Movies You've Seen (or would like to see) Recently

[injurai]

Bah, so boring and safe. I'd prefer Trevorrow.

 

Nevah, can't stand his approach or style. As far as I know the reason he was given JP and then EP9 was because of his personal friendship with Kathleen Kennedy. He was being groomed into the next blockbuster director. I just don't see him as the right for helming a loved classic.

[algroth]

I would have to ask, what approach/style? As far as I'm concerned he's just as workmanlike and not nearly as competent. Abrams at least does a pretty good job of evoking a nostalgic/Spielbergian aura to his work, and I for one really liked his work on The Force Awakens. I don't mind him returning even if I would have preferred a more auteurish voice the likes of, to stick to Star Wars directors, Rian Johnson.

Edited September 12, 2017 by algroth

[ShadySands]

Is J.J. Abrams the Right Choice for 'Star Wars: Episode IX'?

 

The 'Force Awakens' filmmaker is the safe choice who has learned from a 'Star Trek' sequel that didn't go over so well.

J.J. Abrams is once again bringing balance to the Force as the new director of Star Wars: Episode IX.

 

Abrams' name immediately began swirling after previous Episode IX helmer Colin Trevorrow exited the project last week, and why wouldn't it? Abrams revived the film franchise with 2015's The Force Awakens, and with quite a bit of behind-the-scenes shuffling of directors in recent months, people assumed Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy would look for a safe bet.

[injurai]

If they hadn't picked JJ I'd probably suggest James Gray as a candidate. He's already booked for filming a sci-fi in 2018 though.

[Blarghagh]

 

Bah, so boring and safe. I'd prefer Trevorrow.

 

Nevah, can't stand his approach or style. As far as I know the reason he was given JP and then EP9 was because of his personal friendship with Kathleen Kennedy. He was being groomed into the next blockbuster director. I just don't see him as the right for helming a loved classic.

 

 

No arguments. I just don't have faith in JJ to deliver anything new. Force Awakens was fine for what it was, a loose reboot. But I'd rather end the series on something terrible than on something boring.

 

I was hoping for Brad Bird, Alfonso Cuaron or maybe Trevorrow's Jurassic series successor, J.A. Bayona.

[injurai]

Bird or Cuaron would be fantastic, I'd certainly sign on either of those lines.

[algroth]

I also agree that there could have been better choices, but Jar Jar is a good choice all the same and I do think it's a step up from Trevorrow.

[Raithe]

Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Men Tell No Tales / Salazar's Revenge (depending on which title you want to use).

 

All pirates are now idiots with no real abilities or skills who purely get by on random events. Jack Sparrow is a drunken idiot who does not have quick wits, just occasional flashes of not being a moronic pirate. All British naval officers are monomaniacal tyrants lusting after power and with no redeeming qualities. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley have basically 5 minute cameos.

 

It still manages to be a mostly entertaining film, it opens fairly strongly with a bit of setting up the story, followed by an exceptionally silly bank robbery set to familiar music, and then it roams along in a generally engaging popcorn manner. It still doesn't quite have the touch of magic that the first PotC had, but tis a better attempt than Stranger Tides. It has a general running joke between the two main protagonists, one of whom has studied all the myths, legends and curses of the sea and the other being the intelligent woman with a scientific background who keeps being accused of being a witch despire rejecting all non-scientific thoughts of magic, curses, or the undead.

[Volourn]

I haven't seen it yet but I would suggest someone who lives in the POTC world who doesn't believe in magic, curses, and the undead is rather insane, ignorant, and stupid. LMAO

 

It would be like someone who doesn't believe the gods even exist in a typical D&D world. It is not based on reality (of that universe).

Edited September 13, 2017 by Volourn

[Blarghagh]

To be fair, she changes her mind rather quickly when actually confronted with supernatural evidence and the first film established that most of the population lives in blissful ignorance. Nobody believes Elizabeth about Barbossa's undead crew and one lieutenant makes fun of her by comparing her story to mermaid fairytales. Hilariously, said lieutenant returned in the fourth film under Barbosss's command and witnessed part of his crew getting massacred by... Mermaids.

[algroth]

A new Lucrecia Martel is always cause for celebration, but this looks (and based on Venice reviews, apparently also is) absolutely phenomenal:

 

[Raithe]

The Monstrous empathy of Lon Chaney

[Raithe]

There are a lot of reasons it gets considered a classic...

 

The Timeless appeal of Casablanca

[Fiach]

There are a lot of reasons it gets considered a classic...

 

The Timeless appeal of Casablanca

I have Casablanca on Blu-ray and it is an astounding feat of restoration. The lighting, hd sharpness and sound quality makes it nearly an essential purchase for anybody that considers themselves a film fan, to see what could be produced visually as far back as 1942 that can go toe to toe with anything filmed today on modern equipment. Even if the subject matter doesn't appeal, it is a visual feast Edited September 17, 2017 by Fiach

[Orogun01]

 

There are a lot of reasons it gets considered a classic...

 

The Timeless appeal of Casablanca

I have Casablanca on Blu-ray and it is an astounding feat of restoration. The lighting, hd sharpness and sound quality makes it nearly an essential purchase for anybody that considers themselves a film fan, to see what could be produced visually as far back as 1942 that can go toe to toe with anything filmed today on modern equipment. Even if the subject matter doesn't appeal, it is a visual feast

 

Quite frankly my dears, I do not give a damn.

[Raithe]

 

 

There are a lot of reasons it gets considered a classic...

 

The Timeless appeal of Casablanca

I have Casablanca on Blu-ray and it is an astounding feat of restoration. The lighting, hd sharpness and sound quality makes it nearly an essential purchase for anybody that considers themselves a film fan, to see what could be produced visually as far back as 1942 that can go toe to toe with anything filmed today on modern equipment. Even if the subject matter doesn't appeal, it is a visual feast

 

Quite frankly my dears, I do not give a damn.

 

 

Ah, but political correctness is biting on that one. Gone With the Wind has been taken down from some cinemas in the south of the US due to reasons.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

There are a lot of reasons it gets considered a classic...

 

The Timeless appeal of Casablanca

I have Casablanca on Blu-ray and it is an astounding feat of restoration. The lighting, hd sharpness and sound quality makes it nearly an essential purchase for anybody that considers themselves a film fan, to see what could be produced visually as far back as 1942 that can go toe to toe with anything filmed today on modern equipment. Even if the subject matter doesn't appeal, it is a visual feast

 

Quite frankly my dears, I do not give a damn.

 

 

Ah, but political correctness is biting on that one. Gone With the Wind has been taken down from some cinemas in the south of the US due to reasons.

 

Such is the case with revisionist history. Shame though, I do like those old racist, homophobic cartoons.

[Fiach]

GWTW was quite a bit before my time, but they had a Cinema showing on one of its anniversaries...maybe 50th, I found it an incredibly impressive piece of cinema, it's not my sort of movie, the nearest I would normally get to this would be John Wayne movies, or even closer would be Dancing with Wolves. But, for sheer spectacle,I thought it was a great movie the acid test is the 4 hour running time, it flew by as I was so engrossed in it.

[Lexx]

Lawrence of Arabia has a really impressive visual quality as well. If not for the sound, it looks like a modern movie. I've looked it up a while ago, because I wanted to know how this was possible. Turns out, movies that had been recorded with analog technology can be remade in whatever resolution you'd like to (and them resized smaller to make them look sharp again), while that is impossible with digital movies (some data is always lost and increasing the resolution would lead to pixelation).

[Eumaios]

I've never seen Gone With the Wind, but I should see it sometime.  Probably with my wife.  I love the Lawrence of Arabia film.  Hearkening back to another thread in this forum, I think it depicts the glory any shame of the British empire.  Peter O'Toole deserved the Oscar for that.  Anyhow, great film.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Eumaios

[Lexx]

Yeah, it was one of the movies that I could easily sit through from the beginning to the end. Really well done.

 

Compare that to movies like Jupiter Ascending, where already 30 minutes in I kept wondering what the hell I'm even doing with my life. :>

[Fiach]

Lawrence of Arabia has a really impressive visual quality as well. If not for the sound, it looks like a modern movie. I've looked it up a while ago, because I wanted to know how this was possible. Turns out, movies that had been recorded with analog technology can be remade in whatever resolution you'd like to (and them resized smaller to make them look sharp again), while that is impossible with digital movies (some data is always lost and increasing the resolution would lead to pixelation).

I never knew that, very interesting find!

 

The openings my scene of LoaA is worth the price of admission alone.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Fiach

[Blarghagh]

Lawrence of Arabia has a really impressive visual quality as well. If not for the sound, it looks like a modern movie. I've looked it up a while ago, because I wanted to know how this was possible. Turns out, movies that had been recorded with analog technology can be remade in whatever resolution you'd like to (and them resized smaller to make them look sharp again), while that is impossible with digital movies (some data is always lost and increasing the resolution would lead to pixelation).

 

Assuming the original roll is available, but for most films it decays. There are also many more ways that analog film can just get entirely messed up. That's the trade-off. Even then, there's a limit to how much mileage you can get out of it before you get film stains, grain, etc.

[Amentep]

As I understand it, the order for print is master negative for the film (the one that is used to make the master interpositive), the master interpositive (that's used to make the master positive) or the master positive.    As long as one has managed to escape vinegar sydrome, you can probably make a pretty decent print of the film.

 

After that you get workprints (a positive made without an interpositive), video editing screeners, etc. If all else fails, you bung whatever you got into whatever conversion/editing suit you have, do the best you can and put a note before the film letting the audience know that the master is missing and this is the best you can do picture wise.

 

One thing to be careful of, is that there are a number of cases of modern analog to digital film transfers stuffing up "day for night" shots by auto correcting them back to day. Awkward.

 

An example of the analogue vs digital - Paramount rereleased all of the original Star Trek films on BluRay, but they didn't re-release the "Director's cut" of The Motion Picture - because the special effects were all digitally done and would need to be completely redone for BluRay but the original film release required no additional work.

[Fiach]

As I understand it, the order for print is master negative for the film (the one that is used to make the master interpositive), the master interpositive (that's used to make the master positive) or the master positive.    As long as one has managed to escape vinegar sydrome, you can probably make a pretty decent print of the film.

 

After that you get workprints (a positive made without an interpositive), video editing screeners, etc. If all else fails, you bung whatever you got into whatever conversion/editing suit you have, do the best you can and put a note before the film letting the audience know that the master is missing and this is the best you can do picture wise.

 

One thing to be careful of, is that there are a number of cases of modern analog to digital film transfers stuffing up "day for night" shots by auto correcting them back to day. Awkward.

 

An example of the analogue vs digital - Paramount rereleased all of the original Star Trek films on BluRay, but they didn't re-release the "Director's cut" of The Motion Picture - because the special effects were all digitally done and would need to be completely redone for BluRay but the original film release required no additional work.

Didn't something like that bugger up the hd release of Buffy, the tried to convert the original 4:3 to 16:9 and messed up the scene structure, plus the original effects were over compensated digitally.