Mine is the first US DVD, and one of Live Entertainment's very first DVDs.

The fullscreen DVD that I rented many years ago seemed to be a VHS transfer with burnt-in subtitles (video generated, not print subtitles). It was a real cheapo local DVD release. One can hope that that transfer was struck before the film was tinkered with.

Another great looking project! I remember the DVD having very grey blacks and the Blu-ray being very underwhelming.

If you're interested I know a guy who posted pictures of the 35mm on his facebook page, I saved them for the sake of it

Great idea, would be very easy to crush blacks with the mess they are in on disc

Question to Don Falcon: did you see any Miramax logo at the Tarantino 25th anniversary screening?

As much as I despise most of Tarantino's material, I do find it interesting that for such a film person it seems all of his films have been extensively manipulated or transferred poorly. I'm not at all surprised that Dogs is this way. The 2.0 should be the original mix as this was a low budget indie that came before ac3 was fully accepted.

I wish I could see Jackie Brown theatrically as I swear the BD seems pushed way too far. Pulp Fiction seems off too so I always just stuck with the Criterion box version.

You wanna know the funniest thing? RD was shot for 1.85 with the idea that it was straight to video in square format (open matte as is the bonus disc on the french release, the only copy in the world with the correct color timing).
After the first disastrous screening, Tarantino decided to "save" his film by widescreening it hence the horrible cropping on most shots.
In the first screening, I think he went 1.37:1 because he thought this was very Godard but it didn't work.
So he suddenly decided this film was 2.39:1.
Ironically, this move saved the film. If he didn't do this, this would have not launched his career.
In cinemascope, this was "cinema". In 1.85 or 1.37 this was straight to video fare.

This info have never leaked out because he rewrote history on the spot. But I know people who were there who know. Love Tarantino btw.
You can't blame a guy who is trying to make it for minimising his mistakes.

Interesting insight, Stamper!

(2017-05-18, 08:14 PM)captainsolo Wrote: As much as I despise most of Tarantino's material, I do find it interesting that for such a film person it seems all of his films have been extensively manipulated or transferred poorly. I'm not at all surprised that Dogs is this way. The 2.0 should be the original mix as this was a low budget indie that came before ac3 was fully accepted.

I wish I could see Jackie Brown theatrically as I swear the BD seems pushed way too far. Pulp Fiction seems off too so I always just stuck with the Criterion box version.

For what it's worth, I went to a screening of Tarantino's personal print of Pulp Fiction at his New Beverly Cinema, and the colors were very close to the Blu-ray, as far as I could tell.

Edit: That being said, I wasn't really paying attention to that sort of thing and was more enjoying the theater full of Tarantino fans who, like me, were loving every second of the experience.