Search results

I mean it is true, especially things like director's cuts. I can't say what happens in the future, but for now I think if you are releasing something and you don't make (crucially) an original version available, you are doing a disservice to film preservation. Maybe the original cuts of star...

The fundamental difference is one of unique vs not unique. A specific rendition of a classical piece is unique, the underlying sheet music used is the same between them. A specific meal is unique, but can be replicated and altered at will. A non authentic version of some meal doesn't remove the...

There is a technical difference, but I consider both "changing the film." And both make me not want to watch that version. I could see myself watching films with minor changes of the first type. Even if I don't agree with it, I could get over it. The second type affects the entire film and makes...

But it's so arbitrary and extra simply baggage when reading a review. Now you can't take it at face value but you also have to think "is it a high rating because it is a movie for 'entertainment' or because it looks a transfer for a 'prestigious' film?" I really ask, what's the difference? A...

Vehemently disagree. Either all films are art, or they aren't. One person's trash is another person's treasure. I already alluded this by saying that I prefer Aliens to My Fair Lady. My Fair Lady is arguably as much popcorn entertainment as Aliens. It was made in a time where Hollywood competed...

Well we have other 4k releases from films made around the same time, so we can use those as a comparison. We know roughly what True Lies could have looked like. Just because it doesn't look like what it did in theaters doesn't mean it feels inauthentic. If it's what's on the OCN then that's what...

Again, just because he won't change doesn't mean it should get good reviews. Honestly this is trying to have a cake and eat it too. Either the changes are accepted uncondontionally or they don't gey perfect scores. It can't be both.

But there is a third way, which largely shows what the camera captured even if it couldn't be displayed at the time, that looks good, that hundreds of other 4k releases have used, and that would please the vast majority.

I know I was being sarcastic, sorry. My point is he's done the same things to various extents to now 6 of his films, including Avatar which couldn't degrade. Clearly it's his process.

I also don't agree with the food analogy. Every meal is its own thing, and someone can make infinite versions of any recipe, including replicating it or mot. A film is unique and can't really be replicated. So changing a film would be like changing a meal forever and the previous version is gone...

Amazing how unlucky Cameron is that multiple of his extremely popular films had negatives that degraded so badly (even stocks from the 90s that are fairly stable), and his digitally shot film Avatar that also "degraded," so that he had to apply the same techniques on all of them.

Yeah but it sounds like the reviewer had gripes about some of what was done and would prefet a more authentic look. By definition if something would be preferred it's not perfect. A preference means you think it could be better, if it could be better it is not perfect. I get 10/10 doesn't...

I can get if studios don't care about reviews anymore, but surely buyers do? Otherwise there would be no point in reviews. And when you affect buyers you affect sales, which affects the studio bottom line. So even then the 10/10 doesn't make sense when there are so many glaring issues.