Can I just say, in response to your various responses to my other similar named post...
I really do NOT hate the Queen Singles Box 1. That's NOT how my posting reads to me. I honestly don't dislike it at all. I actually like it a lot. You know me well enough by now to know that I say what I mean. I don't just say what is 'expected'. That has got me into much deep water over the years.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not what was originally proposed, that is true, but that doesn't mean I don't like this box - as several of you seem to have inferred from my words.[/QUOTE]
Recently I purchased very similar looking boxes of artists like Blondie, Big Country, Marillion, Simon & Garf, The Stranglers. Why? Because I really love these little boxes. They appeal to me on several levels; small, concise, easy to store, and I like the card sleeves much better than plastic jewel cases, or those books you can buy with CDs attached to the front/back. Although... the Freddie Solo box and War Of The Worlds book/box were pretty lovely things in their way. Hint hint![/QUOTE]
I was disappointed that Box 1 did not have a booklet, that was my main irritation, but otherwise I think it's fine.
The Blondie box I got this week does NOT have all their 12" extended versions, remixes, edits and instrumentals, nor the Big Country one, or the Stranglers one. But they are great little things and I'm pleased with them. They're very similar to our Queen Box 1 - only not as colourful, and our international flavoured sleeves are VASTLY SUPERIOR.[/QUOTE]
I really think that had you just gone out and bought QS1 with no preconceptions, fixed expectations, no detailed ideas of what it surely must and WILL feature, you'd have enjoyed it. I think you all expected something HUGE and comprehensive, definitive even, because that was how it originally was proposed, but then you got all upset when it turned out to be something different to that.[/QUOTE]
It is different, yes. It's a completely different animal, as they say. Things change all the time, from the time of conception to fruition. It's always been that way.[/QUOTE]
If this purple box 1 had suddenly just emerged, with no one knowing about it or expecting it, and with no time to make up in your mind what it might or 'should' entail, then you might well have been pleasantly surprised - exactly as I was with the Blondie/Big Country boxes I only saw for the first time 10 days ago, and received this week. I had no time to make up my good or bad ideas of what they SHOULD feature.[/QUOTE]
QS1 was £40 approx. Not £60 or £80. It's great value to my mind. How can anyone NOT like the way it looks and feels, and the many great sleeves therein which otherwise, in 7" form, few of us could afford to buy.
I genuinely like QS1 a lot. Most of you seem to hate it solely because it's not HUGE and definitive. That's not too logical.[/QUOTE]
Aside from no booklet (which i truly hope will happen for Box 2), I really like QS1 and, having already planned 2, 3 and 4, I happen to think they are great too. Together, they will look amazing. Please give them a chance. Don't make up your minds in advance.... that is precisely what I myself do with every forthcoming Robbie Williams album. But that's not good, sensible or fair. I think we all should keep an open mind and take things for what they are. Except Robbie Williams![/QUOTE]
And Madonna.
[/QUOTE]
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Greg, do you have good news too? [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
[QUOTE]Although... the Freddie Solo box and War Of The Worlds book/box were pretty lovely things in their way. Hint hint! [/QUOTE]
If it does mean what I think it does mean ..... [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
If it does mean what I think it does mean ..... [img=/images/smiley/msn/teeth_smile.gif][/img]
Greg, all of us (including myself) appreciate the hard work you put into your job. I know it is frustrating putting a lot into a particular project, paper, presentation, amalgam filling, or whatever, and it is later not appreciated or used or recognized. It's frustrating.
To me it seems senseless all the crap that QPL is throwing at us: NUMEROUS GH1 compilations, Stone Cold Classics, The Cosmos Rocks....couldn't resist the last one...and not giving the fans anything really new or worthwhile. I know this isn't your decision, but it seems utterly retarded to me for them to NOT promote new material (TCR, the 2006 US tour, etc.) or to release new material that is OBVIOUSLY out there: Hammy 75, Hammy 79, Houston 77, Earl's Court, etc etc. Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
It would be nice to one day see Brian May and the idiots at QPL put out some live 70's material and get over the fact that a lot of people already own it on bootleg or that they can't get a complete sound mix or whatever and deal with it.
To me it seems senseless all the crap that QPL is throwing at us: NUMEROUS GH1 compilations, Stone Cold Classics, The Cosmos Rocks....couldn't resist the last one...and not giving the fans anything really new or worthwhile. I know this isn't your decision, but it seems utterly retarded to me for them to NOT promote new material (TCR, the 2006 US tour, etc.) or to release new material that is OBVIOUSLY out there: Hammy 75, Hammy 79, Houston 77, Earl's Court, etc etc. Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
It would be nice to one day see Brian May and the idiots at QPL put out some live 70's material and get over the fact that a lot of people already own it on bootleg or that they can't get a complete sound mix or whatever and deal with it.
And by the way, I have bought everything QPL has put out since 1991 (and the old stuff of course), but no longer. I'm not buying any more of this shit that we all already have (Montreal 81), don't want (TCR, Stone Cold Classics), or don't need (singles box set without anything new or included on it).
[QUOTE]
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[/QUOTE]
I can't complain about the last release. Seeing it on blu-ray is awesome...cover still looks crap, though. ;-)
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[/QUOTE]
I can't complain about the last release. Seeing it on blu-ray is awesome...cover still looks crap, though. ;-)
Not wanted.
Not interested.
Next..
Not interested.
Next..
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b]
Not wanted.
Not interested.
Next..[/QUOTE]
That's Pieter's take on it. For some reason, I still find myself wanting to buy it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/embaressed_smile.gif][/img]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b]
Not wanted.
Not interested.
Next..[/QUOTE]
That's Pieter's take on it. For some reason, I still find myself wanting to buy it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/embaressed_smile.gif][/img]
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[/QUOTE]
You failed to realize that up until QPL and Eagle Rock Entertainment bought back the rights to the film, they had literally NO control over that release!
Pioneer Entertainment (now Geneon I believe) would be to blame for that, the first three DVD releases. The first one was bad...
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Hadrian wrote: [/b]
Why the hell was Montreal 81 released 4 different times???
[/QUOTE]
Because they know that there will be enough fans to buy it to pay at least for the production costs. Why pay to restore some old footage, make new mixes etc. etc. if they can just repack something and release it as new?
[/QUOTE]
You failed to realize that up until QPL and Eagle Rock Entertainment bought back the rights to the film, they had literally NO control over that release!
Pioneer Entertainment (now Geneon I believe) would be to blame for that, the first three DVD releases. The first one was bad...
I have serious doubts that the brazilian version was really authorized at all so it's not "official". Still, whomever is responsible for this (shouldn't it always be QPL?), it's still a shame. "Who's to blame when situations degenerate?"
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
I have serious doubts that the brazilian version wasn't really authorized at all so it's not "official". Still, whomever is responsible for this (shouldn't it always be QPL?), it's still a shame. "Who's to blame when situations degenerate?"
[/QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
I have serious doubts that the brazilian version wasn't really authorized at all so it's not "official". Still, whomever is responsible for this (shouldn't it always be QPL?), it's still a shame. "Who's to blame when situations degenerate?"
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
I have serious doubts that the brazilian version was really authorized at all so it's not "official". Still, whomever is responsible for this (shouldn't it always be QPL?), it's still a shame. "Who's to blame when situations degenerate?"
[/QUOTE]
Why are you bringing that into the discussion at all??
We're talking about the US releases:
Pioneer: 1997 / 2001 (DD+PCM & DTS+DD remastered editions)
Eagle Rock Entertainment: 2007 (also the first authorized worldwide DVD release, as well as first Queen Blu-ray / HD DVD release)
PS. You're correct, the Brazilian release was not authorized at all. That, along with other supposedly legit Brazil-exclusive DVD's, were recorded off Laserdisc editions, so they had the same edits and all that were on the LD (most notably the absence of Fat Bottomed Girls on their "Greatest Flix I" DVD). Funny how LD supposedly gave them the excuse to label those DVD's as coming from remastered digital sources. Bwahahahahahaha! My ass.
[b]Marcos Napier wrote: [/b]
I have serious doubts that the brazilian version was really authorized at all so it's not "official". Still, whomever is responsible for this (shouldn't it always be QPL?), it's still a shame. "Who's to blame when situations degenerate?"
[/QUOTE]
Why are you bringing that into the discussion at all??
We're talking about the US releases:
Pioneer: 1997 / 2001 (DD+PCM & DTS+DD remastered editions)
Eagle Rock Entertainment: 2007 (also the first authorized worldwide DVD release, as well as first Queen Blu-ray / HD DVD release)
PS. You're correct, the Brazilian release was not authorized at all. That, along with other supposedly legit Brazil-exclusive DVD's, were recorded off Laserdisc editions, so they had the same edits and all that were on the LD (most notably the absence of Fat Bottomed Girls on their "Greatest Flix I" DVD). Funny how LD supposedly gave them the excuse to label those DVD's as coming from remastered digital sources. Bwahahahahahaha! My ass.
I did not fail to realize anything. I don't care if it was Pioneer or QPL or Wal-mart that released it the other times. It is still out there for the 4th time.