboxing and 2.35 in the same sentence. Understandable that I would pick you up on it.

How should I know what you meant?

Even anamorphic a 2.35 film is still letterboxed in terms of shape as it doesn't fit the entire 1.78 screen (bars at top and bottom like a letterbox).

If there's a more correct term for it LMK.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Dec 2007, 22:22

I did get it right.

Pillarboxing in the context of 4:3 is correct. To not confuse things further I didn't say 2.35:1 isn't pillarboxing but it's secondary anyway as you asked me about 4:3 on HD. The 2.35:1 part wasn't important to the question.

I've already explained all this. Pot, Kettle, Black!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Dec 2007, 11:55

Boring already.