Jump to content

Anyone here succumbed to 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray?


1977

Do you own or plan to acquire a UHD Blu-ray capable home cinema system?  

96 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you own or plan to acquire a UHD Blu-ray capable home cinema system?

    • Yes, I do
    • No, 1080p Blu-ray is good enough.
    • No, I'll miss my 3D Blu-ray too much.
    • No, I've only got 720p capability and it looks mighty fine.
    • No, DVD rulez!
    • No, I'm still rocking a Laserdisc player!
    • No, VHS will return (just look at vinyl)!
    • What's UHD Blu-ray?


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, AC1 said:

A lot of the effects aren't even CGI. Nolan doesn't like to overuse it.

 

Sure, but there's still more of it than people think.

 

Nolan averages about 300 VFX shots per movie: not a lot by contemporary big spectacle movie standards, but hardly an "all analog" production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Sure, but there's still more of it than people think.

 

 

Oh, sure, there are still plenty of SFX shots but not as much CGI shots as people think. Nolan preferred to rely on the old ways.

 

 

Here:

 

Quote

“Batman Begins is essentially a non-effects movie, although it does have almost 600 effects shots. Our idea was to use real plates, real camera moves, real locations and massive sets, and keep the blue- and greenscreen work to a minimum to give Wally Pfister [ASC] lots of freedom to light and set the shots up the way Chris wanted. - Dan Glass, visual-effects supervisor for BB.  

 

 

Of course, Crocs could have told you this too, but he has abandoned 'The Church of Nolan' to become a Marvelist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Corellian2019 said:

Kino Lorber announced that they will release Silence of the Lambs on 4K in October. I guess it wasn't part of the 4K titles that Criterion is working on

Is Criterion making the jump to 4K? They’re no longer the premier archival label and I’ve largely stopped investing in their releases. They do these 4K restorations, but then don’t release them on 4K…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Is Criterion making the jump to 4K? They’re no longer the premier archival label and I’ve largely stopped investing in their releases. They do these 4K restorations, but then don’t release them on 4K…

 

Yep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2021 at 6:34 PM, Koray Savas said:

Is Criterion making the jump to 4K? They’re no longer the premier archival label and I’ve largely stopped investing in their releases. They do these 4K restorations, but then don’t release them on 4K…

Oh my I suddenly got the vapors, I may faint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

50th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition of A Clockwork Orange:

 

aco_uce_4k-jpg.1547478

 

aco_uce_4k-contents-jpg.1547479

 

 

Been waiting for this. Cheers, babes! 

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't. Its all about the extras 

 

Nobody is upgrading extras to 4 6 or 8k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a Polish retailer listing the forthcoming "Middle-earth Ultimate Collector's Edition" The retailer is legit, whether the image is legit, and why the accompanying description is in (oddly worded) English, I cannot say. No one else to my knowledge is reporting an October release date. Probably fake, but well, there it is.

 

big_187459168-500545017861243-7778989746057402204-n.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty nice looking set, if it's real.  The "key selling points" language seems like something meant for internal retailer use

 

I like that they make the spines look like book volumes. The Roman numerals would seem consistent with the fact that Jackson now wants us to think of this as one six-film saga, rather than two connected trilogies. 

 

Still, the potentially most interesting information, i.e. what the new extras will be, remains a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the collage. If you look closer at the top left image, they seem to be paired into double boxes, 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 and extras (?), which makes absolutely no sense. (Yes, Chen, that is a challenge for you to come up with some blabber about why it'd actually make perfect sense ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Holko said:

I don't like the collage. If you look closer at the top left image, they seem to be paired into double boxes, 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 and extras (?), which makes absolutely no sense.

 

Yeah I see what you mean. It almost looks like two boxes that would be shrink-wrapped together, which as you said makes no sense.  But I do think the spines look cool.

 

5 minutes ago, Holko said:

MGM.

 

If it's indeed fake, that's a nice touch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rough cut said:

Also, seems a chore to change disc in the middle of the program.

 

I love that!

 

Like an old-school intermission! They're actually very intelligently-placed intermissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Like an old-school intermission! They're actually very intelligently-placed intermissions.

 

It is, and they (mostly) are. But it's being done for quality, not artistic or pacing reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But it's being done for quality, not artistic or pacing reasons.

 

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying, its a beneficial side-effect. I like it a lot.

 

I actually think An Unexpected Journey would benefit a lot from a similar intermission: it has one (also quite well-placed) on the 3D Blu-ray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Holko said:

Not all of them. I certainly would've put the RotK one after "We fight.", not after the siege already went on for 10 minutes.

 

This whole sequence is one of the few (and perhaps only) instances where the Theatrical Edition is better than the Extended. That second "this army" gag with the Army of the Dead coming out of nowhere at Pellanor should have stayed on the cutting room floor. It worked the first time as a surprise when they board the pirate ship, but falls flat the second time at Pellanor.

 

And the EE almost messes the gag up entirely the first time they use it with the pirates by extending the scene past Aragon's "what say you" to include the ridiculous mountain of falling skulls and "we fight". Once the undead agree to fight for him, the punchline to the reveal is undermined. I understand this is only an issue in the EE, but to me everything past "what say you" was unnecessary and ruins the drama of the sequence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really really glad we got a kickass rounded CR track with a satisfying finale out of it! ...but yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, the intermission in the extended edition does still work in the way that intermissions often did in the 1960s, which is to end "part one" on a cliffhanger of some sort: in this case, that of the approaching Grond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I like intermissions, especially in epic films. Makes a film feel like one of the old Hollywood historical epics. The phenomenal Kingdom of Heaven roadshow version has an intermission, and I think there might be an intermission in one of the many versions of Oliver Stone's Alexander as well. I actually wish they'd do that with Braveheart and Gladiator. 

 

That said, they just don't make the kind of films these days that call for an intermission, which is a pity because the historical epic is my favourite genre, but sadly it's all but dead.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The phenomenal Kingdom of Heaven roadshow version has an intermission

 

It does, and it really needs that intermission, too. The latest reissue of the director's cut is the same but without the intermission, and the pacing kinda suffers for it - the movie needs that breather.

 

I don't think Braveheart needed an intermission, though. That film MOVES. Then again, Horner's "For the Love of a Princess" would make a great entr'acte cue.

 

Gladiator could use an intermission, as could Titanic, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

It does, and it really needs that intermission, too. The latest reissue of the director's cut is the same but without the intermission, and the pacing kinda suffers for it - the movie needs that breather.

 

I don't think Braveheart needed an intermission, though. That film MOVES. Then again, Horner's "For the Love of a Princess" would make a great entr'acte cue.

 

Gladiator could use an intermission, as could Titanic, actually.

 

I stayed at a friend's cabin in Vermont a few years ago, and it was full of old videotapes, including Titanic and Braveheart, neither of which I'd ever seen on VHS. Both films were split over two tapes, so like the LOTR's EE's, both had a default "intermission". I can't recall where it occurred in either film, but at the time I remember thinking it worked and that the breaks seemed intelligently placed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Still, it's a film that's very clearly separated into two parts.

 

I think sometimes it can be powerful to forgoe an intermission: The Godfather originally had an intermission after the murder of Sollozzo - you can still hear the music building towards the intermission cue there, and clearly the newspaper montage afterwards is to get you back into the film - but the executives said they didn't want to "let the audience off of the hook." For another example, look at Das Rheingold or Der Fliegende Hollander.

 

I think the same could be said for any number of possible knee-points in Braveheart: be it right after Murron's funeral (when the film goes from a personal revenge story to an epic) or after the battle of Stirling (where it switches into more of a Machiavelian thriller). You could still make an intermission work, but in the case of that particular movie and the way if flows, I don't think you should.

 

It could have an overture, though: I recently got the see it with the Fox fanfare, and the way they incorporate Horner's opening cue into that version is to have it play over black, which has the effect (if not the function) of an overture. I still prefer it with the Paramount logo, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after a little bit of checking, apparently the Titanic VHS break comes just after Bernard Hill grimly informs the head of the shipping company, “Well, I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay.”

 

The Braveheart break comes just after Longshanks says "Whom shall I send?". 

 

Thinking about it, IMO both work really well, and in both instances marks a shift in the tone of each film. And given their proclivities, I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron & Gibson decided personally where the break would occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nick1Ø66 said:

So after a little bit of checking, apparently the Titanic VHS break comes just after Bernard Hill grimly informs the head of the shipping company, “Well, I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay.”

 

Same as on the DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

So after a little bit of checking, apparently the Titanic VHS break comes just after Bernard Hill grimly informs the head of the shipping company, “Well, I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay.”

 

That's a very good spot for an intermission!

 

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The Braveheart break comes just after Longshanks says "Whom shall I send?". 

 

Not a bad spot, but I like that its a straight cut: when I first watched it and it cut to Wallace awakening at night, I thought Longshanks had sent an assasin, which really put a fire under the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I know my Titanic DVD well. Even with the PAL speedup and shit I'm not upgrading from my 4 disc set until we get a release in the theatrical aspect ratio without the blanket tint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Not a bad spot, but I like that its a straight cut: when I watched it and it cut to Wallace awaking at night, I thought Longshanks had sent an assasin, which really put a fire under the scene.

 

Hmmm. I think the opposite. And intermission might suggest the passage of time, which would increase the jeopardy of the scene in that Wallace might really be awakening to an assassin.

 

The more I think about, the more it's a good spot. Up until then, Wallace is very much "winning" and his rebellion is building and increasingly successful. The English are on the run. Then the film takes a brief pause, after which comes the betrayal & defeat at Falkirk, and the whole tone and momentum of the movie changes. I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do think they need to reinstate into the film was something that was in the script and some trailers and which appeared in the film when it aired on US television, which is Wallace's command to his troops besieging York to "spare the women, the children and the priests, to all else - no mercy."

 

It would have added a lot of complexity to the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at her grave: when she is captured by the English. Here's a recording of it off of the airing, so its legit:

 

 

This is an insigificant addition, but the one in York I think would have added a lot of complexity to the film. People like to deride the simplicity of the characterization in the film, and yet Wallace does shocking things that action heroes don't typically do: when he captures this English Lord, he just slits his throat. Another action movie would have plotted it in such a way that he would have killed him in the heat of battle - that's even in the case in Apocalypto; and of course, later on, he would burn a bunch of English assasins alive where he could have just turned on his heel, or not show up at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not really morally ambigious, just a bit more complicated.

 

Wallace is the good guy of the movie; its just that he's from the 13th century: he's not going to capture the English magistrate and conduct a trial and so forth to determine his punishment. He's more raw than that.

 

I don't think people give the film enough credit for this: it happens a lot, and it can be quite shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Gibson has said his original cut was almost four hours, which I'd love to see.  Too much to expect under the best of circumstances, I suppose, and doubly so given Gibson's apparent ongoing pariah status in Hollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm too in-love with the current edit, but if there's one thing they did shoot that probably could be inserted back is a scene between the princess and prince Edward which made him a little bit more than the foppish moron he comes across as in the final cut.

 

If you compare the film to the script, its actually a masterclass at how you can reinvent a film through editing. That scene that Isabella is told of in the film of Wallace carrying Murron's body to a secret burial place? That was originally going to be shown. It was where Stephen would have proven his loyalty to Wallace by helping them evade a bunch of hounds that the English set loose on them. They would piece together that the piece of cloth we see Fordrer give Wallace is actually scented so as to attract the dogs. It was a complicated night-time scene and shooting with dogs proved to be incredibly difficult, and they cut it out. David O'Hara went to Gibson and told him they need to do something, so they came up with the scene of Wallace hunting a deer and interuptted by Fordrer and Stephen; and then had the trap scene narrated to the princess, which not only works to set-up her fascination with Wallace but also helps give his deeds the air of a legend, as well as saving a ton of screentime at a part of the film that was sagging slightly in earlier cuts: in fact, its only one of several bits of  footage including the (glorious) "mountain-skiing" shot that was moved from before the Battle of Stirling to after the Battle of Falkirk: instead of the build-up to the first big setpiece, its all part of the stagnation after the first big downfall.

 

Now that's filmmaking! Still, the 225-minute rough cut you speak of reportedly went so well with studio executives that they just said: "This is a great movie" (damn straight!) and gave them license to do whatever they wanted in terms of onscreen violence or screentime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.