Sign In

DominicCobb

User Group
Members
Join date
16-Aug-2011
Last activity
11-Jul-2020
Posts
10,031

Post History

Post
#716627
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

OOT is what will be released if there's a release.

There's a small chance that the 97 version could get a release too. I hate that version, but I cannot deny that it is a (shitty) piece of film history. It should get a release.

There's probably a zero percent chance the 2004 edition gets a Blu-ray release. And there's no point in putting out the 2011 version again.

I wouldn't bet on a new version of the SE. There are so many reasons why not. Let's first of all remember that none of the directors of the OT are in the picture any more, and usually when there's a new cut of a movie for home video they're involved. So who would be making the changes? What would be their goal? Would they get rid of some earlier changes? Let's not forget now that the people in charge now probably don't care at all for the SE. And Disney/LFL is on this OT train, and they must know that real lovers of the OT prefer the OOT and hate the SE with a passion. So they'd probably think (incorrectly) that OTers would not care for and possibly complain about a new SE.

Post
#716319
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

m_s0 said:

CO said:

m_s0 said:


I'm still hoping Disney is going to feed the OOT to the Ep VII hype machine, and the way they've been handling Star Wars makes it a fairly likely scenario. This December, maybe? Fingers crossed, but no real expectations.

 If there was ever a time to release the OOT, it would be next year leading up to Episode 7 as you will have Ford, Fisher and Hamill doing a zillion interviews about the new movie.  Perfect Tie-In for the fans.

I'm thinking maybe this Christmas or May next year, if it even happens, but I can't see them releasing it any closer Ep VII than that. Whatever we might think about the OOT, the average Joe won't care or understand what this is all about, hence why I doubt they'd make it a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Getting it out to maintain a consistent level of buzz and to get the hardcore nerds on board with the new Star Wars Overlords - sure. Making it a significant part of the marketing campaign (classic Star Wars is back, with a follow up soon etc.) - nope.

There's a chance I'm just too jaded to see it. It would be cool if they did make a big deal out of it, not only because of validation and all that stuff.

You know how there's always a new disc of the previous movies or a new box set when a new movie in a series comes out? Cash-in releases? Yeah, it would make sense for them to do that for Star Wars. Money would be guaranteed, as it always is with those releases. And then if this were the first Blu-ray release of the OOT? Well that would really make some dough. In my mind, it only makes sense they would do it.

I'm imagining a Q4 2015 release. We'll see I guess. I'm trying not to get excited about this RMW thing in case it doesn't work out, but fuck it, it's a little exciting even if we don't know what it really is yet.

Post
#715602
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

I see. The small number I gave was from an article I had read awhile back - there's only one 70mm IMAX projector left in LA - and I couldn't remember the specifics of it and got my facts mixed up.

Though I'm still a little skeptical of that list. It says the IMAX I go to (Providence) has 1570 and Digital (and it also says that the theater opened in 2012 which is most certainly untrue). Like I said the last film projection I saw there was TDKR. But I guess the movies I've seen there since (Raiders, STID, Elysium, Godzilla) all would have been digital anyway? I don't know. 

Post
#715591
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

If I'm not mistaken there's only one or two IMAX theaters that still uses film prints. The IMAX I typically go to is full size but they went digital about a year ago. The last film I saw there was TDKR. Ever since then it's been digital projection when I've gone. Seeing STID was a bit of a disappointment, as the IMAX weren't full size and didn't seem to be of much higher quality.

Can the DCP produce the same image quality as the 70mm? I doubt it, but would like to hear an exact answer. Nolan's filming more in IMAX for Interstellar than anyone has ever done before, and I'd like to know if, when I see it, it will be full quality.

Post
#715469
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

doubleofive said:

DominicCobb said:


I think many of us don't see those big CGI laden shlockfests. You won't find many here who went to see Trans4mers. You are again misinterpreting our issue with CGI. It's not that we hate it, or think that it should never be used, it's just that we are annoyed by its overabundance in mainstream films today.

I don't hate the Transformer movies because they used CGI to create robots that change into cars, I hate them because they insult my intelligence.

I think in a world without CGI, we'd still be complaining about practical effect shlockfests. We're blaming the hammer for the carpenter's shoddy work. And I mean the studios/directors are the carpenters, not the VFX artists who work their butts off to try to make whatever it is look good.

No, I don't blame CGI itself or the people who create those effects - they have all my respect. I completely blame the directors and the studios. My point about TF4 specifically was in response to DrCrow, who said we should stop seeing movies that feature oodles of CGI and stop perpetrating the trend if we don't like it. 

There are two issues here. One is that there are movies that over rely on effects. You're right, there will always be these types of movies and there's nothing we can do about it. My main issue is that there is an over reliance on CGI in particular. This is a problem with both good and bad movies. 

Post
#715427
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

I think many of us don't see those big CGI laden shlockfests. You won't find many here who went to see Trans4mers. You are again misinterpreting our issue with CGI. It's not that we hate it, or think that it should never be used, it's just that we are annoyed by its overabundance in mainstream films today.

As for 48fps, I think James Cameron was considering it for the Avatar sequel trilogy, not sure if he's going with it. I think it's an interesting idea and I hope to see the final Hobbit film in the format, as I've missed it with the other two. But I doubt it'll catch on, and that's because there's no reason for it to. The human eye can't process more than 200fps or something like, so any frame rate lower than that is to a degree unrealistic and arbitrary. 24fps has a reason for being because it has become the standard and everyone is so use to it, but 48fps is just random and kind of pointless. If a filmmaker really wants to experiment with "high frame rate," they'd shoot at 200fps (but of course that's rather impractical currently).

Post
#715271
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

DrCrowStarWars, are you high? What's with these tirades? They seem rather unprovoked. I think everyone here would agree CGI is a highly useful tool and none of us are against it being used in films today. We're just sad that so many practical effects are being replaced by digital ones for no reason, and because those new effects look like something out of a video game while the practical effects are clearly things shot on camera with the actors, which makes them look more real.

Post
#715105
Topic
Practical vs Digital
Time

Apparently the creature costumes in The Hobbit looked cheap in 48fps according to behind the scenes docs. No idea how true that is.

I have a feeling we'll be seeing more practical effects in the years to come. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a flash in the pan, but CGI does feel like a bit of a fad to me. It's here for good, no doubt about that, but I think it's days as the go to special effect are numbered. If Episode VII uses practical effects as much as they say they will, I believe it could be the turn of the tide.

Post
#714928
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Little room for a review battle. 17% on Rotten Tomatoes and 32 on Metacritic.

I would consider checking it out if it weren't three hours long. I do enjoy some good robo action and Marky Mark funky bunching. But I take my popcorn in bits. Anything longer than 100 minutes for a movie like this is way too long for me. I can handle stupidity but only for so long.

Post
#713113
Topic
General Star Wars <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> Thread
Time

TV's Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

doubleofive said:

I'm really just wondering about the Seven thing. I mean, everyone knows what we're talking about.

I was going to name my first born Seven. Now are people going to think he/she is named after a Star Wars movie?

 Nah, they'll think s/he is named after a Seinfeld episode.

Well at least they'd be right.