Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Back to the Future on Blu-Ray

This is topic Back to the Future on Blu-Ray in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000916

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-25-2010, 02:20 PM:

So this was one of my presents this morning. I opened it and we watched the first one... and I'm a little disturbed. The "TO BE CONTINUED..." was removed. What is up with that? That really bothers me. Why would they do that?

I'm not sure if "TO BE CONCLUDED..." was removed from part II or not yet.

Ugh.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-25-2010, 04:07 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
The "TO BE CONTINUED..." was removed.

The original print never said "To Be Continued" It was added to the VHS tapes.

I am sure TO BE CONCLUDED will be there. Part II prints had the Part III preview at the end of the movie.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-25-2010, 08:02 PM:

I'd be more disturbed at the awful packaging of the set.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-25-2010, 10:31 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The original print never said "To Be Continued" It was added to the VHS tapes.

WHAT?!? Woah, my world is falling apart. Did they not anticipate parts II and III when I was out? I thought the "TO BE CONTINUED..." was a great way to end it.

I thought I was sure I have seen it in more places than the VHS tape.

Ah well.

And yeah the packaging is kinda strange.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 12-25-2010, 10:41 PM:

Nope, parts 2 and 3 were afterthoughts after universal saw how well part 1 did in theaters. Its all explained in the commentaries

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-25-2010, 11:26 PM:

Wow. All this time.

Next you're all going to tell me that the first Star Wars wasn't called "Episode IV". [Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-26-2010, 03:31 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I'd be more disturbed at the awful packaging of the set.

Or by the way it now looks like it was shot on video.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-26-2010, 07:18 PM:

Doesn't look like that here.

Posted by Vern Dias (Member # 5241) on 12-26-2010, 09:55 PM:

Junky looking BD. Only suitable for viewing on a 40" or smaller display from a 15 feet+ viewing distance.

Rather than creating a new transfer, Universal used an old one and DNR'd it to death, then applied a generous helping of sharpening to try to "restore" the detail the DNR processing destroyed.

Vern

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-26-2010, 11:15 PM:

Citation needed.

We just watched all three here while being snowed in. They all looked great on my 53" TV. My wife and I noticed details in the images that we never noticed before. Were they perfect? I don't think so. But they looked pretty darn good to me.

Posted by Vern Dias (Member # 5241) on 12-27-2010, 05:59 PM:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies-north-america/145829-back-future-25th-anniversary-trilogy-oct-26th-178.html#post4058215

For a comparison between an UN-DNR'd original and the damage done by DNR applied to the BD transfer.

http://www.imagebam.com/image/fbce38103448214

http://www.imagebam.com/image/72ce36103448588

Compare the halos around the highway signs on the two images... The first image is from the BD, the second from an HDTV broadcast. Make sure you click on each image to show the full 1080 resolution.

I hope links are legal....

Vern

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-27-2010, 10:39 PM:

Links are illegal, you will soon be arrested.

Anyway, the BD version looks much better than the HDTV broadcast version. The Blu-ray has no vertical sharpening that I can detect whereas the HDTV broadcast version has a halo on the letterbox bar as a result of vertical sharpening. The BD seems to have horizontal sharpening whereas the HDTV broadcast version does not. BD still wins. The BD has more detail as well.

Here is an example which shows off the halos in each version really well:

Perfect? No. But studios will never stop doing this. Ever.

Also, Claudia Wells was hotter than Elizabeth Shue.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-27-2010, 11:26 PM:

I've last seen Back To The Future 2 21 years ago when it was first run. I haven't seen it since.
I recall Lea Thompson having breast implants.
I recall the older Biff chastizing the young Biff ("Make like a tree and LEAF! You sound like an IDIOT when you do that!"
I recall Michael J Fox entering through what he thought was his bedroom window and finding black kids in his room.
However, except for the beginning of the movie where she is sleeping, I cannot recall what else Elizabeth Shue did. Did somebody pay her a million dollars to pretend she is sleeping?
I'm wondering if she did more in the third one, which I still have not seen.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-27-2010, 11:47 PM:

quote: James Westbrook
However, except for the beginning of the movie where she is sleeping, I cannot recall what else Elizabeth Shue did. Did somebody pay her a million dollars to pretend she is sleeping?

They also paid her to pretend to wake up and pretend to be an older version of herself w/ makeup and whatnot.

And regardless of Claudia Wells being hotter back in the day than Elisabeth Shue, Shue is much more attractive than Wells today. Only one of them has aged a bit gracefully.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-28-2010, 12:00 AM:

I haven't seen Wells lately, but I will take your word for it. No need to prove it, either... really, I'll take your word. Do not destroy my vision of Wells.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2010, 07:09 PM:

I will be seeing part I in 35mm in about 10days. I will let everyone know if has the "to be continued" attached to the end of the film.

The print is a "new" 35mm print.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-29-2010, 07:28 PM:

Zemeckis has said when they set about making Part 2 they realized it was a mistake to have had Welles in the Delorean with them when it takes off for the future in the end of the original.

Only then did they wish they'd left her in 1985.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2010, 09:01 PM:

I can testify that "To Be Continued" was NOT on the original prints because I projected one of them during the original release, plus saw the movie in a different theatre at the time as well. I didn't see "To Be Continued" until watching it on either TV or tape, not sure which. But the theatrical prints definitely didn't have it.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-29-2010, 11:30 PM:

Tom,I had the 35mm print which you are about to see in a few days shipped to Canada and am showing it now!
It does not say to be continued.
Aside from the miner blemish here and there the print is mint!
Claudia Wells is interviewed on the special features of the bluray!

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2010, 11:48 PM:

quote:
Tom,I had the 35mm print which you are about to see in a few days shipped to Canada and am showing it now!
It does not say to be continued.
Aside from the miner blemish here and there the print is mint!
Claudia Wells is interviewed on the special features of the bluray!

Which theatre are you at? Are you a repo? You can PM me if you dont want to postit

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-30-2010, 11:36 AM:

I run the Hyland Cinema in London,run the booth that is!
I also help with programing.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-30-2010, 06:17 PM:

How did the "TBC" tag on the video and TV versions look? Was it during the credits or an add on afterwards ?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-30-2010, 06:54 PM:

It appeared right after the Delorean went into the future to save the kids (which would be impossible because both Marty and his woman went into the future thereby not being in the past to create the kids in the first place, they would have been missing for 30 years).

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-23-2011, 09:35 PM:

I finally purchased the BACK TO THE FUTURE movies on Blu Ray yesterday after I fond it at a reasonable price at Sam's Club for $46.94. It was cheaper at Best Buy about a month ago when it was on sale but I was not able to get to a store fast enough to get a copy because they were all sold out. I have always been seeing it at Walmart for about $59.00 but I did not want the movies that badly to pay that price.

I thought the image quality is very good and have to disagree with my friend Vern Dias who said the picture quality on the BD was not good. The only thing I had noticed that I did not like was the reddish tint on the faces during some close up scenes. Some people had complained about the packaging but I do not think it is that bad however I had seen better. There were reports that the discs were were very difficult to remove from the spindle in the digipack but I had no problem. Universal must have corrected the problem with the set I just purchased.

-Claude