Movie

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:10 pm

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... 014-632553

Disney decided between Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, their animation studio, and other properties that they really don't have room and money to spend on Bruckheimer extravaganzas.

"I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with these amazing people at The Walt Disney Studios, many of whom have become my good friends. As we continue to make adventure films, we look forward to returning to films like Black Hawk Down, Enemy of the State, Beverly Hills Cop, and The Rock."
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby Troy Loney on Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:44 am

Saw Sailnger yesterday. It was a pretty cool story, but the documentary was done almost like an unsolved mysteries episode. I probably would suggest it unless you really enjoy his work and would like to learn more about him.

But, it was cool how they revealed all the posthumous stuff that will be released in the next 5 to 10 years. Definitely excited for all the Glass Family stories that were written.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,970
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: Movie

Postby tifosi77 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:51 am

pittsoccer33 wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:
One interesting thing about the newest updates is they've converted the auditorium to stadium seating, and in the process they've lost something like 500 seats.


I think I read this week its still the largest imax in America. they actually dug out the flooring to install the lowest stadium levels.

tif, being a cinema tech guru you might enjoy this


Yeah, they covered up the orchestra pit to make the floor in front of the screen many years ago. They just re-opened that pit to add several more rows of seating.

Hate hate hate HATE digital projection................... the advantages over photochem prints are purely economical. Yes, the 100th viewing of a digital 'print' is no different than the first, which cannot be said about a physical photochem print. But with digital 1) you're starting from a lower baseline of image fidelity, anyway, and 2) the lack of flicker and jitter keeps your brain in a quasi-depressed state that invites vegging out (like television); the flicker/jitter keeps your brain in an alpha state that keeps you engaged. There is no picture advantage for digital.

Digital projection is behind only 3D on my list of cinema pet peeves.

pittsoccer33 wrote:Disney decided... that they really don't have room and money to spend on Bruckheimer extravaganzas.

Between TLR and the acquisition of Lucasfilm, this probably shouldn't be much of a surprise. I mean, I don't want to blame TLR.... but if Disney were leaning this way (as it seems the were in recent months) then a boxoffice turd like TLR certainly doesn't complicate the decision.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,043
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:01 am

My favorite Bruckheimer movies are the ones from the 80s up until about 2000. Beverly Hills Cop 1 and 2, Days of Thunder, Crimson Tide, Bad Boys, The Rock, Con Air, Enemy of the State, Armageddon. Most of those were rated R. The last one of "his" style movies he did with Disney was Deja Vu, which I think kind of bombed. Bad Boys 2 did pretty well at the box office but it cost too much to make.

I hope he has a market for new action thrillers, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:18 am

tifosi77 wrote: 1) you're starting from a lower baseline of image fidelity, anyway


I know in theory once you transfer to digital you are limiting the amount of detail. But I'd counter that saying:

1) LOTS of films are being shot on RED Epic/Scarlet, Sony F65, and others. So they're already peaking out at 4K or whatever resolution was used during filming. (fair argument to that is that most DCPs are only 2K)

2) even things shot on film are likely to be scanned into computers for post work. Not just cgifests like Transformers and Life of Pie. Directors use it for scenes that take place in a rainstorm but all they had to work with that week was bright sunny weather.

Smoking Aces was the first film I saw on a digital projector and I loved how much brighter, cleaner, clearer, and smoother it was. I've sought out digital presentations ever since.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby tifosi77 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:24 pm

Well allow me to retort... ;)

1) The fact that so many films are starting out life as digital images does not trump the argument against digital being lower res. It may mean less generational degradation, but that still means even at 4k the image resolution is still only about equal to 35 mm film, never mind 65 mm, 70 mm or IMAX. (And as you say, 2k projection is still the standard)

2) Transferring things to digital for post work doesn't have an impact on the resolution of the output image. It's not like you put in a 70 mm image and the VFX guys do their magic and then they output that to something like 4k/35 mm. It is still output at full res. The only thing shooting digital does is save time (and money) on digitizing analog/photochem images; it's captured as a digital image.

To me, digital projection looks like I'm watching television. And I don't like it. If I'm not getting a different visual experience at the cinema.... why bother going to the cinema? (The same holds true for audio, of course.)
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,043
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Movie

Postby PensFanInDC on Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:25 pm

I think you need to take this to the science thread. All this technical jargon is harshing my Manborg talk buzz....
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 25,169
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: Movie

Postby eddysnake on Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:29 pm

tifosi77 wrote:I'm spending most of my day tomorrow doing a formula car racing track day thing, and then it's off to the cinema to see Rush (opens in L.A. today)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJqxgR-5Xc


how was the movie?
eddysnake
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,446
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: tool shed

Re: Movie

Postby tifosi77 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:25 pm

Ended up not being able to make it, but some of my friends went and said it was really good.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,043
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:58 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:I think you need to take this to the science thread. All this technical jargon is harshing my Manborg talk buzz....


its just like the debate audiophiles have as to which sounds better, record or cd.

an analog medium can capture a much larger swath of data. so a record (or film) should be able to capture everything that's happening to a large degree. the standard film size thru most of history has been 35mm. film doesn't have a built in resolution like 1080p or 4k (4k being the next high def tv revolution - roughly 4 times more detail than 1080). you can do visual tests to approximate what resolutions different reels of film are and 35mm shows about as much detail as 4k

a digital medium has a limit from the get go as it pertains to file size. that file size will limit the amount of information you can see or hear. so in the process of performing the song or shooting the scene you will lose a lot of the media information from the get go.

those are the technical reasons against digital media. it costs over $1000 to make each print of a movie. ive seen estimates that say $3000. so if a big movie like Iron Man 3 opens on 4,000 screens across the country youre tying up a lot of money just making and shipping large film reels to cinemas. those prints will also wear and fade a bit each time theyre shown. the new digital projectors read a file off a hard drive. you also need less people to work the theater because the entire place is run off a large server. the entire days programming - local ads, trivia, trailers, and the movie are queued up like a party playlist. nobody needs to change reels during the showing.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:18 pm

tifosi77 wrote:2) Transferring things to digital for post work doesn't have an impact on the resolution of the output image. It's not like you put in a 70 mm image and the VFX guys do their magic and then they output that to something like 4k/35 mm. It is still output at full res. The only thing shooting digital does is save time (and money) on digitizing analog/photochem images; it's captured as a digital image.


I had this big long follow up question typed out and while I was looking for a list of movies that used 70mm for effects scenes I found an article that helps make your point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_intermediate

that's not what happened with Star Trek TNG. the actors and sets were shot on 35mm film (which has a really high resolution). the special effects masters were done with the idea it would be shown on ntsc television, which meant lowly 480i.

when it came time to release the show on bluray they could go back to the film and transfer that to digital at 1080p no problem. but the effects were only 480i and would have looked blown up and terrible. that's why it was a big deal for cbs (or paramount, whoever actually owns that now) to spend money to have all new special effects created for the bluray.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby eddysnake on Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:09 pm

and so it's really happening....

Image
eddysnake
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,446
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: tool shed

Re: Movie

Postby Dickie Dunn on Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:10 pm

Wow. They both look really old.
Dickie Dunn
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,377
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:05 am

Re: Movie

Postby meecrofilm on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:00 pm

Look about how I'd expect someone to look with 20 years in between.
meecrofilm
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,586
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Filly don't do rebounds.

Re: Movie

Postby Rylan on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:22 pm

meecrofilm wrote:Look about how I'd expect someone to look with 20 years in between.


And honestly, they do not look too bad.
Rylan
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,071
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:07 am
Location: Dead and Without Love

Re: Movie

Postby canaan on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:24 pm

the coloring on the picture doesnt help the cause.
canaan
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 39,110
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Fritos. On. My. Sub.

Re: Movie

Postby KennyTheKangaroo on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:27 pm

big gulps!
KennyTheKangaroo
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,115
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Under the Skycoaster

Re: Movie

Postby eddysnake on Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:33 pm

Image
eddysnake
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,446
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: tool shed

Re: Movie

Postby nocera on Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:09 pm

Were people really wanting this?
nocera
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,145
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:02 pm

Re: Movie

Postby meecrofilm on Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:17 pm

I would've been fine without a sequel, but I certainly don't mind revisiting those characters again.
meecrofilm
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,586
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Filly don't do rebounds.

Re: Movie

Postby pittsoccer33 on Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:35 pm

theres a cool short film with agent carter on the iron man 3 bluray. most of the marvel universe blurays have these. id really like to cut these films chronologically starting with the ancient thor stuff first then moving to the 1940s, intercutting iron man 1 and hulk, then iron man 2 and thor, the end of captain America, avengers, then iron man 3. id add these short films where they fit in too
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,521
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Movie

Postby shafnutz05 on Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:44 am

How did I not know Cam Neely was in the original film as Seabass? Apparently Milan Lucic is rumored to play his son in the sequel.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 58,043
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: Movie

Postby eddysnake on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:24 am

Iron Man 3 was great, think it jumps to the top of my favorite recent marvel movies. makes you forget about the 2nd.
eddysnake
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 11,446
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm
Location: tool shed

Re: Movie

Postby Idoit40fans on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:26 am

I think it was my least favorite. Still good though.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 53,620
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: I'm sorry you feel that way

Re: Movie

Postby skullman80 on Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:33 am

I thought it was better than the 2nd one easily, but the 1st one is still the best.
skullman80
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,805
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: New Kensington, PA

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gabe and 9 guests


e-mail