zombie84

This seemed relevant.

http://devour.com/video/why-the-moon-landing-was-not-faked/

No matter who they chose, people would complain. Even if it was George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. So, yeah, some of you are disappointed...so what? It was inevitable that a portion of the fanbase would feel that way about whomever was selected as director, in my opinion. We all have our own tastes and feeling about who is "worthy" or appropriate. And for those who want something unexpected or surprising...that's exactly what most of the fan base doesn't want. So whatever way it went, there would be unhappy people.

Personally, JJ Abrams is a very talented filmmaker that knows how to craft interesting, exciting action dramas with characters front and center. He isn't perfect--but then no director is--but as long as the guy directing the film can give it those qualities--qualities we haven't seen in a Star Wars movies in some decades now--we should all be happy. Star Trek, for example, was a pretty good movie, and certainly better than anything with the Star Wars logo on it for some time now. We all should be very, very jealous that Star Trek got something like that. Well, now it seems like we are getting that too. I refuse to see how this is a bad thing. I'm not a JJ Abrams fan per se but there is no way he could make a terrible film when it's being written by Michale Arndt from a George Lucas story. Maybe not the best film ever made, but it will take a serious effort of failure for this to turn out as bad as anything George Lucas has made since 1989. Sorry George, it's true.

It's like Seven Samurai because its about a small group of warriors who seal themselves off in an enclosed civilian outpost to fight off wave after wave of oncoming enemies with overwhelming numbers. That's the basic thrust of Samurai, and Aliens too. You also have the use of maps to orient planning and fortifications (blueprints in Aliens, dirt drawings and paper maps in Samurai), booby traps to help even the odds, and other similarities like that. Obviously they are different films, but they have a ton in common.

Also, I just watched it twice for the first time in 3 years.

DAMN that movie is good. Sigourney Weaver gives a tour de force performance. When she runs into that hive nest at the end, that is some intense stuff. She was completely robbed of her Oscar. Every time I see this movie I am constantly in awe of it. Along with Terminator, James Cameron defined the American sci-fi action genre for all time. Say what you will about him, but for these two films he is a bona fide genius.

Tobar said:

Bingowings said:

Aliens is the remake of Them! if you hadn't noticed.

I dunno if I can see that. I mean, Alien was definitely inspired by IT! The Terror From Beyond Space but Aliens and THEM! ? Hmm...

Aliens is essentially Seven Samurai, inspired by aspects of the Vietnam war, set in space.

In other words, Starship Troopers in a building.

That sounds pretty fun. I love Doom, I still play it and it still gets my heart beating in certain places. I usually prefer Quake but the stripped-down, raw gameplay of Doom that turns some people off is what I like about it.

I'd be all for improving the Special Edition, there's no reason to suggest that sarcastically.

Hayden was a good teen actor who became a bad adult actor. Whether the PT played a part in that transformation is debatable. He was definitely on the rise in 2000 and 2001, he had good credentials, maybe if he had stuck to good scripts he would have had success. Leo DiCaprio isn't a really great actor either, but he's in a hell of a lot of good movies and because of that doesn't stand out as so-so.

I for one was surprised. With his whole "my films are like my children" and all his other rhetoric, he basically sold his children. We all expected him to cling to them until death with all sorts of clauses about them not to be tampered with or changed after he was gone. Instead, he sold the whole franchise just 7 years after Episode III came out for a corporation to do with it as they see fit.

I forgot he was doing that. Still skeptical. Probably will work out.

Yeah, that's weird that Heir to the Empire isn't on there. Or is it?

No, grain is like noise. It's called generational grain. Most of the visible grain you see in many films is due to copying. Modern negatives started to look so clean that it actually encouraged a move towards adding visible grain to the emulsion to make them more obviously film-like, like Saving Private Ryan. But when you see 35mm, you aren't watching the negative. You are watching copies of copies. That's why you see grain, which in modern emulsions is very fine and normally not very apparent. Noise is a by-product of the camera sensors and grain is a by-product of the crystals that make up an emulsion. Since we are dealing with copies, this adds up in an exponential manner, which is why 35mm looks a little grainy and HD is capable of clean, noise-free, mirror-like images (i.e. The Hobbit) since the data is lossless. On a scientific level, it simply isn't possible for film to look like that.

Most HD shot films look noise free because they don't need to boost the signal, or you would see noise. That's what the "gain" switch does on high-end cameras, it artificially amplifies the signal and increases the noise floor (like that staticy sound on receivers and speakers). Film has the equivalent to a gain switch too, which is push-processing, which amplifies the signal (the silver halide crystals sensitivity) which in turn boosts the grain levels. In the early days of HD filming, we would leave the gain switch on just a tiny bit so the image looked more like film with that "gainy"/grainy subtle layer. People stopped doing that years ago because, with the widespread adoption of HD displays circa 2008-2010, people accepted the HD "clean" look and began to actually not want HD to artificially mimic the qualities of film.

I think the thinking is that they would rather devote that disc space to something, in their minds, more worthwhile. Because it is true, the more you add, the lesser the quality will be. They may also think that people will buy the BD, take a look at the other options, and think "the hell, I paid to have this new blu-ray and it sounds like crap!" That's the problem with technology when it becomes mainstream. Remember "full screen" DVDs? Jesus Christ. The sad fact is that your average viewer watches Blu-ray but your average viewer isn't really informed enough; on top of it, they have just become accustomed to noisless, multi-channel mixes, and anything less is junk to them. The people in the board room making these decisions are, without hyperbole, probably many such people. They are just businessmen (and women) after all, not film fans.

Well, the image is composed of grain, so the detail is made up of grain. But obviously an image with no grain will be clearer than an image with grain. The digital equivalent is noise, but on high end cameras, and Hobbit in particular, there was no noise.

I would venture to say you just saw a lousy screening. I'll grant you that I went to one of only 4 or 5 theaters in the country showing the film in such high quality (IMAX+3D+HFR) but softening around the edges is due to the projector or print. Especially if it was 35mm that is common, but it could be a poor lens on the projector as well.

Anyway, I've seen a bunch of 70mm, and not old, faded beat up prints, but 70mm in no way at all rivals, let alone surpasses modern IMAX, especially from high-res (ie 4K+) HD, digital projections, assuming the equipment is in good order. Just speaking in terms of science, it's literally not possible when you have such pristine looking films like Prometheus and Hobbit. It doesn't help that most 70mm are blow-ups, with an extra three optical stages on top of the 35mm versions. I guess if you could project the negative it would be different, but almost no one has seen what a negative projection looks like (I have, but only for test footage).

TheBoost said:

I wonder if the net had existed back then, if there would have been lots of "wide-screen gives me a headache" and "how come no directors discuss the story telling aspects of technicolor, it's just a money making gimmick?" discussions. 

The answer is yes, because commentators of the time actually did. Sound killed the movies, then colour, then widescreen, now it's 3D and high frame rate. Historically speaking when it comes to movies, groups of people have always resisted the introduction of a new element.

Yeah, The Hobbit was probably the best looking movie I have seen. It was a level of clarity beyond anything. I think you are romanticizing 70mm. A lot of 70mm are grainy and look pretty bad. It's definitely not clear. Film can't be clear due to the existance of grain.

and then he kills the mayor. But the mayor dies saying "there's still good in him" for no real reason.

I guess. All I know is that I was entertained by the film more than the previous two. Star Wars has a ton of plot holes as well, but in the end I don't really care. Some movies are better than the sum of their parts.

He will be, and that's exactly why he will be. Whether you agree is another matter. But they are already considered modern classics.

I guess you could argue that Tusken Raiders aren't thought of a having rights or feelings...but then, with all the alien species in the Republic that is really weird. Especially for a liberal politician. And it makes for really poor characterization for the two leads to more or less forgive themselves for a mass slaughter of what amounts to unarmed civilian women and children.

I know characters are sometimes interesting when they have flaws. If they are a little bit racist or sexist or whatever. See the filmography of Martin Scorsese. But to go on  a rampage and butcher kids and parents? That's your "character flaw"? This might be the first time that has ever been portrayed in a mainstream film that I can think of, where that was ultimately overlooked.

I thought they actually did HD and 35mm tests and Wiseau didn't understand the difference, so to solve the dilemma he ordered that the film be shot in both formats, "just in case." It's no wonder there are conflicting reports--no one on the crew was around for the whole production. He fired the whole crew, twice.

As a film school grad, I can tell you the sign of a good filmmaker is that they never went to film school. It's kind of an inside joke in the actual film industry. There's a few of us school grads in there, but we're a distinct minority.

Was Titanic Super 35? I forgot he was into that. In a weird way, it helped keep his movies very visceral because of the grain. I think it was Xhonzi that said in the Last Movie thread he was glad that Cameron kept T2 rough around the edges to match the first film. I disagree with that, I think T2 is way too slick to even compare to T1, but it's that grainy, fuzzy quality that I think Xhonzi was catching onto, had T2 been filmed anamorphic it would have looked amazing but also would have highlighted the differences even more. That's one reason I regret the Aliens blu-ray, 1986 was a bad year for film stocks, especially on 35mm, but that grainy super35 quality is what I really loved about Terminator and Aliens, it gave them a certain documentary-like, grindhouse feel that matched the quick cutting and handheld camerawork.

I never felt that way about Titanic, but I guess by 1996 technology was just cleaner in general.

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.

CP3S said:

It is crazy the kind of things that can happen when a not so bright or talented person who fancies himself quite bright and talented gets his hands on too much money. Oh, Tommy.

The sad part is that he's as sketchy a businessman as he is a filmmaker. He won't say where his money came from, but the one hint he did drop was that part of it came from importing or exporting motorcycle jackets. I get the hint that he dealt in knockoffs. No one really knows what he did for a living but it certainly seems to be an illegal or semi-legal trade of some kind. He seems like just the type of guy to be in such a business.