PDA

View Full Version : Robocop Criterion or New r2 ?

butters
18-01-2002, 16:38
Which is the best version to own ? ie Pref Uncut and picture and sound quality ? Extras would be nice too ?
kcxdev
18-01-2002, 17:16
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=430&story=2486 for a review and comments on both
Henry
18-01-2002, 23:34
I'd wait for the R1 SE before making a decision.
Nimak
19-01-2002, 10:50
LoL i bought the Criterion for £50 now the Uncut (Directors Cut) cersion is coming in a Region 2 boxset with Robo 2 and 3 for £40 max - that blows - Criterion = Rip off.. But then again Robocop has to be the most singlehandedly film i'ved seen ..

"Dead or Alive your coming with me"
butters
19-01-2002, 12:24
I've already got the Criterion , but since people pay silly money for it, I was considering selling it, if the New R1 or R2 was a better cut.
tizza
19-01-2002, 18:21
FIFTY NOTES!!!


Where did you buy that from?

Think I paid 25 for mine..and still managed to order one fro a friend. Got them from boxoffice.
M@T
19-01-2002, 19:27
TWENTY FIVE NOTES!!!!

I paid £20 for it off a mate:D
pbenstead
19-01-2002, 20:33
Well I got a bargain when I bought the criterion from the local market for £8! It was in perfect condition too.
dunkrag
19-01-2002, 21:13
Originally posted by Nimak
LoL i bought the Criterion for £50 now the Uncut (Directors Cut) cersion is coming in a Region 2 boxset with Robo 2 and 3 for £40 max - that blows - Criterion = Rip off..


How you can say Criterion = Rip off is beyond me. Criterion have never charged that price for Robocop - the people you bought it from did. :rolleyes:
Nimak
19-01-2002, 22:51
Lol ok your right Criteions are Ok - i'm just a bit ****** that i wuz tobbed - LOL

I got it from DC-DVD for £49.95 but there was very limited quantitites at the time (last stock) so maybe that's the reason why?
deftone666
19-01-2002, 22:53
Originally posted by M@T
TWENTY FIVE NOTES!!!!

I paid £20 for it off a mate:D

£20 NOTES!!!!!!
Mine cost £28......
I'll get me jacket :D
Jimmyboy
20-01-2002, 00:40
Originally posted by Nimak
LoL i bought the Criterion for £50 now the Uncut (Directors Cut) cersion is coming in a Region 2 boxset with Robo 2 and 3 for £40 max - that blows -

Actually the Robocop1,2,3, boxset can be brought for £26.
Almost 50% of what you paid for Robocop 1 on its own.
Ouch !.
Nimak
20-01-2002, 10:23
Hehehe that hurts.. Where can i buy the boxset for £26? (I'm a major fan of Robocop and want it) Then i'll sell my criterion..
Who wants it for let see £50 LOL
sampath
20-01-2002, 11:44
Originally posted by Nimak
Where can i buy the boxset for £26?

Here. (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38219)

I'd normally have snapped this up without hesitation, but MGM just had to go and mess something up, so I'm going to wait and see if the R1 avoids the branching problem. Quite why MGM saw it necessary to include the theatrical cut I'm not sure - surely there's no need for it if the Director's Cut is there? :confused:
den
20-01-2002, 17:54
Originally posted by M@T
I paid £20 for it off a mate:D
£20!! I found a copy in my other pants
sampath
20-01-2002, 18:38
Originally posted by den

£20!! I found a copy in my other pants

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. Are you saying you actually have two pairs of pants? Surely that's a waste of money considering you can only wear one at a time?

:confused:
scaramanga
20-01-2002, 22:52
ooo glad i didnt get the criterion :D I didnt get the criterion SOTL either. Criterion has just got the reputation for releasing good films and making it part of a collection makes them even more appealing...to some people, not me.
f_drew
21-01-2002, 09:01
Originally posted by scaramanga
... making it part of a collection makes them even more appealing....
Spine numbers were the best marketing gimmick ever for these guys !

One important difference (which I'm surprised has not been mentioned) is that the Criterion has the "Director's preferred ratio" of 1.66:1. Now the MGM version will be anamorphic, but will be at 1.85:1 (I believe). (Arguably) pan & scan anyone ? ;) :)
Gizmo
21-01-2002, 09:19
It's cropped, NOT pan and scan!

Again, the excellent DVDtimes review shows the differences between the two aspect ratios.

Review: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=430&story=2486
Dan Druff
21-01-2002, 10:51
I'd keep the Criterion personally. R2 cropped top and sides, and pauses with non-seamless branching, plus the fact you have to buy 2 films you don't want..(but better extras)..and the fact the Criterion is always worth holding onto, at least for nostalgia.
f_drew
21-01-2002, 12:11
Originally posted by Gizmo
It's cropped, NOT pan and scan!
I'm intrigued to know the difference between these terms. AFAIK pan & scan is when a picture is reduced to fit a 4:3 screen.
What's the difference between reduicing it for a 4:3 screen and a 16:9 screen ? Surely this is (basically) the same result - that is a picture that has been defined to fit a tv screen, not the original ratio of the picture ? :confused:

I don't mean to :argue: , I'm just interested to know ! :)
jefflynne
21-01-2002, 12:26
What's the difference between reduicing it for a 4:3 screen and a 16:9 screen ? Surely this is (basically) the same result - that is a picture that has been defined to fit a tv screen, not the original ratio of the picture ?

...and, if it's been cropped to fit a 16:9 screen, why isn't it cropped to 1.77:1 (which is, remarkably, what 16 divided by 9 comes to).
Dan Druff
21-01-2002, 12:26
AFAIK if an image is pan and scanned, they use a computer to basically re-edit the frame film by panning and scanning the image, showing only a small section at a time (could be close to a third of a 2:35 image).
If it is cropped they simply focus on a smaller section of the central image, with black bars filling in extraneous information on a 4:3 set.
The above is layman terminology, MB has a guide here. (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Feature&id=9&story=2606)
f_drew
21-01-2002, 13:48
Not a bad guide, but did not distinguish between cropping and panning & scanning.

My brain started to warm up earlier and I remembered the demo on 'Die Hard' of "Why Widescreen ?". This is where it showed the process, as Dan said reframed an image within the complete picture that had the required dimensions. This could 'move' within the complete frame (that is a 'camera' move that the original director may not have intended.

I assume (always a dangerous phrase ;)) that cropping means that the image shown is not 'reframed' and all the happens is that the top and sides are cut off.

I know that this is rephrasing what you've said Mr Druff, but I want to make sure that I understand this properly !:)

Anyway, this does not escape the fact that some of the picture is lost compared to what Mr Verhoeven originally intended (it's also noticable that there are some colour differences between the Criterion and MGM versions).
Dan Druff
21-01-2002, 14:22
Originally posted by f_drew
Anyway, this does not escape the fact that some of the picture is lost compared to what Mr Verhoeven originally intended (it's also noticable that there are some colour differences between the Criterion and MGM versions).

Thats what worries me the most about this. It is cropped at the sides as well as the top. Why?
And yes a pan & scan is basically a crop, with a bit more work..:)

Here is a guide to Pain & Scam alone. (http://www.mgm.com/mgmhv/letterbox/letterbox2.html)
DeadKenny
21-01-2002, 20:38
End of the day, cropped or not, it's got pauses on the branching for the uncut version (i.e. it's not seamless branching), so they can forget it.

The only version I'm interested in is Verhoeven's approved uncut version (in 1.66:1), and the only way of getting that is through the Criterion version. MGM's is a 'Directors Cut' which isn't the same thing (director's cuts aren't always approved by the director funny enough).