Sign In

Dek Rollins

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Apr-2015
Last activity
22-Oct-2020
Posts
3,240

Post History

Post
#1378456
Topic
4K77 - Released
Time

As for whether the color on 4K77 v1.0 is accurate to the technicolor print used, is kind of and kind of not as far as I’m aware. I think it’s mostly accurate, though I recall discussion around reel 1 having improperly balanced color because of an error. All that was done to the scan for v1.0 to my knowledge (aside from a contrast adjustment) is being white balanced using the soundtrack on the film.

The new color correction being used for the in progress v2.0 release seems to capture well balanced and still very accurate color.

Post
#1377658
Topic
4K77 - Released
Time

clem said:

Does there exist a DNR version of v1.4? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I’ve only just discovered this project and am trying to get up to speed. My understanding is that the difference between v1.0 and v1.4 is that v1.4 features color correction. But I can only find a no DNR version of v1.4 and personally it would be nice to have the color correction but with DNR too. Or are these processes contradictory with each other?

Edit: Forgot I’m on Spleen so I checked and it’s not there so I assume it must not exist. Are there plans for it?

There was only one DNR release, but a new edition of 4K77 has been in the works (v2.0) that will have a new color correction with both noDNR and DNR versions. Don’t expect that for a while yet though, they’re pretty busy.

Post
#1375197
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

Handman said:

That wasn’t the point of my original post either. But you asked for me to elaborate on the Star Trek quote like you couldn’t figure out what I meant.

“No” is a bit vague. You could have meant that the DC of Star Trek II is a fundamentally different film and that it is considered such, disputing the point I was making.

Post
#1375192
Topic
How do you feel about Star Wars being re-titled A New Hope in 1981?
Time

Handman said:

Dek Rollins said:

Handman said:

Dek Rollins said:

The DC of Star Trek II isn’t a different movie, it’s just a better version of the same movie.

No.

My feelings on this issue are pretty standard for a Star Wars purist. Dumb title and it messes up the timing of the music to the crawl. I call it Star Wars when I can. “The original Star Wars” when people get confused.

Mind elaborating what you’re responding to here?

Star Trek II’s Director’s cut is not better than the theatrical cut.

I beg to differ, but that wasn’t the point of what I was saying anyway.

Post
#1374414
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

You’re, like, the first person I’ve seen anywhere that didn’t think it was excellent. I’m surprised. I thought it was the most successful “decades too late” comedy sequel I’ve ever seen.

I’m surprised by the ridiculous amount of praise it’s getting.

It’s not like it has zero redeeming qualities though. I liked their daughters as characters, but they were kind of boring because they were too intelligent. They copied the dopey Bill & Ted mannerisms, but they’re not written dumb enough.

The only “decades too late” comedy sequel I’ve liked is Pee-wee’s Big Holiday.

Post
#1374377
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

It sucked. Such a disappointment. It felt like they didn’t have any idea what to do with the story. The plot is nonsensical even by Bill & Ted standards. There was so much potential in a third installment, and they wasted that potential on this forgettable trash.

Why is space-time literally collapsing unless they write one single harmonious song? Why is it one specific song (allegedly before the cop-out ending)? They already broadcast to the entire world at the end of the second one. Their music brought piece on Earth, it wasn’t some magical song that literally saves the universe from destruction.

And somehow the people in the future… didn’t know what happened? Like, how am I supposed to suspend my disbelief? Why did they think this script was good enough to spend a twenty-five million dollar budget on? Why did they waste all that money on crappy CGI effects that make me wanna puke in a story that doesn’t need to exist? And on a movie that looks, visually, like crap.

And the plot they went with just repeats things that happened in the first movie but boring. Hey, everyone remembers when they grabbed historical figure in a time machine, let’s throw that in there! But this time they don’t kidnap them as if it were a funny movie, they just, politely convince them to come with? And remember when they were sent to Hell? Yeah, let’s just do that again but make Hell infinitely less interesting. That’ll be great. I mean, come on, Bogus Journey was almost nothing like the first one. They’ve traveled through time, they’ve been to the afterlife, what’s the one thing they didn’t do? Space? Why didn’t we get Bill & Ted’s Space STATION? Show us a story about how their music reaches other planets, after they’ve given Earth a prosperous future, because that already happened.

This movie isn’t funny. There are humorous scenes on occasion, but they seriously failed at making a comedy on par with the first two. Most of the film is just mean-spirited drama mixed with some awkward attempts at humor. In the original films, nearly every scene, nearly every line of dialogue, was funny. They were filled to the brim with jokes. It was almost always played for laughs. Every time they meet their future selves in this movie, it’s just anger and drama. Keanu Reeves also just isn’t there at all. He throws off the chemistry by giving a very bored, phoned-in feeling performance. He didn’t seem to have the character in him, and it makes me wonder if they even re-watched the originals before production.

I was hoping for better from the original creators of the series.

Post
#1374347
Topic
How many good third movies in a trilogy can you name?
Time

Anakin Starkiller said:

Look, I get that it isn’t as high concept as the first film (if you could even call it that), but it’s nice, simple fun. A great romp through and through. Don’t take it seriously, just enjoy the ride.

Every Jurassic Park movie is high concept.

Jurassic Park has a stellar cast of likable and interesting characters, a story that actually has a point, a (mostly) fantastic script, Spielberg’s wonderful direction, etc.

Jurassic Park III has Grant with a cast of boring, annoying characters. The story and script are just plain dumb. It hardly has any redeeming qualities. There are some memorable shots/scenes, but three or four cool visuals can’t save a stupid movie.

I mean, all the JP sequels are crap, so it’s not like Jurassic Park III is alone. The JP sequels are the definition of cash-grab garbage.