|
Egbert Souse posted:Pan and scan was necessary. I prefer the original format above all, but letter boxing is anything but optimal on an analog 20" CRT screen running from VHS. Yeah, I meant to refer specifically to wanting things in wider formats than were shot in. I realize now that my choice of words was poor. Almost all the movies I watched as a kid were pan and scan. I think it really depends on the movie whether pan and scan is travesty or not. But now we are blessed to live in a age where widescreen is in, so it really doesn't matter anymore.
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Is there anywhere that reviews 3d movies specifically for the 3d stuff, so I can figure out if a movie has cool stuff flying out of the screen like Captain EO or Jackass 3d, rather than terrible useless depth of field 3d like Beowulf or Tron Legacy?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Dejan Bimble posted:Is there anywhere that reviews 3d movies specifically for the 3d stuff, so I can figure out if a movie has cool stuff flying out of the screen like Captain EO or Jackass 3d, rather than terrible useless depth of field 3d like Beowulf or Tron Legacy? Just found this from google, it's fairly comprehensive for all recent spectacle movies but the writing is apalling and it's clickbait trash http://www.cinemablend.com/3d/ IMO you can skip the 3d showings for most movies.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Heteroy posted:Siskel and Ebert did a special episode of their show about bad video transfers in 1988. This is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info.Magic Hate Ball posted:Haha, um, I don't know if "lack of leadership" is something you can pin this on. I say that because it seems like when filmmakers or studios insist on something they can get it. Kubrick/Spielberg/Allen and others have demanded certain ratios. Magic Hate Ball posted:Also, people still don't give a poo poo. At the place I work we have a DVD library for guests to use and I still get people who panic about "getting the whole image". It just doesn't matter to like 99% of the population - so long as it's big and now. This calls for a crusade. Egbert Souse posted:Yes. Pan and scan actually didn't start with tape or even video. 16mm and 8mm prints were often optically reformatted to work best in 1.37:1. Home viewers would not really change out aperture plates for non-scope films, nor would they always own an anamorphic lens. Most scope films would at least have anamorphic prints available, though. I'm not 100% sure but I was under the impression that 16mm/8mm film had less adoption by the mainstream back then. Were there places you could rent those or did you have to buy them? It seems like the few people I know who were into that stuff had more technical expertise than the average VHS person. Of course I was really young so I'm not sure. I'll need to ask them if they were using widescreen stuff back then. Egbert Souse posted:For video and TV, there were early experiments. The Disneyland TV special for Sleeping Beauty's theatrical release had clips from the film letterboxed with a theater cut-out instead of black bars. Walt Disney even comments on it being a way to show the full Technirama frame. That was 1958! That's the type of thing that makes me think if there had just been some kind of mandate things might've gone differently. There wasn't any way to zoom in on a TV broadcast back then AFAIK. Maybe if they put an artificial audience down in the bottom half and some rafters at the top there would've been more acceptance.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Zogo posted:That's the type of thing that makes me think if there had just been some kind of mandate things might've gone differently. There wasn't any way to zoom in on a TV broadcast back then AFAIK. Maybe if they put an artificial audience down in the bottom half and some rafters at the top there would've been more acceptance. Widescreen was popularized in part to give theatrical exhibition a comparative advantage to watching television, and for a long time the studios didn't care about anything besides the theaters. Once they started selling their catalogs and back releases to television networks they didn't care what they did with them since those networks were really their competition and to them they were just discarding old product (as opposed to now when all media is vertically integrated). Also you have to remember that for a long time, the average television image for most consumers up through the VHS era was garbagey distortion on tiny screens. The decision between "preserving the intended image" and giving up a significant chunk of already tiny real estate was actually a reasonable one. Cinephiles, who would be the ones to care the most about the first, still did most of their viewing in theaters with repertory screenings and the like. It wasn't until the introduction of laserdisc, which could actually produce a decent enough image, that the push for quality home video became somewhat of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
8mm films were primarily like a toy or novelty item. Most features sold for 8mm would be condensed to fit onto 1 reel, so it was a hacked version anyway. A lot of 16mm prints were made for TV broadcasts and for showing on airplanes so you could understand how they're not going to have widescreen format for those. And I don't think studios ever really sold 16mm feature films directly to the general public. They just trickled into private ownership when the theaters/airplanes/tv studios/libraries didn't want them anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Thanks for all the info. On actual film prints where they printed-in the mattes like most of Dr. Strangelove or Monty Python and the Holy Grail, viewing the entire image area would give the appearance of black bars anyways. Manhattan had dark grey bars on the earliest video release and I think a few tried out other colors. 16mm was the laserdisc of its day. You could rent and buy prints from mail-order catalogs, borrow from public libraries or universities, or even find at drug stores. And 16mm was often pretty high quality. Technicolor made dye-transfer prints. In fact, Universal made their 16mm prints directly from 35mm camera negatives for a while. Search on eBay and you'll see a ton of 16mm prints available. I actually have an 8mm projector, but I chickened out of using it because it kept jamming and burning my few reels. It's possible to retrofit these to use LEDs instead of a lamp that generates a ton of heat. But a big problem with 16mm is that since nearly everything was optically reduced, you tended to have an image with a lot of cropping on all four sides. Hence, why all that newly discovered footage from Metropolis has much tighter framing than the 35mm footage that was mostly contact printed since it survived only as a 16mm dupe negative made from a 35mm print. As for 8mm, they marketed it to children because it's relatively easy to set up. But you'll rarely find used 8mm prints that aren't scratched up since they generally were not kept in pristine condition. And the reason why Manhattan is such an important film in widescreen video history is because it was Woody Allen's first film shot in Panavision, rather than standard matted 1.85:1. Those films can generally work fine at 4x3 without serious compromises. That's why even a lot of early DVDs still had 4x3 versions of 1.85:1 films, but generally kept scope/Panavision films uncropped. It has more to do with proper framing than aspect ratio. On another forum, people get worked up about 1.85:1 films being opened up to 1.78:1 on video, even though films are shot to work fine with that miniscule of a difference. Kubrick preferred Barry Lyndon to be 1.75:1 and the Blu-Ray is 1.78:1... but in all likelihood, it has more actual picture information than even a perfectly framed 35mm projection.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I say that because it seems like when filmmakers or studios insist on something they can get it. Kubrick/Spielberg/Allen and others have demanded certain ratios. That's because Kubrick, Spielberg, and Allen were some of the biggest hitters back then, and even they still had most of their films come to VHS in open matte/pan scan - Kubrick in particular changed the way he shot for his last three movies, protecting for open matte just so that the transition to home video could be entirely under his control.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
If it's not a CG animation or a film by James Cameron, save the $$ and see it in 2D.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
effectual posted:Just found this from google, it's fairly comprehensive for all recent spectacle movies but the writing is apalling and it's clickbait trash http://www.cinemablend.com/3d/ Thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:16mm was the laserdisc of its day. You could rent and buy prints from mail-order catalogs, borrow from public libraries or universities, or even find at drug stores. And 16mm was often pretty high quality. Technicolor made dye-transfer prints. In fact, Universal made their 16mm prints directly from 35mm camera negatives for a while. Search on eBay and you'll see a ton of 16mm prints available. When adjusted for inflation was a 16mm projector and reels comparable to DVD/Blu Ray/VHS (and their players) price or was it more expensive back then? I'm assuming it was more expensive due to VCRs being very expensive at first but I'm not sure. Egbert Souse posted:On another forum, people get worked up about 1.85:1 films being opened up to 1.78:1 on video, even though films are shot to work fine with that miniscule of a difference. Kubrick preferred Barry Lyndon to be 1.75:1 and the Blu-Ray is 1.78:1... but in all likelihood, it has more actual picture information than even a perfectly framed 35mm projection. Yea, I don't think something crucial will be missing although I do think I prefer the exactness of a channel like MGM HD that does keep those 1.85:1 films in the exact 37:20 ratio rather than 16:9. The black bars on the top and bottom are miniscule of course. Maybe I'm in the minority IDK.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Zogo posted:When adjusted for inflation was a 16mm projector and reels comparable to DVD/Blu Ray/VHS (and their players) price or was it more expensive back then? I'm assuming it was more expensive due to VCRs being very expensive at first but I'm not sure. Looking at some old Blackhawk Films catalogs, B&W features went for $200-400 in the 1980s. My uncle has some 16mm prints, but all of which were hand-me-downs from flea markets or libraries, while his 8mm prints were purchased via catalog. A color feature would cost $40-60 in the 1970s while shorts went for around $20 each. Without researching, I think it's safe to say 16mm was primarily a rental or institutional format, while 8mm was more for collectors. MGM is weird about aspect ratios. There's nothing wrong with being exact, but they opt to show a lot of 1.85:1 films at 1.66:1 for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
2001: A Space Odyssey is sitting at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. This has to be bullshit. Is there some archive of all the negative paper reviews that came out during the film's original release.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:2001: A Space Odyssey is sitting at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. This has to be bullshit. There were a lot of negative reviews when it first came out. Pauline Kael hated it, for example: https://www.fandor.com/keyframe/kiss-bang-clunk-pauline-kaels-worst-reviews quote:Kubrick literally learned to stop worrying and love the bomb; he’s become his own butt – the Herman Kahn of extraterrestrial games theory. The ponderous blurry appeal of the picture may be that it takes its stoned audience out of this world to a consoling vision of a graceful world of space, controlled by superior godlike minds, where the hero is reborn as an angelic baby. It has the dreamy somewhere-over-the-rainbow appeal of a new vision of heaven. 2001 is a celebration of a cop-out. It says man is just a tiny nothing on the stairway to paradise, something better is coming, and it’s all out of your hands anyway. There’s intelligence out there in space controlling your destiny from ape to angel, so just follow the slab. Drop up.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I am become my own butt, the destroyer of worlds
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I am become my own butt, the destroyer of worlds Have you considered removing cheese from your diet?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:There were a lot of negative reviews when it first came out. Pauline Kael hated it, for example: Interesting. It kind of makes sense considering the importance she historically placed on respecting the viewer. that being said what she's saying there is pretty much exactly why i love 2001
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Pauline Kael would've made a great CineD goon.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:2001: A Space Odyssey is sitting at 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. This has to be bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did. Terrence Malick comes to mind—twenty years between Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line. Stanley Kubrick worked at an ever-increasingly leisurely pace between releases—twelve years between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did. Malick.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did. Why would you ignore his direction on Happy Feet 1 and 2? He made Happy Feet 1 and 2 because he wanted to.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did. George Lucas.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Malick. having not come to Malick until after his comeback, it's so weird to think that for 20 years he was the guy who made Badlands and Days of Heaven and then just disappeared
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Inspired by George Miller and Fury Road, and ignoring his direction work for Happy Feet and its sequel, I'm curious about any other directors who had significant time off between major film releases. James Cameron comes to mind with Titanic and Avatar, directing mostly Titanic-related specials between those two. Especially interesting would be any directors who went back to a specific type of film or genre like Miller did. I saw Babe: Pig in the City in the theaters. That's a major release!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Pauline Kael would've made a great CineD goon. If she were active today(or fairly recently) which current writer/director would name a movie villain after her? http://willowufgood.wikia.com/wiki/Kael
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why would you ignore his direction on Happy Feet 1 and 2? He made Happy Feet 1 and 2 because he wanted to. It wasn't meant as a slight against his work on those films, I was just thinking in the sense of (quite significant) differences between live action directorial work versus animation. Specific to Fury Road, the level of effort to direct that film is, I would think, quite a bit different than what he did on those two animated films. In addition, it's just such a difference in the type of film. I would wager not many directors go from one completely different type of film to another like that.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Dejan Bimble posted:Is there anywhere that reviews 3d movies specifically for the 3d stuff, so I can figure out if a movie has cool stuff flying out of the screen like Captain EO or Jackass 3d, rather than terrible useless depth of field 3d like Beowulf or Tron Legacy? Dredd 3D is still the best film I've seen in 3D. Used to really good effect and frankly, artistically as well.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Is Tomorrowland 3D or not?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
gmq posted:Is Tomorrowland 3D or not? It's not in my local theater.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Just finished watching In the Bedroom. (It's streaming on Netflix). At around 1:58:30, Willis said: "Stopped into his little shed there once. Place reeked. The guy spilled more whiskey than we ever drunk. We'll just pray he's already three sheets to the wind." I have no idea who "the guy" is that he's referring to. Anyone know the movie or wanna give it a go on Netflix and help me out? (Critics loved it, btw)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Hi there, here's my question. I've been poking around online and can't come up with anything particularly good because I don't have the knowledge, but I am looking for inspirational/wise quotations that are either from Godzilla movies or by actors, directors, composers etc. who were associated with the Godzilla franchise. Bonus points for quotes that are from better-known or better-regarded movies in the franchise, from characters who are fan favorites, or from folks like Ishiro Honda or Akira Ikufube who are strongly connected to the movies. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Thank you all for the swashbuckling recommendations. In that vein, would anyone share their favourite period dramas, generally? I've really enjoyed The Lion in Winter, The Name of the Rose, Amadeus, Dangerous Liaisons, The Madness of King George, the Elizabeth films, and of course Barry Lyndon. Anything set in the 19th century or older, I suppose. I'm pretty undereducated on samurai film and non-Western film in general that isn't 70s Shaw Brothers kung fu, but I liked 47 Ronin a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Thank you all for the swashbuckling recommendations. In that vein, would anyone share their favourite period dramas, generally? I've really enjoyed The Lion in Winter, The Name of the Rose, Amadeus, Dangerous Liaisons, The Madness of King George, the Elizabeth films, and of course Barry Lyndon. Anything set in the 19th century or older, I suppose. I'm pretty undereducated on samurai film and non-Western film in general that isn't 70s Shaw Brothers kung fu, but I liked 47 Ronin a lot. Edvard Munch by Peter Watkins is extremely good.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why would you ignore his direction on Happy Feet 1 and 2? He made Happy Feet 1 and 2 because he wanted to. He talked about making Happy Feet 1 and 2 when he had kids and was constantly watching kids movies. Now the kids are all grown up so he moved on.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:He talked about making Happy Feet 1 and 2 when he had kids and was constantly watching kids movies. Now the kids are all grown up so he moved on. "Jesus, these people don't know how to make kid's movies anymore. I'm gonna fix that" gradually turned into "Jesus, these people don't know how to make action movies anymore. I'm gonna fix that."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:"Jesus, these people don't know how to make kid's movies anymore. I'm gonna fix that" Well, one out of two ain't bad, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Thank you all for the swashbuckling recommendations. In that vein, would anyone share their favourite period dramas, generally? I've really enjoyed The Lion in Winter, The Name of the Rose, Amadeus, Dangerous Liaisons, The Madness of King George, the Elizabeth films, and of course Barry Lyndon. Anything set in the 19th century or older, I suppose. I'm pretty undereducated on samurai film and non-Western film in general that isn't 70s Shaw Brothers kung fu, but I liked 47 Ronin a lot. These aren't exactly Barry Lyndon but you could do worse than The Advocate with Colin Firth and Brotherhood of the Wolf with er Vincent Cassel and Monica Belucci which has period costume and kung fu.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:15
|
|
