UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - True Lies -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Saccone]

If you think a micro manager like Cameron didn't have much input into these home video releases, you're kidding yourself. Cameron might not care about what we think of these home video releases, but he wants these home video releases to represent the look of his intentions.

Well stated.

 

[tenia]

Cameron is the original creator and he's giving us the film on home video to his 2024 intentions. No where does it say in our mission statement that the original creator has to present the films on home video as we saw them in a movie theater. It doesn't say as originally intended; a variation of original is only applied to the creator.

It might be an English conjugation lost on me, but as I read it, it doesn't fit a mission statement saying "the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended". It'd fit if it was saying "the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intend(s) at any given moment.", thus indeed opening the possibility of the intention to be revised any day.

But I always read such statement as aiming exactly the opposite of opening the way to revision, but rather as ensuring movies are faithfully preserved/remastered/restored, and not modified over the years because this or that brand new tech is unrolling.

If you think a micro manager like Cameron didn't have much input into these home video releases, you're kidding yourself. Cameron might not care about what we think of these home video releases, but he wants these home video releases to represent the look of his intentions.

There's absolutely no doubt that he's happy with all 4 results. I still do wonder about True Lies, because it clearly stands aside and I wonder if it shouldn't be closer to the other 3 and just suffered from being this project's Guinea pig and not getting a new pass once the process was smoothed out, but that's pretty much it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It might be an English conjugation lost on me, but as I read it, it doesn't fit a mission statement saying "the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended". It'd fit if it was saying "the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intend(s) at any given moment.", thus indeed opening the possibility of the intention to be revised any day.

But I always read such statement as aiming exactly the opposite of opening the way to revision, but rather as ensuring movies are faithfully preserved/remastered/restored, and not modified over the years because this or that brand new tech is unrolling.

Same here. Seems to me the HTF has been about accurate representations of films as intended when released.

I honestly don't get why so many here have bent over backwards to give Cameron a pass on these.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And as for Cameron, as technology changes, so does his opinions, didn't he say back in the laser disc days, that the 4:3 transfer of Aliens was the best way to watch it at home?

I think it was the 1993 "Abyss" SE to which he included the controversial endorsement of its 1.33:1 version over its 2.35:1 presentation.

IIRC, his point was that due to the low resolution of NTSC, 1.33:1 was the way to go, and he obviously felt that he framed the movie in a way that it didn't lose much/anything when seen that way.

TV size was a factor too, I assume, since 27" was "big" back then!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Same here. Seems to me the HTF has been about accurate representations of films as intended when released.

I honestly don't get why so many here have bent over backwards to give Cameron a pass on these.

Yup, that’s it, we’re giving a multi-millionaire filmmaker a pass. Stop it! The wording of our mission statement and interpretation of it doesn’t change anything. Cameron is still going to do as he sees fit despite any of our feelings on the matter. We’re swimming upstream against the flow and that’s the gist of the situation. Most of the buying public doesn’t care if a small group of film purists are having conniptions about the look of these 4K/UHDs.

Stop taking potshots at other posters that don’t express the same level of outrage as you do on the matter. You’re not going to “Bogart” anybody to think like you do and express their anger like you have on this issue.

 

[mi_z]

Yup, that’s it, we’re giving a multi-millionaire filmmaker a pass. Stop it! The wording of our mission statement and interpretation of it doesn’t change anything. Cameron is still going to do as he sees fit despite any of our feelings on the matter. We’re swimming upstream against the flow and that’s the gist of the situation. Most of the buying public doesn’t care if a small group of film purists are having conniptions about the look of these 4K/UHDs.

Stop taking potshots at other posters that don’t express the same level of outrage as you do on the matter. You’re not going to “Bogart” anybody to think like you do and express their anger like you have on this issue.

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.

 

[tenia]

The wording of our mission statement and interpretation of it doesn’t change anything. Cameron is still going to do as he sees fit despite any of our feelings on the matter. We’re swimming upstream against the flow and that’s the gist of the situation. Most of the buying public doesn’t care if a small group of film purists are having conniptions about the look of these 4K/UHDs.

I'm still as bothered as every time before you resorted to such a defeatist approach. So what, every problematic release should be approached positively anyway because pointing out its issues isn't going to change anything anyway ? What good does it do to point out the latest To Catch A Thief's restoration is very problematic because Paramount isn't going to redo it and most of the general audience won't perceive its flaws anyway ?

But does it have to be separated like this ? I don't care that 99% of people don't perceive a flawed encode : if it's flawed, it's flawed and it can be written that it is. It's their problem (or lack thereof) if they aren't trained enough to recognize issues where there are some, and I certainly won't stop feedbacking shortcomings because people who never knew better still don't.

Even more so, isn't a place like here, a dedicated tech-oriented board with tech-knowledgeable members, the perfect place to actually point these out, at least so that its readers access such added value, such hindsight, and have the relevant discussion ? There are plenty of places where one can get superficial philistine feedbacks, but if one can't have a matter-of-fact deeper feedback on a place such as HTF, where are they going to be found ?

As mi_z wrote, it's not because it's too late that it can't be reported. Did we ever get a new To Catch A Thief's restoration ? Nope. Did it stop HTF from discussing and acknowledging the shortcomings and wondering what the heck happens and how such a result could have been greenlit ? Nope.

 

[TravisR]

People can criticize these discs all they want (it's a home video message board so this is the place to discuss it) but I'm mad about enough other stuff in life, I don't feel a need to be angry about this too.

 

[Keith Cobby]

The 4k disc release of Ronin (1998), also filmed in Super 35, shows what could have been (a disc universally acclaimed).

 

[Robert Crawford]

People can criticize these discs all they want (it's a home video message board so this is the place to discuss it) but I'm mad about enough other stuff in life, I don't feel a need to be angry about this too.

I feel the same way especially considering that I’m about to celebrate another birthday later this week to remind myself that I’m on the final three holes of life. I only have so much energy left to expend and I’ll choose when and what I expend it on.

 

[Dennis Gallagher]

Same here. Seems to me the HTF has been about accurate representations of films as intended when released.

I honestly don't get why so many here have bent over backwards to give Cameron a pass on these.

A slippery slope. Many films released on home video now look far better than they did in their original theatrical release. What's our baseline reference point?

 

[tenia]

People can criticize these discs all they want (it's a home video message board so this is the place to discuss it) but I'm mad about enough other stuff in life, I don't feel a need to be angry about this too.

Well, of course there are worst things in the world nowaways and possibly in one's life, but again, should it prevent debatable presentations to be debated ? Not every discussion, even if long and passionate, means people are "angry" about it. I have 17 releases to review at the moment, they keep me plenty busy anyway, but that doesn't change that I simply think what has been performed on those Cameron movies isn't good, that I wish it hasn't, and that buying them would have been a no-brainer. Everything else is just explaining why I think so, and trying to explain this doesn't mean I'm angry. I'm just trying to make my point so that people can at least understand in a precise manner what exactly bothers me (the sharpening, the grain management, the look it gives, the problems created by resorting to AI algorithms, how a proper remaster would have looked instead, the non-exploitation of the HDR and WCG capabilities as markers of how little background new work has actually been done, etc).

 

[Dave Moritz]

True Lies on 4K should finally be delivered 3/27/24! Really looking forward to this upgrading my old DVD!

 

[mi_z]

A slippery slope. Many films released on home video now look far better than they did in their original theatrical release. What's our baseline reference point?

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 was filmed, even if it couldn't be appreciated fully at the time.

 

[Malcolm R]

These are likely the last time these Cameron films will be released to disc. Our choice is to take it or leave it. Cameron is happy with them. Disney isn't going to contradict him and release different versions. I'll be taking it as I don't want a film to look as it did in my small town crackerbox theater back in the 1980's. I'd hope it can look better than what came out of that sad little projector.

What Lucas did to Star Wars vs. what Cameron has done is apples vs. kumquats. Lucas made actual changes to the content and re-edited scenes in the film and has done his best to keep the original versions out of the public's reach. Cameron has left the content of these films intact and just re-aligned the outward presentation in accordance with his desires and to better fit with the advanced capabilities of modern displays vs. 1980's processing and projection.

 

[Robert Harris]

While I’ve not had the time to read through the past several days of this thread, I can at least hopefully explain my perspective toward these films.

I perceive films as fitting into two very distinct categories — pure popcorn entertainment vs art.

While there can be cross-overs, and there are caveats such as some Best Picture winners, those films that fall into the Art category, should remain sacred and untouched as far as their reproduction on disc, which is a lower-end derivative use.

Colors, densities, grain structure, black/white levels should be restrained. For many films gain structure is a major part of the planning and testing process.

My reviews for films in this category will tend to note problems, and especially those that change the intended desires of the filmmakers.

The other side of that coin opens technology for “popcorn” films that were created solely as entertainment to the experimental whims of the filmmakers should they desire to use technology.

Titanic is a beautifully crafted piece of entertainment that is advanced by a more highly resolved image in longer shots. If I were doing the work, the final imagery would have been different from what I’m seeing, but I ain’t the filmmaker.

Aliens, True Lies and Abyss are pure popcorn fodder, and I have zero concern about any changes, updates that Mr. Cameron may desire to make.

The bottom line here is certain films must be untouchable, while others can maneuvered and massaged as necessary, as long as those changes do not arbitrarily destroy the viewing experience. We’ve seen that with the likes of Patton, Gangs of New York, et al.

 

[dpippel]

IMO, whether or not a film is "art" or "popcorn fodder" is a very subjective thing. For example, I find the themes in Aliens regarding motherhood and loss to be quite sublime, and Ripley's character arc (along with Sigourney Weaver's performance) elevates it well above being merely a well done, entertaining action/sci-fi movie. This is one of the reasons it resonates. So who's the final authority? Who gets to decide what's "worthy?" The filmmaker, obviously, but I think that when we stop caring about how a particular movie is presented on home video because someone doesn't consider it "art," well, that is indeed a slippery slope. Wouldn't it be better to simply hold everything to the same standards?

 

[Tino]

didn't he say back in the laser disc days, that the 4:3 transfer of Aliens was the best way to watch it at home?

Only because of the In that time low res format.

 

[Dave H]

While I’ve not had the time to read through the past several days of this thread, I can at least hopefully explain my perspective toward these films.

I perceive films as fitting into two very distinct categories — pure popcorn entertainment vs art.

While there can be cross-overs, and there are caveats such as some Best Picture winners, those films that fall into the Art category, should remain sacred and untouched as far as their reproduction on disc, which is a lower-end derivative use.

Colors, densities, grain structure, black/white levels should be restrained. For many films gain structure is a major part of the planning and testing process.

My reviews for films in this category will tend to note problems, and especially those that change the intended desires of the filmmakers.

The other side of that coin opens technology for “popcorn” films that were created solely as entertainment to the experimental whims of the filmmakers should they desire to use technology.

Titanic is a beautifully crafted piece of entertainment that is advanced by a more highly resolved image in longer shots. If I were doing the work, the final imagery would have been different from what I’m seeing, but I ain’t the filmmaker.

Aliens, True Lies and Abyss are pure popcorn fodder, and I have zero concern about any changes, updates that Mr. Cameron may desire to make.

The bottom line here is certain films must be untouchable, while others can maneuvered and massaged as necessary, as long as those changes do not arbitrarily destroy the viewing experience. We’ve seen that with the likes of Patton, Gangs of New York, et al.

How does the expression go? One man's trash is another's treasure.

But I find Aliens, True Lies, and Abyss far more preferable to watch vs Titanic or Gangs of New York for that matter. But they all should look close enough to film if they are celluloid based. Picking and choosing what is 'deserving' of looking like film and what is not is a dangerous and slippery path IMO. I get the filmmaker intent and right to do whatever they choose, but just sayin'.

 

[mi_z]

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 with TV with what could be called gimmicks with the roadshow-style of filmmaking. It was also the second highest grossing film of 1964. Popular entertainment. With time much of what is old gets more of a "highbrow" status, but what about My Fair Lady is highbrow? It's pretty light viewing and fairly simple. It is a film like Aliens for people with different sensibilities.

What category does Alien fall into? A haunted-house style horror but with obvious commentary on capitalism. That is more than My Fair Lady can say in my view.

As for Titanic, it is very well made, but also half of it is practically an action movie. The other half is a cheesy, badly written, romance and its portrayal of people is so one dimensional so that it can have broad, international appeal. What makes it any different from Avatar? The approach to following history is largely about aesthetics and, besides maybe how the collision happened and the way in which it sunk, is mostly fictional, especially since it focuses on fictional characters.