|
Lizard Combatant posted:Exactly, if they still have all the original computer assets, it can be as simple as exporting then again at a higher resolution. Personally, I'm not a purist at all when it comes to cgi. I think it's the one area that's totally fine to update as technology improves. Redoing practical effects or anything that alters the story, etc (Star Wars being the obvious example) can gently caress right off. The stock footage in the X-Files is an interesting one though, I'd they only have SD masters I'd be fine with them reshooting it (they're just establishing shots of Washington, etc) I'd they were done faithfully, but I don't mind that they're not doing that. Yeah, I feel pretty much the same about the old cgi shots because they were never very good in the first place. I just like when things are preserved in their original form just for the sake of the work itself being a representation of the time. That being said, there's a huge difference between redoing that very fake looking ufo floating above Mulder for two seconds and dropping cartoon characters in all over the place and photoshopping out actors.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Exactly, if they still have all the original computer assets, it can be as simple as exporting then again at a higher resolution. Personally, I'm not a purist at all when it comes to cgi. I think it's the one area that's totally fine to update as technology improves. Redoing practical effects or anything that alters the story, etc (Star Wars being the obvious example) can gently caress right off. Hmm, I'm having difficulty understanding the difference. Can you elaborate on why you think it's okay to screw with CGI effects but not practical effects?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
caiman posted:Hmm, I'm having difficulty understanding the difference. Can you elaborate on why you think it's okay to screw with CGI effects but not practical effects? Sure. My phone posting probably didn't make that clear. When I say it's fine to update cgi, I obviously mean within reason. In most cases, redoing the cg shots is literally just hitting export on the original files at a higher resolution. To me, this is the same as rescanning the original negatives. If the original assets are lost then the new models should faithfully recreate what was originally on screen. This is really only an issue for older TV shows, no one is going to redo Gollum from the Two Towers because he was already rendered at a high enough res for film. e: autocorrect Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Those look crazy good.... but drat, I am in the middle of watching Season 1 on Netflix as I never really watched this as a kid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
I've never seen any of that show. If it got a full-on HD treatment on blu-ray I'd probably watch it. It never interested me when it was originally on, I found it dry and boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:I've never seen any of that show. If it got a full-on HD treatment on blu-ray I'd probably watch it. It never interested me when it was originally on, I found it dry and boring. Yeah well, you're dry and boring!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Yeah well, you're dry and boring! Awwww snap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Yeah well, you're dry and boring! Sometimes, yeah!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
X-Files, in retrospect, is kind of a bad show. It's pretty boring most of the time, and has some of the most inconsistent writing I've ever seen. There's literally an episode where they're investigating something Mulder thinks is a literal god doing things, and Scully thinks this is ridiculous because of science, and Mulder is open minded. Then the next episode Mulder makes fun of Scully about being a Catholic, calling her an ignorant sheep pretty much, while Scully goes "pfft, I don't care, you have to have faith," and is also completely dismissive of evolution. It was a weird, weird show in some regards and mainly got by on the strength and chemistry of it's leads. Which is why it totally fell apart when Mulder left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember enjoying X-Files a lot as a kid, but a lot of it had to do with how most other television on at the time (before the boom in high-quality cable programming) was really schlocky garbage. I mean, the main show it was competing with for ratings when it first aired was Step By Step. To have a half-decent show with a sci-fi leaning and a ton of government paranoia with a great budget was incredibly refreshing and different. But I tried rewatching it recently and while it has it's moments of effective creepiness, it certainly comes off as a lot more hokey than I remembered it being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
As mentioned, Duchovny and Anderson are the main reason to watch - they make the show. One episode I had a good chuckle where some people were found dead with 2 marks on their necks. Mulder immediatley is like FUKKEN ALIENS!!!! And later on it turns out that it was clones... who were telepathic... killing their dads by draining their blood. And the main clone lady kidnaps em so they can all be happy clones together.... This show is loving bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
I just don't get people who don't like the X-Files. Sure the myth arc went to poo poo and you should stop watching after Duchovny left, but it's such a great combination of humour, pathos and genuinely disturbing stuff. There's an episode where they find out the inbred outcasts who live alone in their creepy farmhouse are actually keeping their quadruple amputee mother under the bed for voluntary... breeding. Mulder and Scully are like "well we've seen some weird poo poo but gently caress this noise!" and leave. This show is loving bonkers. Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:I just don't get people who don't like the X-Files. Sure the myth arc went to poo poo and you should stop watching after Duchovny left, but as the poster above said; it's "loving bonkers." Such a great combination of humour, pathos and weird creepiness. I think it's because most people expect a modern style show where the plot processes and the characters change accordingly instead of "here's an arc episode and here's an insane standalone episode that will never be mentioned again" that's really jarring when you're binge watching them. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I think it's because most people expect a modern style show where the plot processes and the characters change accordingly instead of "here's an arc episode and here's an insane standalone episode that will never be mentioned again" that's really jarring when you're binge watching them. That's precisely what I like about them (I like modern show structure too), it allows for a huge range of tone and style change per episode and every myth and legend is treated with the same level of legitimacy. How they managed to keep the level of character consistency that they did in the face of all this is impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:I just don't get people who don't like the X-Files. Sure the myth arc went to poo poo and you should stop watching after Duchovny left, but it's such a great combination of humour, pathos and genuinely disturbing stuff. This was the only episode I remember watching and it really hosed me up. Even before I started watching on Netflix I always referenced that episode cause it was the most hosed up thing on tv that has ever aired. I legit believe that too - what can loving top that? A bunch of mutants gently caress their mom who is under the bed and take care of the kids. 
Vintersorg fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I remember when that episode aired it received the "TV MA" rating, which was unheard of on network television. It was accompanied by a myriad "viewer discretion advised, put your kids to bed, seriously don't watch this" warnings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
caiman posted:Hmm, I'm having difficulty understanding the difference. Can you elaborate on why you think it's okay to screw with CGI effects but not practical effects? I feel similar. Even if they're recreating a CGI effect from scratch (which is often the case, since many effects houses don't keep old data sitting around for 2 decades) and even if they're making the CGI look "better", it's still in line with the original intent of the effect, which was to make a CGI scene that looked as close to the film scenes as possible. In most cases, crappy-looking old CGI would take me out of the show much more than redone CGI would. Replacing practical effects with CGI, on the other hand, always runs the risk of looking very out of place. They actually have done some of this for TNG, because all of the compositing stuff involved in recreating the original practical effect would've just been too much. Fortunately, they've done an extremely tasteful job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Star Trek: TOS actually redid a ton of practical effects with CGI on the blu ray and it looks great. They also included the original versions on the discs as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:This was the only episode I remember watching and it really hosed me up. Even before I started watching I always referenced that episode cause it was the most hosed up thing on tv that has ever aired. The Flukeman (from the episode The Host) is the one that freaked me out as a kid. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Star Trek: TOS actually redid a ton of practical effects with CGI on the blu ray and it looks great. They also included the original versions on the discs as well. This is fine as long as there's both versions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:This is fine as long as there's both versions. There probably won't be because the original Star Trek effects were done on film, so they could just scan the original footage in, while X-Files was edited on tape before any digital special effects were added. So they're stuck with redoing them in HD because upscaling the original footage like Fox did with Firefly isn't really an option since there's a different aspect ratio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There probably won't be because the original Star Trek effects were done on film, so they could just scan the original footage in, while X-Files was edited on tape before any digital special effects were added. So they're stuck with redoing them in HD because upscaling the original footage like Fox did with Firefly isn't really an option since there's a different aspect ratio. Sorry, I meant for when practical effects are replaced by cgi. I have no problem with replacing cgi with updates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Star Trek: TOS actually redid a ton of practical effects with CGI on the blu ray and it looks great. They also included the original versions on the discs as well. "Great" is debatable. Most of them are OK, but some really deviate from the composition of the original shots more than I would like, and others look flat out weird. But since both versions are included, no harm done. This was also a few years before the TNG restoration, with a smaller time/money budget. And it shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:X-Files, in retrospect, is kind of a bad show. It's pretty boring most of the time, and has some of the most inconsistent writing I've ever seen. There's literally an episode where they're investigating something Mulder thinks is a literal god doing things, and Scully thinks this is ridiculous because of science, and Mulder is open minded. Then the next episode Mulder makes fun of Scully about being a Catholic, calling her an ignorant sheep pretty much, while Scully goes "pfft, I don't care, you have to have faith," and is also completely dismissive of evolution. It was a weird, weird show in some regards and mainly got by on the strength and chemistry of it's leads. Which is why it totally fell apart when Mulder left. That's not really that weird. Mulder gave Scully poo poo sometimes for not believing in any of the stuff they had directly seen themselves but still being super devout about a religion that she had no evidence of at all. Mulder believes in a lot of crazy poo poo but he's not really spiritual at all. There's a logical consistency there. The quality of the writing was crazy inconsistent, though. Also there are quite a few good episodes after Mulder leaves. Doggett's character arc is probably the most satisfying (and depressing) one in the series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:The Flukeman (from the episode The Host) is the one that freaked me out as a kid. And was played by Darin Morgan, who went on to write five episodes including Jose Chung's From Outer Space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
The 4K remaster of Fargo is up for preorder at Amazon. $13.99, some time in Spring http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HZN8S9U?tag=evdaisafi-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=B00HZN8S9U&adid=1EPB60S09WK26PPXNVQ9
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:X-Files, in retrospect, is kind of a bad show. It's pretty boring most of the time, and has some of the most inconsistent writing I've ever seen. There's literally an episode where they're investigating something Mulder thinks is a literal god doing things, and Scully thinks this is ridiculous because of science, and Mulder is open minded. Then the next episode Mulder makes fun of Scully about being a Catholic, calling her an ignorant sheep pretty much, while Scully goes "pfft, I don't care, you have to have faith," and is also completely dismissive of evolution. It was a weird, weird show in some regards and mainly got by on the strength and chemistry of it's leads. Which is why it totally fell apart when Mulder left. X-Files owns, it's just not consistent. There are worse things. Its highs are way higher than just about any other comparable sci-fi mystery show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The 4K remaster of Fargo is up for preorder at Amazon. $13.99, some time in Spring I always wondered why the DVD and Blu-Ray covers of this were so generic when it had this great poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The 4K remaster of Fargo is up for preorder at Amazon. $13.99, some time in Spring Wow that is an awesome cover. The only thing cooler would be a special edition where the cover is done in actual needlepoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The 4K remaster of Fargo is up for preorder at Amazon. $13.99, some time in Spring Oh god dammit. Was the original BD release lovely? I have it but haven't watched it yet. Of course there are worse ways Icould have blown $5 than on a subpar Fargo BD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
I've posted this already in the General Chat thread. But because there's constant activity here, I figure this would be worth mentioning. This 15-film Elia Kazan DVD Collection is only $49.99 over on amazon.ca today. I already own about 7 of these films but for that price, it'd be worth it for the nice boxset and additional book & Scorsese documentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:X-Files, in retrospect, is kind of a bad show. It's pretty boring most of the time, and has some of the most inconsistent writing I've ever seen. There's literally an episode where they're investigating something Mulder thinks is a literal god doing things, and Scully thinks this is ridiculous because of science, and Mulder is open minded. Then the next episode Mulder makes fun of Scully about being a Catholic, calling her an ignorant sheep pretty much, while Scully goes "pfft, I don't care, you have to have faith," and is also completely dismissive of evolution. It was a weird, weird show in some regards and mainly got by on the strength and chemistry of it's leads. Which is why it totally fell apart when Mulder left. There's no way they'd have an episode where Scully is dismissive of evolution. Evolution is the mechanism behind like 30% of the poo poo they deal with, and she's always the one who gives the (stupidly oversimplified tv version of the) definition of natural selection and how it--working with Chernobyl radiation or a pocket of slow space-time or some other poo poo--could create bigfoot or a man with a conjoined twin who goes out murdering or what have you. As has been said, Mulder believes in crazy-rear end poo poo that is possible in theory through known physical laws. And he believes in it because he thinks he's seen it with his own eyes. He gives Scully a hard time about religion because he sees her faith as blind acceptance of things that have no evidence at all, AND BECAUSE she often refuses to entertain his (often wrong) theories about events and people that hang together on (bad) logic and (incomplete) evidence. It is also a fascinating time capsule of a show, in that it pretty much took the first real, modern step toward arc-based serial television. It seems sloppy as hell now--and did at the time too--but it's the first show to really push a larger narrative arc into one-off adventures with static characters. Later, you get arc-based narratives where the characters change and the arc drives every episode: basically the ingredients of our current golden age of television narrative. Just compare it to near-contemporary Star Trek: The Next Generation and all that came later. It also had lovely _practical_ special effects for the first half of the show along with discount 90s CG. I would love to see what that poo poo looks like in HD alongside the digital stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:This was the only episode I remember watching and it really hosed me up. Even before I started watching on Netflix I always referenced that episode cause it was the most hosed up thing on tv that has ever aired. Incidentally this is possibly the best episode of the show. Aside from the then unusual TV-MA rating the network was banned from rerunning the episode for something like five years. Eventually when they could show it again they advertised the gently caress out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Kevar posted:Oh god dammit. Was the original BD release lovely? I have it but haven't watched it yet. It's kinda dumpy, yeah, a lot of really blatant edge enhancement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:As has been said, Mulder believes in crazy-rear end poo poo that is possible in theory through known physical laws. And he believes in it because he thinks he's seen it with his own eyes. He gives Scully a hard time about religion because he sees her faith as blind acceptance of things that have no evidence at all, AND BECAUSE she often refuses to entertain his (often wrong) theories about events and people that hang together on (bad) logic and (incomplete) evidence. What is the difference between an Aztec god that Mulder blindly believes in during one episode and the Christian god which he does not in literally the next episode? And in that same episode Scully is talking about how she believes in creationism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's kinda dumpy, yeah, a lot of really blatant edge enhancement. Welp I literally just bought this a week ago and it's shipped. gently caress. I'm really, really torn on buying some older TV on DVD stuff; mainly Seinfeld and Scrubs. I know Scrubs was shot on 16mm and SD video so I'm pretty sure I should just grab them on DVD instead of Blu, but Seinfeld I'm less sure of. It's a show that's had countless re-releases on DVD, has screened in HD so a source is available to my knowledge, and being that it's a shitload of TV I can't see myself rewatching it after a binge. On the flipside, though, the 38 disc special edition boxset is only $63 in Australia at the moment which is a really nice deal. What should I do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:What is the difference between an Aztec god that Mulder blindly believes in during one episode and the Christian god which he does not in literally the next episode? And in that same episode Scully is talking about how she believes in creationism. As I recall, the opening to one episode have a narration by Scully where it's pretty clear she believes in evolution but she also brings up the idea that something is guiding evolution. I think that episode also has her finding a Bible passage on a buried UFO and another character believing that aliens were mentioned in the Koran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Welp I literally just bought this a week ago and it's shipped. gently caress. For what it's worth, Seinfeld was shot on 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Looks like someone at Warner needs to put down the crack pipe. The new TCM Archives issue of The Lady from Shanghai is encoded in VC-1 (is this 2006?), Dolby Digital sound, and it's packaged in a DVD case. It looks like the Eddie Mueller commentary was a mistake and he actually recorded an interview instead. Instead, it has the Peter Bogdanovich commentary from the DVD. It certainly looks good from the DVD Beaver caps, but you'd think an Orson Welles film would get better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
The MSJ posted:As I recall, the opening to one episode have a narration by Scully where it's pretty clear she believes in evolution but she also brings up the idea that something is guiding evolution. I think that episode also has her finding a Bible passage on a buried UFO and another character believing that aliens were mentioned in the Koran. Yeah, I forgot that in the X-Files creationism is true because aliens created humans. Kind of an unintended consequence of making a show like that, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:42
|
|