MovieChat Forums > The Lords of Flatbush (1975) Discussion > One of the WORST DVD Treatments EVER!!!!...

One of the WORST DVD Treatments EVER!!!!!!!!

posted 16 years ago by MaccaMan4741
9 replies | jump to latest

Yes,

I picked up the substandard editon TLOFB on DVD only months after its initial release in 2004-OUT OF THE $5 bin at Wal-Mart, No less. How was I to know that I'd get what I paid for?

For starters, it contains, hands down, what I'd consider the SINGLE MOST hideous digital transfer EVER. Not only didn't they bother cleaning up or restoring the noticeably aged film and muddy, distorted MONO sound, there are GOBS more digital grain and pixellation on top of that, making the picture almost unviewable. The colors looked bland and almost washed out, and little dialogue could be deciphered, therefore making for the most irritating and unenjoyable DVD experience I've EVER had. After all was said and done, I gave the damned thing away to a friend who'd GLADLY get his hands on ANYTHING related to Stallone.

Surely, Columbia pictures might argue in their own defense that this no-budget cult classic was never enough of a money-maker to warrant a special edition release with a cleaned up picture and sound, plus actual EXTRAS. That might be true if Stallone and Winkler had stayed unknown to this day. But as history shows, They are 2 of the most legendary and revered names in Film and TV, which was enough to make this film the cult fave that it remains even now-Justification enough for a special edition DVD OF LOFB. And even if Columbia never gets their heads out of their asses and GETS IT RIGHT once and for all, then MAYBE some smaller, more enterprising co. like Anchor Bay or Image ent. will pick up the ball and give this flick the DVD treatment it deserves, restored pic and all. Even some commentary and any Deleted scenes still existing in the vaults. Or a short featurette even, for that matter.

Who's with me!

[–] MitchumsGal 16 years ago

I totally agree...rented this from Netflix and couldnt believe the utterly awful transfer. I caught the movie late one night on cable several years ago and from what i recall that copy was better than this DVD. I finally get around to seeing the whole thing and this is what we get? I guess some companies think they are being generous to movie fans just by releasing films no matter how poor the quality.

I think we're just gonna have to be secretly in love with each other and leave it at that.

[–] bonehunter7 16 years ago

I just picked this up at Big Lots for $2.00, and the picture and sound quality is just as I remember it when I saw it in the theater back in 1974. This was not a big budget movie, and I remember thinking at the time that the production quality was lousy. A very cheaply made film to begin with, so the DVD isn't going to be anything great either.

[–] MaccaMan4741 16 years ago

You certainly do have a point there.

But either way, There have been movies just as Low-or-No Budget as LOFB, which have recieved awesome DVD treatments, given Superb Picture transfers and the Audio remixes to match. Even If It was just as unwatchable in the Theater in its day, That's Still No excuse for Sony/Columbia to give it such a pathetic treatment on DVD.

So, if you ask me, I shall hope for the day when a Better edition comes along(even on Blu-Ray, if at some point DVDs stopped being produced)

[–] Poseidon-3 16 years ago

The film was shot for (if I recall correctly) $100K on 16mm film with little or no attention paid to the sound recording (not a small amount of the dialogue been improvised on the set) and I think the makers WANTED the film to seem low-rent so as not to glamorize the surroundings and to keep the viewer as a sort of participant in the low middle class goings on.

I disagree with it not being a hit. While it was no blockbuster, it made $16 million in 1974 dollars on a comparatively small investment! I just think the film is intended to look a little bit grainy and bleak, and without very polished sound, like so many home movies were in the film's time period, as part of its "authenticity."

[–] moosemambo 16 years ago

I love the movie, but i just think that they cannot improve on the horrible filming of the original. it simply cannot be cleared up!!

[–] rams_lakers 14 years ago

Director's quote taken off youtube:

"Ask Columbia Pictures who made the prints. We gave them two superb quality prints and the negative which we made at Technicolor New York. When they ran off the original 200 prints they did it in Technicolor California where the lab was different as well as the temperature of the water, the chemicals and the equipment. When they made the DVD they never bothered to spend the money to correct the problems. You should write them. Best, Stephen Verona"

[–] johnmorghen 14 years ago

This certainly wouldn't be the first time Sony mucked up a release that had pristine prints waiting to be utilized, but ultimately forgotten. Such was the case with Keith Gordon's "A Midnight Clear". The director approved a digitally remastered 1.85:1 transfer, but ultimately Sony got sloppy and rushed the DVD to shelves with the same 1.33:1 transfer they used for all prior home video releases. Not sure as to why they chose to ignore the superior prints for both DVD releases, but my guess is that they simply do not care and are quick to make a buck. Even that argument holds little water, since neither of the films in question have a huge following to garner such a rush.

[–] Rwwood48 10 years ago

I don't know,but my DVD is just fine I just accepted this as it was made back then when I saw it at the drive in. I keep hearing the song in my head "Put on some Rock & Roll music" when he's riding the notorcycle. I still like this movie.I was raised with the "black leather jacket" crowd.

[–] phoenixandrew 10 years ago

That's because the movie was shot on 16mm film and was shot for barely over $100K.

I saw a 35mm print on the big screen at the Aero theater in Santa Monica, California in July 2014. It looked that way as well. I think that's how the film was shot.