If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.
For all you know, it is worth it to me, but I can’t do the search because my keyboard is missing the “g” key and the oogle search engine shut down two years ago.
I think that is rather unlikely. If it were the case, you could just tell me and politely ask me to do the search.
If that happened to you I think you’d want another forum member to find out via google.
I think it especially unlikely given that you have know typed the letter g above.
What if oogle was purposefully shut down by Robert Patrick to stop people for doing searches about his balls? Would you object to having oogle shut down, if that is what Robert Patrick wanted? And yes, of course this is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.
Robert Patrick can not shut google down.
google wouldn’t be the issue, it would be all the sites google is bring up the host pics his private parts.
And before you sigh, I am just saying that the above is what it is like to read what of your what-if/hypothetical/possibilities every single time.
Oh come on, my what-ifs/hypotheticals/possibilities are nowhere near as bad as what you did above.
But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?
possible, he’d have to do a lot more cgi-ing than he has already done.
What? It is the truth. If he doesn’t want any nudity in his film, he has to cover up via cgi more scenes.
If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.
For all you know, it is worth it to me, but I can’t do the search because my keyboard is missing the “g” key and the oogle search engine shut down two years ago.
I think that is rather unlikely. If it were the case, you could just tell me and politely ask me to do the search.
If that happened to you I think you’d want another forum member to find out via google.
I think it especially unlikely given that you have know typed the letter g above.
What if oogle was purposefully shut down by Robert Patrick to stop people for doing searches about his balls? Would you object to having oogle shut down, if that is what Robert Patrick wanted? And yes, of course this is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.
Robert Patrick can not shut google down.
google wouldn’t be the issue, it would be all the sites google is bring up the host pics his private parts.
And before you sigh, I am just saying that the above is what it is like to read what of your what-if/hypothetical/possibilities every single time.
Oh come on, my what-ifs/hypotheticals/possibilities are nowhere near as bad as what you did above.
*sigh*
But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?
possible, he’d have to do a lot more cgi-ing than he has already done.
What? It is the truth. If he doesn’t want any nudity in his film, he has to cover up via cgi more scenes.
Warbler.
ROBERT PATRICK’S BALLS ARE COVERED
That’s the biggest offense right there. If people can handle full frontal female nudity in 90% (rough estimate) of films, surely they can handle two balls.
Really? I have to start watching american films again, I haven’t seen a naked woman in a non-pornographic movie since the 80’s.
But what if James just didn’t want any nudity in his films?
Then why is Arnold’s dick clearly visible in the first movie?
Read the entire exchange again.
If it is really worth it to you, you do the search.
For all you know, it is worth it to me, but I can’t do the search because my keyboard is missing the “g” key and the oogle search engine shut down two years ago.
I think that is rather unlikely. If it were the case, you could just tell me and politely ask me to do the search.
If that happened to you I think you’d want another forum member to find out via google.
I now think it especially unlikely given that you have know typed the letter g above.
What if oogle was purposefully shut down by Robert Patrick to stop people for doing searches about his balls? Would you object to having oogle shut down, if that is what Robert Patrick wanted? And yes, of course this is a hypothetical. I am just saying it is a possibility.
Robert Patrick can not shut google down.
google wouldn’t be the issue, it would be all the sites google is bringing up that host the pics of his private parts.
And before you sigh, I am just saying that the above is what it is like to read what of your what-if/hypothetical/possibilities every single time.
Oh come on, my what-ifs/hypotheticals/possibilities are nowhere near as bad as what you did above.
*sigh*
I WIN
In before Warbler says *sigh*.
“Part of this is that the image has been made bright to account for the substantial light-loss caused by darkened 3D glasses, and further it would always occur when you’re restoring a nearly three-decade old film” Sorry. I think so. I don’t think restoration requires the changing of light and color, unless it is to get it back to what it was when the movie was originally released. Somehow, I don’t think T2 has been around long enough for it to lose its original light and color.
It points out in the very part you quoted that the light was adjusted to make the picture look normal through the darkened 3D glasses. All 3D movies do this or it would look like you were watching the film through sunglasses.
And I dunno what info you have on the subject, but plenty of time has passed for the color to have faded, darkened, ect.
As for removing Robert’s balls from view, I don’t care.
As for replacing the stunt mans visible face with Arnold’s, I like it.
As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?
As for removing Robert’s balls from view, I don’t care.
As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?
Haven’t all the previous BD editions of T2 had various issues (overzealous grain removal/DNR or generally low-quality, older scans)?
As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?
Haven’t all the previous BD editions of T2 had various issues (overzealous grain removal/DNR or generally low-quality, older scans)?
Maybe, I really don’t know. TeamBlu or whatever they’re called made a great looking version.
“Part of this is that the image has been made bright to account for the substantial light-loss caused by darkened 3D glasses, and further it would always occur when you’re restoring a nearly three-decade old film” Sorry. I think so. I don’t think restoration requires the changing of light and color, unless it is to get it back to what it was when the movie was originally released. Somehow, I don’t think T2 has been around long enough for it to lose its original light and color.
It points out in the very part you quoted that the light was adjusted to make the picture look normal through the darkened 3D glasses. All 3D movies do this or it would look like you were watching the film through sunglasses.
Then they need to do two versions: a 3D version with the light and color adjusted for the glasses and a 2D version with the light and color as originally done.
And I dunno what info you have on the subject, but plenty of time has passed for the color to have faded, darkened, ect.
not that much, and by the time T2 was made they had gotten better at preserving movies.
As for removing Robert’s balls from view, I don’t care.
As for replacing the stunt mans visible face with Arnold’s, I like it.
Fine for you, but some of use want to see movies exactly as they were originally made.
As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?
If you are going to re-release an altered version of the movie in higher quality, you need to do the same with the original. Technology improves. we’ve gone from vhs to laserdisc to dvd to blu ray, and no to 4k. The original version shouldn’t be left in the dust.
May I remind you what forum we are on?
If you are going to re-release an altered version of the movie in higher quality, you need to do the same with the original.
Absolutely agree!
May I remind you what forum we are on?
Only if you’re trying to be an asshole. I’ve never insinuated that this version should replace the original or anything like that.
Isn’t this a theater only thing anyways?
As for this version replacing the original, don’t we have T2 in high enough quality for this to pretty much be a non-issue?
Haven’t all the previous BD editions of T2 had various issues (overzealous grain removal/DNR or generally low-quality, older scans)?
I’m pretty sure there are film scoured restorations going on, but I could be wrong… Didn’t see one in that part of our forum. Maybe I read about it somewhere else?
May I remind you what forum we are on?
Only if you’re trying to be an asshole.
That most definitely not what I am trying to be.
I’ve never insinuated that this version should replace the original or anything like that.
Isn’t this a theater only thing anyways?
I presume if it will eventually be released on 4k bluray. I have a bad feeling it won’t include an unaltered version.
I presume if it will eventually be released on 4k bluray. I have a bad feeling it won’t include an unaltered version.
Hmm… You’re probably right, but it would be the easiest thing for them to include an unaltered version. I mean, they had to bring the original up to snuff before altering it, right? And wasn’t there already a SE/Theatrical release at some point?
But, yeah, they probably won’t do that. :\
There’s been a Russian print that has lingered on Ebay for a while, but this turned up recently.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/P0182-TERMINATOR-2-JUDGMENT-DAY-1991-35mm-motion-picture-film-print-FEATURE-/263197644761
Where were you in '77?
Hope that falls into the right hands!
I presume if it will eventually be released on 4k bluray. I have a bad feeling it won’t include an unaltered version.
Hmm… You’re probably right, but it would be the easiest thing for them to include an unaltered version.
That is what we thought about the OT.
