|
fenix down posted:Question - the only recently filmed blu rays I've been disappointed with quality-wise are Hot Rod and Give Em Hell Malone. Were they shot with cheap film that doesn't convert to HD very well or something? I think it has more to do with the studios not paying for a better transfer than the ones that ended up on disc.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
RussianGuyovich posted:Inglourious Basterds being released in the wake of Valkyrie was a huge kick in the pants to Bryan Singer, even though it was obviously unintentional. An eight month difference in release dates is "in the wake of" another movie now?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 05:49
|
|
|
Agreed posted:And should I expect bad things from Public Enemies? My wife is a huge Johnny Depp fan and while she can employ a perfectly critical eye, I imagine she's going to be pretty satisfied by the content. I'm more guilty than she is of using movies to watch my gear, silly but it is what it is; I'm kind of curious what I should look for if this is a poor transfer. But if it's not, then awesome Considering Public Enemies is Mann-style digital, you're either going to hate the look of the thing or click into what he's doing immediately - but, technically, as a transfer, it's perfect.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 08:46
|
|
|
Bambi posted:I've never seen the Donner cut of Superman II. It's on sale at Amazon right now for $14 - worth it, or no? Kind of depends. It fixes a few things (Jor-El becomes the figure that removes Superman's powers, the "discovering who Superman is" scene is Donner's original version), but because Donner never actually shot like 90% of it, it's really huge chunks of Lester's version with a couple changes at certain key points and a re-use of Superman I's ending since Donner was fired before he came up with a replacement for II's. It's interesting to see how little changes in editing can make entire scenes play differently, but for the most part, I wouldn't have gotten the DVD when it came out if it hadn't come with the Complete Collection. So, uh, I guess my answer is... maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Yeah, it would have been more effective to make a feature-length documentary worked around the deleted and alternate scenes. As a whole, it works surprisingly well until the lame ending that's a rehash of the first movie - worse, it's largely constructed of reused takes and out of place stock footage. Seeing as that was originally the end of the second one and Donner was fired from the project before he and Tom Mankiewicz could come up with a suitable replacement after it was shifted to the first one, I can't really hate it that much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:The remastered one has a big black and gold border around the cover art. And when I say big I mean it's like 50% black border You're not kidding. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
Let's just end the Crystal Skull argument right here and say "this is what can happen to even the best ideas when you have a half-dozen writers rewriting everything and inserting their own ideas into it". The final David Koepp draft is some monstrous amalgamation of like five previous drafts (1 Boam/1 Darabont/1 Lucas re-write of Darabont's/2 Nathanson ones). The tone's so horribly inconsistent and the character goes in and out of self-parody so often there's no dramatic weight to any of the action. Now how about them shiny high-definition discs, fellas (by the way, the intended audience for the Star Wars movies - kids! - love the prequels, so deal with it)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
RichterIX posted:I wonder how the Blair Witch BD will turn out. Wasn't it shot on 16mm and, like, consumer-grade video? The 16mm parts might benefit, but I guess at $9.99 it's hard to complain since I don't already own it. The sound will benefit most, I imagine. Which works because really 90% of the actual frightening aspects of that movie come across through the sound and the visuals usually end up being a letdown. The giggling and rustling outside the tent... 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
The Lucas posted:I always thought Sony owned Adaptation outright or did they just put out the DVD? I could ave sworn it had a columbia/sony logo on it. You seem to have missed Egbert's little note on the last page, so to clarify: Image is the distributor for Criterion's discs. They also own several movies. Sony has made a deal with them to distribute all their non-Criterion movies and TV shows going forward (most likely the TV shows - did you know Image owns the rights to Shark Week and The Twilight Zone?) in exchange for the license for Image to produce DVDs for some Sony-owned titles like Adaptation. and ...And Justice For All, very obviously through their partnership with Criterion (because why would it be part of a deal for Image otherwise?). EDIT: Think of it as another part of Criterion getting stuff from studios they usually don't get stuff from until recently - like how they made a deal with Warner Bros. which is allowing them to get stuff like Stagecoach and the best prints available for most of Chaplin's stuff, and even access to Warner's restoration department. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Aug 31, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
I stand corrected on that, then V V
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Why January? Some good deals pop up again then? Stores (both online and brick & mortar) want to eliminate their extra Christmas stock, so deals that are just as good as the ones for Christmas show up all over the place. Also, in general: I got the Fantasia set today. And, uh, in a couple of words: holy gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 23:19
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I'm curious which version of the old black lady we'll see in Tom & Jerry. Given how stringent Warners was with sticking to the original Looney Tunes shorts, probably the original version, no matter how racist it might seem now. They'll throw a disclaimer from a prominent African-American in front of them to cover their asses on any possible backlash, like the Whoopi thing on the Golden Collections.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0055 posted:Better than X-Men 2? I might have to check it out then. Imagine some insane bastard cross between the Singer X-Men movies, Mad Men, 60s caper flicks, and 70s Bond movies, while going with a subtext that's as much about the sexual revolution of the era as much as the civil rights movement. It's not a perfect movie, but it's more than good enough to keep you from dwelling on what negatives it has.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Here's the thing about, "The bars are a distraction." Sure they are, if you loving look at them. When you have something that fills the screen, do you look at the bezel of the TV? Do you look at the shelf it's sitting on? How about the floor? Kubrick didn't want the movie he had painstakingly worked to create end up losing impact on a 4:3 screen when he moved into panoramic aspect ratios - so he simply designed his storyboards, lighting and blocking to incorporate that they would work in either format. There's details to be found on either side of the central block, but nothing imperative to understanding the movie's themes or character motivations. Like so: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
kuddles posted:Eh, it depends. When Disney thinks the film is a classic worth preserving, then yes they go all out. But any Bluray that doesn't fit that criteria tends to be whatever transfer they already have lying around slapped on a new disc and shoved out the door. Although considering the amount of times I've seen the ads for this thing, I'm guessing this one will be the former. Given that Spielberg has Dreamworks set up at Disney these days, I imagine there's going to be some attention paid to it, just to keep him happy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Kaminski generally does bleach bypass with Spielberg films, and they definitely went with a grittier, grainier film stock on WoTW, one pretty close to the stock used on SPR, which helps with the embedded feel. It looked like that in theaters. It's supposed to look like that. The fuzzy halos around lights is a thing that Kaminski also tends to do. Lincoln, for example, is nothing but fuzzy, diffused light outside of the daytime exteriors, of which there's like... four scenes. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
A New Hope is the one Star Wars movie Fox owns outright (at least the original, non-remastered version - who knows how the rights to the Special Edition shakes out), which was the deal Lucas made back in '76 that got him 100% of the merchandise and the ownership of the overall property and characters + full rights to produce the sequels, a deal that was only really made because all but like one person on Fox's board thought the movie was going to be a massive flop. Remember that prior to release, Star Wars was considered a folly by everyone that was going to come and go and disappear under the weight of William Freidken's Sorcerer releasing. Also remember that theaters weren't willing to book Star Wars before release and it had to be rolled into a deal where if theaters wanted to book The Other Side of Midnight, which was an adaptation of a successful novel that was expected to do good business, those theaters would have to book Star Wars as well. Many theaters begrudgingly did, only to be surprised when the mid-May also-ran they had been forced to book had lines around the block for every showing and was outgrossing everything by a large margin. As one can imagine, Fox is not interested at all in giving up their one piece of maybe the biggest franchise of all time w/o it being a really, really lopsided deal in their favor. Any licensing Disney would be able to do would most likely involve Fox getting a sixth of the money from a complete saga set, which I can't imagine Disney is too interested in paying out when the interest in that specific version of the movie is comparably fringe in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:That is assuming, Disney isn't willing to make that deal. As is, I would bet that a lot of people with a decent amount of money would like to release the theatrical versions like the rest of us, at both studios even. As well, I can't imagine fox having anything other than an uphill battle to release anything Star Wars without Disney sticking a very very big thorn in their side, and Disney wouldn't be able to do anything without Fox's cooperation. And as such, I would imagine that the most likely scenario would be to release the entire Saga in one package exclusively, and tack on Fox's cut to the already inflated price, and call it gold. Plus you gotta consider the fact that they all already cooperated in releasing the digital editions of the bad versions. Besides, you bet any Goons wouldn't pay $150 to own a non-tarnished version of A New Hope, Empire, And others [spoiler[Or pay even more than that.[/spoiler] The thing is, Fox can set the price and they would probably put it at a ridiculously high price - we're talking like very close to a billion. This is pretty tough to convince shareholders at Disney to accept - "we want to spend nearly ten figures to acquire one single film" is a hard sell to the people who hold your job in their hands. Hat Thoughts posted:That guy must have felt sooo smug Oh yeah, probably. And then he got Alien off the ground because of Star Wars' success, before leaving the company, becoming a producer, and backing Blade Runner. That dude is almost singlehandedly responsible for modern science fiction in film. I'd be smug as gently caress, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Timby posted:And that's exactly my point. It's a movie that has literally no reason to exist except Columbia was making bank from toy sales from the cartoon and desperately wanted another movie, so all the principals got dragged kicking and screaming into making it. There's some article out there that went into the process of making GB2 and one of the few times the cast + Reitman got together before production was spent on comparing their pay for the film and who was getting what percentage of ancillary sales instead of workshopping the script. Absolutely nobody involved in it looked at it as anything besides a good boost to their bank accounts. I don't think Murray even showed up for that, and Hudson was pretty much shut out from everything and was kind of just there (which is funny because in the movie, he's the only one who comes off as giving a poo poo). This is actually less effort than was put into the video game - where at least Ramis and Aykroyd sat down and reworked the script the devs had put together to make a proper sequel that had callbacks and set pieces that referenced the previous movies while getting the whole "Manhelltan" thing out of Aykroyd's head so he could finally shut up about it. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
I think he's mistaking DVDs for music CDs, since Sony didn't find it worthwhile to have that supported in the PS4.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I think the rights changed and that's why. Paramount got all of the rights back to the series in exchange for Warners getting in on Interstellar. Paramount's response was to date a new F13 film, which since then has been pushed back again and again and only recently got a director attached. They might be working on their own set or trying to license/buy the Warner remasters for use in one... that'll come out as part of promotion for the new one. So it goes. Paramount also got the right to distribute a new South Park movie from that deal. WB really wants to always be in the Nolan business.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
In terms of making it work on PSVR, it’s stupid simple since it’s pretty much “put in BD3D disc, hit play”. The 3D is spectacular since it’s spitting the two images to each eye separately, making the 3D as good as it’s going to get; the only problem is that since it’s a 1080p single screen that’s spitting out two images to your eyeballs that are like maybe three inches from it, the limitations of the tech get readily apparent - screen door is negligible when something’s showing, but things can look a little pixel-y, and on top of that, even as comfortable as the helmet is, it’s still a helmet with a chunk of plastic and rubber attached to your face. It can get pretty uncomfortable after like an hour. That said, picking the Large screen and putting on Avatar in 3D is about as close as I’ve ever gotten to that opening night IMAX experience, so depending on what 3D movies you have and whether you’re interested in VR games, it might be worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Oh, laying down is fine, although if you’re trying to cut out light from the sides to prevent distractions it can still get... well, moist. That and it’s still a bright-rear end screen three inches from your eyeballs and holy crap can that be tiring if you’re not prepared for it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Samsung's 2017 UHD players can be found for $170 if you're willing to part with that extra $20. I bought a 2016 model early in the year for around that price, works fine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Monday_ posted:I'd be careful about getting the One S, a lot of people had a problem with 4K Blu Rays having extremely washed out colors. I replaced mine with the One X and it works fine, but it's also a lot more expensive. Also they digitally extended the cavalcade of cars chasing them - they only shot with maybe like twenty cars going at once, mostly because after a certain number, it would become unwieldy to keep track of everything and raise the likelihood of a horrible accident occurring on what was already an intensely dangerous production by design. Better to shoot with what you know your crew can handle and just add cars in the background in post. At this point UHD players have dropped price precipitously - I bought a Samsung UHD player last year for $200 that looking on Amazon now is a whopping $108. LG sells one without wifi that's straight up around $100 (all it really means is you have to have it wired for updates). I've had zero problems with discs on my Samsung, though, so I'd recommend that ahead of an Xbox One unless you're set up for Atmos sound (since I think the Xbone S is in the price ballpark of other Atmos-ready players). You might run into the same problems Monday_ has had with an S, though. There isn't really a ~perfect~ UHD player out there, unfortunately. Also, UHD disc recommendation: Close Encounters. I've tried to pick up 60s and 70s movies as they've released, the fine texture of film grain and the precision of a lot of the color reproduction made possible by HDR makes a lot of that era's movies look loving amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 07:48
|
|