logo Sign In

littlejoe416

User Group
Members
Join date
20-Nov-2023
Last activity
13-Jun-2024
Posts
25

Post History

Post
#1589849
Topic
Toy Story (1995)– 4K 35mm Scan [WIP– Donations Still Needed!!]
Time

TristAndShout64 said:

littlejoe416 said:

I think the people behind this are purposely dragging their feet because of the leaks but that’s lame. Imo

gasp WHAT SLANDEROUS REMARKS!!

In all seriousness, I promise this isn’t the case. To be a bit blunt about it at this point I’m like 95% this will end up getting leaked, I’d rather it doesn’t but it’s not really the end of the world for me if it does lmao.

As I said, I’ve just been focused on other things and there haven’t really been any updates to give as I’m waiting on someone else to ship the print. Also, regarding other projects, I do have a couple going but they’re unfortunately private so I won’t be sharing too many details. One of them will be shared publicly though so I’ll likely make a post about that once it’s finished!

Glad to hear that at least you don’t feel the way I feared you might. Thanks for the update!

Post
#1586757
Topic
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP)
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm.

Correct, that’s how he phrased it, before clarifying that he wants to understand why users “feel the need to recreate the film feel,” not literally “Why put a digital film on 35mm?” He even points out that was done “because of necessity,” so he clearly knows why.

littlejoe416 said:
Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters

Yes, it is. The abscense of that option is, anyway. Once again: had it been available, the movie likely would’ve gone straight to digital and not 35mm. The only reason I bring this up at all is because the discrepancies typical of that format conversion would betray the filmmakers’ original intent, which was gmarsh1996’s whole point in the first place; why take the time to re-create a look that was a byproduct of converting digital film to analog and goes against what the filmmakers intended when they colored and graded the movie in an all-digital environment?

That is what he’s trying to understand, and why I brought the absence of digital projection into this, but we can go back and forth on this forever so let’s forget I ever brought up digital projection. Gone. The fact remains that however different the movie looked on 35mm in palette and texture was not how it was meant to look, and— to finally answer your query, gmarsh1996— recreating that look is most likely fueled by nostalgia and a fascination with how a personal favorite may have looked when it first played in theaters. You’ll find tons of projects like that on OriginalTrilogy, and there will likely be plenty more to come in the future.

littlejoe416 said:
nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Exactly. I repeat: re-creating a look that came out of necessity due to the lack of a digital delivery option, and not creative intent, is what was put into question.

lol

Post
#1586651
Topic
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP)
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

No, it’s not. gmarsh1996 is trying to understand why users in this community go through the trouble of reapplying a 35mm color palette and grainy texture— byproducts of the only available delivery format available in 2004– to a digitally sourced movie that was never intended to be visually presented that way. You thought his point was that the filmmakers never intended to show the movie on analog film in theaters, which is not what he said.

He’s questioning the altering of the movie’s visual quality because, as I stated in the last post, had digital projection been available at the time of the film’s release, it absolutely would have been presented that way since slightly altered colors and a dip in sharpness and resolve are anomalies the filmmakers would have preferred sidestepping altogether. Hope that clears things up.

Ok sure, but still, the first question they asked was why have a digitally created movie on 35mm. Digital projection isn’t relevant to the history of this movie regarding how it was shown in theaters, nevermind whether the filmmakers would have preferred digital or not, it wasn’t ever an option to begin with. So that’s why.

Post
#1586638
Topic
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP)
Time

TonyWDA said:

littlejoe416 said:

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

No, he means that presenting the movie with the visual trademarks and imperfections typical of the 35mm format was not the filmmakers’ original intent, but it was the only theatrical delivery format available at the time. Had digital projection caught on just a few years earlier, I guarantee that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie would have been presented that way.

Ok? That’s a moot point tho

Post
#1586373
Topic
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 35mm Re Creation (a WIP)
Time

gmarsh1996 said:

I know this is a somewhat older thread, but can someone explain to me what is the obsession with having a digitally-created movie on 35MM? For older titles that were shot on film, I totally get it, but if it was digital to begin with, why the need to recreate the film feel, if that was never the intent in the first place? The Blu-Ray does a great job of showing the film as it was originally created, the only reason it was ever printed onto film for theaters back in 2004 was because of necessity. I’m not trying to down this project or anything, I’m just genuinely curious about why it matters so much.

It was never the intent to show The SpongeBob Movie on film in a theater? Pretty sure that’s why they made The SpongeBob Movie in the first place buddy

Post
#1582479
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

CMGF said:

littlejoe416 said:

Again, hilarious and revealing hot takes. This movie isn’t worth it. This ain’t it, chiefs.

That is YOUR opinion, and I find it actually quite offensive. I mean come on, who even talks like this today? You’re discriminating Song of the South lovers, you’re being a Songophobe! Deeply insensitive, so uninclusive. Shame.

Deeply ironic that this reads like a trump tweet lmaooo

Post
#1582478
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

CMGF said:

littlejoe416 said:

Again, hilarious and revealing hot takes. This movie isn’t worth it. This ain’t it, chiefs.

That is YOUR opinion, and I find it actually quite offensive. I mean come on, who even talks like this today? You’re discriminating Song of the South lovers, you’re being a Songophobe! Deeply insensitive, so uninclusive. Shame.

Um no I said DONT act disingenuous. Lmao. Please. I’m done engaging with this bad faith argument about a movie that isn’t worth mine or anyone else’s time. The gall you have to call my comments insensitive tells me all I need to know tbh. Not surprised that people who stick up for this movie aren’t great at reading comprehension.

Post
#1582452
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

Charles Threepio said:

CMGF said:

If Disney would ever treat Mary Poppins the same way they treat Song of the South, it would be nothing but a cultural crime. Enough is enough. You can’t just take every classic and look for the crazy reasons to label it as “wrong” - sometimes you just need to enjoy the movie and shut your mouth up, because there is what to enjoy, especially when it comes to masterpieces like this. Getting offended is a decision.

Back to Song of the South - if you are really that sensitive to take offense from a movie about a nice, clever and positively-portrayed black man telling folklore tales to children of both races and encouraging their friendship - just don’t watch, instead of telling people that they shouldn’t even be ABLE to view it.
But, Oh man… you need to work on yourself a bit.

Hear, hear!

🤡

Post
#1582449
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

imsorrydave2448 said:

littlejoe416 said:

Lol at anyone to putting words in my mouth or sticking up for song of the south, an unnecessary and indeed unfortunate association with Disney to say the absolute least. If no one ever saw this film again I’m pretty sure the world would be just fine. Feel how you want but don’t act disingenuous and shocked when someone wants to detract from it, it deserves it.

You would only want to detract from it if you both have no understanding of the diverse experiences of black Americans back then(I recommend reading the Library of Congress’s extensive collection of former slave interviews), and don’t understand why a Disney musical for children isn’t going to have Uncle Remus act like a sad man that is hated by everyone the entire movie. The over the top niceness is of course the better alternative for a kids musical. What’s even more hilarious is Disney has a G rated movie they made in the 2000’s on Disney Plus right now that has the n word with the hard r twice, the k slur for black South Africans, and has a black South African get his ass whopped by a white waiter lol.

And you might wanna look up whataboutism.

Post
#1582424
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

Lol at anyone to putting words in my mouth or sticking up for song of the south, an unnecessary and indeed unfortunate association with Disney to say the absolute least. If no one ever saw this film again I’m pretty sure the world would be just fine. Feel how you want but don’t act disingenuous and shocked when someone wants to detract from it, it deserves it.

Post
#1581480
Topic
Info: How many Disney 35mm scans exist?
Time

0x897673 said:

These are the scans I’m aware of that have surfaced in various places:

101 Dalmations
Aladdin
Beauty and the Beast
Cinderella
Fantasia
Lady and the Tramp
Mulan
Pinocchio
Robin Hood
Sleeping Beauty
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
The Jungle Book
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
The Sword in the Stone
Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Also technically nightmare before christmas and also unfortunately song of the south