......Hollywood.‘ So the Charlie Manson wave is part of the extras now, even though it was in the trailer. Waste just having it as extra, feel cheated.
The 4K and the DVD only have the 7 extra scenes. The 'making of' s are short, sweet and worth watching
The Blu Ray's the only one with the extras. Even on the 4K/Blu Ray twin pack you'll have to switch back to BD to watch Quenton talk about cars and cinema marquees
The Blu ray's been sold out in Melbourne since release day. It's probably the first DVD to sell out since The Phantom Menace
Deadline: Hollywood just posted the most thorough interview I've ever read with Tarantino on Once Upon a Time, and it's a fascinating read: Quentin Tarantino On ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood’ – Deadline Tarantino is a very thoughtful guy.
Has there been a discussion about the correct title? On the UK Blu-Ray front cover (I assume the painted cinema poster artwork) and on the side it is Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood. In the blurb on the back and the credit block it’s called Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood. IMDB has it ...in which I assume is the OFFICIAL title. I think ...in Hollywood scans much better.
I’d have been more pleased with better dvd/ Blu-ray even 4K product art design. Doesn’t scream classic like Pulp Fiction...or KB!!!!
Don't buy this on the 4K. The audio has been downgraded to 16 bit on the 4K but is 24 bit and more dynamic on the Blu-ray.
Sometimes with long movies it won't fit, and this is a long movie. I'm not expert. Maybe an expert would know if it could have fit on there. Stranger Things does the same thing with their 4K, but they go with lossy Dolby Digital instead. On the Blu-ray of Stranger Things the audio is not lossy.
I wouldn't say it's a "waste," but I would agree that it wasn't that long and I would have kept it in the finished film. The other sequences weren't 100% necessary. There's not going to be any audible difference between a 96dB dynamic range (in 16-bit) and a 144dB dynamic range, especially with a theatrical motion picture. 144dB would blow you out of the room and make your ears bleed. 96dB is plenty loud -- it's barely within the OSHA limits of what the government will allow people to be exposed to for long periods of time. An uncompressed 6-channel (5.1) 24-bit 48kHz file would be about 7.7GB and change; the same file as 16-bit would be a hair more than 5GB. Why did they not use the extra 2GB of space? I dunno. I haven't taken apart the disc to analyze how they multiplexed the audio vs. video space, but I think it's much ado about nothing. In a perfect world, I would always rather have a 24-bit range for theatrical film "just because," and that gives them a little bit of head room. But for a home release, my opinion is you're not gonna hear it and it's not going to matter. I think you can make a better case for lossless vs. compressed, and I'm not a fan of heavily-compressed audio (or video), either. I don't have a problem with high-bitrate Dolby Digital, like 384mbps, which I think approaches "subjectively" perfect, but I would always prefer lossless if I can get it.
Yeah.. creative choice ? Like when you hear about a scene that was cut, from a film but never actually see the missing scene..adds to the mystery. But .. when the actual scene is in a trailer ( and a good scene ) then omitted from the finished product .. then I feel cheated.
It's not your decision to make because it's not your film. At some point, you have to acknowledge that the film belongs to the filmmaker -- in this case, Quentin Tarantino. We're just the audience. If you want a better film, you have to go out and make your own.
