SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Why do some channels still show unremastered movies?

Posted: May 02 2006 12:05 pm

A couple of movies ago, I was flipping channels and Spike TV was showing the unremastered version of The Terminator. And as much as I love The Terminator, I don't know how people were able to endure it in its original theatrical release. Movies in the 70s and 80s were often really grainy and it was damn near impossible to see what was going on in low light situations. In the DVD age, I can't possibly fathom why Spike TV would show the old version, other than it's already been edited for TV and they're lazy fucks.

Joined: Apr 30 2006 Location: Helsinki Posts: 87

I dunno, But i actually prefer some movies in their originality. For example the Dawn- and Day of the Dead ( Georgie boys original versions ) are much better without remastering. Also I bit my tongue when I saw how fucked up the remastering was on Silence of the lambs DVD I bought.

Posted: May 02 2006 03:07 pm

Sometimes the TV versions look better than the remastered Shocked

Robocop 2 always seems to look better on TV (note: I have the original DVD of 2, not the MGM reissue. I don't know if they improved the picture).

Plus, the TV versions sometimes add footage.

Disturbing Behavior, Child's Play 2, and Problem Child are all better on TV than the theatrical/DVD versions. That really pisses me off. Especially Problem Child! They cut all the good jokes out of the real version of the movie! Evil

Joined: Apr 24 2006 Posts: 292

First off Screw remastered crap. I want to see the movie the exact same way Mr. Rogers sawed Star Wars. I mean yes I don't mind the "original reel" that has been recorded to perfection as data but changing the color or pulling that oh the screen is red and blurry bit is just annoying for me to know hak sang watched it nicely but I get this DVD maybe if and only if verson.

Take for example remakes like Red Dragon when the reality is that everybody knew who Hannibal and read/saw the orginal why do I need to see useless actors getting paid for nothing.

Posted: May 02 2006 08:01 pm

RegalSin wrote:

Take for example remakes like Red Dragon when the reality is that everybody knew who Hannibal and read/saw the orginal why do I need to see useless actors getting paid for nothing.

I'm very confused by this statement.

Regardless of the platform, I'll defend Red Dragon. I think it's Ratner's finest work. It's not hip to be 80s Mann style, but it's still better than Hannibal.

Posted: May 02 2006 10:22 pm

It IS hip to be square as I hear, however. And yeah, Hannibal sucked ass. I tried to watch it twice and fell asleep both times.

Joined: Apr 24 2006 Posts: 292

Tebor wrote:

RegalSin wrote:

Take for example remakes like Red Dragon when the reality is that everybody knew who Hannibal and read/saw the orginal why do I need to see useless actors getting paid for nothing.

I'm very confused by this statement.

Regardless of the platform, I'll defend Red Dragon. I think it's Ratner's finest work. It's not hip to be 80s Mann style, but it's still better than Hannibal.

What I wanted to see was the black and white classic remade with color like when dorathy went to the land of Oz but with direct look alikes and slighty modified attires. Not the same pair of actors continuing directly before Silence of the Lambs.

I wanted to see young Hannibal.

Posted: May 03 2006 08:06 am

This thread has completely spiraled out of control. Confused

Some posts might get moved to a dedicated Hannibal thread.

Back to remastered films, I'm still not sure how F/X broadcasted "The Blair Witch Project" editing or picturewise. The whole film looked like crap due to the horrible camera, but I just saw a version of "Clerks" which looked like it was shot on DV. Would F/X run a film like that through an extra filter or show it as is (sans the language).