I have a feeling the original books will still be valuable even if a new edition is released soon. Perhaps lower condition older copies will go down in value since a reading copy will be easier to find. But for originals in good shape, I suspect the market will still pay a premium. I'm lucky enough to have 2 copies of the paperback - the yellow cover movie tie-in with Spicoli and 2 girls on the cover, along with the white cover with the teen girl on it. An old girlfriend got them both for me one year for my birthday. This would have been around 2004 when the prices were a lot lower, around $30-$50. She said she found the white cover first, and when it arrived it was in such great condition (sharp corners, almost zero spine wear) that she knew I wouldn't want to crack it open to actually read it, and she happened to find a yellow cover copy for a good price on eBay, so she picked them both up for me. I was floored!! Just caught the movie again last night on AMC. Don't have a copy on disc so will definitely be picking it up this time.
Some more good news from the blu-ray.com forum: It looks like Universal found an interpositive of the TV version, which was used to create an HD transfer. That's unexpected and welcome news for sure! I assumed that would be in SD, so this must-see bonus feature will be better than I hoped. Plus the TV version is supposed to have the mono soundtrack (the main version is 5.1 only I think)
If there isn't a 20-minute making-of documentary piece of just the "Phoebe Cates comes out of the swimming pool" scene in there...what's the point.
Oh, they're always nice (except for 3-4 releases with teal issues, well one was yellowish, the others teal). Their release of All About Eve is supposed to look the same as the older Blu-ray (that I have), as was Dr. Strangelove I believe, but yeah this should be an upgrade. I like the cover of it. If I'm still alive then I might get it after all. Wish it would come out sooner
I had never seen All About Eve until I took a chance on the Criterion after reading what it was about. I really enjoyed it! Hope you don’t literally have a health issue, as it kinda sounds like in your response. These days you never know and can’t take that for granted.
I haven't seen this movie since the '80s and don't remember it very well aside from a few scenes. I had actually forgotten/never knew that Forest Whitaker was in this! Sounds like it's time to take it for another spin.
It was once my most-watched movie, until it was overtaken by Repo Man. Which, coincidentally, also has an infamous TV edit including scenes deleted from the theatrical version.
For me, it was released just before my final year of high school, so it was timely and relevant. Or as much as a Hollywood production could be (in later years I realized Dazed & Confused came much closer to capturing my high school experience). But the ensemble cast and classic jokes make repeated viewings welcome, especially with a group of peers.
Or maybe it's being reprinted for inclusion with this wonderful upcoming Criterion release? I'm hoping!!!
I picked this up a few days ago and it is the best release so far of this movie. The full commentary is not included...it ends shortly after the credits. I really enjoyed seeing the TV version again and I was surprised to notice that the 16:9 version of this movie is actually a cropped version of the film. There is definitely more picture in the broadcast version. Oh well!
"More picture" isn't necessarily a good thing. The film was framed for 1.85:1 so that "more picture" means info they didn't intend for you to se...
do you mean that the film/cinema version 16:9 is a cropped version of the ...... TV version 1.33:1 (possibly open matte / full image on negative) ? this would be normal ..... for any film not shot with anamorphic lenses Open matte - Wikipedia "... Difference between open matte and pan and scan[edit] Pan and scan deals with only the 2.39:1 master of a film. For HDTV, the film is panned and scanned to a portion of a frame, usually in accordance to the most important details in a shot. Open matte involves opening up the top and bottom of a frame to show more information, which is usually done with non-anamorphic films with a wide 2.39:1 aspect ratio to fill a 16:9 display for HDTV broadcasts. Additionally, filmmakers may choose to open up the frame for a film's home video release, such as with James Cameron's Avatar and the Blu-ray 3D release of Titanic...." kubrick's films on home video used open matte instead of the theatrical aspect ratio due to the ratio of tv at the time ..... so when you saw his films on tv or home video at the time, they were not pan and scan of an 'wider' image (they actually showed more of the image than the 'wide' theatrical aspect ratio)
In comparing both versions I noticed the tops of heads, etc chopped off. I never saw this in the theater, so I don't know what was originally shown, but it seems to me that the cameraman was filming in a 4:3 perspective.
By 1982, DPs would regularly "protect" images for 4X3, but they wouldn't specifically compose for those dimensions. I feel pretty confident "Fast Times" was composed for 1.85:1...
The serious scenes like that were important to show the real life stuff kids were dealing with. It gives the movie more depth beyond just a good time.
This brings to mind the thought that it'd be great to see Criterion reissue more comedies. Some that come to mind would be Caddyshack, The Blues Brothers, National Lampoon's Vacation, Arthur...gee can you tell I'm an 80s kid?
