As it is, you get around 3-4 hours of extras in all, for 3 films which people have been begging for for ages. And no audio commentaries either. (And no DTS, but that's for people who are all equipped at home).

Plus, you have to buy the 4-disc set, rather than an individual film.

Don't they know that DVD expectations are sky-high right now? How can they claim this is the most-anticipated release of the year, when Peter Jackson and Lucas himself have set such huge standards when it comes to releasing stuff on DVD?

Granted, the film were released back when DVDs weren't around, so maybe documentaries etc. are lacking - but at least a commentary from the director.....

And anyway, we all know another ultra-super box-set will come out after Indy 4

NP: Solitaire

While I'm excited to have the Indy trilogy on DVD, I'm disappointed in the apparent lack of extras.

We all know that Spielberg won't do commentary, but what about Lucas and the others? There better be one hell of a retrospective documentary on that fourth disc to justify the seeming lack of effort on these releases.....

But either way, I'm happy to have the films, just to replace my laserdiscs.

Entertainment Tonight did a special a while back on the Indy trilogy with some great retrospective footage. I think the special was like two hours (I could be wrong), but it had some excellent footage from the making of all three films. They better have that on the fourth disc.

I'm mostly interested in the movies anyway

quote:

---

Originally posted by ManOfSorrows:
One disc of extras is just fine for me.

I'm mostly interested in the movies anyway

Bring 'em on! I'm going to buy them.

---

I second that!!!

quote:

---

How can they claim this is the most-anticipated release of the year, when Peter Jackson and Lucas himself have set such huge standards when it comes to releasing stuff on DVD?

---

Because the majority want what matters most.....the movies, and the Indy trilogy has been in demand for some six years now.

The trilogy, remastered and in anamorphic widescreen.... Providing the mastering job is good I couldn't really care less about anything else, and that's the only thing that is up in the air right now as Paramount's DVD mastering differs vastly from disc to disc, as does Lucasfilm's if they've taken to doing the trilogy in house themselves.

I'm glad DTS isn't on there wasting space at least... The movies on the first 3 discs should have a LOT of room to breathe resulting in (hopefully) a terrific mastering job.

And yes yes, so long to the laserdiscs.

Dan (UK)

Lucas puts fanboy nerds over a barrel everytime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rkeaveney:
This is merely the FIRST release of INDY on DVD. Wait for the second... And the third...

Lucas puts fanboy nerds over a barrel everytime.

Ryan

---

Ryan,

Don't just single out Lucas this time, since Paramount's involved. Look at what they're doing with Trek to get the rabid fan money.

Gurrr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
Because the studio is Paramount the release is gonna blow. I mean that's a given. (At least IMO)

---

yeah, cause they did such a crappy job with the Jack Ryan box set, Trek releases, and other stuff. Damn them! Damn them all!!

First, I have no complaint about the so-called "lack of extras." At this point the LAST thing I want to sit through is another Lucas lecture on mythology and the creation of the character. The lack of a commentary is no surprise at all as Spielberg has never done one and probably never will. Also, if you've seen the extras on any of the recent Spielberg DVDs you know that the quality of these "special features" has been anything but special. Compare the E.T. extras to those on the laserdisc from only a few years ago and you'll see how far they've slid.

I want the movies, and I want them untouched by Lucas' cursed digital crayons, so this release is likely to be the only one I ever buy. Having seen the hell the Star Wars universe has fallen into, does anyone think Indy IV will add anything relevant?

I have one gripe, though. The first film is properly called Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Jones' name is not in the title and should not be. I hope they didn't re-do the opening credits to reflect the change.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgoldwas:

yeah, cause they did such a crappy job with the Jack Ryan box set, Trek releases, and other stuff. Damn them! Damn them all!!

---

Well personally I think Paramount's DVD arm could generally be better, hence the IMO in my above post.

Finally is all I have to say. Yes the lack of extras is too bad but no commentary, as others have said, is to be expected from Spielberg. I don't understand why it "detracts" from the movie, since you only have to listen to it if you want to.

Actually, I just got the new DVD of The Hunt for Red October, and I must say that while the DTS track is fantastic, the picture transfer leaves something to be desired. While sharp, the colors and progression are somewhat smeary. I have no idea why this might be so, given that I have plenty of DTS DVDs with flawless picture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
While sharp, the colors and progression are somewhat smeary. I have no idea why this might be so, given that I have plenty of DTS DVDs with flawless picture.

---

The quality of the telecine and inclusion of DTS audio are unrelated...

quote:

---

The quality of the telecine and inclusion of DTS audio are unrelated...

Dan

---

That is so, but the quality of the compression of the image and the inclusion of DTS are directly related. Unles extreme care is taken in the encoding, you can get an iffy image from even the highest-quality telecine.

Swash's point raises the question, though: why would Paramount offer an inferior image on one of their most popular catalogue titles? Hello, quality control?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
But: Red October in DTS? Is that new release I read about a while ago out yet? Does this finally have an anamorphic transfer?

---

Yup!! This is the new one we've been waiting for! Mine should be here tomorrow or thursday - can't wait to check 'em out!

quote:

---

Unles extreme care is taken in the encoding, you can get an iffy image from even the highest-quality telecine.

---

Oh agreed. But the problems that Swashbuckler was describing (smeary colors) sounds like a transfer issue, not an encoding one.

Dan

quote:

---

Oh agreed. But the problems that Swashbuckler was describing (smeary colors) sounds like a transfer issue, not an encoding one.

Dan[/B]

---

Yeah, it's hard to tell, but I usually associate compression problems with pixelation and over-sharp contrast. Smearing, I just don't know.

I'm not a huge DTS fan, myself. Dolby has always done it for me. I have a decent system (not top-end) and the difference isn't worth the sacrifice in image when both Dolby and DTS are present. I know from reading these boards that most prefer DTS. That's fine. I wish they'd offer maybe Dolby for full-sreen and DTS for wide...you know, one format on a disc and let the consumers pick as with letterboxing.

Usually if you ask a DTS fanatic to list off a number of top DTS presentations they'll mention the likes of Gladiator, Private Ryan, Fellowship of the Ring, Se7en, Blade II, Jurassic Park.... Fine, fine, all good, but tracks that share one thing in common. All are created from alternate 6 track masters to their Dolby Counterparts, just like 90% of DTS tracks out there.

The differences in such cases may be subjective, neither master is ultimately superior to the other, people just side with whichever they prefer, the important thing is in the majority of these cases it is NOT the (slightly) higher bitrate 'DTS' factor that is making people praise DTS tracks on DVD so much.

In that respect, when people lust for a forthcoming release with "it had better have DTS" or "why doesn’t it have DTS?" there's nothing to actually say the best source material is already being used for the 5,1 on the DVD. This is EXACTLY the case with both Star Wars DVDs. People think Lucas has an agenda toward DTS, not at all, they just knew enough to know that using the best source material they had available for the Dolby was all that was needed.

So why are alternate masters so often used? It's quite simple, and I've spoken to one specific studio about this (but shant name them)... The fanatics expect a difference, they will pay for it, so by using an alternate master a studio can give them what they want, instant satisfaction that there is an audible difference (a difference that a fanatic may immediately be drawn to deeming superior to the Dolby counterpart, but the reality of most cases is that they're just reacting simply being different).

And then you have the numbers argument, but half bitrate DTS as used on 90% of DTS codings for DVD is 754kbps, something that doesn't even carry a better frequency response to low bitrate 384kbps Dolby presentations (many DD tracks on a DVD are 448 these days, with Warner still being the main one to jump between the two)...

So am I attacking DTS philosophy all together? No I'm not. In my invites to LA (via the Home Theatre Forum) over the past few years, I've had the pleasure of being able to visit and talk with both those at DTS and Dolby Labs... Back in the days of full bitrate DTS Laserdiscs when the audio was actually overseen by DTS, there was a lot of interesting stuff going on.

The first wave of DTS DVDs were full bitrate, movie only releases overseen by DTS themselves. These were pretty decent releases... Soon though, the ability to encode a DTS track of the 5.1 source went to the studios, and things started to go wrong here. A notable mess up was Jurassic Park, the initial DTS pressings (audio handled by Universal) had a fault, they screwed up the LFE big time in their encoding of the track and DTS themselves were appalled by this. To this day Universal claims there was nothing wrong, but they replaced all further pressings however and fixed the error (look for a different UPC code on the ring of the disc). Funny that... And of course when the encoding fell into the hands of the studios we return to my point that many studios have been deliberately using alternate 6 track masters just to satisfy the fanatics with peace of mind that they're hearing something different to the Dolby and that the DTS compatibility of their HT components are not going to waste.

I always admired Warner's brief stint of putting DTS on DVD. Cast your minds back to re-issues of Interview with a Vampire, Twister and the first three Lethal Weapon movies. These were single disc releases that carried a Dolby track at the low 384kbps Dolby rate (remember 448 Dolby is more common outside of WB), a FULL bitrate 1509kbps DTS track and a bunch of extras...etc. They used the same source master for both tracks. Was there a difference? I like to think of it was Warner proving a point.

When you do have a DVD with Dolby and DTS encoded from the same source master (those Warner titles, some older Universal releases) compensate for the difference in audio levels (DTS, for some reason, is usually encoded a good few DBs higher), ensure your Home Theatre is calibrated with an SPL Meter and listen. There's the reality of DTS on DVD for you.

I've really yet to find reviews of a DTS track that are not so absurdly vague in their description of how it is apparently superior. "Fuller" - "has the slight edge" - "more natural"... and so on... Surely those so convinced of such enhancements could pluck better words from their vocabulary and be a little more precise.

[/end rant]

quote:

---

Unles extreme care is taken in the encoding, you can get an iffy image from even the highest-quality telecine.

---

Indeed. There's definately some confusion when people tend to throw around the word 'transfer' when talking about a DVDs image. The telecine in 90% of DVD cases is obviously going to be the internegative to 1920x1080 HD master, this results in what many should deem the "transfer" and it's actually not something many of us get to see right now as I appreciate you well know. (I'm typing for the benefit of others here)... It's initialy hard to comment on the transfer in many regards given on a DVD we don't actually see such a thing in it's actual form.

Beyond that telecine to HD transfer stage things of course come to downconverting for the 480i resolution of a DVD, so we're more subject to picking appart the mastering job than we are the transfer on a DVD, and it's in mastering where a lot of things can go wrong. Compression, edge enhancement, a lot of nasty issues. Even our beloved Fellowship of the Ring (both region 1 versions) were subject to a bit of a mastering mess up few are aware of.

Oh to have HD DVD.

Dan (UK)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin:
Why? Are you slow?

Well, Hollywood people. Figures.

---

Dan (UK)

Just kidding guys!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by perfpitch:
Of course, if Paramount were truly benevolent, they'd offer the ultimate INDIANA JONES collectors set, which involved omitting TEMPLE OF DOOM completely

---

quote:

---

(hell, even Spieberg practically disowns the damn thing)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricard L. Befan:
I love when people post without having a clue of what they're talking about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricard L. Befan:
I love when people post without having a clue of what they're talking about

---

Calling the "true ultimate collectors set" as one where The Last Crusade is missing doesn't exactly make me feel you know what you're talking about, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonathan_little:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by Ricard L. Befan:
[b]I love when people post without having a clue of what they're talking about <HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calling the "true ultimate collectors set" as one where The Last Crusade is missing doesn't exactly make me feel you know what you're talking about, either.

[Message edited by jonathan_little on 05-09-2003][/B]

---