UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - True Lies -- in 4k UHD (2 Viewers)

[JoshZ]

There is no Star Wars restoration necessary. Sit back. Relax. Breathe deeply.

All is well.

"All is well"? What is that even supposed to mean? In what regard is anything well? With respect, this doesn't address the discussion being had at all.

I beg the moderators a little leniency in allowing a small digression into Star Wars for a moment, as I promise I'll bring this back around to the original topic.

George Lucas did conform the Star Wars OCN to the Special Edition when he created that version of the movie in 1997. This is a documented fact stated in various documentaries about the creation of that cut. Future revisions may have been done in the digital realm, but the OCN as it currently exists is the 1997 SE.

If Lucasfilm also preserved other high quality copies of the original 1977 theatrical cut (and I fully believe they did), neither they nor Disney have any interest in ever releasing it to the public. Not while George Lucas is still breathing. Certainly not while Kathleen Kennedy is in charge of Lucasfilm.

If all copies of it are locked away in a salt mine vault, will my children ever see a proper presentation of the 1977 theatrical cut in their lifetime? Will my grandchildren, or great-grandchildren? Will Disney ever find financial justification to re-release that version?

I do not consider "All is well" an appropriate summary of this situation.

This brings us right back to James Cameron's treatment of True Lies, The Abyss, Aliens, and Titanic (and soon The Terminator). The OCNs for all of these movies, with their original filmic grain structure, may well be archived in perfect condition. But we'll never see them again.

Cameron has put his stamp on these new A.I. enhanced 4K masters as his "Director Approved" definitive editions of the movies, the best and ultimate and only versions he wants anyone to watch again. He's not likely to remaster them again in his lifetime, and Cameron actually has it enforced in his contracts that no one else can remaster his movies without his approval. Even after he dies, what studio would find financial incentive in going against the director's wishes to release a grainier version?

For a few of these titles, we're lucky enough to have fairly decent Blu-ray editions to fall back on. But for True Lies and The Abyss, we're stuck with virtually no alternatives to these new grainless A.I. versions except really ancient non-anamorphic letterbox DVDs.

So, no, I'm sorry, but all is not well at all.

 

[Konstantinos]

So, no, I'm sorry, but all is not well at all.

I'm really confident that now that we saw the Cameron fiasco regarding the home cinema versions of his films, someone or some persons will newly scan original prints and make the definite versions WITH grain, like the "4KXX" Star Wars projects.
It's just a matter of time.

Nevertheless, I have to say it's alarming how many people (reading the other forum too), like these re-imagined versions or find them "watchable".
I hope we're not giving the wrong message to the companies, and the future of film restoration is like this!
If it is, I'm done with it.

 

[Robert Harris]

"All is well"? What is that even supposed to mean? In what regard is anything well? With respect, this doesn't address the discussion being had at all.

I beg the moderators a little leniency in allowing a small digression into Star Wars for a moment, as I promise I'll bring this back around to the original topic.

George Lucas did conform the Star Wars OCN to the Special Edition when he created that version of the movie in 1997. This is a documented fact stated in various documentaries about the creation of that cut. Future revisions may have been done in the digital realm, but the OCN as it currently exists is the 1997 SE.

If Lucasfilm also preserved other high quality copies of the original 1977 theatrical cut (and I fully believe they did), neither they nor Disney have any interest in ever releasing it to the public. Not while George Lucas is still breathing. Certainly not while Kathleen Kennedy is in charge of Lucasfilm.

If all copies of it are locked away in a salt mine vault, will my children ever see a proper presentation of the 1977 theatrical cut in their lifetime? Will my grandchildren, or great-grandchildren? Will Disney ever find financial justification to re-release that version?

I do not consider "All is well" an appropriate summary of this situation.

This brings us right back to James Cameron's treatment of True Lies, The Abyss, Aliens, and Titanic (and soon The Terminator). The OCNs for all of these movies, with their original filmic grain structure, may well be archived in perfect condition. But we'll never see them again.

Cameron has put his stamp on these new A.I. enhanced 4K masters as his "Director Approved" definitive editions of the movies, the best and ultimate and only versions he wants anyone to watch again. He's not likely to remaster them again in his lifetime, and Cameron actually has it enforced in his contracts that no one else can remaster his movies without his approval. Even after he dies, what studio would find financial incentive in going against the director's wishes to release a grainier version?

For a few of these titles, we're lucky enough to have fairly decent Blu-ray editions to fall back on. But for True Lies and The Abyss, we're stuck with virtually no alternatives to these new grainless A.I. versions except really ancient non-anamorphic letterbox DVDs.

So, no, I'm sorry, but all is not well at all.

The answer then is buy Disney.

 

[Worth]

...The original filmmaker, by virtue of newer technologies, has seen fit to update the way that his films are seen only in one specific situation.

Home video...

But it doesn't apply only to home video. The new 'reimaginings' are universal masters for any future television, streaming, disc, and theatrical releases. The only way to see something resembling the original presentations might be if Tarantino has original prints which he'll screen at the New Beverly Cinema.

 

[Robert Harris]

But it doesn't apply only to home video. The new 'reimaginings' are universal masters for any future television, streaming, disc, and theatrical releases. The only way to see something resembling the original presentations might be if Tarantino has original prints which he'll screen at the New Beverly Cinema.

Or any archive. Plenty of original prints out there, including UK dye transfer on Star Wars.

 

[Robert Harris]

The overriding disconnect here seems to be the filmmaker/studio/IP owner releasing what they want vs attending to the fan base.

The unfortunate reality today is probably that for these films to sell in requisite numbers, they must attract the crowd that never saw them via film, and now will probably only purchase/view by streaming.

If I ruled the world, I’d take care of both, with physical discs available in all variants, possibly as a multi-pack.

My favorite travel computer c. 2012-15 was 10” MacBook Air. Great machine that would do everything that I needed, inclusive of connectivity to a 30” monitor and external hard drives.

Apple no longer sees fit to produce those little machines. Closest would be a higher spec’d iPad. And that 10” will neither run current programs nor load the latest OS.

What I’d like is a 2024 M2 or M3 with a 10” screen. Nope. Can’t have it.

 

[JoshZ]

My favorite travel computer c. 2012-15 was 10” MacBook Air. Great machine that would do everything that I needed, inclusive of connectivity to a 30” monitor and external hard drives.

Apple no longer sees fit to produce those little machines. Closest would be a higher spec’d iPad. And that 10” will neither run current programs nor load the latest OS.

What I’d like is a 2024 M2 or M3 with a 10” screen. Nope. Can’t have it.

If an Apple computer product no longer meets your needs, you can buy a comparable product from a competitor that does. That analogy doesn't hold up to this situation. There is (and cannot be due to copyright) any competing 4K edition of Star Wars or True Lies to purchase an an alternative to Disney's offerings. Not legally, anyway.

 

[Robert Harris]

If an Apple computer product no longer meets your needs, you can buy a comparable product from a competitor that does. That analogy doesn't hold up to this situation. There is (and cannot be due to copyright) any competing 4K edition of Star Wars or True Lies to purchase an an alternative to Disney's offerings. Not legally, anyway.

Actually, no other computer will meet my needs as I live within the Apple Multiverse.

 

[Sam Favate]

If I ruled the world, I’d take care of both, with physical discs available in all variants, possibly as a multi-pack.

We've seen this done, and done well. Close Encounters and Blade Runner on blu-ray and Star Trek: The Motion Picture on 4k come to mind. Fans still rave about those editions.

Personally, I'm content with the True Lies we got.

 

[JoshZ]

Actually, no other computer will meet my needs as I live within the Apple Multiverse.

There are treatment clinics you can go to for that addiction. The withdrawal symptoms may cause you some suffering in the short term, but the long term benefits to your health will be innumerable.

 

[sbjork]

Nevertheless, I have to say it's alarming how many people (reading the other forum too), like these re-imagined versions or find them "watchable".
I hope we're not giving the wrong message to the companies, and the future of film restoration is like this!
If it is, I'm done with it.

The only thing that's alarming is the fact that some people are unwilling to accept the fact that other people may have a different opinion than they do. And this kind of statement is coming from one "side" of the issue only. The irony with that more than one person who's unhappy with these discs has said that they're being "attacked" or "dismissed" for their opinions, when the exact opposite is what's really been happening. Nearly everyone who "likes" these versions, or finds them "watchable," agrees that they would have preferred something minus the grain reduction and enhancement. That's been stated over and over again. It's just that preferences aside, they still like the way that the new versions look, and that's a valid opinion. On the other hand, those who do find them watchable are being actively denigrated and dismissed by some of the people who are upset about what was done.

They're even being seen as a threat, which is the implication of your second sentence. But that massively misapprehends the degree of thought that the leadership at the major studios are putting into their home video releases these days. It's isn't just that they don't care about the people who are complaining; they don't care about the people who are happy, either. They don't care about physical media, full stop. If something doesn't sell well, the only message that they'll take from it is that they're right to not care about physical media. If something does sell, they're not going to think that it's because of the minutiae of the restoration details, one way or the other. They're just going to the sales as a blip on the radar that's the exceptions that proves the rule that physical media is a waste of their time. The only message that they might take away is that there might be a tiny market for Eighties action and science fiction, and so they may release a few more of these kinds of titles. But it's going to have zero impact on how any of those future titles are mastered, because they're just not committing that kind of nuanced thinking into the whole matter.

 

[Robert Crawford]

"The only thing that's alarming is the fact that some people are unwilling to accept the fact that other people may have a different opinion than they do. And this kind of statement is coming from one "side" of the issue only. The irony with that more than one person who's unhappy with these discs has said that they're being "attacked" or "dismissed" for their opinions, when the exact opposite is what's really been happening. Nearly everyone who "likes" these versions, or finds them "watchable," agrees that they would have preferred something minus the grain reduction and enhancement. That's been stated over and over again. It's just that preferences aside, they still like the way that the new versions look, and that's a valid opinion. On the other hand, those who do find them watchable are being actively denigrated and dismissed by some of the people who are upset about what was done.

They're even being seen as a threat, which is the implication of your second sentence. But that massively misapprehends the degree of thought that the leadership at the major studios are putting into their home video releases these days. It's isn't just that they don't care about the people who are complaining; they don't care about the people who are happy, either. They don't care about physical media, full stop. If something doesn't sell well, the only message that they'll take from it is that they're right to not care about physical media. If something does sell, they're not going to think that it's because of the minutiae of the restoration details, one way or the other. They're just going to the sales as a blip on the radar that's the exceptions that proves the rule that physical media is a waste of their time. The only message that they might take away is that there might be a tiny market for Eighties action and science fiction, and so they may release a few more of these kinds of titles. But it's going to have zero impact on how any of those future titles are mastered, because they're just not committing that kind of nuanced thinking into the whole matter."

This, especially the comments in bold.

 

[Robert Harris]

There are treatment clinics you can go to for that addiction. The withdrawal symptoms may cause you some suffering in the short term, but the long term benefits to your health will be innumerable.

My reps attempted to find a facility, but failed, inclusive of the new division of Betty Ford. Seems they only treat those still using Windows 10 and AOL.

I spent years attempting to work within the MS systems, had multiple computers, until I discovered the Xerox GUI c. 1981.

Couldn’t be happier with my Studio, and hopeful that the forthcoming new iPads will be closer to laptop power.

As it is I’m able to use my current iPad (now three years old) to open and view files from my RAIDS, via the Mac Studio, which has more than enough bandwidth to do everything I need short of launching missiles, which I was advised against anyway, as it calls for extremely high liability insurance premiums.

 

[sbjork]

They're even being seen as a threat, which is the implication of your second sentence. But that massively misapprehends the degree of thought that the leadership at the major studios are putting into their home video releases these days. It's isn't just that they don't care about the people who are complaining; they don't care about the people who are happy, either. They don't care about physical media, full stop. If something doesn't sell well, the only message that they'll take from it is that they're right to not care about physical media. If something does sell, they're not going to think that it's because of the minutiae of the restoration details, one way or the other. They're just going to the sales as a blip on the radar that's the exceptions that proves the rule that physical media is a waste of their time. The only message that they might take away is that there might be a tiny market for Eighties action and science fiction, and so they may release a few more of these kinds of titles. But it's going to have zero impact on how any of those future titles are mastered, because they're just not committing that kind of nuanced thinking into the whole matter."

This, especially the comments in bold.

The worst part is that I'm actually understating the issue. It isn't just that the studios don't care about physical media; they don't even care about their own catalogues at all. Leadership doesn't have a clue what titles that they already own. And since they've been actively pushing out the people in their home video divisions who did have a clue, the ignorance is running downhill. The Grover Crisps and George Feltensteins of the world are are swimming upstream against the flood of apathy.

When Disney bought Fox, the thought was that they wanted to acquire the catalogue to help feed the content monster of streaming, but that ended up not being the case. Not only haven't they put any effort into releasing Fox catalogue titles on physical media, but they haven't put any real effort into loading it into streaming platforms, either. The whole purchase may have been about nothing more than acquiring IPs like the X-Men for future productions. (Days of Future Productions?) Maybe it helped to clear up a few old hanging legal chads with the Star Wars franchise, too. Regardless, they've clearly displayed zero interest in doing much of anything with the vast catalogue that they acquired. Hell, they're not doing much of anything with their own titles, either.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The worst part is that I'm actually understating the issue. It isn't just that the studios don't care about physical media; they don't even care about their own catalogues at all. Leadership doesn't have a clue what titles that they already own. And since they've been actively pushing out the people in their home video divisions who did have a clue, the ignorance is running downhill. The Grover Crisps and George Feltensteins of the world are are swimming upstream against the flood of apathy.

When Disney bought Fox, the thought was that they wanted to acquire the catalogue to help feed the content monster of streaming, but that ended up not being the case. Not only haven't they put any effort into releasing Fox catalogue titles on physical media, but they haven't put any real effort into loading it into streaming platforms, either. The whole purchase may have been about nothing more than acquiring IPs like the X-Men for future productions. (Days of Future Productions?) Maybe it helped to clear up a few old hanging legal chads with the Star Wars franchise, too. Regardless, they've clearly displayed zero interest in doing much of anything with the vast catalogue that they acquired. Hell, they're not doing much of anything with their own titles, either.

Preach on!

 

[JoshZ]

My reps attempted to find a facility, but failed, inclusive of the new division of Betty Ford. Seems they only treat those still using Windows 10 and AOL.

I spent years attempting to work within the MS systems, had multiple computers, until I discovered the Xerox GUI c. 1981.

Couldn’t be happier with my Studio, and hopeful that the forthcoming new iPads will be closer to laptop power.

As it is I’m able to use my current iPad (now three years old) to open and view files from my RAIDS, via the Mac Studio, which has more than enough bandwidth to do everything I need short of launching missiles, which I was advised against anyway, as it calls for extremely high liability insurance premiums.

I'm not an addict. I can stop any time. I swear it. I swear it. And listen, I'm telling you, this stuff is actually good for me. No, listen, hear me out. Hear me out. Hear me out. It makes my brain, it makes my brain think way faster and clearer. It's true it's true it's true it's true. You don't even know. And I can stop anytime. I can stop anytime. I just, I just, I just... I just need a little taste. I just need a little taste. Just a little little taste of that sweet Apple GUI. Just one hit. Please please please please please please.... Just one little hit!

 

[Robert George]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to weigh in on this because the amount of electrons wasted on this is, well, expected.

So, I've been reading Josh Zyber since the beginning of time. I like him. He's a smart guy who loves this hobby as much as any and I find his comments on these discs completely unsurprising.

At its most basic level, I put movie buyers/watchers in two categories. There are what I call "the purists". These people want to see film presented on video in a form as close to its original presentation as possible. Unfortunately, this ignores the advancements in technology since most older films were made. Technology that would have been unavailable to the filmmakers of the time. Technology that would most certainly have been used it it were available. Surround sound, more precise color grading, and in the case of UHD, much greater dynamic range. Many filmmakers approach these tools as a means to create something that they may consider closer to their original vision, or even an improvement over what was done before.

The other category is what I call the "movie fan". These guys consider any "change" to a film presentation that they consider an enhancement a good thing. A fresh film scan that a director or DP found out they could tweak the color to what they like, remixed soundtrack that brings dated audio closer to modern standards. This and more is embraced by many filmmakers because they think it makes their film better. That is, in fact, the filmmaker's prerogative.

The only choice available to the buyer of the end product (yes, "product") is to buy or not to buy. Of course, anyone can bitch about anything on the internet, or even complain email to the studio itself, although most of the people at a given studio/distributor has little or nothing to say about the choices made in the production of a disc.

As for these new 4K Cameron films, I'm on the side of the movie fan. I also think I understand the thinking behind the decisions made in the production of these transfers. Believe it or not, many of the production houses really do understand the limitations and strengths of video vs. film. They also understand their market and that the vast majority of the TVs these discs will be viewed on are mediocre LCD TVs of modest size. What is wrong with trying to make a film look its best on such a TV? That's rhetorical. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a choice.

James Cameron, like it or not, understands this technology better than most and is not shy about using any tool that he considers an enhancement. I think the choices made in the production of these discs suits the platform they are viewed perfectly, at least within the basic limitations of bringing film to video. Some here will recall that I have been around long enough to have some history with these films. In the case of True Lies, I think my perspective is a little better informed than most as I have owned the D-Theater version as well as a Blu-ray from Europe. I doubt a lot of people have seen these.

I watch on a 83" OLED screen. I assure you, this sort of TV will show whatever is on a given disc, good or bad. That said, based on my rather considerable history with this hobby, I consider the new presentations of The Abyss and Aliens nothing short of spectacular, bordering on something really new. I happen to have seen both The Abyss and Aliens theatrically (I like the extended versions better). I'm not going to pretend my visual memory is that good, I can say without reservation that what I see on my screen when I light these up is just jaw-dropping. I can't stop looking at them.

True Lies a little less so, but compared to what has gone before, still a very satisfying presentation.

I won't even broach the subject of Star Wars.

 

[Robert Harris]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to weigh in on this because the amount of electrons wasted on this is, well, expected.

So, I've been reading Josh Zyber since the beginning of time. I like him. He's a smart guy who loves this hobby as much as any and I find his comments on these discs completely unsurprising.

At its most basic level, I put movie buyers/watchers in two categories. There are what I call "the purists". These people want to see film presented on video in a form as close to its original presentation as possible. Unfortunately, this ignores the advancements in technology since most older films were made. Technology that would have been unavailable to the filmmakers of the time. Technology that would most certainly have been used it it were available. Surround sound, more precise color grading, and in the case of UHD, much greater dynamic range. Many filmmakers approach these tools as a means to create something that they may consider closer to their original vision, or even an improvement over what was done before.

The other category is what I call the "movie fan". These guys consider any "change" to a film presentation that they consider an enhancement a good thing. A fresh film scan that a director or DP found out they could tweak the color to what they like, remixed soundtrack that brings dated audio closer to modern standards. This and more is embraced by many filmmakers because they think it makes their film better. That is, in fact, the filmmaker's prerogative.

The only choice available to the buyer of the end product (yes, "product") is to buy or not to buy. Of course, anyone can bitch about anything on the internet, or even complain email to the studio itself, although most of the people at a given studio/distributor has little or nothing to say about the choices made in the production of a disc.

As for these new 4K Cameron films, I'm on the side of the movie fan. I also think I understand the thinking behind the decisions made in the production of these transfers. Believe it or not, many of the production houses really do understand the limitations and strengths of video vs. film. They also understand their market and that the vast majority of the TVs these discs will be viewed on are mediocre LCD TVs of modest size. What is wrong with trying to make a film look its best on such a TV? That's rhetorical. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a choice.

James Cameron, like it or not, understands this technology better than most and is not shy about using any tool that he considers an enhancement. I think the choices made in the production of these discs suits the platform they are viewed perfectly, at least within the basic limitations of bringing film to video. Some here will recall that I have been around long enough to have some history with these films. In the case of True Lies, I think my perspective is a little better informed than most as I have owned the D-Theater version as well as a Blu-ray from Europe. I doubt a lot of people have seen these.

I watch on a 83" OLED screen. I assure you, this sort of TV will show whatever is on a given disc, good or bad. That said, based on my rather considerable history with this hobby, I consider the new presentations of The Abyss and Aliens nothing short of spectacular, bordering on something really new. I happen to have seen both The Abyss and Aliens theatrically (I like the extended versions better). I'm not going to pretend my visual memory is that good, I can say without reservation that what I see on my screen when I light these up is just jaw-dropping. I can't stop looking at them.

True Lies a little less so, but compared to what has gone before, still a very satisfying presentation.

I won't even broach the subject of Star Wars.

Thanks for chiming in, Robert.

One very important point that you’ve made is the concept of viewing methodology for the masses. I neglected to bring this up.

The way that most civilians are viewing these are via low-end Costco specials, where bigger always outshines quality. And the studios know this.

Those of us viewing via studio or near studio level hardware are akin to a pimple on a protozoa’s butt.

 

[yamato72]

At its most basic level, I put movie buyers/watchers in two categories. There are what I call "the purists".

The other category is what I call the "movie fan".

This is analogous to the Loudness Wars a while back. Beatles recording engineer Geoff Emerick once made the point that the 2009 remasters of the Beatles catalog were made with earbud listening in mind. Since I just got into their catalog in the last decade, and the remasters are what I've listened too, I have no frame of reference for what they "should" sound like.

Back to film on disc, I don't know what the solution is, because the bulk of "movie fans" I would think would be fine with just being able to see the content (consider the size screen most of this stuff is consumed on by the general population - usually while wearing earbuds). So why should the studios make the effort? I'm not saying I like or accept that answer, but I'm guessing that's what they're doing. As has been stated ad nauseam here on HTF, purists may be way too small a market to sway the studios' opinions.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

As has been stated ad nauseam here on HTF, purists may be way too small a market to sway the studios' opinions.

And of course, there are purists, and then, there are purists (as has been discussed a little bit in connection to these releases)... and not all "purists" actually agree on what's actually "pure" enough anyhow... much like in other artforms like classical music, which I previously loosely compared somewhere on one of these threads...

Even if the studios (and/or filmmakers w/ the clout) suddenly decided to care (enough) again(?), which "purists" should they actually listen to?

There will probably always be someone unhappy and wanting to rant... and the studios aren't gonna care much, if at all, about a very small band of ranters vs the silent majority who actually spends $$$ and pay their bills and generate them profits...

_Man_