MovieChat Forums > jasonbourne > Replies
jasonbourne's Replies
My general rule of thumb is to go with the better technology, but to be careful when deciding whether to get ultra 4K or Blu-Ray. I'm assuming you can afford the technology to upgrade the hardware for player and tv or projection tv. If the movie is digitally shot and uses CGI effects (movie theaters had to put in these new digital projectors (lesser pixels than the film grain!) in addition to their film projectors, then I would go with the ultra 4K. These are the 1980s and later films I think. If it's an older or even newer film using practical effects and higher grain 35 mm or 70 mm film camera, usually shot using different cameras and for special theater exhibitions, i.e. 70 mm screens, then I'd go with Blu-Ray. If you're not sure, then there are reviews that discuss both for a particular film or for a slew of films for which format is better. That's why today I point out what format I watched. I'm usually using Blu-Ray projection tv, dvd projection tv, or compressed 4K streaming at my home. I'm probably getting shortchanged on the new CGI and digitally shot films as I do not have the required players and equipment to play the ultra 4K Blu-Ray. In that case, I settle for the 4K streaming or the Blu-Ray. The color should not be that off to bother you such as in the example you provided. Knock on wood.
I could be wrong, but my general take was home viewing was getting better with the advances in technology for home viewing format from 8 mm film, 16 mm film, and their projectors, and followed by the VHS vs BetaMax breakthrough. We also had improvements in camera and film technologies of the movies from 35 mm film to 70 mm film and their sound systems. The grain improvement was far superior to VHS so that it could not compare in transfer technology. Then we had another stepwise breakthrough with the digital DVD formats. This was the first DVD and then came the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray. I think the color improved each time and we expected it. Fast forward today and we have the ultra 4K vs Blu-Ray and this is where we experienced a change in the color of the film. I forgot to mention streaming with the latest formats so my bad. Before we get to ultra 4K vs Blu-Ray, we have Netflix and other content providers and they offer 4K streaming which could be better if you are watching on a phone, tablet, or even a desktop pc device. If you have a Blu-Ray player in them, then it's better with Blu-Ray, but you are paying much more for the addition of these players and buying or renting the disks. Finally, we get to the ultra 4k vs Blu-Ray argument and here we are comparing the hardware and software that comes with these devices. My rule of thumb is for older moves before 1980s, then the Blu-Ray player and disk is sufficient and likely will have the better color. This is even if your ultra 4K player can handle both. With the newer films and it being shot digitally as well as with CGI effects, then the ultra 4K version is better suited to handle the colors in the film. I think this is what you are complaining about.
With your The Squid and the Whale (2005), obviously the Criterion Blu-Ray is better and the color we prefer. I think the difference is due to the care Criterion takes with its transfers and formats. It follows the rule of better technology means better color, definition, and viewing experience.
I think you're mixing two things and that is advances in transferring a film recording to a home media format such as ultra 4K with that of coloring in films. (Note: Coloring is different from colorization in movies which is done to add color to b&w films.) Coloring depends on background lighting or brightness and contrast as well as hue and saturation. There are also the actual wavelength of colors that can be manipulated by various filters we can put on the camera. There is the difference in sharpness and definition area for a film whether being shot in 35 mm or 70 mm or other film formats. Then the transferring of these films to a home recording format is an entire separate discussion in and of itself -- https://www.avsforum.com/threads/why-is-a-4k-transfer-better-than-transfer-from-the-film-source.2154489/. Finally, one has to consider how they are watching the new ultra 4K Blu-Ray in that they have to have the proper equipment to show it, listen to it, and environment to watch it in -- https://www.quora.com/Do-4K-UltraHD-Blu-rays-really-look-better-than-regular-Blu-rays?share=1.
My actual point is what we think of as the true color may not be true due to the lighting in how the film was shot and whether it was manipulated with filters or not. We have to leave that up to the director and technology they had at the time. With color, I think we want to be as realistic as possible in order to get the fullest experience of what our eyes and brains are capable of. The same in terms of sharpness, definition, resolution, tone, and color balance. That Caravaggio light discussion in his art is fantastic. That said, if I follow what you are saying, then the older format Blu-Ray is better than the Ultra 4K in terms of coloring and I have to agree. While I'd want the better sharpness. definition, sound, etc. of the ultra 4K, I don't want to see it being short changed in the coloring department. One has to practically judge how the ultra 4K was done in comparison to the Blu-Ray. I don't think you should just automatically replace your Blu-Ray just because an ultra 4K version came out.
ETA: With Psycho 1960, I think if one can get the ultra 4K or the best 4K version in the uncut German version and English language to watch on your 4K ultra uhd hdr smart or projection tv in your well laid out family or home theater room, then you are golden.
Without revealing everything, the plot did have a double twist ending. The audience can easily accept Lila Crane being the way she is and wants to know what happened to her. It is mysterious that Norman doesn't just hear his Mother again, but sees her notes. There is a fast dramatic buildup and introduction of characters that could have their own motives for seeing Norman back in a sanitarium again such as Toomey who would have a job and place to stay if it were not for Norman.
Marion would've been traveling from Phoenix, so would probably have come on I-10 (or whatever highway they had back in the day) from Arizona. Fairvale looked more like a small town with court house, civic center, sheriff's office in the flatter part of Southern California, so don't think it was in the hilly and desolate area where you describe. Lancaster is further east. Could it be Universal City which would be where Bates Motel and Universal Studios are and it is on way from I-10?
Your "crime thriller" would be The Godfather franchise. Those are the movies that TDK is battling with TG1 and TG2 just above TDK in fourth place. I think TDK moved ahead of the both when it first came out. I don't think that's being overrated. What's overrated are the LOTR franchise and Forrest Gump even though Gump was very popular when it came out. I can rewatch FG, but not the LOTR franchise -- https://www.imdb.com/chart/top. How could the ring fail Sauron and then the son within the first few minutes?
It was the only way to see it and I saw it a couple of times. Looking back, I wish I saw it a few more times. This was one of the top films for a generation. I'm a skosh older than the producers (The Wachowski Brothers (now sisters ;))), but thought the generation following created the <i>perfect</i> sci-fi film, special effects, action, plot, and new look to a movie.
In terms of ratings, this movie should be rated higher than Forrest Gump, Fight Club, The Lord of Rings trilogy, and Inception.
First, let's get the genre right. You mention crime thriller and it is, but it's not like the norm of crime thrillers when the protagonist and antagonist are wearing a superhero costume and lots of makeup and his own villain costume. It isn't based on a true story. Other elements are there such as gangsters, but usually gangsters do not kill each other during the crime to get more profits.
TDK is bang spot on with its rating because of what I already mentioned and people are comparing it with the other top movies. They can see the other top movies and move the ranking up or down appropriately. Now, where there could be shenanigans, and I agree on this, is when the movie first comes out and fan boys vote more than once for their favorite in order to send it to the top. That is bias and these superhero films based on graphic novels and such are ripe with teenage or less mature fan boys. Anything goes when the movie first comes out and it's a hit. That said, the film is balanced out with the critics opinions and more adult opinions as they come forth. I think TDK has stood the test of time now so that it has <i>adjusted</i> itself to where it belongs. The general public and critics have compared TDK to the other top films and have ranked it accordingly.
It's interesting to talk with someone about films for more than a post or two.
I didn't think you thought negatively of TDK, but thought you thought it was <i>overrated</i> by comparing it to other movies, especially the classics which you mentioned (except for Spirit of God which I am not familiar with). It's difficult to discuss different genres when we are discussing top movies in general then. Based on a comic book/graphic novel/superhero/action movie, TDK was one of the best movies of all time. It transcended its genre based on the plot, characters and personalities being shown, cinematography, sound, special effects, and so on. It "Won 2 Oscars. Another 153 wins & 159 nominations." according to IMDB. That's not overrated. I thought it won over the critics from their reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
I was just saying even if you gave it a '1' because you think TDK is overrated, it still wouldn't change the high position on IMDB. TDK also got a good rating from both critics and the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. They're the two aggregator sites that seem to have the most members or audience. RT has the actual critics who write professionally, so it is another consideration and may have a leg up on IMDB because of it. Thus, RT is another argument for TDK not being "overrated." (Yet, if look at their overall top movies, it is very strange; I don't understand it. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/). Thus, I tend to go with IMDB and this forum seems to go with that, too.
action movie cannot be easily replicated. I think this is why the film trilogy isn't overrated and deserves the high ratings it got on IMDB. Again, you can easily go in and rate it a "1," but the overall high rating still stands. TDK is still in the Top 5 at #4 with a "9!"
I should've brought in that this trilogy was based on a four-issue graphic novel which usually means the subject matter is darker and for mature audiences than the ones in comic books. Anyway, we are discussing a live action film based on it and not animation like those of Hayao Miyazaki. You comparing the trilogy to that kind of threw me for a second.
The Dark Knight certainly rises above its genre and superhero films because of the story, acting, and direction as these films makes us believe a grown man going around town in a costume is more real than a movie. In other words, it suceeds in luring us into the movie and how the villains he faces have such a warped and twisted view of the world. It isn't that they just wear clown masks. Weren't you shocked that they were ready to kill each other per instruction of a man who calls himself Joker? If you thought about it, then you would think most people, including criminals, would not go along with such a dastardly, evil, and outlandish crime, wearing clown masks even, but we find the criminal is very convincing and influential. We discover he is a genius in terms of putting a crime into action and having a payoff of millions of dollars. It isn't easy to rob the top bank in the city of Gotham due to the high security. Yet, we believe it from the beginning of the film.
As for the plot holes you mentioned for TDKR, if they can be explained logically, then it isn't really a plot hole. It may well be, but unless it can't be explained by what happens in the script or plot, then it isn't a real plot hole. Anyway, you don't bring up examples of what you are referring to so my answer should be sufficient.
Furthermore, TDN had a main character of Batman's girl friend get killed. Just the sub plot unfolding on the screen draws us in and then we, the audience, and the hero (albeit super hero) has to deal with the aftermath. This kind of story, acting, action, and how it is presented on the screen as a live
Clearly, it is The Dark Knight with its edgy plot, direction, acting, and so on. Just look at the awards it has won. That's not to say Batman (1989) wasn't any good, but it didn't have enough in the overall scheme of things.
Just because the films are based on a comic story and not a novel and includes its action and superhero beings does not make it a lesser film. The other elements of what are found in a top film still have to be present. These films also incorporates the latest technology of the day.
You sound like someone who is incapable of judging the best films because of <i>preconceived</i> bias. One can argue how the top films on IMDB got its ratings which we present here, but it should be based on the film itself and not any preconceived prejudices. Even then, the ones with more biases than others can still vote. Are you going to lower your vote to the lowest rating just to feed your preconceived bias? Even if you do, somehow the high ratings still stand haha.
I think we as the audience were all for Marion at that point. It sounded like from her conversation with Norman that she was going to return the money. As for the money, I'm not disagreeing, but couldn't she have just returned the money or deposited the money in the bank on Monday? She had no idea of Arbogast following her. It was like she changed her mind. IOW, she didn't think about turning herself into the police but giving back the money. She had to come up with $700 though. Probably she though she would lose her job, but not go to jail. That said, we don't know what Tom Cassidy would do. He had already hired Arbogast and thought the money stolen.
You missed a good movie. The rating as the highest rated movie on IMDB is well deserved. I think it's downgraded as a great movie because of its topic. People wouldn't generally be interested in a prison film with no female lead except on a poster. Also, it's based on a novel by Stephen King but not a horror movie. For the top rated movies, we get more interesting films and subjects so we perceive it as not significant. I used to think the Godfather was clearly better, but after repeated watchings of The Shawshank Redemption, I have given it a higher ranking into my top 10. It's #6 ahead of Pulp Fiction and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but they're interchangeable in the 6-8 slots I think.
>>Well, Maloney was a pretty violent guy, I guess. He showed a switchblade knife to Adamson; we get the feeling he's used it before, and he was READY to use it on George and Blanche. (When he tried to get Blanche and George in the car, I wonder if he planned to somehow "knife them." Or if he had a gun. Hitch leaves that question open.)
Ernest Lehman, who wrote North by Northwest(an original screenplay) for Hitchcock, also wrote the lesser Family Plot(both men were a lot older by then) from a novel(The Rainbird Pattern) but Lehman invited some new characters for the "American transplant" of the British novel. One character he added was Maloney -- who "connects" the two stories early for suspense by reporting to Adamson about George asking questions.
Said Lehman in a seminar(that I attended personally): "I wanted for once to write a Hitchcock villain who was a lowlife -- rough and brutal and criminal -- that's Joe Maloney."<<
That's interesting about Maloney. He's more subdued in Family Plot, but I suppose he could play a darker, meaner character. You're right in that he could've stabbed Blanche and George had they accepted a ride, but they were aware.
>>I suppose -- not unlike the more classic Psycho -- that Family Plot allows us to IMAGINE both the past(Eddie's childhood) AND the future(how a kidnapper/killer might or might not get to enjoy his inheritance.)
One things for sure: in his garage when Blanche gives him the good news...the irony is magnificent. And pure, pure Hitchcock.<<
I think you are right in that it's Hitchcock to make us use our imagination and play the what if game when discussing the movie afterward. Blanche and George would not want the police to get involved as George finds some dead people and Maloney tried to kill them.
Mrs. Maloney would be the only one who's a loose end, but she wants to avoid anything to link her being an accessory. Besides, she can't testify against her husband so I think she's safe.
I agree Blanche gives him the good news, but it's too much to digest and Adamson already wants both dead since Blanche knows about the bishop, so he did what he had to do.
I think that's what finally turned Blanche and George against Arthur and Fran. They would be killed if they didn't put a stop to both.
It's a pretty good movie to discuss afterward as it was made a light, fun movie despite having murder and kidnapping involved and two couples involved in criminal activity and out for money.
>>There isn't really time FOR Adamson to consider what to do ...he's stunned by the irony that all this time he's been kidnapping people to get rich...he's been rich all along.
Indeed - and the audience follows this -- if the bishop had NOT fallen out of the car, Adamson would have likely met with Blanche and Julia Rainbird to accept his inheritance -- figuring no one would KNOW he's the kidnapper.
But, alas, the bishop falls out of the car(when Fran opens the door slightly ) and...that's the end of that.
--
Or is it? As KIDNAPPERS, Adamson and Fran didn't kill anyone, so perhaps Adamson would still be entitled to the inheritance when he completed his jail time -- say, 20 years.
BUT, as you note, the authorities might do some digging about the death of the Shoebridges -- Mrs. Maloney might know -- and then Adamson/Shoebridge would be looking at a much longer sentence, and a much longer wait for that money. (Heck, Mrs. Rainbird might even REVOKE the inheritance, it was her money And she might revoke it just over the kidnappings.)<<
I thought Maloney would be the one who killed the parents. Yes, Mrs. Maloney probably knows and would be another loose end had Adamson gone for the inheritance. But you're right that I didn't think it through. If Adamson was caught, then it may be as you said. However, we don't have the code anymore, but the ratings system; PG for Family Plot. Thus, Adamson and Fran didn't have to be caught.
It sure was a coincidence that the bishop that Blanche and George were looking for was the same one kidnapped by Arthur and Fran. Usually with bad people, there are no coincidences but Arthur is not tying up loose ends. He was just looking for the jewel payoff. Blake and George were still looking for the heir and still hadn't connected Adamson with Maloney.
Neither would want the police to become involved if Adamson agreed to his inheritance. I think the movie alludes to it. Blanche has skipped past the Shoebridge's parents death. So even if Blanche saw the bishop, then she wouldn't have said anything like what are you doing? She didn't know anything about a reward.
>>The next time you watch the movie, turn the volume up during that scene and watch in HD. It's an incredible scene that cannot be replicated or replaced with a substitute.
---
Nope, and hey -- the Gus Van Sant shower murder just didn't seem able to "pump up the volume" on the music during ITS shower scene. Much quieter -- unless maybe some major home sound system could improve it. The music is even LOUDER when Arbogast gets it. Faster, and "angrier" , too.<<
You didn't get the impression that it could've been a sex scene with Marion's (Janet Leigh's) moaning and groaning? Mother is killing Marion for having sex with Norman in her mind. If you crank the volume up and watch in 4K, then some of it comes through during the initial penetrations. It changes right away to a bloody and gorier bathtub scene and we're shook into reality of a shower murder.
With Van Sant's it may have been straight violence and the color adds to the effect. I don't get that with his version.
What is legal history? To you, it is the lies of the MSM? How else can anyone be so screwed up in their brain about what happened? The real legal history is on twitter and the videos that were captured.
There were no innocent terrorists as they were the ones who attacked first. That's what terrorists do. Kyle was smart enough to have an AR-15 and run away when threatened. The rifle for self defense and to take defensive action. This shows his terrorist attackers weren't as smart to attack with skateboard, from behind, and pistol. The legal history shows that all three terrorists had criminal records.
It will be a great day when Kyle is found innocent and walks out to great cheer and ovation for standing up to the domestic liberal terrorists. Antifa and BLM are now terrorist groups against the USA and must be stopped.