Okay then . . .
TV's Frink's mom is so hairy, TV's Frink is hairy too.
TV's Frink's mom is so tremendous, when she hauls ass she has to make two trips.
How am I doing so far? :p
I mostly agree with ChainsawAsh's list, though I would add For Your Eyes Only as it is rather Fleming-esque as well as being the only one of Roger Moore's films that can be watched without cringing. I also have a lot of fondness for GoldenEye, being the first one I ever saw and definitely Brosnan's finest outing. Doesn't hurt that the game is kickass, too. ;)
Interestingly, I have heard that the script for GoldenEye was written with Dalton in mind, and that the reason he is being evaluated in the beginning is to see whether he's really worthy of being reinstated as a 00 agent after leaving in Licence to Kill, which puts a different sort of perspective on the film.
To try to say something not off topic (lol), I would absolutely hate to see a James Bond prequel. Although in a way the Casino Royale movie nearly qualifies, since it starts with Bond getting his licence to kill and he is at an earlier stage in his life and career than we're accustomed to seeing him, but since it is in its own continuity it doesn't really count as such.
The James Bond books had lots of continuity. The film series rather savaged this by doing them all completely out of order . . . and of course, you know, having less and less to do with anything that Ian Fleming actually wrote as they went on.
I like that they kept it so Blofeld doesn't recognise Bond in OHMSS, since in the book series they had never met. That film is one of the few that actually keeps true to the source material, which is one of the reasons I'm fond of it. I was able to see it at an art theatre in New York a few years ago with a very appreciative crowd, which was great.
There was some controversy about the colour scheme having been altered in the beginning of the film on the recent remaster, but I took note of this and the blue lighting was definitely there on the 35mm print, though not exactly the same shade or quite as dark. This suggests that the old video transfer is inaccurate and artificially brightened in that scene, which surprised me. It was definitely a somewhat older print, since some of it was scratched and it had the original mono mix (which is far better balanced than the remix even though the sound is harsher), but it didn't seem to have faded or red-shifted at all, so I'm confident that it was a proper rendition of the film's appearance.
I dislike about half of the Bond films because they are so campy and over the top. I have no idea why they kept taking the film series in that direction, but it's often irritating and stupid. My favourites are the ones that take the premise and the character of Bond seriously, and these are usually the ones that adhere more closely to the spirit of Ian Fleming's creation. Even among the better films, few of them really represent Bond himself being like the literary character, but the old movie persona is so ingrained in the popular consciousness that most people can't think of him any other way.
Since they effectively rebooted the series with Casino Royale, which is the first of the books, I really think they should have tried to do it properly this time and do them all, in order and more like the original stories while keeping the modern setting. Doesn't seem like that's going to happen, though.
The Death Star, even lightsabers and weapons like it could be retconned into being technological applications of scientific ideas based on this view of the Force.
This would never work under any circumstances. The reason is simple:
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Scott Pilgrim was funny as hell. So over the top awesome, and the use of Legend of Zelda music was win of the best sort.
Gonna watch Toy Story 3 today, since it just came out.
Here you go, Krycek87, I've re-uploaded the ESB 5.1 for you. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GK23ARKU
I'm going to update the first post to include the links for the other two films, so all three can easily be found.
Okay, I'm gonna go ahead and post the link for the RotJ 5.1 ac3 file. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it as much as I do!
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MRR0OWX6
Thanks again to everyone who helped me out with these mixes and showed interest in my work--your support has meant a lot. It's been a lot of fun, and I think the results were well worth all the effort. Great sounding 5.1 with powerful bass and all the rightness and quality of the original mixes? Hell to the yes. Now to actually watch the films with these tracks . . . :)
I've sort of been wondering whether the 70mm version (said to be present on the Bluray as a 4.1 ac3) might make for a better source, speculating on the possibility that the music might be mixed into the left and right front channels only, as opposed to the 2003 mix which contains music in every channel. It would be great if that were true, because then I could at least isolate the dialogue in those instances, while letting the sound effects be silenced for the sake of music replacements if need be, but I have no idea if that's really case.
Didn't end up seeing the movie after all, since the girlfriend wasn't in the right mood for it, but watched the episode of Buffy where everyone loses their voices ('Hush'). Pretty cool, and sufficiently creepy for Halloween, lol.
It even depresses Joss Whedon that he had a hand in writing it, from what I've heard. I don't know any of the specifics, but apparently he's disavowed association with it because the way it was filmed bears no resemblance to what he imagined while writing it. Still, it sounds like it's far from being his best work, to put it mildly. (His best work being Firefly, to me.)
About a year ago I tried making a new sound mix for Alien that re-incorporated Jerry Goldsmith's music, trimmed as needed to fit changes in the edit after the scoring. In some places it sounded great, but in some scenes I just could not get it to work, because the wrong music couldn't be eliminated from the rest of the mix without severely compromising the overall sound. It would have been a pretty rough mix anyway, more for the interest factor than claiming to be a viable alternative track, but eventually I just deleted it in frustration. Still, I might try again some time, if I can muster the patience and motivation.
lol, I had nightmares about Alien before I ever saw it. Just the idea of the thing coming out of a person freaked me out enough that it got to the point where I finally said to hell with it and just watched the damn movie already, so I could stop having bad dreams. I don't usually watch movies of that kind, but found myself strangely drawn to it nonetheless--despite the one bloody scene, most of the fright is very psychological and minimalistic, which can be quite a lot more effective.
I also have the Intrada soundtrack release containing the complete score as composed by Jerry Goldsmith. It's rather a shame the way the music was treated, because it could have been an even better film if they hadn't cut it apart and downplayed it so badly.
I've only seen the first two films in the series, but have no interest in the others due to reports of lack of quality and the way the ending of Aliens is completely trashed.
Saw Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein last night. Twas a hoot and a lot of fun.
May watch Alien tonight since it's Halloween and all. If so it will be in the dark with the sound turned way up, to maximise the creepy factor. ;) Might also see Arsenic and Old Lace, because Cary Grant + Peter Lorre = win.
lol. I just got back the 5.1 ac3 file already, though I haven't been able to listen to it yet. Tis true that a 44.1 khz rip would make for the purest source to work with, but the captures do sound quite good. I haven't noticed anything deficient about them, although I do have to admit that my speakers aren't the sort of hifi gear needed to resolve that kind of subtle distinction, since I can't afford the real elite stuff (though what I do have is pretty good quality). I have heard that some pro's actually put digital sources through DAC's in order to use analogue mastering tools such as EQ, since they are said to sound more natural as opposed to harsher digital versions, before going back through ADC's again, and achieve transparent results provided the conversions are of high quality. Seems to me that in this case the lossy ac3 encode would ultimately do more to affect the sound than the DAC would, but then I'm not really an expert in such things, so I'll defer to more learned opinions.
I posted a wav file comparing the scene, the first part being the straight 1993 version and the second my edited revision. Part of it comes from the 35mm version having less dynamic range, so the peak volumes were limited while the music was allowed to take control of the scene, but that doesn't account for the '93 mix having a lower music level in general. To me it's a pretty distinct difference, but you can listen for yourselves.
Well folks, it looks like I'm all done with my Star Wars sound editing. RotJ is finished, and I've uploaded the files for Satanika to create the 5.1 mix. Barring any last minute changes, it should be ready as soon as I've heard back and verified that it sounds right.
I ended up making an edit that I hadn't anticipated originally, which was to replace the section of the '93 mix where Luke defeats Vader with the 35mm version. I started listening to it because Mielr pointed out that the '93 has a noticeable music dropout in the left channel just before Vader loses his hand. This dropout can be heard in the 35mm also, but it stands out a lot less; more importantly, I found that the music is much more prominent, while in the '93 the lightsaber crashes are too loud. The music isn't being drowned out, but it doesn't carry the scene the way it does in the original mix.
Consequently, I decided that the 35mm version should be used instead for that scene. Darth Mallwalker sent me 32-bit, 96 khz captures from three different laserdiscs, which I compared closely to determine whether any remixing had been done in the 80's. My conclusion was that they were all the same mix, but that the most recent of the three had been remastered with peak limiting. I decided to use the first version, and to match the Belbucus '93 mix the capture was processed via the iZotope sample rate conversion to 48khz and dithered to 16-bit with their MBIT+ algorithm. (These are said to be among the best quality converters available anywhere.)
The result is that this iconic scene now sounds considerably better, and with the added benefit of the LFE channel and the Obi-wan music that was discussed earlier, this is a very satisfying mix for RotJ. As with ESB, it isn't meant to be the 70mm version, since there are no recordings to use for reference, but it is extremely satisfying nonetheless. Look for this to be available for download soon, and all three of my 5.1 mixes will be appearing on the version 3 dark_jedi dvd encodes, which are now also nearly complete.
Hmm. That definitely looks a lot more natural than the heavy gold on the '03 version. I wonder why they decided to change it back then, and then reverted to the original look now. I never had a particular problem with the gold colouring, but I did sort of vaguely think it was a bit odd for a film from the 70's, and looking at the Bluray caps I definitely prefer its rendition of that scene.
Is that the original Fox logo, also? It occurs to me that it could be used for an adywan-style recreation of the original Star Wars, if it is the same one (clearly it is of much higher quality than the GOUT). I never really looked at it closely before, though.
What about the audio tracks? I think msycamore said something about it being the 70mm version, but I haven't seen that information anywhere else. I would have thought they'd use the same mix as the '03 dvd, but then I also thought it would be a 1080p version of that same transfer, but it looks like they went all out with a completely new one. I don't know anything about the differences between the various audio mixes.
As far as Aliens goes, the colour changes are more significant than for the first movie, particularly with all the extra blue in some scenes, but it does have a certain appeal to it, especially since the contrast is so much better. I'm not sure what to think of that. I don't know when I'll be able to get into the HD scene--right now I'm quite satisfied with my '03 dvd's, but I may at some point want to get them on Bluray if they were available individually (no interest in seeing any of the others, because as far as I'm concerned Ripley made it back home with Hicks and Newt).
The only version of Alien that I own is the 2003 dvd with the theatrical and director's cuts branched together. It's only been two years since I first saw the film, and I tracked down a copy of that dvd specifically so that I could see both versions (most stores around here were only carrying the old release), though of course I viewed the theatrical cut first.
Consequently, I'm only familiar with its colour timing from that version. I had a look at the screenshots on dvdbeaver that were linked to earlier, and it seems to me that there isn't really that much difference, at least not how I'd imagined from reading this thread. The older transfers from the 90's are kind of flat and washed out, the pal version being too green and the first ntsc too red. The '03 has better contrast than either, though in some shots the whites are a bit too hot. The Bluray timing looks the best in many shots, though it has more blue than any other version, which is occasionally a bit too much. In general it resembles the '03, with some differences, which to my mind is a good thing.
But these aren't huge differences we're talking about here. When I started reading this thread I was having visions of 2004 Star Wars type of changes in colour, but it's not even close to that. The colours as presented in the newer transfers still look like images that were actually photographed and haven't been excessively tampered with as some seem to think.
I don't yet have an HD display, so I have to stick with dvd for the time being, but I'm not worried about the colour issues for Alien after seeing those screenshots. A while back I made my own version of an isolated score from the Intrada cd release and synched it to the theatrical cut, so I don't even need to get another version for that. It seems to me that in making the so-called "director's cut" there was a huge missed opportunity in that they could have gone back to the score as composed by Jerry Goldsmith--now that would have made for a worthwhile alternate version of the movie! With just a bit of trimming here and there it works remarkably well, and in nearly every case what he composed suits the film far better than the hacked up mess that they actually used. Of all the misguided and foolish things that have been done to movies, that has to rank as one of the worst.
What exactly is the point of Super 35? It seems like all you're really doing is decreasing vertical resolution by shooting non-anamorphically, compared to something like Panavision. Is it just because it's cheaper?
Having Martin Freeman as Bilbo is definitely good news--he both looks and sounds right for the part, and he's a good actor. I liked him in the recent Sherlock series by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss.
Still, I can't help but feel that I'll be obliged to dislike the Hobbit, if the LotR films are any indication of what their storytelling style and priorities are. While they did get a lot of things right, there are an equal number that are completely and appallingly wrong, straying drastically from the sense of Middle Earth and its characters as Tolkien conceived them.
Everyone goes nuts over how great Gollum was, but I think it was a travesty. That whole "good Smeagol, bad Gollum" split personality thing displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the character. Gollum never had multiple personalities that threatened each other; nor was he schizophrenic and seeing a projection of himself that wasn't there. He simply argued aloud with himself about how best to get back the Ring, and whether Frodo was worth his loyalty or not. True, Sam does see him as having 'good' and 'bad' halves (Slinker and Stinker, as he calls them), but then again Sam never really understood Gollum's motivation, nor believed he had any good left in him. This culminated in a haunting moment just before Shelob's lair where Sam shouts Gollum down when he was actually trying to be nice to Frodo, and this unthinking cruelty causes him to regress into his old wicked ways more deeply than ever. It's a great scene, and one completely missing from the films, all because they had to be "dramatic" and have Frodo tell Sam to go away--something Tolkien's Frodo would have never, ever done.
Insofar as it exists, the split in Gollum's character is between himself and his perception of the Ring. This, after all, is what he means by his use of "we" to refer to himself, and the reason he talks aloud to himself at all. He is talking to the "Precious" Ring all the time, and to some extent in his mind he and the Ring have become one and the same. The movie portrayal is a simplistic, psychologically-castrated rendition of one of the greatest villainous characters ever written; all of the subtlety has been bulldozed over and replaced straight from "Cheap Movie-Making Gags 101". It is completely stupid and inane, and I can't abide watching those scenes.
And speaking of Frodo, the movie version has been robbed of nearly every single moment of greatness shown by his literary counterpart. In the movies he is always screaming ineffectually and someone else has to save him, but Tolkien's Frodo has a quietly powerful presence that commands respect wherever he goes. Gollum, even while liking him for his kindness, is also terrified of him. Three times in the books Frodo commands him to obey, in what is shown as a lordly and terrifying manner (part of it may be because he possesses the Ring, but certainly much of it is his own strength of character), and three times Gollum is cowed and fearful. Frodo also stands up to the Nazgul at the ford, defying them even with his seemingly last breath, before the flood consumes them. Contrast the film where he passes out and someone else does it for him. And the whole reason the Nazgul stabbed him in the shoulder at Weathertop, instead of through the heart, was because he fought back and the strike missed! What the hell, movies?! Complete character castration, again. It's disgusting, it really is.
So it is perhaps understandable that I'm not exactly bursting with anticipation of seeing another film made by the same people responsible for such a misguided mess.
I am still pissed off as hell that Firefly was cancelled.
Has Lucas heard of the Redead from Zelda? THERE'S a sound that'll make you shit yourself (or maybe it's that they suddenly lunge at and rape you - I can't remember which).
Oh god. I've been playing Ocarina of Time again* and those things freak me the hell out as much as they ever did. That sound, dear lord that horrible horrible sound . . . the low groaning when they're just standing there, then that piercing screech when they spot you, and then the necromancy rape if you can't get away . . .
It's one of the most terrifying things ever, except somehow it is simultaneously awesome, just because it's so freaky! ;)
*I'm playing the uncensored original version with the real Fire Temple music, the Islamic chanting which was unfortunately cut and replaced in later re-issues.
Just saw Back to the Future in the theatrical re-release (which was done as part of the promotion for the upcoming Bluray). It was awesome! Not only did the movie itself look amazingly good, but it was really great seeing it on the big screen, with an enthusiastic and appreciative crowd. Definitely the highlight of my recent movie-watching experiences.
The Money Pit is essentially a remake of the 1947 film Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, with Cary Grant and Myrna Loy. Both are pretty funny, in a horribly realistic sort of way.
I'll watch just about anything with Cary Grant, because he is the epitome of awesome. Bringing Up Baby is definitely my favourite film of his, because the way he frantically tries and fails to talk sense into the irrepressible Katharine Hepburn is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
That new sound is one of the biggest piles of garbage I've ever heard. Even the 2004 dvd version sounds better than that, and that one was pretty cruddy its own self.
It might not be a bad effect for some other movie, with an entirely different context, but for this? Epic fail x 1000.
The old effect sounds like a beast, and the novelisation says that Ben had imitated a krayt dragon, which is supposed to be a large and fierce but rare creature inhabiting the wastelands. (The skeleton C-3PO encounters near the beginning belongs to a krayt dragon.) Even the sand people were obviously pretty terrified of them, and it makes much more sense for a such a thing to make a booming howl than an echoing whistle, or sound like some douche on crack in the case of the new one.
I just do not get it. What is their incessant need to keep tampering and fiddling with things that don't need to be fixed? It's like someone who has had a dozen plastic surgeries and is never satisfied, but convinced that the next one will make them the most beautiful person on the planet, and then the next one, and so on ad nauseum. It's ludicrous, and it would be laughable if it weren't so infuriating.
Just listened to 'Disposable Heroes' by Metallica. Great song on what is probably their best album.
For some reason I have listened to the soundtrack for Star Fox (the snes version) several times recently. lol!
Also, I keep coming back to the Concerto in A minor BWV 593, which is a transcription for organ made by Bach of a concerto originally composed by Vivaldi for two violins. See here for the first movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuXfzKGqfH8
I haven't seen Apocalypse Now, but I have read Heart of Darkness, and the subject's been on my mind a bit lately, because in my spare time I've been writing a story that has a bit of a Heart of Darkness-y vibe to it (the Kurtz scene in particular). I have viewed the scene with Marlon Brando, and I always loved the reference to it on Buffy, with Xander's dream at the end of season four. ;)
The last movie I watched was Serenity, the collector's edition dvd with the DTS track. Love the film, even though a few things about it don't quite jive with Firefly when you think about them.
Some folks use multi-channel analog connections for Bluray if they have a player with better digital-to-analog converters than their receiver/processor. There can sometimes be a problem with the LFE level coming out too quiet, if it isn't getting the required 10 decibel boost, but this is only an issue with certain equipment. Aside from these things, there is no difference from using a digital connection if the audio source is digital to begin with.
All sound produced by speakers is analog in nature: it is a continuous electrical waveform that moves magnets attached to speaker cones. For a digital source it only matters how good the DAC is, where in the equipment chain it is located, and whether any additional processing or decoding is being applied, to determine what the outgoing sound quality will be--the quality of the speakers themselves and the amplification make far more difference.
Most of the really good laserdisc audio that people talk about is digital. Whether the 16/44.1 PCM tracks, the 384 kbps AC3 or the 1.235 mbps DTS, all delivered great-sounding results, and the main reason for this is that they were much more likely to be the original mixes, or versions closely derived from them. Many dvd's and Blurays unfortunately contain remixes, many of which are inferior to the originals, and may well have been made by people who had nothing to do with making the film and have little regard for its proper aural aesthetic. Even a completely lossless encode of an inferior mix cannot compete with a lower quality version of the proper sound.
It's not all doom and gloom though, because there are some releases that still do it right. Apocalypse Now, for example, has always used the original 70mm 5.1 mix, and the Bluray continues this trend (along with a new video transfer timed by a Technicolor reference print, for even greater authenticity). I've never seen the film, but many people like it and will undoubtedly be pleased with the new edition.
I've only seen Superman the Movie twice. The first time was a few years ago, the extended cut downmixed to stereo; and the second time was over the summer, the theatrical cut with the remix played in full 5.1 mode. I own the theatrical dvd, but I think it only has the remix, so unfortunately I've only heard that version and never the original mix. My experience of it was that it seemed to be pretty good--certainly it had strong dynamic range and powerful LFE, and made good use of the surrounds and so forth--but I couldn't tell if there was any specific issue that made it less good than it should have been.
But I completely understand what it's like to despise a remix that compromises the sound compared to the original, because that's exactly the way I feel about Star Wars--the 2004 dvd mix is abominably bad, and its huge degree of suckitude is part of why I put as much effort as I did into approximating the 70mm soundtrack, so there could be a powerful-sounding version where everything was just as it should be.
Now I'm rather curious to hear the original stereo mix and compare it. Are there specific changes in the new one that come across badly, or does the original just have a better overall balance? The film did have a 5.1 mix on 70mm, but that hasn't been heard in any form for ages.
I've only seen the Lester version of Superman 2 once--aside from a few minor flaws, I found the Donner version so superior that I only want to watch that one from now on.