! :)
The more classics preserved, the better off preservation is. And these are timeless treasures.
Now let's get the priceless classic screwballs restored!
I'd say roughly 1960-2000 with a few things afterwards and classics pre-1960. This covers primarily what I listen to.
As far as a decade....uhh...60's or 70's or 80's or 90's..I can't choose.
But they were good Zig-just not great like the stuff Scott is capable of (BR, Duellists, Kingdom of Heaven).
Her Majesty-The Beatles
Today's been an late period Beatles kinda day-Abbey Road/The White Album
I don't really know what more they could do with BR. It's pretty cut and dry. I guess we can go back to LA with Rid, Syd Mead, Douglas Trumbull, Vangelis and find out...
Maybe more of Dick's story will be in there?
Ziggy Stardust said:
How...................................................dare you.
The very thought of a Blade Runner sequel, remake, reboot, etc. sends a terrified chill down my spine.
Don't fuck with the Blade Runner.
Well...the studio already did..and others...multiple times.. ;)
You have it all wrong. I somewhat agree with your statement. But to call Blade Runner boring is like calling Fight Club a chick flick.
Anyone who has called BR boring is either an idiot or hasn't seen it theatrically. One of the great theater-going experience of my life-up there with Kubrick/Leone/Lean and all of the visionary classics.
theprequelsrule said:
No, you were right. The movie was boring. Scott is very hit and miss IMHO. When he misses it's never terrible, but almost always bland-city. Alien is one of my favourite movies, but Blade Runner and Robin Hood were snorefests.
Legend, Black Rain, Thelma and Louise, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, A Good Year, American Gangster, Body of Lies were okay and somewhat interesting but super meh.
Ah! They're not 1.85 or 1.66 but 1.75:1!
http://www.lddb.com/laserdisc/03230/CC1234L/Dr.-No:-Special-Edition-%281962%29
I knew something was off! Just compared my old CC crummy transfers against the Banned Dr. No to check for differences. The framing is slightly different because Criterion went for 1.75:1. This would cause the issues you mentioned on your TV but it's an even less common format than 1.66. And the colors are different on all three, mainly a different color tone for each film.
Terrence Young approved the Criterion transfers for Dr. No and From Russia With Love but I think he signed off on them mainly out of a favor to the nice company that had recorded the commentary and the fact that they were presented relatively clean and in a widescreen ratio and looked like the original image for the most part. Guy Hamilton had no involvement on the Goldfinger disc.
To tell apart the CAV/CLV versions, the easiest way is to look at the Criteiron logo on the top of the front cover. If the black bar is only in the middle then it's CAV with commentary. If the black bar and logo go all the way across the top border then it's a CLV minus commentary.
I definitely recommend the CC Vol.1. It's one of the best LDs I've yet seen. My 89 disc of Thunderball is quite good but a little rough round the edges. It's slightly better on the CC vol. 2 and was redone in 95 for the big box set. (along with Goldfinger)
Or the nobody cares about this movie? ;)
I also asked about all the garbage mattes. We'll see where that goes...
The deleted scenes will probably be 720i just to be annoying.
Well the Banned Bonds were Criterion preservations. They have the Criterion logos and extras plus the slightly different color timings and 1.85 framing that was the Criterion print source.
It's possible to find the Criterions Bonds for cheap every once in a while. I personally don't have any but it's not going to stack up to the Connery Collection which had the benefit of newer technology, better equipment, better source materials and correct 1.66:1 framing.
As far as Criterion CLV versus CAV goes, I think it really depends on if you want the extras. I have the Criterion North By Northwest CLV edition and while it lacks the extras of the CAV box, it does have a digital mono track (the only high quality release IIRC.) whereas the CAV doesn't. I have the CAV Criterion boxes of 2001 and It's a Wonderful Life. Picture quality is good all around, but it's mainly going to depend on the print source and date the LD was manufactured. I think you might get a slightly more stable and defined image from CAV if you have the combination of good disc and good equipment. I really haven't noticed much of a difference. PQ is good all around on my Criterion LDs, but they are older discs and as FF had mentioned Criterion seemed to have started by getting well worn prints to use from studios.
In short, the Criterion Bonds make a nice curio with their different coloring and framing but have excellent extras. They resemble what the films would have looked like in revivals at the time. The 89 MGM LD series didn't get around to these 3 until after the Connery Collection came out, so I think that those single releases are just the same discs released individually.
Found an original THX DVD of Spy. Compared it against the SE, UE and LD for some shots. The UE loses some of the color timing-especially the browns and is full of edge enhancement in the first half.
I think the THX and SE are the same. They have the same damage, same timecodes, same chapter stops and even the same chapter titles. Comparing against the LD you can see that the same source was used, but both on better equipment and slightly cleaned up as the dirt from the LD is gone and colors are better presented. I think overall I like the THX disc the best because there might be a little less edge enhancement than the SE. but I might be wrong. This hard to find disc is likely a port of the THX LD master as it arrived at the same time and features the 5.1 mix.
The problem I've seen with every SE disc is that the sources were way too grainy, and they are riddled with edge enhancement (and the first three are cropped to 1.78) but the colors are very accurate. The UEs take liberties that were not theirs to choose. And from what the UE Region 2 discs and UE Blus have shown there are differences between editions.
However with the new Blu-rays it might be possible to add back original audio via LD PCM and color correct to match the original editions. The only thing is the sheer amount of grain that was removed by Lowry's process.
Lost Highway. What the hell?!?! One of the few films I've actually given up on. I only lasted about 30 minutes. (The LD rot didn't help any.)
:) Glad you liked it! I wish I had been able to show ESB, but I graduated in May.
Laserschwert said:
I was thinking about making DVD-covers for Puggo's transfers, but then I thought of a more appropriate way to store the discs... CD tins (unlike the ones below there are some types that have a hub in the middle to actually hold the disc):
Granted, I don't know anything about 16 mm film, so I have no idea what information is actually on those labels (even Google's image search wasn't too helpful with that). It's just an idea though. Here are the labels at full size (about two inches in diameter when printed at 300dpi):
Nice covers, but I'm not too sure about the disc tins. From my experience they can be very annoying, but maybe with a holder inside it might work. (Speed Racer Vol. 3 has been most annoying.)
zombie84 said:
Behold, I live. And so does the site.
And so it does. :)
Thanks for the concern though, good to know people will notice if I drop off the face of the earth for two weeks. :p
'Tis a good refresher to drop off from time to time...
xhonzi said:
theprequelsrule said:
RedFive said:
Tyrphanax said: ....
Also, J.R.R. Tolkien is an awful writer.
First of all, I like that no one even felt the need to refute this unbelievable statement. However, when I saw this I had to come here and present it as evidence to the contrary:
Meh. Robert E. Howard is far superior to Tolkien as a story teller.
I too find Tolkien to be a frustrating writer. I want to read his stories, but I struggle with his words.
Me in 6th grade: Oh, I've got to read a book on this list, why not try The Hobbit? 2 pages in: Okay, I'm good.
Mr. Keitel is not pleased:
Judas...with red hair?
His writings are 99% of the time spot on. I don't always agree with his star rating, but neither does he.
I will admit seeing Harry Potter 7 pt. II with 3.5/4 just above The Man Who Fell to Earth 3/4 really irked me and I haven't really liked some of his recent "Great Movie" choices (LA Confidential? Seriously? The Chinatown ripoff with elements of 50's corruption?) but you don't see eye to eye with everyone.
Ebert has always been one of the only critics I have any respect for. (As of now the only other one is David Thompson. Yeah, that's right I implied it: no Bordwell! Hah!) The man knows movies, and knows how to write about them and keep that emotional connection intact. His first two Great Movies volumes next to maybe Hitchcock/Truffaut are the best books on film ever written.
If you think his reviews have gotten more spirited, check out his facebook/blog/twitter. Enjoyable reads but incessantly posts!
Basically, imagine a great work of art being put into a coloring book and then scribbled all over in garish colors by a child.
Worst video release ever.
I found that this morning and was finally spurred to creating my own HTF account. Now I've posted a few questions in. Will they be addressed/answered? Probably not. Interestingly, many have already commented on the lack of OOT and the re-use of 04 masters and the errors. I recognized a few OT'ers but mostly it was regular folk.
I went to The University of Tampa. We had two dedicated "screening rooms" which were actually just classrooms with a projector and sound system. When I got there I wound up working in the equipment cage and then took it upon myself to start a film society and screen/discuss films. I found that the projectors sucked, but whoever had built the sound system had actually put some dedicated work into getting some pretty great equipment. It took forever to get everything connected and configured in the menus correctly. (I hate those stupid theater universal touch screen panels!) I then convinced the Department/twisted a lot of arms to change to some better projectors that were actually 16:9.
Here are a few photos I took of one of the screenings and equipment:
Got this room nearly full several times (30-50 people):
This is the mounted main console with all the controls and amps (and an LD player plugged in.)
4 of these JBL Control 28 speakers (L,R, LS, RS)
This JBL Control 25 speaker for Center/Mono
2 of these ceiling mounted JBL speakers for LFE (with two it kinda reminded me of Dolby 70mm-the materials used to make this room didn't stand up to these so the room would shake constantly!)
The screen down with lights on: (This was before it was changed to a 16:9 screen.)
With guide lights only:
One for perspective:
The projector was a nice mid-priced Epson with a 3LCD and some really nice color. The DVD player was an early Sony 1080i upscaling player.
Other equipment:
QSC Professional Amplifier CX168, Crestron C2N-DAP8, Crestron MP2E.
Once I figured out the system, I could turn off the default ProLogic II and Nero defaults. For the PG I threw everything to the front so it would come out in true mono or mono over the L and R channels when it was a packed room. This system always kept those overhead speakers engaged for lower elements and with all of those amps, it got really loud. Room shaking loud. And still mono!
Again, Brilliant work Puggo. You've done a man's job sir.
Also, one of the last things I did while still at that school, since there was such a demand for SW, was an OT.com trilogy: the PG, Ady's ESB Theatrical and Harmy's ROTJ Theatrical. Stunning.
Yeah. I gave up on despising them. I meant to say that they are not badly made films.
Wait. You know what I still hate AOTC and ROTS. Can there be a hate II and III and might watch them every once in a 1,000 years but thinks I is at least meh?
TPM is okay. AOTC is less okay. I hate ROTS. None are bad, all are the biggest pile of mediocre ever devised.
RedFive said:
^Is that movie adaptation any good? I got it out of a $5 bin once and never watched it..
I don't know, but i don't think it will be as long or as juicy as the book. I found this to be the case with the Easy Riders, Raging Bulls film version.
It's bound to have further changes done. And they need to just drop the 04 master altogether. But of course LFL is the all time champion of turd polishing.
Mavimao said:
I'm probably biased seeing as I used to run a film club back in college and this brought me back to the days of dealing with those faded, scratched, poor sounding prints, but not caring and getting lost in these great stories.
I ran Puggo's SW at least 10 different times for the club I ran in college. Blew people away every time. And this was after I had configured the screening room with all the integrated amplifiers....made mono sound incredible.
