BD 42 Rumble Fish

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Eureka/Masters of Cinema and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here.
Forum rules
Please do not clutter up the threads for MoC titles with information on pre-orders. You can announce the availability of pre-orders in the MoC: Cheapest Prices / Best Places to Buy / Pre-Orders thread. Any posts on pre-orders in any other thread will be deleted.
Message
Author
User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#26 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:22 pm

Query -- how much of this was actually shot in Tulsa? (Never saw this -- as I recall finding the book pretty annoying).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#27 Post by domino harvey » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:45 pm

pro-bassoonist wrote:But I do not intend to turn this into a discussion.
Then why post at all (Feel free to apply this query to every post you've made here)

User avatar
perkizitore
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
Location: OOP is the only answer

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#28 Post by perkizitore » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:06 pm

Pro-bassoonist, I haven't seen Rumble Fish in motion but the screengrabs look better than the ones for Two-Lane Blacktop.

evillights
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: U.S.
Contact:

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#29 Post by evillights » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:10 pm

pro-bassoonist wrote:
evillights wrote:Just a quick word on this —

When we first reviewed the master back in November, we thought it looked acceptable: mostly very clean, and overall quite nice — and we stand by this. DVDBeaver's assessment seems in line with our own, and the frame-grabs they've posted give a pretty accurate representation of the disc.

We're surprised at the take on the video quality of the film over at Blu-ray.com, by this Dr. Svet Atanasov — especially given the high marks he's rated the image quality on a specific few other past titles of ours which comparatively might pose greater challenges to the, shall we say, 'most discerning' assessor. — i.e., Rumble Fish ain't a bad-lookin' disc.
I was sent a link to the above post. I would like to leave a quick comment as well.

1. First, I find the tone of your post extremely disappointing and disrespectful. Especially because I've done so much to promote the MOC label and its output. And not just by writing reviews for its releases. [...] In any event, I am very surprised by the sarcastic reaction the review received here. But I do not intend to turn this into a discussion.
There was absolutely no sarcasm in my post, nor was it "disrespectful" beyond differing from your own take on the master. To reiterate: we simply disagree with your assessment, and have noted that more problematic masters, or at least those we have considered in-house more problematic perhaps on a technical/preservational basis, have received higher marks — which is fine, and shows that we simply have different evaluational criteria between us, and must agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

User avatar
triodelover
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:11 pm
Location: The hills of East Tennessee

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#30 Post by triodelover » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:26 pm

If I may make an independent observation.
evillights wrote:... by this Dr. Svet Atanasov
This comes across as dismissive and demeaning and seems intentionally so.
evillights wrote: — especially given the high marks he's rated the image quality on a specific few other past titles of ours which comparatively might pose greater challenges to the, shall we say, 'most discerning' assessor
And this strongly implies that Svet is unworthy of the sobriquet "most discerning".
evillights wrote:There was absolutely no sarcasm in my post, nor was it "disrespectful" beyond differing from your own take on the master.
Finally, this is just disingenuous.

Disclaimer: I have zero interest in this particular film or any review of it. I don't know Svet personally, so I'm not responding from that perspective. And I own the vast majority of MoC's DVD and BD catalogues and consider myself a supporter of their efforts.

imhotep
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:47 pm

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#31 Post by imhotep » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:20 pm

For fuck's sake.

DRAMA QUEENS!

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#32 Post by Finch » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:42 am

How does Svet arrive at the overall score of 2.5 for the entire disc? The film itself, sound & extras get high marks so I'd have thought that the final score would have been higher than 2.5 even if he thinks that the image is compromised.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#33 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:36 am

imhotep wrote:For fuck's sake.
DRAMA QUEENS!
Some useful info
http://www.zedge.net/ringtone/1210369/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#34 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:56 am

more like Grumble Fish

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#35 Post by MichaelB » Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:14 pm

It's not MoC's best Blu-ray by a long shot, but the transfer was better than I'd been led to believe by the Blu-ray.com review - I think the Beev slightly exaggerates its virtues, but what I saw is certainly closer to their description.

It's certainly the best I've seen it look since I last saw it in 35mm - and it improves on the 35mm prints in one important respect, as the shots of the red and blue fish are no longer quite so jarring because to achieve the effect in 35mm, colour film had to be spliced in at the appropriate point, changing the entire quality of the image, including the black-and-white portions. (Schindler's List suffered from a similar problem, and I suspect that too will look better on Blu-ray).

Also, though I'm normally a 5.1-remix sceptic, I have to say that I rather liked the surround track here: the strong separation of the various elements of Stewart Copeland's percussive score makes the film seem even more stylised, which is a definite plus*. (But the original cinema track is also included for purists).

(*It's even more of a plus if you last saw the film at London's long-defunct Scala Cinema, which could only manage lo-fi mono!)

User avatar
porquenegar
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:33 pm

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#36 Post by porquenegar » Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:18 pm

Just received two of these today. Whoops, looks like I pre-ordered the steelbook twice. Can't wait to screen it tonight.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#37 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jan 01, 2015 2:26 pm

Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site

User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#38 Post by HJackson » Thu Jan 01, 2015 8:35 pm

domino harvey wrote:Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site
It's still available on Amazon UK so I imagine not.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#39 Post by tenia » Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:52 am

domino harvey wrote:Is this OOP? I can't find it on Eureka's site
I believe there still are titles for which Kevin still hasn't created a webpage since the revamp of Eureka's store. Rumble Fish could be part of them.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BD 42 Rumble Fish

#40 Post by MichaelB » Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:54 am

It's not old enough to have gone OOP unless there was an unexpected rights snag - and if that was the case, surely Kevin would have urged us to snap it up as quickly as possible?

Post Reply