Unpopular Movie Opinions

[Beardd]

Lol yeah. M3J, you're truly in the minority there.

[M3J]

Okay. Cool story. Most people would be interested in seeing it as it was intended to be seen. You're in the minority.

and how do you know how it was intended to be seen?

[Beardd]

Who cares. I want it clean and crisp.

[Generations]

 

Okay. Cool story. Most people would be interested in seeing it as it was intended to be seen. You're in the minority.

and how do you know how it was intended to be seen?

 

 

Lol, wut?

 

Because nobody makes a movie and is like "I want this to be viewed through wax paper". And even if they did, that would be one director's choice...not an entire era of film.

[PaperThinWalls]

@Kombatant: Streaming, renting, downloading... it doesn't matter. None of them come close at matching Blu-ray's bitrates. If you're willing to shortchange yourself and settle for compressed image and sound, that's your prerogative. I was merely defending physical discs and why it's worth supporting them.

 

 

With all due respect M3J, you have no clue what you're talking about. Are you telling me that instead of watching the latest BD release of Chaplin's The Kid (which is sourced from a new 4K scan of the original 35mm elements) you would rather watch the old DVD? That's absurd if that's the case. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what remastering or restoring is. When a film is remastered or restored, the objective is to get it to look as close to the reference materials as possible. When it deviates from that, then you have revisionism or incompetency. But not all remasters are revisionist or done incompetently like you seem to think. When a remaster is done accurately and well, you're getting what was intended.

[Senex Beast]

And I was defending digital film versions and why it's worth supporting as an option too. I said I knew discs were the best quality but that digital isn't that far behind.

 

Atrocious is such an over exgeration word for it

[PaperThinWalls]

See, you're misunderstanding me. It's as if you think I said the picture quality was atrocious. Nope. Didn't say that. What I said was COMPRESSION was atrocious. Which it is. It's not an exaggeration. It's noticeable and unpleasant. (Same when it affects sound). Does it ravage the video quality? No, not at all. But it's definitely a blemish. It would take... let's say, a film with 5/5 picture quality and make it 4.5 or (if you have terrible internet) 4.0. If that doesn't bother you, then go and digitally rent or stream that film. But if it does and you're not in a hurry, go to the library and rent the Blu-ray. It'll be cheaper (free), too and you're guarantee to get the extras if there are any.

[M3J]

@Kombatant: Streaming, renting, downloading... it doesn't matter. None of them come close at matching Blu-ray's bitrates. If you're willing to shortchange yourself and settle for compressed image and sound, that's your prerogative. I was merely defending physical discs and why it's worth supporting them.

 

 

With all due respect M3J, you have no clue what you're talking about. Are you telling me that instead of watching the latest BD release of Chaplin's The Kid (which is sourced from a new 4K scan of the original 35mm elements) you would rather watch the old DVD? That's absurd if that's the case. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what remastering or restoring is. When a film is remastered or restored, the objective is to get it to look as close to the reference materials as possible. When it deviates from that, then you have revisionism or incompetency. But not all remasters are revisionist or done incompetently like you seem to think. When a remaster is done accurately and well, you're getting what was intended.

No, I would rather watch how it was shown when it debuted. Like, an 80s or 90s film has its own color tones (or was that due to VHS or something?), and I'd rather watch it in those tones. I doubt it'll make sense unless you've actually noticed the difference or remember how movies used to look like over a decade ago.

 

Though, I do think that visually stunning movies should be shown in as good a quality as possible.

[PaperThinWalls]

M3J, you are seeing it the way it looked when it first premiered! That's the whole point of the restoration/remaster process. You think VHS was able to accurately reproduce the colors seen in the film print? Hell no. The technology was not there. Same with LaserDisc. Same with DVD. The transfer process was just not good enough. Now with the rise of digital scans in the Blu-ray era it is possible to reproduce film's intended look, which includes the colors. Are they always 100% perfect? No. It's an imperfect world and some studios/labels do get it wrong. But don't let the wrongs of a few define the whole. This is why you read reviews and do your own research.

 

All movies should be shown in the best quality. Visually stunning, high-budget, low-budget, Z-grade films, porno. All movies deserve the best treatment.

[Southern Comfort]

Not sure I'd like to see 70s porn in the best quality. 70s porn is better on third or fourth generation vhs transfers so the Caesarian scars and genital warts are less noticeable.

 

How good are the Criterion Collection releases compared to a respective same release's vanilla Blu-Ray?

[PaperThinWalls]

No way. Have you seen the work Vinegar Syndrome has done for these type of films? Their transfers are a thing of beauty. Bare it all, I'd say! No more hiding behind VHS fuzziness. If the Caesarian scars and genital warts are there, then I better see them!

 

If we're comparing them with studios releases, Criterion is almost always superior. The Graduate, Being There, Blood Simple, Dressed to Kill, to name a few, are miles better than their studio counterparts. Whereas Dr. Strangelove or Easy Rider are only marginal improvements.

[Beardd]

Yo I *censored*ing love Vinegar Syndrome.

 

Props for giving them a shout-out Paper.

[M3J]

M3J, you are seeing it the way it looked when it first premiered! That's the whole point of the restoration/remaster process. You think VHS was able to accurately reproduce the colors seen in the film print? Hell no. The technology was not there. Same with LaserDisc. Same with DVD. The transfer process was just not good enough. Now with the rise of digital scans in the Blu-ray era it is possible to reproduce film's intended look, which includes the colors. Are they always 100% perfect? No. It's an imperfect world and some studios/labels do get it wrong. But don't let the wrongs of a few define the whole. This is why you read reviews and do your own research.

 

All movies should be shown in the best quality. Visually stunning, high-budget, low-budget, Z-grade films, porno. All movies deserve the best treatment.

What did they get wrong? I mean, going for the best quality is not wrong at all, I'm just stating what I prefer. You can blame nostalgia, as someone here did, but I prefer how 90s and prior movies look on VHS. But I should confirm what I assume is you seeing my views as ignorant, which it is.

 

Reviews tend to be... odd. I've the Blu-Ray version of The Godfather trilogy, and people don't like how dark it looks, but some reviews said that was normal and how it was shown during its theater run?

[Beardd]

Have I ever told you that you're a strange cat, M3J?

 

Because if I haven't, you're a strange cat bud.

[M3J]

I get that a lot, and I'm proud of it.

 

But yeah, I can understand why Blu-Ray and high quality are preferred. It's just that there was something about how VHS presented movies that's enjoyable to watch, for me.

[PaperThinWalls]

@Respect The Beard: Haha. Nice. You Better Watch Out aka Christmas Evil is one of my most cherished Blu-rays.

 

 

What did they get wrong? I mean, going for the best quality is not wrong at all, I'm just stating what I prefer. You can blame nostalgia, as someone here did, but I prefer how 90s and prior movies look on VHS. But I should confirm what I assume is you seeing my views as ignorant, which it is.

 

Reviews tend to be... odd. I've the Blu-Ray version of The Godfather trilogy, and people don't like how dark it looks, but some reviews said that was normal and how it was shown during its theater run?

Early on digital noise reduction and edge enhancement were big problems but now not so much. Currently it's color grading that is being called into question for some releases. There's a restoration house in particular called L'Immagine Ritrovata who have suspicious practices. Their transfers tend to have a simliar look even though the films they restored have different cinematographers and were released in different decades.

?

Your previous posts didn't sound like you were talking about your preference, though... You kept going on about how remasters stink and how they often fail to capture the film's original look. At one point you said: "I'd rather watch a silent film as how it was shown over a crystal-clear, remastered version." Which to me sounds like you're saying that, in general, silent films aren't meant to be clear and sharp but rather hazy and muddy. But that's totally false. They were shot on 35mm which is higher in resolution than 1080p. If a silent film wanted to be sharp, it could have been.

?

If you prefer the VHS look, it's... whatever. I don't personally get the phenomenon. But so you know -- and if I haven't been clear enough -- what you're watching on your VHS cassette tapes is not accurate to the filmmaker's vision. You can like the look but don't think for a second that's close to what the filmmaker intended. A modern transfer from a high-quality scan of the original film elements is much more accurate and most often the prefer way to see the film aside from getting your hands on a pristine film print.

[M3J]

Note how I kept using "I" or mentioned what I thought/preferred. And I also admitted ignorance. You corrected me, and that black and white films were in much better quality back then than they are now transferred to DVD or VHS. But nonetheless, I still find it enjoyable to watch old movies that has been converted to VHS or at least has that quality, just for the nostalgia.

 

I didn't know it was a phenomenon though? I know I get ridiculed for preferring the lower quality version of the original films. But there's something about watching a grainy version of The Kid, for some reason, even if it was transferred from film reels that have degraded in quality.

 

And honestly, I'm sure I'd agree with you 100% if films transferred to VHS and DVD did retain the quality of the original prints when I saw them. Funnily though, Bollywood movies on VHS are absolute shit quality, though maybe a lot of them could have been pirated? Ha.

[Beardd]

@PaperThinWalls

 

My most cherished from them is "Don't Go in the Woods". Man, the laughs that blu brought me...

[PaperThinWalls]

^ Haven't seen that one. I do like the cover art, though.

 

Note how I kept using "I" or mentioned what I thought/preferred. And I also admitted ignorance. You corrected me, and that black and white films were in much better quality back then than they are now transferred to DVD or VHS. But nonetheless, I still find it enjoyable to watch old movies that has been converted to VHS or at least has that quality, just for the nostalgia.

 

I didn't know it was a phenomenon though? I know I get ridiculed for preferring the lower quality version of the original films. But there's something about watching a grainy version of The Kid, for some reason, even if it was transferred from film reels that have degraded in quality.

 

And honestly, I'm sure I'd agree with you 100% if films transferred to VHS and DVD did retain the quality of the original prints when I saw them. Funnily though, Bollywood movies on VHS are absolute shit quality, though maybe a lot of them could have been pirated? Ha.

Regardless of your use of "I," your statements were still false. But that's neither here nor there... I think we understand each other much better now.

 

For sure. Google VHS collecting, you'll get a lot of results.

 

Retain the quality of the original prints? Do you mean damaged prints? The original prints shouldn't be damaged when they're first created, they should be in good condition. The damage only arises after years of mishandle.

[M3J]

^ Haven't seen that one. I do like the cover art, though.

 

Note how I kept using "I" or mentioned what I thought/preferred. And I also admitted ignorance. You corrected me, and that black and white films were in much better quality back then than they are now transferred to DVD or VHS. But nonetheless, I still find it enjoyable to watch old movies that has been converted to VHS or at least has that quality, just for the nostalgia.

 

I didn't know it was a phenomenon though? I know I get ridiculed for preferring the lower quality version of the original films. But there's something about watching a grainy version of The Kid, for some reason, even if it was transferred from film reels that have degraded in quality.

 

And honestly, I'm sure I'd agree with you 100% if films transferred to VHS and DVD did retain the quality of the original prints when I saw them. Funnily though, Bollywood movies on VHS are absolute shit quality, though maybe a lot of them could have been pirated? Ha.

Regardless of your use of "I," your statements were still false. But that's neither here nor there... I think we understand each other much better now.

 

For sure. Google VHS collecting, you'll get a lot of results.

 

Retain the quality of the original prints? Do you mean damaged prints? The original prints shouldn't be damaged when they're first created, they should be in good condition. The damage only arises after years of mishandle.

 

I mean the original prints when it was first created, when it's actually brand new. I think VHS and DVDs usually transferred from damaged prints, yeah? Or at least, VHS did.

 

Quite aggravating to learn that people back then mishandled prints and not gave a shit. Imagine how many more works of great stars during the silent era we could be seeing!

[PaperThinWalls]

^ Honestly, I'm not sure how much they were able to clean up in the VHS era since I haven't watched a VHS in years. I know they certainly didn't have the advanced restoration technology they have now, though.

 

For DVD, I'd say most transfers were cleaned up.

 

There's so much from the silent era that is lost now. It's unbelievable.

[M3J]

I think they cleaned up decently, but it's definitely nowhere close to what we have onw.

 

Yeah. Can't believe just how disrespectful people were to the screens. Fire, I can understand, but tons of employees mishandled the reels and didn't care. It's just... sad. I've wanted to see that horror film with Lon Chaney, I think London After Midnight?

[Beardd]

I wasn't a fan of Logan Lucky. Hell, I don't even know what I think of it tbh. But I know the 93% RT score and User Reviews thought highly of it...

[Senex Beast]

Jack Nicholson is still my favorite Joker out of every live action version

 

I'm still a Tom Cruise fan

 

Nicholas Cage was a great action star in Con Air and especially Face/Off

[Creepia]

Nicolas Cage was a great actor in general. He then fell into his own type cast just to make money.