Dek Rollins

DuracellEnergizer said:

How about we create a Phantom Zerome Thread and let him loose there?

FTFY

DuracellEnergizer said:

I thought film can’t be HD, anyway, since “HD” is a digital term.

Well, technically. But comparing film to HD at all is a flawed concept at that point. My point was that grain and damage aren’t a factor when comparing resolution, which HD refers to.

dahmage said:

You can have the rest of the forum.

Don’t let him have it please

screams in the void said:

^ I meant they were not in HD in there original theatrical run , not the kind of HD we have today . The picture was clear and sharp , but they also had scratches and film grain

That’s not how the term “HD” works. Also note that some HD video tranfers have grain and occasionally some scratches.

LordZerome1080 said:

Why not the VHS?

Because VHS has objectivly inferior picture quality.

screams in the void said:

were not in HD in the theatre

Lol what

LordZerome1080 said:

The most I know is that both the DEED and the 4Ks both use a technicolour print.

That’s only for Star Wars.

deathstar1138 said:

There is a difference between a tint and a fade.

The LPP scans we had all have a blue tint to them.

This scan was different.

No, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. The 4K83 print is red-faded because it is Eastman Kodak film stock. The physical film image on the print looks entirely red. Not brick-red, the fade isn’t that bad. But this happens to all Eastman prints because Eastman Kodak prints aren’t fade resistant.

The LPP scans are (to my knowledge) unfaded prints, as is the nature of most properly stored LPP film stock prints (given the namesake of the type of film, “Low-fade Positive Print”).

LordZerome1080 said:

I have a friend who hates Freddy Got Fingered.

I have a whole planet who hates Freddy Got Fingered.

Jingle all the Way
National Treasure
Night at the Museum
Nacho Libre
RocketMan (1997)

I don’t feel any guilt for liking them. Maybe the museum one.

You don’t need to respond to every single post in every single thread immediately after. Oojason does not do that. He sometimes makes similar posts, but he doesn’t scour the board to make sure he’s the most recent poster in every single thread.

LordZerome1080 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

LordZerome1080 said:

I guess we shall have to wait and see

You know you don’t have to comment on every single thread, right?

I know but that doesn’t mean I will listen to you

Please listen to him.

deathstar1138 said:

There’s nothing faded about the print used for Return of the Jedi 4K. It is an answer print
that was 1 generation off from the negative, and has rarely ever been projected.

From the source:

99.9% of all frames used in this project are sourced from one original 1983 35mm
Eastman print. The remaining 175 frames were sourced from an alternate 35mm print.
All frames were scanned, cleaned, stabilized, and color corrected in 4k (anamorphic)
from 35mm prints. The primary print used is NOT a release print but a special screening
print struck directly from the original film negative in 1983. It is presented with
it’s original film grain intact which is two generations less than what a theatrical
release print would have and only one generation from the original negative.

It’s an Eastman Kodak print that was red-faded before correction. Raw frames were posted on the other forum. Being a clean screening print doesn’t have anything to do with color fade. Oft-projected theatrical prints are more commonly unfaded because of the LPP stock.

4K83’s colors are only off in that they are clearly from a faded source (many highlights have lost color and are just pink). Otherwise it’s hard to say if the color correction is the best or worst. I personally prefer the more blue/less magenta look of the LPP scans (not like the excessive blue of the SW LPP scan), so I’m rendering my own ‘correction’ right now.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:
At the time I simply said I have no interest in seeing it, and made no genuine comment on my opinion of the movie.

That’s not true. You parroted their opinions and said the film was just Oscar-bait and gimmicky.

I said this:

snooker said:

The whole concept of the movie is Oscar-bait and gimmicky.

in so much as that’s how it appeared to me, and that opinion in and of itself does not make an impression of the films quality, nor does it require me to have seen the film. I didn’t say I think the movie is bad. As far as watching the review, I did trust their opinions in a general sense, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like it after seeing it just because Mike Stoklasa thought it was meh. But again, my interest in watching it is quite low anyways.

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

They always go after people for “pretentiousness” and so does their audience.

But they aren’t being pretentious. Of course they believe in their own interpretations about a film, but they aren’t claiming that their opinions should matter to you. And remember that time they called other YouTube critics “pricks”? In the next episode they bring up how many people got mad at them and Rich blatantly says “I’m a prick.”

They do claim that people who don’t hold their opinions are stupid and simple-minded. That’s pretentiousness in my book.

Not always. Look in that Jay compilation that Handman linked to, Jay says that he respects that some people don’t like David Lynch’s films. In the Rogue One review, they make fun of how much people buy into a pile of nostalgic imagery pumped into a boring and uninteresting movie. They found the movie to be that way, so what’s wrong with them poking fun?

And to bring up the whole audience issue, I don’t think their fanbase has nearly as many blind followers as you seem to believe there are. People repeating jokes or generally agreeing is perfectly normal.

Judging by RLM fans’ willingness to love or hate a film based entirely on the RLM stance without even having seen it, I’d definitely disagree with you. You yourself have done that on this very forum.

No I didn’t. You’re referring to the time I posted the Boyhood joke, as a joke/reference, since someone else posted negatively about the film (IIRC). At the time I simply said I have no interest in seeing it, and made no genuine comment on my opinion of the movie.

And I’m someone who has disagreed with them many times.

moviefreakedmind said:

They always go after people for “pretentiousness” and so does their audience.

But they aren’t being pretentious. Of course they believe in their own interpretations about a film, but they aren’t claiming that their opinions should matter to you. And remember that time they called other YouTube critics “pricks”? In the next episode they bring up how many people got mad at them and Rich blatantly says “I’m a prick.”

And to bring up the whole audience issue, I don’t think their fanbase has nearly as many blind followers as you seem to believe there are. People repeating jokes or generally agreeing is perfectly normal.

DuracellEnergizer said:

God’s honest truth, I’m not all that impressed with Dollars. It’s got nice cinematography and Eastwood going for it, but it’s not particularly creative or interesting. In an alternate universe where this was a standalone film and didn’t have two superior follow-ups, I’d probably only rate it a 7.

Fair enough, though I certainly think it’s worth the praise it gets.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s not that shocking. A lot of people consider it one of the greatest films of all time. Most of the film’s negative reception stemmed from controversy about its subject material

My problem with it isn’t the controversial subject material. It’s not a very good film. Yes I’m coming from a Christian perspective, but I don’t think anything is wrong with portraying Christ as being tempted with sin and doubt. My problem is that the film doesn’t do a good job at portraying temptation and spiritual struggle.

You’re missing the part where mfm pointed out that the film is generally very well regarded. That’s literally the whole point of his post. It’s not shocking someone would rate it so highly, whether you liked it or not.

I understand that. The point of my post wasn’t that he rated it highly, but higher than Dollars.

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s not that shocking. A lot of people consider it one of the greatest films of all time. Most of the film’s negative reception stemmed from controversy about its subject material

My problem with it isn’t the controversial subject material. It’s not a very good film. Yes I’m coming from a Christian perspective, but I don’t think anything is wrong with portraying Christ as being tempted with sin and doubt. My problem is that the film doesn’t do a good job at portraying temptation and spiritual struggle.

DuracellEnergizer said:

★★★★★★★★★☆

---

★★★★★★★★☆☆

I mean, even if you liked it, better than Dollars?

TV’s Frink said:

Warb you conveniently left out the part where you complained about feminist agendas…yet again.

Warbler said:

And my worry was about a feminist agenda being shoved in our faces, not just the gender change.

That was literally him explaining that he wasn’t worried about an agenda. You’re being dense and antagonizing him over nothing.

LordZerome1080 said:

Collipso said:

no

What?

How was the brainthink Mrs. Fhqwhgads?

That a bit better?

TV’s Frink said:

It really shouldn’t be this hard