|
Tony Danza Claus posted:As far as DO NOT BUY list, a lot of stuff is really subjective and all those nice words meaning "people are wrong", but there's pretty much a universal hatred for three movies: 28 Days Later, Patton, and the original release of Full Metal Jacket (the white cover with the helmet on it). Well 28 Days Later is not a "poor" release in terms of faithfulness - the film was shot in standard definition, so there's simply nothing that can be done to make it look better. If you like the film, and don't have the DVD already, you certainly can't go wrong with the Blu-ray - the high definition audio is great, and the last scene of the movie was shot on film and is in true 1080p. The rest is upscaled and looks about the same as an upscaled DVD.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Simpsons season 13 announced on both DVD and Blu-ray. Kinda surprised about the BD announcement - Season 20 made sense as that's when they switched to widescreen and HD, but Season 13 would just be an upscale to 1080p unless they went back to the animation cells and rescanned or something (assuming that's even possible, I don't know exactly how farmed-out-to-Korea animated shows are produced, and what material is archived after an episode is produced). Most likely, it will just be upscaled - considering that the first half of season 20 (before the HD switch) was clearly upscaled.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
SwissDonkey posted:I have the Australian version. The Australian version is 1080i50, so I guess that would explain some of the jerkiness. Still, shouldn't be too much worse than the DVD (also 50 Hz if you have the Australian DVD). The Dutch and Polish releases are true 1080p24, so no judder.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
With any luck, they'll use the theatrical subtitles for the new Crouching Tiger BD. Though I wouldn't count on it, unfortunately.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I told my wife to pick up a few BDs that she wanted to see when she went shopping yesterday, and she got 9 and Public Enemies. I didn't know until recently that Universal apparently has a bit of a notorious reputation for poor BD transfers. We watched 9 tonight, pretty good film, not great, but intriguing and at least a little subversive... It looked great. Excellent detail, extremely crisp visuals but with some softness (the animation and virtual camera technology clearly isn't as sophisticated and deep as the magic behind Wall-E but there's some of the same kind of stuff going on). I don't see any problems with the transfer, though it took an annoyingly long time to load because of the unusual structure of the BD itself, with multiple content accesses and downloads before it got to the menu. Am I missing something? Universal has a reputation for poor CATALOGUE titles - not new day-and-date releases of movies just out of the theaters. Recent BDs they've messed up include Out Of Africa, Spartacus, Elizabeth, etc. - all films from years ago, that require Universal going back to old HD masters that aren't up to snuff with current technologies and standards. The correct thing to do would be find a high quality print or film negative, re-scan, and then perform work from there to create a modern HD master - but Universal has basically shown us that they don't give enough of a poo poo to do that kind of thing. For brand new films, there's really no room for these kinds of fuckups - they have the perfect digital intermediate already, so it's just a matter of making a decent 1080p encode. Both 9 and Public Enemies were brand new films when the BDs were released, so you're fine. 9 is a computer animation film, so the BD is pretty flawless. Public Enemies kind of looks like rear end at times, but that's due to Mann's shooting style (digital cameras in extremely low light environments) - it looked that way in theaters too. Both are perfectly good Blu-ray presentations. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 22, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 20:03
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Profound Desires of the Gods is region B-locked, which is a shame because it looks goddamn magnificent With the amount of BDs you buy, I don't know why you haven't just gotten an Oppo BDP-83 and the $50 easy-to-install region free mod. Unless you purposefully avoid it to prevent yourself from buying even MORE titles.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Any idea if the people who distribute the LOST boxset like region-freeness? I've just started Season 6 and contemplated buying each of the individual boxsets, but I'm a sucker for unique and similar looking packaging. The Lost boxset will most likely include the exact same discs from Seasons 1-6. The US Season 3 was locked to Region A so...
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
The Lucas posted:Is this guy joking? If he's not, he should be. Stagecoach was in very bad condition, so I at least understand why someone with no real film restoration knowledge would complain. But The Third Man? I don't remember that one having any real damage - all I remember is a gorgeous B&W picture. The guy has no idea what he's talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
Just get the cheap, region free UK Blu-ray.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Well, I did, but I want my American Blu-Rays goddamnit. Haha alright. I don't see the difference though honestly - the only time I regard an import in my library with disdain is when a superior American one has come out since. With '...Mandy Lane', I don't think there's much possibility of that anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Getting the region free hardware mod for my BDP-83 was the best BD-related decision I ever made. PAL extras, 1080i50 movies, region B locked titles, etc. - all perfectly enjoyable. It also opened me up to the world of DVD importing that I previously had ignored. Hello Japanese 6-disc theatrical Grindhouse, and hello banned-in-the-US Enzo Castellari Jaws-ripoff 'Great White.'doctor thodt posted:Yeah, Adventureland almost never drops in price. It's also on sale at Target this week......for $24.99. 3rd party sellers on Amazon are selling like-new copies for under $12 though. Yeah, Disney discs seem to never go down in price for some reason. I'm still looking around for some super old ones like Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back. I just refuse to spend $24 on such an old, relatively poor quality disc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Terminator/Predator was one I've been considering. For what it's worth, a remastered version of Predator with special features included is coming June 29th, and Lowry has already done a ton of work on The Terminator for an eventual Blu-ray re-release. Not that there's anything wrong with the two existing releases, they look fine considering the documented cheapness of the two productions. Just a heads up though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
Bram Stoker's Dracula, or some different one? Because Bram Stoker's is a fine Blu-ray - it's only fault is being overly dark, and there are those in the industry that defend it up and down saying it matches FFC's answer print and is exactly how the film is supposed to look.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:We must've watched different Blu-Rays -- it looks like an unmastered print from the 1970s. The coloration is weak, the picture is overly grainy (like, not as a stylistic choice; the film just looks old), there's no pop to the matte work...just terrible. I'm not sure what you're expecting out of it ("overly grainy" and "no pop" confuse me a bit), so I'm not sure exactly what to say to you. Is it a stunning picture that goes "Wow, so THIS is why I buy Blu-ray"? No. But it looks like film, it doesn't have EE or DNR, the print is not dirty and scratched, and there is a level of detail significantly above DVD quality. Really, the only controversial aspect of it is how dark it is. And even that is really a non-story as Coppola and Zoetrope supervised the mastering - so any complaints about the darkness must fall at their feet instead of Sony's Blu-ray department. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 13, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Ah, I just received my Lady Vengeance (with bonus eBayable Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and collector's tin). Is it from the general-release June 15th wave, or the Best Buy exclusive from mid-March? If it's the "new" one, can you check if Oldboy now has lossless audio? If it does, I'd buy it from you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:It's the new one. Audio options listed are: Is that on the back cover, or from the actual disc when you play it? If that's from the actual disc, well I guess you didn't get a fixed copy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:It's a Fox release, so I would say "they're going to pull it, then rerelease it without any features at the same price and in shittier packaging." Maybe they can give it the Predator remastering treatment!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:
I watched it and it was clearly a fade to black AND white. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:Fox is seriously the worst company. I don't get this Predator disc as they had been doing so well ever since Patton and the resulting backlash. Paramount and Universal are riding so high atop the hate wave when it comes to lovely catalog titles that people had almost finally gotten over their fixation on WB and had completely forgotten about being wary with Fox titles. And now Fox has to go and open old wounds again with this loving waxjob. I'm not sure which I'm more offended by - Spartacus where Universal was ever so careful to put a layer of fake grain over everything so poo poo still looked slightly textured, or this new Predator where they didn't even give half a gently caress and left some of the smeariest, smoothest, most unnatural looking DNR ever. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jun 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Blood has been hovering around $16 for at least a few weeks, so you're safe. However, it's listed as OOP on DVDTalk's out of print page. Then again, so is Zodiac, yet it's still for sale everywhere. Probably just Paramount's goofy rotation system with titles going OOP just for a new cover. Paramount has so many SKUs for various movie-cash and gold slipcover and combopack promotions that it's tough to really tell what's going on. I doubt that all SKUs of There Will Be Blood are out of print, and if they somehow are it's because another new one is coming soon. I don't think there's any danger of this going out of print for real.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:I wish every company was like Disney and went completely above and beyond with every effort. I seriously have such a huge nerd-boner for everything Disney releases. I don't know, Disney isn't really doing great in my book. I think their catalogue output is so loving abysmally rock-bottom small that it's hard to really judge - but they sure didn't go above and beyond with the first Gangs Of New York, nor titles like The Sixth Sense (DNR), Unbreakable (to-this-day uncorrected audio pops in the lossless track, import the UK one instead), Pinocchio (to-this-day uncorrected missing lines of dialogue, import the Japanese one for a region A compatible disc with the lines intact), and others. I do give them credit for fixing the Pirates of the Caribbean disc, and for eventually remastering Gangs of new York though. I can't think of a single Sony title since 2006 that I've been disappointed in. Their catalogue output is low too, though. Not a single DNR screwup that I can think of, which is nice. WB is by far the best BD studio in my opinion. Huge catalogue output - from diverse genres and time periods. Some of their titles in the past were accused of being soft, and maybe there are some slight compression issues here and there - but no DNR smearjobs, no outstanding faulty discs in need of recall, and their classic titles are absolutely stunning. Paramount and Universal need to figure their poo poo out in a bad way. Universal just throws whatever poo poo they have lying around onto a disc and calls it good. Paramount has at least taken care of its prestige titles (all the Sapphire Series besides Gladiator, whose transfer was actually handled by Universal, have been good, as have other prestige titles like The African Queen) - but their 80's and 90's catalogue titles have been as poor as Universal's. gently caress, there are even aspect ratio problems with Event Horizon and The Truman Show (stretching). Universal can't even be bothered for Spartacus or Out Of Africa, it treated them as poorly as loving Waterworld. Thank god Spielberg has a hand in most of Universal's blockbusters - maybe that will be enough to save those. But I have no expectations for anything else they put out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:I was thinking more along the lines of the animated Disney and especially Pixar movies, where every release is a 5-star picture, tons of features, nice packaging, and the DVD+Digital Copy bonus. Ok, well I guess Disney Animation's 4 or 5 non-CGI catalogue titles have been swell. Though at a rate of 2 per year, they loving better be. And the CGI titles are just such gimmes - it's loving impossible to screw up a CGI BD.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 05:24
|
|
|
BitterAvatar posted:Oh god I hadn't even heard of problems with any of the Pirates Blu-Rays. See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=900275 for screencaps, full explanations, and plenty o' drama. Basically, the framing of the first Pirates of the Caribbean BD is off in one scene - characters heads are cut off by the top of the frame, and there is tons of empty space at the bottom of the frame. Disney acknowledged the problem and started a replacement program some months later. The fixed discs also trickled their way into stores, though surely there are caches of the old defective disc still in stores here and there. It should be easy enough to check if you have a fixed copy or not by going to the timestamps present in the AVS thread and comparing to the screencaps. If you have the old disc, call Disney and they should be able to send you a replacement as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Agreed posted:That said I think "lowest common denominator" is a little bit harsh, there's obviously some middle ground and if the first transfer is indicative at all of the source quality then I imagine they HAD to do SOME processing to get it up to a level of quality that makes it worth getting on BD at all, though obviously they went overboard and it shows. What stands out to me more than anything is his damned shirt. It's so... uniform, it looks almost cel-shaded. I'd have to see the film in action to make a judgment but if I bought the first BD and got that really bad transfer, I'm not sure if I'd consider it a step down watching the second one, warts and all. Again, not sure, just have to actually see it before making up my mind. See, I disagree - there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the first transfer. The film is simply grainy. And even then, it's not THAT grainy in comparison to a lot of other films. The DNR looks absolutely ridiculous. Agreed posted:On a similar note I picked up the Die Hard 4-pack, and we watched the first one yesterday. I thought it looked great, way better than the DVD, awesome sound (and plus Die Hard is just a fun movie, it has aged really well in most respects, way better than I imagine the most recent one is going to when we're looking back 20 years from now). Then I went online and it's given mostly unremarkable scores as far as the quality of the transfer goes. I don't see it, personally, looks great to me - high fidelity to the source without obnoxious interference to try and make it "pop" any more than it would have in theaters. Someone shed some light on what I'm missing, if anything? I don't think you're really missing anything. The release is very solid in my opinion, it's just generally not a visually spectacular film so people rag on it. It also came out before the anti-DNR and "true to the source" craze started online so a lot more people were viewing things from the perspective of how "HD" they looked, not how CORRECT they looked. Re-reviewed today, I feel the scores would be slightly higher. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jun 17, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Well hey, Friedkin can gently caress around with the "Version You've Never Seen Before" and mess its colors straight to hell, as long as the original timing remains on the theatrical cut. I figure the new version is the one he'd rather gently caress with anyway. I actually LIKE The French Connection's new look - but I do agree that I wish both versions were present on the disc. That's actually a 2 BD set (2nd is extras), so they could have spread the extras between the two discs and put one version on each disc if they were REALLY concerned about bit budgeting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:So is Friedkin pretending that the longer version is his preferred version now? That guy is full of poo poo. Hey, as long as both are on the BD (as has been announced), then he can like whatever he chooses. I've never had a problem with directors revising their work as long as the original people fell in love with is still available too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Hopefully it's actually HD this time. I've heard Season 5 was still filmed using SD cameras, just presented in widescreen for the first time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 15:18
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Oh yeah that was the last season, wasn't it. So much raging... That's how they filmed the show, it's either a stylistic choice because everything on the show is so ramshackle, or they just don't have the budget for new cameras and an HD workflow. It has nothing to do with Blu-ray or Fox's home video department. You can get it on BD for probly a few bucks more and get fewer discs, lossless audio, and maybe better upscaling than your TV or player could do - or just get it on DVD if the concept of an upscaled BD insults you so much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Uh...the decision to put it on Blu-Ray is entirely the fault of Fox's home video department? I don't see what is so confusing about how dumb this is. I thought you were raging because it was SD, which is totally out of the BD department's hands. But you're just mad because it's on BD? You don't have to buy it...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
They are NOT standard def on the BD discs. The source is natively standard def, yes, but they are upscaled to 1080p24 before being authored and they include lossless DTS-HD MA, and that would be bitstarved to hell and back if it was all on one disc. With two discs, they are both probably BD50s. Do you people really think they're in 480p on the discs? Because that's the only way the last 2 or 3 posts make any loving sense. For a slight price increase ($10 now, wouldn't be surprised if you can get the BDs below $35 by release date or soon after), you get: - slight convenience of one less disc - both discs are scratchproof - lossless DTS-HD MA audio - pre-upscaled to 1080p24, arguably at slightly better quality than most TVs / players will do on the fly Are those BIG benefits? No, absolutely not. Are they nonexistent though? Also no. If it's worth it to you, buy it. If it's not - if you feel it's a ripoff, if you only feel right buying a BD if it's in native 1080p, if you have some crazy idea for putting SD shows on one BD disc because you're super lazy and should instead just rip them to your computer because studios are never going to cater to you as it would ruin their BD marketing - then just don't loving buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:1) Who cares if they upconverted them to 1080p? It won't do anything since the source is still SD. Sunny's source is SD and looks like poo poo even for SD, so I don't really know what your quoted reviews are supposed to mean to me. It looks like poo poo? Um, okay, I could have told you that. In my experience, player upscaling on-the-fly introduces a lot of random artifacts that pre-processed upscaling doesn't, but it's certainly an open debate and I'm not trying to say "OMG the pre-upscaled ones look soooo goooood." Though the picture you linked, while pretty lovely from a detail standpoint, is actually pretty free of macroblocking, random lines, and other artifacts that I've seen on a number of on-the-fly upscaling presentations. quote:4) How would putting a whole season of a show filmed on SD on one disc ruin their BR marketing? Wouldn't Fox releasing this poo poo and trying to pass it off as 1080p H would harm their marketing more? To get it on one disc, either they a), leave it in 480p in which case you get people going "DURRRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund.", or b) they upscale it to 1080p and cram it on one disc and the bitrates are terrible. The fact that it's originally SD means poo poo once it is upscaled - you still need reasonable bitrates so there isn't macroblocking all over the place. 13 episodes + special features is a lot for one BD50. They're also hesitant to put a full season on only one disc as, yes, the perception is that the worth of the set is lowered. And again, just don't loving buy it. Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:What are we arguing about? In one sentence you call it a lovely looking show and in the next you say that it needs "reasonable" bitrates so it doesn't look even more lovely? That they have to upconvert it to 1080p because people will go "DURRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund" instead of the really obvious "DURRR, this looks like complete poo poo, I want a refund" route. There's a difference between lovely amounts of detail, and lovely macroblocking/artifacts all over the place. The amount of detail is limited to what's in the source, but the amount of artifacting is controllable by how proficient the upscale is (people purchase particular DVD players over others because they use different, higher quality, scaling chips, for instance), and if a reasonable bitrate is used. If I'm going to watch something in SD on an HD set, I'd certainly prefer quality upscaling. But again, I'm not saying this is some magical process that makes everything look great - I acknowledge it will still look poor. All I'm saying is that SOME benefit is possible. quote:I don't think that fitting four hours and 20 minutes of SD sourced content with your standard commentaries/SD special features onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray is asking for too much. How much breathing room do you have to give them when 1 50GB Blu-Ray is double the space the whole 3 disc DVD set has? This was my point. A BD50 is double the space, but 1080p24 files are 6x the resolution. They don't scale at the same rate. Continuing to remind me that they're SD sourced is irrelevant once you upscale them - a poor encode will still look worse than a proficient encode. It's like you're arguing "They're lovely, might as well make them SUPER lovely so I don't have to get off the couch that one time after 3 hours!" The goal of upscaling is not to make SD content look HD - it is to make SD content look as good on an HD set as it does on an SD set, without terrible artifacting introduced. And this whole conversation is completely ignoring the fact that even DVDs are frequently encoded super lovely for the paltry 480p they present. And besides any discussion of quality, there's still the fact that more discs = more worth in at least the studios' eyes. quote:I don't plan on buying it. Why is it such a big deal to point out how much of a blatant cashgrab/ripoff this is? I feel it has (some, small) value, and I'd rather see the TV-on-BD market grow rather than shrink, so all the raging seems unnecessary to me. But whatever, I'm not going to continue arguing. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:You keep insisting that they have to be 1080p24fps. Uhhhh...why, exactly? When discussing smashing an entire season on one disc, I don't think anyone except maybe you expects that they'll be 1080p. Because, a) that is the precedent - the Christmas special was in 1080p, and there has not been a single 480p release, to my knowledge, in any territory. And b), otherwise there is literally no point. They dilute the Blu-ray marketing angle by presenting something that is identical in quality to DVD, differing only in the ability for lazy couch potatoes to not have to perform the dreaded act of changing a disc. As for whether an upscaled BD offers any quality gains over a DVD, well that was what the last page was arguing about. I will not rehash it. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Robert Analog posted:How's are Criterions chosen? I get that a lot of them are the finest in Cinema, but some of them (Chasing Amy, Armageddon) don't seem up to par with the rest. Chasing Amy and Armageddon are considerably older Criterion releases. When Criterion first started, the concept of "special features" and "collector's editions" did not exist the way it does today. So studios were willing to license more popular, mainstream movies to Criterion as they themselves did not have plans for such things. Look at Criterion's laserdisc output - many incredibly mainstream releases. This continued to an extent in the early years of DVD as well. As time went on, the home video market grew larger and major studios began doing loaded DVDs themselves and were no longer interested in licensing such titles to Criterion - so Criterion's releases became more and more niche. And honestly, Chasing Amy isn't THAT odd to be in the collection. Kevin Smith is a big name now, but that was his third film and was a big success after the flop of Mallrats, and is to this day considered an influential film. It seems more odd now in the context of his more recent output, but meh. I think it's a better addition than Benjamin Button.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Starscream posted:It's leagues better than the fake that came out 2 weeks ago. Well it wasn't fake, it was what Criterion was distributing as promo artwork. It was just temporary / unfinished, and they apparently decided against it. To doctor thodt: Brick (UK, region B, 1080i50) Switchblade Romance (UK, region B) [REC] (Spain, 1080i50) [REC] 2 (New Zealand, region B) Choke (Germany, region B) Reefer Madness (Germany, region B) The Descent 2 (UK, region B) Cabin Fever 2 (Germany, region B) Carriers (Germany, region B) Inland Empire (UK, region B) Suspiria (UK, region B) Straightheads (UK, region B)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
The new Gladiator looks far superior. The old one looked like it had grain reduction and then sharpening - so maybe a few details stood out better (no grain to give overall image texture, so the little bits of detail still left are more noticeable, plus the sharpening on top of things), but the image on a whole looked like rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Harlock posted:Also in Wes Anderson land: There is a version without the quotes floating around, from some press release I believe. And you know whatever Criterion decides for the actual cover, there won't be a quote anywhere on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Max22 posted:Well, they specifically mentioned all the other trailers sandwiched between the features, so... I dunno. Machete is directed by Rodriguez and is part of the stand-alone Planet Terror release, so it could just be lumped in with Planet Terror again in the press release. There's also absolutely no reason for it to NOT be included, so I really don't think there's anything to be worried about. As for IGN's article, well a) how the gently caress would IGN have info about this outside of the announced specs - if they were to report Machete was missing, it'd just be them reading too far into the press release most likely. And b), they didn't even say it wasn't included - they simply said that Machete wasn't a 'faux trailer' as a real movie ended up being made.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - October 5th. Standard WB BD+DVD+Digital Copy. Of all the remakes, this one probably disappointed me the most. There's so much potential to use a decent budget and today's CGI to create totally hosed imagery that just wasn't feasible for Craven in 84. Instead, they did the blandest loving thing possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Comfortador posted:I disagree, the more CGI the worse that movie would have been. Example, the "freddy through the wall" scene, the flying body scene as well. Everytime effects were used it looked horrible. Well the effects were both unimaginative in design, and poor in execution. With good design AND good execution, I think a talented director could have really made something interesting from an Elm St remake. Or hell, even good design and execution of practical effects. That was certainly not what we got though. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Jul 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 12:46
|
|