Toy Story 3 is a corporate cash grab, and Toy Story 2 is overrated. The first film wrapped everything up nicely.
I mean, I’ve seen Simpsons episodes from the late-2000s that were funny, but I have to agree with DE’s buttons.
EDIT: The only specific episode that comes to mind is “24 Minutes”.
I have also noticed that the epic force ghosts scene in ROTJ looks different in every version.
Check this screenshots:From 4K83 DrReel Color Correction (4K83 1.6)
https://i.imgur.com/lbQaGAE.pngFrom Harmy Despecialized v2.5 (newest version), clearly looks more “blue”. Why?
https://imgur.com/sLur4VQFrom 97 Special Edition :Again there is a color change? Now looking more “grey”.
https://imgur.com/NypkA7mWhich of this is the more similar to the way it was shown in ´83 cinema?
Most likely Despecialized 2.5 is the most accurate out of these three, followed by 4K83 1.6, or somewhere in between. For the original effects shots (as well as a chunk in the middle of the film that was out of focus on the Blu-ray) in DeEd 2.5, Harmy used a scan of a Low-fade 35mm print. These prints are very blue, and Harmy corrected the LPP shots to match the Blu-ray footage. 4K83 1.4 uses my own color correction which I based directly on an LPP scan made by TN1. I made the image warmer and wanted to diminish the blue push, but blue objects on screen still have a stronger blue tone, similar to that Despecialized shot. Though I don’t think it’s quite as saturated. It probably would have looked like that when projected back in the day.
I am still very confused. Because some people is saying Harmy is not much accurate to the authentic color because BR that is their main source is really far from te original colors but other people is saying BR is more accurate than 4K because it uses OCN as source. So… should be distinguish between being accurate to the way it was shown in theaters in 1983 and how the OCN looked?
Why do you think it would have that blue saturation when projected in theaters? I mean, if that blue saturation on Harmy comes from a Low-fade 35mm print and 4K83 comes from theatrical release prints, shouldn´t be 4K83 the most accurate to when it was released in 1983 theaters?
A Low-fade 35mm print is a theatrical release print. 4K83 is made from a 35mm show-print that was in very good condition and is only one extra generation away from the negative rather than three or four like a release print would be. The 4K83 print is not Low-fade stock and was faded red, which is why it needed extensive color correction in the first place.
Despecialized 2.5 sourced that shot from a Low-fade release print, which of course still had most of its color information intact because it’s Low-fade. The rest of the film may or may not be accurate, I don’t have it to compare, but I’m just talking about the force ghost shot that was being referenced. I’m sure Despecialized lacks accuracy in some scenes, in which case 1.6 would have more accurate color consistency.
I mention the stronger blues being more accurate because the majority of prints people saw would have been Low-fade positive prints (LPP), and every LPP people in this community have access to or have seen projected, have had strong blues. 4K83 1.6 looks very nice and, as I mentioned, retains accurate shot-to-shot consistency, but I don’t think it’s accurate to an unfaded projected print circa-1983. The colors in 1.6 are just a bit dull, and I feel it lacks both the warmth of warmer colors as well as lacking stronger blues. It’s not very colorful. There are scans of Kodak prints (not LPP) that haven’t faded very much, and they show similar color biases to 4K83 1.4 with my correction based on an LPP reference.
I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but in this case it’s a bit difficult. All the evidence I’ve seen points to 1.4 being the most accurate representation of the original color timing to date, though both 1.4 and 1.6 retain accurate color consistency. Of course which version of ROTJ you watch is entirely up to personal preference, but I’m talking about accuracy.
I hope none of that was confusing. 😃
The original 1968 film is a classic. I’m mostly indifferent to everything else to varying degrees, though Conquest is a decent movie on its own.
Perhaps this is what you are looking for:
https://forum.fanres.com/thread-2899.html
It recreates the laserdisc content (including the extra logos) using Bluray footage and laserdisc audio.
These guys only want contributing donors to share anything, if at all. It’s one thing to ask for donations or funding for some project, like buying some rare material from eBay, it’s another to be rapacious about everything you can touch. That’s why sharing is dead nowadays, thanks to that sort of attitude and even for free we have private trackers only restricted to their clique and with all their screening, ruin things for everyone. I bet these guys will be a honeypot for a “bust” similar to the one that happened with the defunct Megaupload in 2012, and when that happens even them will have no access to said material. It’s sharing, especially FREE SHARING, that ensures this stuff will not be gone tomorrow. And make no mistake, that’s what copyright trolls only care about. Just look at what they are doing to Internet Archive these days…
Are you talking about FanRes? If you’ve had trouble getting a hold of projects over there, I’m going to assume you haven’t interacted with the community at all. People don’t like random new users demanding access to fan projects and then leaving and never coming back. Make friends, then people will share. Nobody is making you pay any money to grab fan projects, and nobody is being excessively rapacious about anything. And what does what happened to Megaupload have anything to do with FanRes? It’s not a file host. It’s a public forum, just like OT. In fact, I’ve seen people only share projects with donors on OT, but I’ve never seen that on FanRes to my memory.
+1 to Frasier being great.
I don’t like Hans Zimmer’s music. He’s fine, and when he goes outside his usual boring style, he can produce some outstanding work, although always suspiciously co-composing. But his normal stuff is slow, with boring instrumentation and no melody. You ain’t gonna be humming Time the way you do the Imperial March.
This is pretty spot on. I’ve long considered Hans Zimmer to be incredibly overrated for the most part.
You ain’t gonna be humming Time the way you do Time. 😉
Oh no, that’s not what I meant. I’ve enjoyed every one of his films I’ve watched. I was just curious which ones DE liked, so that I can understand what he doesn’t care for in Gilliam’s films.
Time Bandits, Brazil, and Fear and Loathing are great.
Terry Gilliam is a very hit-or-miss filmmaker. And I think he skews more towards the latter.
For context, what do you think are the “hits”?
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Tim Burton is better than the Mel Stuart 1971 version.
It was inevitable that at some point an opinion would come in so hot that it would get smoke in some eyes.
It was also inevitable that at some point an opinion would come in so absolutely foul that a reputation would be ruined.
Friends, I think we have both here.
A moment of silence, please.
Your quote is putting words in my mouth. 😉
I think you should. This may be the unpopular opinion thread, but that’s like, sacrilege.
I don’t need to. This is an unpopular opinion thread. If you can’t accept it, this isn’t the place for you.
Also,
- …if you don’t agree with something, don’t bring it up! Internalise the pain!
People should be able to use this thread without having to hear complaining about the things they say, so long as everybody follows the rules, you can say whatever you want.
I see. I thought this was a discussion forum where people can discuss topics in order to understand alternative points of view. I get that you don’t want a thread about this subject to devolve into petty arguments, but when you post an extremely unpopular opinion (per the topic) and then specifically state that it needs no explanation, you are fully aware that you’re inviting the desire for an explanation.
EDIT: It’s worth noting that my post requesting said explanation was meant to be lighthearted, and was not intended to be malicious in any way.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Tim Burton is better than the Mel Stuart 1971 version.
I don’t need to explain myself.
I think you should. This may be the unpopular opinion thread, but that’s like, sacrilege.
Over in the Star Trek 'verse, Vulcan has no moon.
Now I understand why JJ Abrams turned Vulcan into Alderaan in nuTrek.
Someone forgot to tell Robert Wise that. 😉
Supposedly Douglas Trumbull didn’t think the original test matte (with orange sky) looked alien enough, so he designed that larger and more complex matte with the moons/planets in the night sky. Not sure why they thought it was a good idea to change it to night though, as Spock is clearly shielding his eyes from the sun when he stands up.
That said, a planet-sized moon also appears in the Vulcan sky in the animated series, so The Motion Picture wasn’t the first thing to make that creative choice.
Of course things get lost/discovered. His question was “Did any of the Cam versions of The Shining have the deleted hospital scene?” at the start of the thread. Anybody who has a cam of the Shining, knows what it is or has watched it, and has uploaded it online, most likely knows whether or not the hospital scene is in it. And in that case, it’s highly improbable that the rest of the internet just wouldn’t find out.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the hospital scene is on some obscure Russian torrent tracker right now. I doubt it. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
If someone had a theatrical recording of any kind that had the cut scene, everyone would know about it by now. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that would just fall into obscurity.
In response to the previous post, I think Batman Returns is a masterpiece whereas '89 is forgettable and took away everything that made the Joker interesting.
Yeah, you aren’t the first to tell me I’m wrong about those Batman films. To each their own, 'suppose.
Nah, you’re both wrong. 😉 Batman '89 and Batman Returns are both masterpieces. Also I agree about Lynch’s Dune, and while Temple of Doom isn’t my favorite Indy film, it definitely gets undeserving hate.
He’s posting blu-ray.com links in other threads as well. Does he actually not think we know about the official releases or is he trolling?
He’s definitely more badass than this guy from ROTJ Special Edition. 😉
I would actually say that Jeremy Bulloch does indeed look a little badass in that black and white photo, and I definitely see the Chuck Norris connection. Though I also like Temuera Morrison, I don’t like the idea of Boba sounding or looking like him.
Feature-length hardcore porn is pointless. Nobody watches this stuff for the plot.
What if it’s feature-length without a plot?
^ Had to look up what Eclipse is and the rabbit hole landed me at this beautiful page.
He said in interviews that once he started reading the script, he thought the story and characters were really something special. Just some of the dialogue he wasn’t fond of. Guinness and Cushing brought two different approaches to two different kinds of characters, and they both nailed it in my opinion.
Is there any comprehensive documentation of every specific shot that has been changed?
Ah, I don’t think I’ve ever seen letterboxing referred to as “padded”. I personally prefer things letterboxed.
Doesn’t really matter, but MKV is what most people use. Not sure what “padded or cropped” refers to though.
Looking forward to it.
