MovieChat Forums > jasonbourne > Replies
jasonbourne's Replies
I've been to three big shopping malls since the last week in two major cities in California and it appears the people are going out in greater numbers; That seems to be the trend. I didn't go to the cinema, but saw more restaurants with people in them. There were people in the department stores looking and buying. I mean it wasn't back to the way it was before as there are still closed businesses, but it seemed like a welcome trend back up in terms of people getting out of their homes. It was depressing enough with the wildfires on top of the pandemic, but we just got some clear skies in almost a month, so people and my family are going out. Last night I saw the pizza guy at Round Table working past 8 pm making pizzas for curbside delivery. Before I think he was closed around 6 pm.
I just checked and Tenet appears to be the biggest film out and it's reserved seating so may check it out this weekend ;).
Nah. The $200 M or more blockbuster will always be around. It's just temporarily halted due to the pandemic around the world. A producer will always get financing if they have a track record like Christopher Nolan and his new stories, movie making style, and lavish special effects production. This has been the history of cinema. While it's depressing that we have a limited selection of new top cinema, the industry is trying to come back. It isn't just standing still like we've experienced over the summer. That was of time of updating our home cinema library and equipment.
What other black and white films would you want to see in Blu-Ray or 4K UHD?
How about uncut version of ...
https://youtu.be/1hRWS3AJv_A
https://youtu.be/mkTX9rbeu58
With the better definition and sound and the skosh longer peeping, one realizes that Norman probably saw Marion's tits and was sexually aroused. It triggers the viewer's imagination more and adds to the psychiatrist scene when he describes what happened to Norman and Mother because of it.
The 4K UHD Blu-Ray is definitely better in terms of picture resolution and sound. It gives me goosebumps cranking it up with Bernard Hermann sound. However, Hitch used his lower quality tv crew and its equipment so the picture isn't the best from the source. There are better out there even in black and white. The darker look is fine, but may bother you if you like a brighter picture. I think it sets the tone of the movie and may be due to source, i.e. Hitch wanted a dark and dirty look.
While seeing the Blu-Ray streaming version online since I like its lighting better, I found the 60th Anniversary uncut version. It's not 4K, but still has nice resolution at 1080p. I bought it, too, and am watching it now -- https://www.amazon.com/Psycho-Blu-ray-Anthony-Perkins/dp/B08CPLDRQH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=24MFHWV7RPQBZ&dchild=1&keywords=psycho+60th+anniversary+blu+ray&qid=1600410982&sprefix=psycho+60%2Caps%2C318&sr=8-1.
Is the 4K better or the Blu-Ray? I like the Blu-Ray brighter picture, but the 4K isn't bad. It sets a tone and its sound is superior. If you watch a movie a lot, then getting a Blu-Ray disc is the way to go even with 4K UHD upgrade and costs.
+1 in 4K tho.
It's a super hero movie when it's not supposed to be as was the animated Mulan. Chi doesn't turn you into a super hero. It helps you to become the best you can be. Also, it's CGI is mediocre. The fun story and humorous characters of the animated movie are gone to be replaced by a mythical character that of a witch and a supportive Phoenix bird. I don't have a problem with strong women characters, but this one may as well come from Krypton and could fly. It has good battle scenes, but the characters behind them are stereotypes. It doesn't want to insult anyone and that may be its ultimate downfall. The story reads like a fairy tale with the Asian values of adversity, identity, honor and family behind it. These topics are fine in a drama, but not when it seems forced and heavy handed to give the story a happy ending. Furthermore, the ending is open enough to have a sequel. Finally, when did you last pay $29.99 on top of subscription fees to watch a movie at home?
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker :p
I just ordered the Psycho 4K Ultra HD Steelbook from Best Buy, but I wanted the uncut version in it. Yet, I still believe the Blu-Ray version is better. I'm hoping the darkness isn't too bad as in the screen shot comparisons.
I was able to find a trailer in Blu-Ray for the 50th anniversary and it looks simply marvelous -- https://youtu.be/zn7dBPlFkA0
Maybe I'll break down and get it after lol.
>>I've got most of the Psycho DVDs through time(though I'm missing the 4K and waiting on getting the "German" version with those extra shots) and...<<
Holy Alfred Hitchcock!!! The uncut version is here in 4K Ultra HD released 9/8/2020.
This guy is one of the reviewers I follow. He has a link to Best Buy in his description -- https://youtu.be/ZNou2-QzvJE
I just ordered the Psycho 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray from Best Buy. It's supposed to to have the UNCUT original movie in 4K.
>>Someone could lose his or her mind over this sort of stuff!<<
Afterthought. Okay, so IMDB lists the 4K is what was remastered of the original film. I think this is the way, i.e. large digital file, that Hollywood is going to keep Psycho for posterity once the original film deteriorates beyond repair.
Now, this is more like it and I can add to the discussion. Sorry, if I was carried away with the discussion on TS&TW.
Psycho was shot on the cheap and by Hitchcock's tv show crew. Hitchcock wanted the tone of the movie as such. So what kind of camera does he use? Pretty straightforward 35 mm -- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec. This should be pretty basic transfer to the dvd versions. However, notice the additions to the the 2020 ultra 4k remaster. There should be a great difference there in the look as well as the sound and Hitchcock was not involved.
I admit I do like the 4K upgrade of the original Psycho for its high definition, but seeing the darkening in comparison is troublesome. The 4K version (I have a streaming version) does look darker. Yet, it looks widescreen and covers up my 1080p screen on my computer display and has 2160p resolution. If I watched it on projection tv, i.e. blowing up the 2160p image, then it should still look great. I admit the darkness or what I think is more contrast would remain. Was that the way AH wanted to present Psycho? With a darker tone?
Yet, my rule of thumb is that it's an older movie so the 1080p Blu-Ray Psycho should be the choice. I don't think I've seen the Blu-Ray version so am going by the brighter images on your comparison which I like more.
>>Someone could lose his or her mind over this sort of stuff!<<
Sure. But once you know and get used to it, then it should be an easy choice. Even if you don't know or don't care, one can go by what they like.
BTW, before I forget since we discussed VHS. I would think it's better to spend the money to convert one's VHS tapes to dvd and watch your old movies that way unless buying the Blu-Ray.
(Note: I don't think it's worth spending money to see VHS, buying a VHS player, and cables to watch on your HD tv ;).)
>>The "brown" copy of NXNW almost makes Grant's famous silvery suit look brown(which would make it like James Stewart's brown "cop's suit" in Vertigo -- a friend of mine says cops used to wear brown suits almost like a uniform).
I will say that "blue" returns triumphantly to the "brown" copy of North by Northwest during my most favorite of Hitchcock set-pieces: the Mount Rushmore climax. The night blue skies and gray granite of the Presidential heads create that sumptuous "Hitchocck clarity and color" and the great sequence survives.<<
Interesting about Hitchcock's blue period. Did Grant's suit turn brown or was it blue? I guess it was a joke in reference to the changes that happened to the Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray is a restoration, so it may not suit (no pun intended) to your liking, but it should not turn the color of the suit to brown. BTW, you use silvery and silvery-gray, but is it really silver, i.e. light gray, or a medium gray? It seems more of a medium gray to me and not a dark gray in low light. I wouldn't call it a silvery gray. However, it does look blue depending on the light. I could say it was blue in a photo -- https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xGmL8pE4e68/UYtzP3zRxqI/AAAAAAAALyI/l-vfShla8lc/s1600/NorthByNorthwest-Grant.jpg. The color depends on the back lighting and the brightness, contrast, hue, and saturation as well as I suppose the tone of the scene that the director wants to present. I can see it and accept it being a darker color suit in low light, but or the suit turning brown would throw me off and I would complain.
>>I'll put it this way(with make-believe years): its like my 2005 copy of Psycho looks better than my 2015 copy of Psycho.
How so? The "earlier" copy has a bright, crystal clear clarity to every image (particularly those "lit for inside" in gray and white light; like Arbogast in the foyer or Marion in her real estate office; but the LATER DVD somehow darkened the image, all the way through, making a number of shots look(to me) "older" and more shadowy...you couldn't see everything so clearly.
And thus: when I want to look on Psycho on DVD, I play an OLDER copy, with brighter lighting.
Framings are different in some Psycho prints too -- I guess from VHS to DVD, mainly. For instance, I don't think that any DVD print shows that truck in the distance behind Norman when he's at the swamp watchinig ARBOGAST's car. And a "freeze frame study" at some website showed how , when Arbogast falls down the stairs, in some prints, you can see the painting on the wall to his side as he falls past it, but in some prints(cut "tighter on the frame") you can't see that painting at all.<<
I'm not sure why your 2005 looks better than your 2015 copy of Psycho, but maybe you can figure it out by the dvd vs Blu-Ray discussion or looking at who transferred it and how it was done if both are dvds.
Speaking of brightness, it could affect the color as any background lighting change would do it. Directors are used to different lighting conditions and have utmost control, but they may not have control over how a transfer is done in later dvd or Blu-Ray pressings.
>>Frankly, I'm thrilled that B&W seems relatively immune to this sort of tinkering madness. Each gen. of Psycho media has improved resolution (bringing us closer to what a pristine 35mm print would have been like in 1960) but that's about all. Yay.<<
It is incredible to see what has happened in a short period of time, but that's technology for you. I think people are following the battle between the "classic" big directors like Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorcese whom I think favor film, go up against the likes of Lucas and the newer directors who have embraced digital cameras. I was surprised to see how much digital cameras have taken over the market in the last twenty years. There's so much advantage of it over film, especially with cost, that our movie theaters have changed. Tarantino wanted to show what 70 mm film could do so he shot his "film" The Hateful Eight in 2015 using that huge camera. However, he had problems finding theaters set up to present it, so had to limit it to special roadshow cinemas to show how magnificent it is. Think having Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia and limited places to show it. I think today it's IMAX that has captured the majority of the audience with its huge "film" and only the big Hollywood directors would get the budget to shoot it in IMAX as well as 35 mm such as The Dark Knight.
Another area to discuss with film vs digital is frames per second or FPS. Obviously, the younger generation want to see movies at a the faster rate. I'm not sure Hitchcock's Psycho would consider such foolishness. That's why I would go with whatever the latest technology is for the more recent movies. Movies shot before 1980 would do better with the older Blu-Ray technology. BTW, have you noticed how bad the trailer was for Psycho (1960) compared to the film? It's because its audience see it on their 1960 tvs at the time. Maybe it was in 8 mm lol.
SJWs just need something to complain about that goes against mainstream society or those in power and authority. This film had a conclusion of one man and his values and morals that will never fit theirs. I'm not as old as Walt Kowalski, but will be getting there in about ten - fifteen years. I can relate to him and what happened to his neighborhood. I've seen it myself and was fortunate to move to better neighborhood. Today, I may be forced to move from a nice neighborhood because of the mismanagement of liberal governors of the western US states of California (mine), Oregon, and Washington. They believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and nothing will convince them differently. Humankind is to blame for the warming climate we have.
With the hot, dry, environment and lack of rainfall, the uncontrolled growth of trees and forests have set up a perfect situation for wildfires. We had a series of thunderstorms and lightning to set these fires off. Not only that, people who had a gripe against society such as Black Lives Matter have rioted and set off fire bombs. They have taken advantage and set arsonist fires in the dry conditions. Thus, the fires are out of control in all three states. The entire state is burning and the sky cannot be seen nor the clouds. It's just a gray haze and ash in the air day and night. People are beginning to move out of the states as air and water pollution affect their health and well being. What's troubling is the governors will not admit their mismanagement of the forests as the main cause. They just refuse to believe it can be anything but AGW. President Donald Trump will be visiting tomorrow so the federal government can provide emergency funds. He is a great president and needs to be re-elected so our entire USA is not taken over by climate protestors, BLM protestors. and crazy SJWs.
People like to get scared out of their wits when they know they're not in danger. However, they could think and feel like they are after watching such of horror films. Then they just have to talk and get it out of their system. Movie makers just realized they could make money with such stories and films. Also, it had to do with the film code changing to a ratings system. It allowed for movies to show a variety of sexual and violence films and not be confined to the previous code where the antagonist had to be brought to justice. It allowed for more sex and violence and its themes to be shown on the screen. That allowed for more troubling psychological situations.
Friday the 13th was just part of the wave of slasher films of the 70s and it kicked off the 80s. I think the first slasher type horror film was Peeping Tom (1960) and Psycho (1960). Then came The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), Black Christmas (1974), Halloween (1978), and Friday the 13th (1980). The slasher genre is based on being killed by a knife or injured by one. It is one of the most painful experiences and ways of being severely injured or killed. Just having a paper cut or accidentally cutting oneself hurts a lot. That fact and not knowing who the killer is or why he is doing this leaves one vulnerable as it will be a fight to the death either for you or the assailant. Obviously, these films prey on your mind as well as empathizing and feeling what the victim, usually an innocent bystander, is going through.
I told you I have an older projection tv system that probably fits a 16 mm movie screen. That's probably the max size I can get in my family room with its dimensions. If I can get a better projector with higher resolution, then I probably could show a > 16 mm screen picture. Then from there, I have to choose what format to use. My general rule of thumb is Blu-Ray or streaming. If I have both dvd and Blu-Ray version, I would go with Blu-Ray. If I have dvd or streaming, then I'd probably go with streaming unless it's a 1980 movie or earlier. For you and everybody else for that matter, you should just go with what you like, but heavens I won't understand Scandanavian feel or what you bring up that the Blu-Ray format doesn't have. I only bring out the general discussion and what is involved in all the different formats for home up until today. You should be able to use it and come up with an explanation for why the things you discuss in your setup at home disturbs you. Criterion is no slouch of a company and it wants you to be satisfied with your purchase so you should be able to get your money back. I'd be ecstatic to have a Criterion collection of dvds and Blu-Rays for my system at home.
It's too hard to follow your arguments anymore then. All you are doing is arguing your point based on specific movies which I do not have. How can anyone follow what you are disturbed about based on what has happened in filIm in the theater,e.g. we didn't even discusss IMAX, and home media and its technology? You don't even explain what Criterion did with the movie of its transfer to Blu-Ray to get its version compared to the dvd.
I'm not trying to convince you one format or another for home viewing, but much of it is based on one system versus another and finally the medium you choose for your home viewing. How am I suppose to explain something that you believe and disturbs you whatever that is? All I was doing was bringing out the various thinking and factors that has come out over the years. We've all gone through it. If someone still has a VHS player and plays it on a lower res tv from the 70s or 80s, then who am I to argue? That fits. And it fits the medium is the message pov. That experience is something I can't get anymore because of broken equipment. I have a few boxes of vhs stashed away, but don't have the vhs player/recorder or low res tv.
To that person, I can still point out what has gone on from before that time and after. Finally, I was trying to point out that the newer arguments by directors over using Panavision vs digital cameras are moot. It really depends on what one is trying to get across to their audience and that happens in a theater. There's no way I can capture the grandeur of Ben Hur in 70 mm in a 70 mm theater presentation even in the best home theater setup, but I bet one can get an impressive one for it at home with enough money. Even regular folks have home theater now, so there are choices to be made for that.
Okay, let's discuss what the Scandanavian cinema received for TS&TW. If the movie was shot with a digital camera, then it would've received some kind of file that it could put in their digital projector. Otherwise, they received a 35 mm film in those canisters. All you do is describe what you felt from watching it and that is based on the medium you saw it in. What you get from a theater experience is obviously different than watching a dvd or a Criterion Blu-Ray. The theater experience is the best way to see a movie, but we don't always get that. If I was given the choice that you had, then I would go with the Criterion one despite what you state. I want the better and richer color experience on my projection tv. I'm assuming you can get both on your system and have a preference for the dvd. Okay, the medium is supposed to be the message so I think you will go with what you understand and prefer. I mean there will be some psychological feel to it that comes through from the medium you choose and that is what you are discussing. I can't agree nor disagree because I haven't seen either. Thus, I can go by what I know and what medium I prefer. If I knew more about how the film was shot and made, then I may choose differently.
I found that IMDB has the specs on it and it was shot in super 16 mm (documentary look) and blown up to 35 mm. That means there was some cost savings involved there and maybe that's why you like the dvd look. It probably gives the more claustrophobic and documentary look the director was going for. The film doesn't need the extra pixels (grain on film). The extra definition on Blu-Ray and transfer by Criterion may give it a different look and feel.
https://youtu.be/jv7y7TbHlQM
I think if you watch this video, then you'd know what I am talking about. I believe this is right more than following a director who likes film vs a director who likes digital. The medium is what it is.