PDA

View Full Version : George Romero's NOTLD to be colurized and three-deified



SuperDave
12-28-2009, 11:15 AM
NOTLD Color 3D Trailer (http://www.joblo.com/arrow/index.php?id=19934)


According to Variety, Spanish 3D company Xpand has inked with Arclight Films to take rights to Spain on 3D feature films BAIT (which we last told you about HERE) and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.

No, this is not the animated NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; it's not the horrible remake from a few years ago; and it's not the 3D "prequel" that is being made right now - this is the original George Romero classic, colorized and in 3D.

This version was made by the San Diego-based Passmore Lab. Check out the trailer below, it doesn't look as bad as you might consider (at the very least, it doesn't strike me as a cheapo colorization). This version of NOTLD should be an interesting test for smaller scale 3D projects... It should be released in Spain sometime in 2010.

Hm, could be interesting. What say you?

TheThirdHalf
12-28-2009, 11:42 AM
I say Uhhhg...why ruin a perfectly good movie. I've yet to see a good example of colorization.

Scarface
12-28-2009, 11:44 AM
Ugh. There's absolutely no need to bastardize the original. It's been milked dry already.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-28-2009, 12:13 PM
The Legend Films release (which I bought for the Mike Nelson commentary) already had about the most decent colorization this movie's ever gonna get (and, thankfully, the b&w original, as well). It was pointless then, it's even more pointless now...and 3D? Forget it.

Khan
12-28-2009, 12:29 PM
Pass on that.

Scarface
12-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Unless it's free of charge (which it should be), I ain't paying to watch it. I'll stick with buying the BD (unless it's not worth upgrading from the 40th Anniversary transfer).

Bearscubsfan87
12-28-2009, 09:58 PM
I say Uhhhg...why ruin a perfectly good movie. I've yet to see a good example of colorization.

Have you seen "It's a wonderful life" on blu-ray? If it is done that good, I'd definitely be interested at the least.

Torgo
12-28-2009, 10:00 PM
I thought they were doing a 3D Dawn of the Dead, also?

Anyway, I'd rather they just re-release new prints of these movies, instead of resorting to stupid gimmicks.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-28-2009, 10:14 PM
Have you seen "It's a wonderful life" on blu-ray? If it is done that good, I'd definitely be interested at the least.

Ugh...that colorization is as good an example as any of why colorization sucks. The awful fleshtones make everyone in the film look like wax dummies. As is generally the case with colorization. Compare any colorized movie from the '40s to genuine Technicolor pictures from the same period, and tell me that the artificial color isn't laughable.

Bearscubsfan87
12-28-2009, 10:33 PM
I actually didn't mind that colorization. Mom and Dad, who are purists of that film, actually liked that version of the film as well. That kind of surprised me a little. I know some colorizations, such as the Ma and Pa Kettle films look terrible, but I actually didn't mind it. Although I didn't compare them simultaneously, but I didn't notice Jimmy Stewert's tone color being that far off from, say, rear window.... I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just saying that I didn't notice that big of a difference without a side-by-side comparison.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-28-2009, 11:12 PM
Click for larger:

It's a Wonderful Life (colorization from BD):

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/jamesoblivion/large_its_a_wonderful_life_c_blu-1.jpg


Rear Window (Legacy DVD):

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/jamesoblivion/800rearwindowPDVD_00450.jpg


Despite the fact that Blu-Ray presents a far richer color spectrum than DVD, the above comparison of the It's a Wonderful Life BD colorization and the Rear Window DVD clearly demonstrate the superiority of the natural color over the artificial. The faux color is lifeless, despite the capabilities of BD, while the natural color is vibrant, despite the limitations of DVD. When Rear Window finally makes its way to BD, the comparison will be even more damning.

Bearscubsfan87
12-29-2009, 10:04 AM
There is quite a noticeable difference, however I'm still not going to complain about the colorized version of "It's a Wonderful Life." I have seen much worse.

Torgo
12-29-2009, 11:47 AM
There is quite a noticeable difference, however I'm still not going to complain about the colorized version of "It's a Wonderful Life." I have seen much worse.

I don't think you get it. The colorized versions of these movies are not how they were intended to be seen. The lighting in black and white for NOTLD is exquisite, and that's the look Romero, the GUY WHO MADE THE MOVIE, intended. Not some bastardized color version that some money hungry douche bags cooked up.

But hey, if you wanna watch bastardized versions of great movies and you can enjoy them, by all means do so.

The Gill-Man
12-29-2009, 11:55 AM
I agree 100% with Torgo. If a film was shot for black and white, leave it that way. The lighting, sets, effects, etc were all done with the intention of being shot b&w, so it just looks wrong if it is colorized (not to mention that the colors themselves look as fake as Pam Anderson's rack).

Roswell
12-29-2009, 12:04 PM
To me, colorization and 3-Ding is as bad as pan-and-scan. It goes against the intent of the filmmakers and turns good looking black-and-white films into colorful nightmares. I'm not a huge fan of Night Of The Living Dead, but considering some of the lighting choices in that film, I would hate to see it colorized.

Peaker1990
12-29-2009, 12:47 PM
The Legend Films release (which I bought for the Mike Nelson commentary) already had about the most decent colorization this movie's ever gonna get (and, thankfully, the b&w original, as well). It was pointless then, it's even more pointless now...and 3D? Forget it.

Hate to correct YOU of all people, but the Legend Films release CLAIMED to have a restored version of the original B&W version. However, they simply ran their already-colorized version through a B&W filter. The title card gives it away. It is red in the colorized version, and BLACK in this B&W version, though it is actually white in the original.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-29-2009, 04:58 PM
There is quite a noticeable difference, however I'm still not going to complain about the colorized version of "It's a Wonderful Life." I have seen much worse.

So have I, but at the end of the day, crap is still crap. haha Hitler was a worse mass murderer than Pol Pot, but I've got no affection for the latter, just because he only killed two million people. ;)

I mean, let's look at this again:


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/jamesoblivion/large_its_a_wonderful_life_c_blu-1.jpg


You know what Jimmy Stewart looks like here? A colorized cardboard cutout of Jimmy Stewart. The flatness of the colors - regardless of any attempts at tone-scale - makes everything appear flat. And I could get into the whole discussion of why flesh-tones always look waxy/lifeless in colorized b&w films, but I'd rather not get into all the technical mumbo-jumbo of it. Suffice it to say, they DO always look waxy/lifeless. haha

What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to watch great b&w films in artificial color...let alone prefer it. Here you have this beautiful cinematography...all this detail and great lighting...deep blacks and brilliant whites, with a rich grayscale in between...and so much of that (if not all of it) is sacrificed in the artificial colorization process. The image loses detail and depth, the effect of the lighting (specifically designed for b&w presentation) is lost entirely, and the blacks and whites that make the original cinematography pop are now besmirched with chalky faux-color.

I don't know...it's just fucking UGLY. Even when it's not quite AS ugly as past colorizations, all colorization is still inherently ugly. Not to mention that it betrays and and all intentions of the people who actually made the films in question. As Orson Welles once said, "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamn Crayolas away from my movies."



Hate to correct YOU of all people, but the Legend Films release CLAIMED to have a restored version of the original B&W version. However, they simply ran their already-colorized version through a B&W filter. The title card gives it away. It is red in the colorized version, and BLACK in this B&W version, though it is actually white in the original.

Eh, I hardly watch it, due to already having better DVD versions of the original b&w, so I never paid much attention to anything but the commentary on that disc. That's the only reason to own it, anyway. Good bit of trivia, though...I might have to check that out later, just for the hell of it.

But all I really meant to get across was that the Legend DVD did offer the film in b&w, as well (even if altered)...not exclusively in its colorized form.

Peaker1990
12-29-2009, 05:14 PM
Eh, I hardly watch it, due to already having better DVD versions of the original b&w, so I never paid much attention to anything but the commentary on that disc. That's the only reason to own it, anyway. Good bit of trivia, though...I might have to check that out later, just for the hell of it.

But all I really meant to get across was that the Legend DVD did offer the film in b&w, as well (even if altered)...not exclusively in its colorized form.

Well, I prefer the Dimension Films release of it. It looks fantastic. And there's no added fade in or anything unlike some early releases.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-29-2009, 05:23 PM
Well, I prefer the Dimension Films release of it. It looks fantastic. And there's no added fade in or anything unlike some early releases.

The 40th Anniversary Edition definitely has the best image quality. Unfortunately, I've discovered in repeat viewings that it's also noticeably cropped. So technically, the Millennium Edition has the best framing, while the 40th Anniversary Edition has the best PQ. If only we could have the best of both worlds. Maybe next time.

Of course, if there is a next time, it will mark the EIGHTH time I've bought the damn movie. haha

Peaker1990
12-29-2009, 05:33 PM
The 40th Anniversary Edition definitely has the best image quality. Unfortunately, I've discovered in repeat viewings that it's also noticeably cropped. So technically, the Millennium Edition has the best framing, while the 40th Anniversary Edition has the best PQ. If only we could have the best of both worlds. Maybe next time.

Of course, if there is a next time, it will mark the EIGHTH time I've bought the damn movie. haha

Damn, its crazy, NOTLD and Halloween, all of the editions out there (outside of the one-each extended ones with footage shot after the fact) are the same damn cut, but differ in so many ways.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-29-2009, 05:44 PM
It's worst with NotLD, thanks to the film's public domain status...there have probably been more home video releases for NotLD than for any other film in history. haha And of course, most of them are just cut-rate shit transfers, since anyone with a copy of the movie can legally distribute it...but you always have to keep an eye out for the good ones.

And it should be noted that the upcoming colorized, 3-D NotLD release is co-produced by Legend Films, and their previous colorization job seems to be intact. Based on the trailer, I see nothing different about it. So other than the fact that it will be in 3-D (and since it's being converted from a 2-D source, there's no telling how shitty that will look), it's nothing we haven't already seen.

Peaker1990
12-29-2009, 05:50 PM
It's worst with NotLD, thanks to the film's public domain status...there have probably been more home video releases for NotLD than for any other film in history. haha And of course, most of them are just cut-rate shit transfers, since anyone with a copy of the movie can legally distribute it...but you always have to keep an eye out for the good ones.

And it should be noted that the upcoming colorized, 3-D NotLD release is co-produced by Legend Films, and their previous colorization job seems to be intact. Based on the trailer, I see nothing different about it. So other than the fact that it will be in 3-D (and since it's being converted from a 2-D source, there's no telling how shitty that will look), it's nothing we haven't already seen.

Oh, I know, I picked up a copy about 6 years ago at Family Dollar (it was from a label called "Dollar DVD" go figure, and it was only a buck. It included House on Haunted Hill as an extra. Both transfers were watchable, but nothing to write home about. The very first VHSs of it probably to this day look better that DVD did.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-29-2009, 07:11 PM
I've seen transfers of every quality imaginable. haha From damn good to virtually unwatchable. Now, if only they can release one with the full framing of the Millennium Edition and the overall PQ of the 40th Anniversary Edition, I could close the book for good and stop octuple-dipping and shit.

Peaker1990
12-29-2009, 07:19 PM
I've seen transfers of every quality imaginable. haha From damn good to virtually unwatchable. Now, if only they can release one with the full framing of the Millennium Edition and the overall PQ of the 40th Anniversary Edition, I could close the book for good and stop octuple-dipping and shit.

That's funny. I've octuple-dipped on Halloween '78 and sextuple-dipped on Halloween '07. And I have like 5 different copies of the original Puppetmaster (not exactly a great movie, but entertaining nonetheless, and there's the original version- fullscreen, the "Mexican import that is really just a front for an illegal rerelase" version, NTSC from a PAL transfer, A bootleg uncut version, and a recorded-from-MonstersHD widescreen version, and it isn't cropped)

NOES, I have the infiniFilm edition and the box set. Psycho, I have the old Collector's Edition, the Legacy edition, and the Hitchcock: Masterpiece Collection set.

But only 3 different copies of NOTLD.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-29-2009, 07:25 PM
I don't generally keep previous editions once I upgrade. NotLD is the major exception. The three different releases I still have on DVD all have different things going for them. The Millennium has the best framing and features, the 40th Anniversary has the best PQ, and the Legend has the Mike Nelson commentary. So as much as I hate to keep ALL of them, I pretty much have to. haha I've gotten rid of all my other previous versions, though.

Scarface
12-29-2009, 07:30 PM
I've octuple-dipped on Halloween '78 and sextuple-dipped on Halloween '07.

You dirty, dirty man (or woman?). My girlfriend won't even let me sextuple-dip.

On a serious note, though, I only bothered keeping the 40th Anniversary and Millennium Edition DVDs for NOTLD. I've seen more DVDs of the film than I care to count. I was considering going in for the BD, but I heard it was a pretty bad transfer.

jmb_052
12-29-2009, 07:34 PM
Mixing this colorized movie with some psychadelics would be awesome.

I sometimes laugh when people use the phrase "the director's intention". Sometimes the director's intention is inadequate or just sometimes sucks, and it doesn't hurt to fuck with someone else's movie.

Im not saying that is true with this movie, but it doesn't always hurt.

Roswell
12-29-2009, 07:39 PM
Mixing this colorized movie with some psychadelics would be awesome.

I sometimes laugh when people use the phrase "the director's intention". Sometimes the director's intention is inadequate or just sometimes sucks, and it doesn't hurt to fuck with someone else's movie.

Im not saying that is true with this movie, but it doesn't always hurt.

Honestly, I have never seen a movie that has benefited from studio/distributor/etc. tampering. The reason people don't appreciate what they do is because directors (at least the good ones) think with an artistic mind. Studios and distributors think about money first and art second, which is why they SHOULDN'T be in charge of changing a film.

Think about it like this: let's say you made a piece of artwork, or wrote a paper, or what have you. You're proud of your work (or at least content), but someone who has no real interest in art says "Yeah, we need to cut your art in half to fit it in this frame", or "we need to take out a few chapters of your story so that we can make more copies". You'd be pissed, right? Granted, regular people are what make movies what they are, but in the end it should be up to the filmmakers (the artists, if you will) to decide what gets changed and what doesn't.

Silverpsycho
12-29-2009, 07:48 PM
Well this isn't shocking news. This movie has already been given unecessary bells and whistles over the years and in the end, the black and white version is still best. I already have a decent colorized version, just to have it, and I rarely ever watch it. As for 3D...yeesh. I'm curious as to how it will look but in the end I don't really care.

Roswell
12-29-2009, 07:50 PM
The only real scene that I think could benefit from 3-D would be when the little girl stabs her mother with the garden tool. That could be kind of cool if done right, but not really worth doing the whole film in 3-D for.

jmb_052
12-29-2009, 09:27 PM
Honestly, I have never seen a movie that has benefited from studio/distributor/etc. tampering. The reason people don't appreciate what they do is because directors (at least the good ones) think with an artistic mind. Studios and distributors think about money first and art second, which is why they SHOULDN'T be in charge of changing a film.

Think about it like this: let's say you made a piece of artwork, or wrote a paper, or what have you. You're proud of your work (or at least content), but someone who has no real interest in art says "Yeah, we need to cut your art in half to fit it in this frame", or "we need to take out a few chapters of your story so that we can make more copies". You'd be pissed, right? Granted, regular people are what make movies what they are, but in the end it should be up to the filmmakers (the artists, if you will) to decide what gets changed and what doesn't.

Andy Warhol's films Sleep and Empire are considered great pieces of art, as pretentious as Warhol and those movies are. That doesn't mean that they cannot be improved. Cut Sleep from 6 hours to ten minutes, and the only thing you miss is maybe some snores and a dude rolling over. Cut 7 hours and 45 minutes from Empire and the only thing you miss is seven hours of the sky changing colors.

Seriously, just because a director wants his movie one way, doesn't mean it's the best way. I do understand what you are saying completely, but if someone was going to cut a few scattered scenes out of the Kill Bill movies and make it one complete movie, then it may actually make the story better. Add Tarantino to the list of pretentious filmmakers, too.

Bearscubsfan87
12-29-2009, 10:16 PM
I don't think you get it. The colorized versions of these movies are not how they were intended to be seen. The lighting in black and white for NOTLD is exquisite, and that's the look Romero, the GUY WHO MADE THE MOVIE, intended. Not some bastardized color version that some money hungry douche bags cooked up.

But hey, if you wanna watch bastardized versions of great movies and you can enjoy them, by all means do so.

I do indeed get it. There is no one who appreciates a director's vision, and preserving it, more than I do. One of my hobbies is studying different techniques and styles of different directors. What can I say, I get into this shit. I simply view the colorized versions as an alternate option of viewing a favorite.

Sort of the same thing with the various incarnations of the original Star Wars trilogy. If you listen to Lucus, the latest versions are the closest thing to his vision. However, many fanboys consider those "bastardized" versions of the theatrical cut. I simply see them as different options for viewing the same film.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-30-2009, 02:05 PM
Seriously, just because a director wants his movie one way, doesn't mean it's the best way. I do understand what you are saying completely, but if someone was going to cut a few scattered scenes out of the Kill Bill movies and make it one complete movie, then it may actually make the story better. Add Tarantino to the list of pretentious filmmakers, too.

The fact that making one complete movie was the director's intention for Kill Bill pretty much invalidates that example. :p



I do indeed get it. There is no one who appreciates a director's vision, and preserving it, more than I do. One of my hobbies is studying different techniques and styles of different directors. What can I say, I get into this shit. I simply view the colorized versions as an alternate option of viewing a favorite.

Sort of the same thing with the various incarnations of the original Star Wars trilogy. If you listen to Lucus, the latest versions are the closest thing to his vision. However, many fanboys consider those "bastardized" versions of the theatrical cut. I simply see them as different options for viewing the same film.

Let's not bring Lucas into this. haha You can point a million things in his remastered editions of the original trilogy that are clearly revisionist, and not consistent with his original intent, regardless of what he may say now. I mean, if he'd wanted Greedo to shoot first in 1977, so Han wouldn't seem like such a prick, why didn't he just shoot it that way? How does cut-and-pasting Hayden Christensen into Jedi support or reflect his original vision? haha It's revisionism disguised as auteurism, plain and simple.

Ridley Scott's Final Cut of Blade Runner is an actual example of what you're talking about. And in that case, I absolutely endorse the Final Cut as the final word on Blade Runner. To me, that's the real version of the movie, because Scott was finally allowed to do that which he'd wanted to do with the film in the first place, and would've done in 1982, had he the opportunity. The remastered Star Wars trilogy doesn't fall into that same category. I mean, it's Lucas's right to do what he wants, absolutely...they're his movies. And if Leonardo returned from the grave, and painted a moustache on the Mona Lisa, that would be his right, as well. But it would also be my right to scoff if he claimed that the moustachioed Mona Lisa was "closer to his vision." ;)

The Source
12-30-2009, 02:11 PM
And if Leonardo returned from the grave, and painted a moustache on the Mona Lisa, that would be his right, as well. But it would also be my right to scoff if he claimed that the moustachioed Mona Lisa was "closer to his vision." ;):roflmao:

You come up with some of the funniest shit. I completely agree too.

Monte
12-30-2009, 03:16 PM
I knew someone would eventually capitalize on the huge, untapped Spanish market that is clamoring for a 3-D, colorized version of Night of the Living Dead.

Torgo
12-30-2009, 04:25 PM
Andy Warhol's films Sleep and Empire are considered great pieces of art, as pretentious as Warhol and those movies are. That doesn't mean that they cannot be improved. Cut Sleep from 6 hours to ten minutes, and the only thing you miss is maybe some snores and a dude rolling over. Cut 7 hours and 45 minutes from Empire and the only thing you miss is seven hours of the sky changing colors.

Seriously, just because a director wants his movie one way, doesn't mean it's the best way. I do understand what you are saying completely, but if someone was going to cut a few scattered scenes out of the Kill Bill movies and make it one complete movie, then it may actually make the story better. Add Tarantino to the list of pretentious filmmakers, too.

:bigeyes:

I'm glad I don't watch movies with your eyes! :bastard:

wyatt s
12-30-2009, 07:15 PM
:roflmao:

You come up with some of the funniest shit. I completely agree too.

Nah, he's not that funny. He's just very adept at pointing out how absurd something actually is. You see, the absurdity was funny already. Haha.


Oh, and this is a stupid idea. Figured I should add that, just in case my above statement didn't hint as to what side of the fence I come down on.

Bearscubsfan87
12-31-2009, 09:08 AM
The fact that making one complete movie was the director's intention for Kill Bill pretty much invalidates that example. :p




Let's not bring Lucas into this. haha You can point a million things in his remastered editions of the original trilogy that are clearly revisionist, and not consistent with his original intent, regardless of what he may say now. I mean, if he'd wanted Greedo to shoot first in 1977, so Han wouldn't seem like such a prick, why didn't he just shoot it that way? How does cut-and-pasting Hayden Christensen into Jedi support or reflect his original vision? haha It's revisionism disguised as auteurism, plain and simple.

Ridley Scott's Final Cut of Blade Runner is an actual example of what you're talking about. And in that case, I absolutely endorse the Final Cut as the final word on Blade Runner. To me, that's the real version of the movie, because Scott was finally allowed to do that which he'd wanted to do with the film in the first place, and would've done in 1982, had he the opportunity. The remastered Star Wars trilogy doesn't fall into that same category. I mean, it's Lucas's right to do what he wants, absolutely...they're his movies. And if Leonardo returned from the grave, and painted a moustache on the Mona Lisa, that would be his right, as well. But it would also be my right to scoff if he claimed that the moustachioed Mona Lisa was "closer to his vision." ;)

You're right, bad example. That was just the first thing that came to mind. I know that the Scott's Final Cut would be a better example. But, like I say, there is the option of watching it any way you want.

If they did a release like "wonderful life" and included both the black and white and colorized versions, it would provide such options. I would watch it out of curiousity, hopefully it would have been done better than the last time the colorized "Night." While it wouldn't become the main way I watch that version of the movie, I may just watch it from time to time.

Diamond Wings
12-31-2009, 09:29 AM
I would also say this is a silly idea. The black and white version is far superior and I find that much more creepy than this comic-looking rendition. And, yes, the skin tones are awful.

EvilOnTwoLegs
12-31-2009, 01:15 PM
hopefully it would have been done better than the last time the colorized "Night." While it wouldn't become the main way I watch that version of the movie, I may just watch it from time to time.

They're not re-colorizing it this time. It's still Legend Films, who released the 2004 colorized version, and based on the trailer linked in the first post, they don't seem to be changing their previous color scheme at all. Simply converting their previously colorized version to a 3-D print.

SuperDave
01-02-2010, 11:08 AM
What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to watch great b&w films in artificial color...I don't know...it's just fucking UGLY. Even when it's not quite AS ugly as past colorizations, all colorization is still inherently ugly.

The only movie I'm interested in owning the colourized version (and that mostly as a curiosity), in addition to the superior B&W version I already own, is King Kong. And that's mainly because of the colour choices used. I kind of dig Blue Kong Variant :D


Let's not bring Lucas into this. haha You can point a million things in his remastered editions of the original trilogy that are clearly revisionist, and not consistent with his original intent, regardless of what he may say now. I mean, if he'd wanted Greedo to shoot first in 1977, so Han wouldn't seem like such a prick, why didn't he just shoot it that way? How does cut-and-pasting Hayden Christensen into Jedi support or reflect his original vision? haha It's revisionism disguised as auteurism, plain and simple.

Incidentally, (and wow, we're really mixing up threads here, aren't we?), didn't George Lucas enthousiastically campaign against the colourization of films? Pretty ironic, seeing as how he went back and mutilated his own work later on. :rolleyes:


As Orson Welles once said, "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamn Crayolas away from my movies."

:laugh: What a great quote :laugh:


Now, if only they can release one with the full framing of the Millennium Edition and the overall PQ of the 40th Anniversary Edition

So, would you say those are the only two versions worth getting, then?

EvilOnTwoLegs
01-02-2010, 12:36 PM
So, would you say those are the only two versions worth getting, then?

Pretty much. I own the Legend Films DVD, but again, that's only for the Mike Nelson commentary track. So I'd recommend that to anyone who's a fan of MST3K or The Film Crew/Rifftrax. I believe there's also a version with the full Rifftrax cast riffing, but I haven't picked that one up. It's said to repeat much from Nelson's solo commentary, anyway.

But yeah, if you're not a Mike Nelson fan, I'd say the Millennium and 40th Anniversary Editions are the only ones to date that are really worth having.

A Dumb Question
01-02-2010, 06:03 PM
Honestly, I have never seen a movie that has benefited from studio/distributor/etc. tampering.Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was "tampered with" via the tacked-on promise of Spock's return, a plot point that Nicholas Meyer dismissed because of his dislike of resurrection stories. Thanks to that tampering, the ending of the film works better, and we have almost 30 years worth of more Trek to enjoy.

SuperDave
01-02-2010, 08:41 PM
Pretty much. I own the Legend Films DVD, but again, that's only for the Mike Nelson commentary track. So I'd recommend that to anyone who's a fan of MST3K or The Film Crew/Rifftrax. I believe there's also a version with the full Rifftrax cast riffing, but I haven't picked that one up. It's said to repeat much from Nelson's solo commentary, anyway.

But yeah, if you're not a Mike Nelson fan, I'd say the Millennium and 40th Anniversary Editions are the only ones to date that are really worth having.

Good to know, thanks.