Can we please leave recent tragedies out of this discussion?
There might be a parallel to some old Western where a character takes vengeance too far, but I can't recall a specific film at the moment. It certainly doesn't work here in making our "hero" likeable though.
I'd take anything from that forum with a large grain of salt.
Why do I feel like I need to get a restraining order? ;)
That really needs to be on a t-shirt. If Lucasfilm can make a dishonest buck off of "Han Shot First"...
zombie84 said:
I didn't know there even were prints made. Now that I think about it, it's kind of surprising Cameron didn't actually film Titanic in 65mm. That would have been pretty sweet.
He's been in love with Super 35 far too long for that. ;)
Uh, those rocks weren't there when the scene was filmed, so the crew had no such problem. ;)
Problem is even the film based IMAX venues are slowly going digital. The studios don't want to pay to have prints made anymore. IIRC, Christopher Nolan wanted prints to be made for Dark Knight Rises.
There probably never would have been 70mm prints of Titanic had James Cameron not requested it. That was about the last gasp of first run 70mm in the U.S.
One has to wonder why ILM didn't do a go motion Wampa to get the long shots that didn't work with the suit on location. Just not enough time to meet the release date?
It would be nice to see go motion revived in some fashion. Dragonslayer is the movie Peter Jackson has to surpass to make Smaug truly memorable in my book. ;)
The lenses they use to shoot in 3D might give someone the illusion it's two cameras side by side.
http://www.stereofinland.com/the-hobbit-3d-production-diary/
The side view of the camera clearly shows one unit behind the lens though.
Shooting a movie twice wasn't unheard of in the early 50's when it was uncertain if new costly widescreen processes would catch on. But this actually entailed shooting every scene twice, and resetting for each take with the other camera, not having two cameras side by side. The "flat" versions of these films are sometimes harder to see today than the scope version.
Yes, "not digital". An IMAX film print is as close as we'll get to a 70mm release these days.
Trooperman said:
Stop-motion in 2013! Thank you for posting this!
There was a high profile stop motion film or two last year. Not to mention a Christmas tv special. ;)
A very young Leia could have seen pictures or even recordings of her mother. (It may sound like a tv movie plot device, but people in real life do see a picture sometimes and feel a inexplicable connection to someone who turns out be a blood relative.) Being a senator herself, she must have known some of it's history.
I don't think Bail would construct a web of lies to the degree Owen did. ;)
Are there any IMAX prints of The Hobbit out there in the wild? I know some were made for The Dark Knight Rises.
Halfway through Connery Collection II. I've been seeing crosstalk in the last 15 minutes or so of each side in the set so far. Hope it's not an issue with my player.
You'd think somebody over at Dolby would call B.S. on such statements. ;)
Thought this was the title of another spin off "comedy" show. ;)
With Hobbit mania at a new high, it's a no brainer they release Willow now to cash in. ;)
Sorry to hear about his passing. He was a fixture on KCET about as long as I've lived in California. There are places I'd likely never have learned about had he not visited them on his show.
Did you know he had his very own Bond supervillain lair?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/huell-howsers-space-age-v_n_419153.html
Holy Harryhausen!
And welcome to the board. :)
Film prints may be dead, but some directors are still going to shoot in 35mm.
If the bulk of currently installed digital projectors can't handle 48fps, or be inexpensively upgraded, it's going to be a while before more people can see movies shot this way.
I am cautiously impressed with this new technology, but still don't think every genre would benefit from it. And I hope we're spared some sort of bad conversion of older films as a cash grab, that will ruin it for everyone.
Those scenes seem darker on the early THX DVD though. Guess I'll have to dig that out again. (Presuming it's the same master as the THX LD, also sounded cleaner.) Day for night scenes often get screwed up on home video transfers. I guess we would need a good print of Dr. No to compare.
Do you think there's any way to tweak the Lowry transfers? The first three Connery's seem to have the least problems considering the screwups on the later films.
Interesting he would use Blade Runner as a supporting argument.
Would the 80's pan and scan version have any value as a color reference?
There might have been a letterboxed Japanese LD before the '97 THX remaster.
Cameras used to have tubes in them too. Studio cameras used to be monstrous things. Even as sensor chips made cameras smaller and lighter, a lot of those dinosaurs were still in use well into the 1980's.
Soap opera effect is a bit of a misnomer, as everything from news broadcasts to sitcoms, to talk shows were shot with the same types of cameras.
Audio can be processed to death as much as video, so a little hiss isn't always a bad sign.