skyjedi2005

I think its totally logical to assume all the effects will be cgi since the old ILM practical effects unit is gone.

Sure they could take out the old models and props and create new costumes that would look like aged versions of those in Jedi that will actually fit the age the actors now are.

I hope Luke's costume is Like Nilo- Rodis designed it in Jedi.  I hope he has the same lightsaber hilt and green blade, when animated.

What i am dreading is a totally cgi Millennium Falcon.

Just think there is going to be tons of cgi, shakey cam and lens flares to the point people will think the cgi in Indiana jones IV was tastefully done. Or at least minimalist.

is the cropping on the HDTV source similar to the DVD.  The blu ray won't match up it has more picture information.  Conforms to the theatrical release except for the added non theatrical scenes.

How would one fix the blu ray add fake grain and cut out those added scenes? Re add puppet yoda?

Is the Rock Blu ray mix the same as on the DTS laserdisc?

Watched it recently the picture was really nice but remember the theater mix sounding better.  Could be because of their expensive loudspeaker equipment or the levels they played the audio at.

I think a part of the more lazy companies is its easier to include if they already did so on a laserdisc or DVD. 

Dirty Harry only available in analog form on a time compressed LD not PCM, or available as a retracked in stereo pcm on later releases.

Bullitt on CED in mono and possibly on japan LD not sure if PCM, and retracked stereo on laserdisc dvd and blu ray disc.

OFF topic sort of.  But is there a decent Blu ray release of Army of Darkness without heavy DVNR in Region A.

Maybe the crappy Eastman prints in The US had muted colors.  UK prints on mylar, or Technicolor were far from muted.

So not only can i not find the mono mix for dirty harry on the blu ray, Now i find Bullitt is also missing its original mono mix.  Is this a kind of trend?

Is it possible some releases had re-equalization.  Or some sort of digital clean up was done on the audio.

Often they get overzealous when trying to clean up an old monaural optical track from its clicks, pops or hiss and they ruin the track by using too harsh of a setting.  Some people prefer no equalization or clean up be done.

Usually i prefer the audio remain untouched.  But the depends on how bad the pops and clicks or audio hiss is.  If it makes the film horrible sounding then some clean up has to be done.

Only really old films seems to have an odd pop and hiss like bacon, or an old scratched LP record playing.

Terminator is not that old.  Why the New mixes i don't really know.  Cameron probably is why.

I think i read a review of the film by the guy who interviewed Lucas.  Gene Youngblood. Not sure if i am remembering right it was a long long time ago.

The DB5 was the least problem i had with the film.  Bonds House and Batcave were far more awful as was aping the Nolan Batman films.

John Logan thought he was being clever with making the obvious references to the Nolan trilogy, and Javier Bardem is obviously trying to be Heath as Joker in the Dark Knight.  The parody is so obvious its almost comical.

Is anybody Surprised trek 13 is well into development at Paramount and Orci and Kurtzmen are back as the writers.  Some peoples hopes for their firing have been dashed, oh well.

Rumors suggest the director is the Rupert Wyatt who directed rise of the planet of the apes.  And we will have a 2016 release date.

I hope this time its not a space revenge movie.  A ripoff of star wars or the wrath of khan. I don't want any more nods to nostalgia or retreads of classic episodes or movies.  Something new and fresh would be nice.  But not likely.

Its like every superman movie having to either be about Zod or Lex luthor.

 Generations is horrible it would have played fine as a tv episode, but it is neither a classic tos cast movie or TNG movie.  It also gave STID the idea of killing Kirk.  The way they killed off Kirk was stupid.  The way he is buried is also laughably bad.   Lets just leave his body on Veridian III covered with rocks. 

I know its like month old news but is anyone surprised Sam Mendes pulled a JJ Abrams denying he was going to direct bond 24 and now is signed to direct it. 

This guy is the new series regular really?

Count me as so not interested in the Next Bond unless some how Mendes and Logan actually make a 007 picture not a thriller of the week where you know what is going to happen before it happens because its painfully obvious and telegraphed.

Jaitea said:

Just had a thought, I can't remember the plot of Star Trek Into Darkness, I enjoyed it at the time, but now I'm starting to think that the film wasn't that great at all, fantastic effects, but really stupid film, who's fault was that, the writer obviously, but it was JJ's movie

I've got a bad feeling about this, I hope it passes

J

Yeah well JJ may be out as director of star trek 13 but that does not me Orci and Kurtzman are fired in fact they were just hired for the third film.

Lindelof is out of their third trek effort.  None of this thread related really other than JJ being the producer of what they are calling star trek 3 but star trek III already exists.

Nor am i excited by the fact that they are considering the person who directed rise of the planet of the apes.

Star trek into darkness was very uneven in quality while 2009 was overall solid in direction if not in nonsensical plotting.

Don't think i will see the next trek the dark one was a bore and the retreads of a classic film unwarranted.  Honestly felt like they tried batman nolan style in outer space that is not star trek.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I swear, people will never be satisfied with a film/TV show's resolution until technology reaches a point where they can actually plug themselves into it.

If that was true then i should be happy with my crappy dodgy pan and scan vhs.  Because presentation means nothing especially when HDTV is now the standard and so is blu ray.

To me its a happy medium no i am happy with 1080P and don't need 4K.

I would rather have Donner alive than ever see superman tv cut in widescreen HD.  We are talking the life of a human being versus that of a movie based on a fictional character.

Kasdan did not write episode VII though.  Its that toy story writer.

There is no guarantee its not going to be another John Carter, or Lone Ranger.

You cannot spend hundreds of millions of dollars on what amounts to a big budget 1930's and 1940's film serial and not have an ability to lose a lot of money.  JJ Abrams alone is no guarantee its going to work. Neither trek film bombed but both fell below Paramount's expectations.  the prequels were successful but Lucas was involved he is not involved here.

This is not 1977 where the studio loses 10 mil to 15 mil if the film does not break even or bombs.

Disney has to know that not every film is going to be automatically successful there is risk in each venture.  The avengers paid off but that was also a huge risk and so have been each iron man film produced.

They expected the Lone ranger to make pirates of the Caribbean success because of Jerry Bruckheimer well it was a turkey film.

Watch Lucasfilm be lazy and bundle the 2004 dvds with the 2011 blu ray.

Even if its the 2011 version on dvd who cares, i no longer buy dvd's and i want the originals on blu ray.

Its no longer 2006 even a nice anamorphic clean looking master of the oot on DVD is not going to cut it.

It has to be in 1080P 24fps  and on BD.  Or get the hell out.

Someone told me Batman Begins looks better on HD-DVD but i thought the HDTV version, the HD-DVD and the blu ray all came from the same master.

The BD is not horrible but its not really blu quality either.

Wow how did the BD of Three Kings get so green.  And here i thought only the wachowski's and Pj were green tint filter fans,lol.

RTK BD has DVNR just not as bad as FOTR apparently.  I am speaking of the theatrical discs.

Nothing irritates me more than the new teal trend in Blu rays.

Except here we got a neon green tint instead of teal.

Tried watching matrix the new mix was awful and the colors were so bad i had to turn it off.

Avatar_Emil said:

Ok, after some research, here's what I could find on "The Wizard Of Oz":

LD: Some (if not all) LaserDiscs are mono (like the 50th Anniversary Edition), others were stereo (like a Japanese release with reference number G98F5545).

link: http://www.lddb.com/search.php?search=wizard+of+oz&sort=title

DVD: Dolby Digital 5.1 for the simple release, original mono included in the Collector's Edition and the 70th Anniversary Edition.

link: http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=114

BD: Both Dolby TrueHD 5.1 and mono sound is available on all official Blu-rays.

link: http://dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=15760

Are you sure that is not another electronically retracked into stereo mix.  I have a 007 laserdisc like that its the mono mix faked for stereo playback.

on Wizard of OZ I grew up with the incorrect black and white opening and always assumed that was original as well, only recently have they restored the true sepia opening of the film on home video.  Could be wrong maybe it was on laserdisc but every tv version i saw and vhs was black and white.

Anyone have the mono mix for dirty harry?

I know the laserdisc is analog only.

Wish i knew someone who somehow copied the optical track off a 35mm print,lol.

Checked the Goldeneye Blu Ray while it uses the old HD master for the special edition DVD the audio is from the UE and it is in HD MA. 

Had hoped it would be either the Dolby or DTS theatrical in the new format container.

Sadly no.  Its a really lazy release.

I saw the 1985 screening does that count?

I guess that was the 2 year anniversary release,lol.

As for the 30th No i cannot celebrate with the current BD its shit, Hayden And NOOO! And the Gout DVD even upscaled  is no replacement for seeing it in 35mm. A Good BD of the 1983 version would be nice but Disney have not put one out and probably won't.

I saw the HDNet version off my DVR service which has HDnet for free.  Little to no real detail.  There is film grain,just that the the resolution  does not look like HD from the current era has to be a really old transfer.  Was in scope aspect ratio and not zoomed in.

Definitely not fit for BD quality wise if they dumped this master to disc i would be really pissed.

There were little give aways in the image to suggest this was from a theatrical print and not the o-neg.

The Print originally had a very fine grain and was soft looking any ways but i think this was because of early gen scanning technology rather than the print itself.