i don’t like that cover though
Terrible cover like you say.
Like someone came up with the idea whilst on the toilet or something.
Guess I’m in disagreement with most posts on the subject but I like the cover. IMO using the existing cinema film poster for a DVD cover is bit of a cop out (unless it’s a really beautiful or rarely seen design). I think it’s a great photo, both actors look so “cool”, I want Henry Silva’s outfit! Then again what do I know, I’ve worked in the graphics industry for over 20 years, I get all my best ideas while sitting on the toilet
The problem is that the cover is missing that spaghetti western ‘feel’ that you would get if the poster art was used instead.
If asked I would think that this was an American western which I’m sure is what MGM want the buyers to believe. The spaghetti western crowd (which is a very limited one) is sure to buy it so of course the focus is thrown at the ‘regular’ buyers. The covers for films like the Sabata Trilogy and A Minute To Pray etc. also from MGM weren’t much worse than this one.
At the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion, I personally think the cover works even though it’s probably put together with photoshop as most things are these days. The main problem I see with using the poster (even though I agree the design is great) would be one of copyright, it would be difficult to obtain permission to use it. The last thing MGM would want after releasing the DVD is risk having to pay compensation to the original artist (who would retain ownership if he was freelance) and even worse recalling all of the DVDs.
Maybe in Japan copyright laws are different or they think SWs are such niche releases why worry. The latest series of SPO/Cinefil/Imagica Entertainment SWs all sport the original Japanese posters on their covers, most of which are fantastic.
Im usually a poster art kind of guy but i think the cover is great
Top 40 by Hughes?
Where do you get this from?
I dig the DVD cover and the DVD itself is priced at $10 bones.
I’ll likely pick it up sometime in a few weeks
Just received this today. For some reason it’s a flipper, offering fools the chance to watch a scope film pan and scanned on one side, while the other is a nice anamorphic 2.35:1 presentation. I’ve given it a quick flick through to see what the quality is like, and it looks pretty good. There are no scratches etc to speak of, detail looks sharp although the encoding they’ve used makes some of the colours look a little flat (both sides are single layer). Film grain is thankfully present, so it’s not one of these whitewash digital jobs - not too much that you’d actually notice it though: I had to put my face almost on top of a 42" plasma to see it. Going to watch it now, so will give a full review later. I have the Japanese DVD here too, so I’ll let you know how they compare.
The Transfer Looks Pretty Sweet On This One.
I Checked It Out A Couple Of Days Ago,And I Really Can’t Find Anything Bad To Say About The Print.
How fucking pathetic, i hate it when people moan about the black bars and how your not getting the tv screen filled up, when you try to explain that it chops the sides of the picture they don’t understand no matter how many time you try to explain ???
at least they included the scope version!
I have just seen a DVD R of this film at CINE CITY for 20 euros.
What I would like to know how he arrives at such a price ? ( considering an original DVD of this film is far cheaper.)
Yes, well thirty years ago, all the executives who dealt with Widescreen movies, were huge fans of Pan & Scan, so getting to see anything on TV or Video in its correct format was a miracle.
When our local station had to run Two Mules for Sister Sara as a standby movie one night, the Telecine operator didn’t have time to properly Pan & Scan it, so he showed it letterboxed at 2.35:1. Ten minutes into transmission, he got an apoplectic call from a brain-dead executive who told him to zoom in the picture. The Telecine guy patiently explained that if he did that, the viewer would never see the lead actors, and then put the phone down on him.
Fortunately moronic TV executives like that are now a dying breed.
The point is that people are now much more aware of Widescreen, so a handful of morons jumping around demanding Pan & Scan isn’t going to take things back into the dark ages. I realise that in America, some major films are relased in two versions, Widescreen or Pan & Scan, so there obviously is a small trailer-park market there. However in Britain, all the chavs have widescreen TVs, so if the low-lifes support Widsecreen, then it’s a done deal.
[quote=“IndioBlack, post:34, topic:506”]Yes, well thirty years ago, all the executives who dealt with Widescreen movies, were huge fans of Pan & Scan, so getting to see anything on TV or Video in its correct format was a miracle.
When our local station had to run Two Mules for Sister Sara as a standby movie one night, the Telecine operator didn’t have time to properly Pan & Scan it, so he showed it letterboxed at 2.35:1. Ten minutes into transmission, he got an apoplectic call from a brain-dead executive who told him to zoom in the picture. The Telecine guy patiently explained that if he did that, the viewer would never see the lead actors, and then put the phone down on him.[/quote]
interesting story, thanks for sharing it
I just got my copy, and it’s an excellent 2.35:1 anamorphic transfer with excellent colour, from a fresh, bright, very clean new print.
There is a 4:3 formatted version on the other side, for the morons, as has been previously noted.
It’s an MGM release, and I hope you all go out and buy it, so they get good sales and release some more. They own GUNS FOR SAN SEBASTIAN, and I’d really like to see a good quality version of that.
But hey that’s a region 1 release, we’re not allowed to get in here in Europe!
Don’t want to support any illegal activities do we?!
it is not illegal to get Region 1 in europe. not at all.
the regions are just a barrier, not a way to enforce law.