A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Wild Bunch -- in BD & HD (1 Viewer)

[Mike Boone]

King Kong can look as good as it does because, although shot on film, it was completed as a 2k DI. What we see on disc is merely a slight modification down from 2k to HD.

Thanks RAH for your information regarding how the way King Kong was finalized explains something that has always been sort of a mystery to me, namely, why the BD and HD-DVD versions of the film look so outstanding, especially compared to 99% of the other releases that came out in the first year or two of HD discs.


Also, your previous post was fascinating for all of the background info you provided in a number of areas, particularly because I'm a huge fan of the first 2 Godfather films.


And you have really raised my curiosity by your mention of a "new entity" that you said there is talk of being introduced. Though you could not provide details, considering what you'd been discussing just prior to that entity, were you referring to a new type of display technology?

 

[Mike Boone]

It was my expectation to let this entire debate go on without me, but much like in the presidential debates, since I have been intentionally called out, I feel compelled to respond.


However silly or illogical some might find my thinking to be, I think I'll stand by it. After all, it's all I've got!


To use the example of the student who achieves a perfect 800 on the math SAT: in my mind, such testing is a rather arbitrary business (exemplified in the national debate taking place on such topics as Common Core). (I note that the example used is the math SAT as opposed to the writing SAT which has built-in obvious arbitrariness in the essay section.)


As demonstrated in reports HERE and HERE, the landscape of SAT testing is changing year-to-year. Different questions are asked, different subjects are covered. Simply, the tests are not the same.


So can a student take a math SAT one year and score an 800 and can another student score an 800 on a math SAT another year and claim to have taken a more difficult (different) test? Clearly. And while they may each achieved "perfection" in their particular data set, the underlying basis of that perfection has been altered.


And my point earlier was only that the basis of perfection in the HT hobby is about as fluid as it gets. New technology is being introduced daily (it seems at times). So what was perfect in 2007 (in terms of representing a 1969 film in our HTs) might not seem as perfect now when compared to something that has been created using the newer technologies which have been developed on both the producer and consumer ends in 2015. So, there might be achieved an "even greater perfection" than what was available several years ago. And this new version might be eclipsed in another dozen years or so (probably even sooner the rate things are going).


This is all semantics. I make no bones about it. I'm not out to win a stupid debate...I'm just here to defend what seems to be a common-sense thought process as far as I'm concerned. My old flip phone was pretty damn amazing...until I got my first iPhone...and then the next...and then the next. My sensibilities and expectations changed with each version of the technology as it was introduced and consumed by me.


Yes, "perfection" has a dictionary definition. But it is forever stretched (yes, misused) in hyperbolic measure to define a standard which is based on available technologies and understanding.

That's excellent. The way that you explained that with SAT tests varying in difficulty, a perfect 800 on the math section of one SAT, can be a greater, or a lesser achievement, than a perfect 800 on the math section of a different SAT test, IMO, is a perfect example of logical reasoning.

 

[Mike Boone]

To John Sparks:


Thank you very much John, for a little moral support by giving a like to my post. That took some guts since, no doubt, you read post #66 which indicated that at least a dozen of our fellow HTF members did not exactly appreciate my comments. But that's OK. Harry Truman had a point in basically saying that if someone can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. But I'd add one thing to that. No matter what one may believe, or what point he might be trying to make, he must remember to gauge the point at which it is no longer sensible to persist in adding more to that heat.

 

[CraigF]

...were you referring to a new type of display technology?

Maybe with lasers?


I still haven't got the BD of this, been on my "wish list" about as long as any title, I certainly didn't think it would take this long for the title to be given a more "prestigious" (to be polite) release. I guess I hold it in more esteem than people whose opinions matter. [Still making do with the DVD from the SP set...]

 

[RMajidi]

Even Mary Poppins knows better than to throw around the word "perfect" without a modifier in front of it.

Mark, your tongue-in-cheek observation about what may have been at the bottom of this semantic soup seems *practically* perfect in every way.

------------

As to this conversation as a whole, I think that Mr Kimmel's evidently popular assertion that Mike Boone was trying to paint RAH into a corner is incorrect.

If anything, from what I've read here, this all started with Mike defending RAH's original review against a seemingly opposing viewpoint in Mr Kimmel's earlier post: ["...way too brown. Needs to be redone with correct color timing. It's not brain surgery".] The connotation of "not brain surgery" seeming to suggest that the colour is so obviously wrong that no fool could miss it ...and Mr Harris is clearly no fool; quite the opposite. [I don't think for a moment that this unfortunate connotation was what Mr Kimmel meant, btw]

Under pressure from multiple quarters asserting that RAH's opinion of the colour would no doubt have changed over time, Mike offered that the explanation could simply be two differing private prints. This turned out to be exactly right, by RAH's own clarification.

From what I glean of RAH's further comments, the colour of the 2007 Blu-ray was as true to his print then as it would be now. Nevertheless, other characteristics of the Blu could stand improvement with a new scan and post-op. Mike's request for clarification on this further post by RAH seems to have been taken as some sort of veiled attack instead.

Mike, for what it's worth, your respectful manner of expression - even when you're clearly impassioned - does you credit. I wish more folk (both on HTF and in everyday life) would have the strength of character that you display in saying your piece with conviction, but apologising once you recognise you may have been in error, inadvertently shown disrespect or hurt another's feelings.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks RAH for your information regarding how the way King Kong was finalized explains something that has always been sort of a mystery to me, namely, why the BD and HD-DVD versions of the film look so outstanding, especially compared to 99% of the other releases that came out in the first year or two of HD discs.

Also, your previous post was fascinating for all of the background info you provided in a number of areas, particularly because I'm a huge fan of the first 2 Godfather films.

And you have really raised my curiosity by your mention of a "new entity" that you said there is talk of being introduced. Though you could not provide details, considering what you'd been discussing just prior to that entity, were you referring to a new type of display technology?

An inter-corporate hybrid

 

[Mike Boone]

An inter-corporate hybrid

Almost sounds like some sort of monster is being created.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Can something be perfect within limitations? The limitations then may change, rising positively. Then it could be said that a higher level of perfection can be attained. This is happening constantly with technology. With home video you are dealing with reproduction in another format. Without knowing exactly what future developments will come, it could be said that, as a reproduction in another format, The Wild Bunch Blu-ray may have represented perfection at the time, with all those limitations considered, especially since it was compared to a film copy. I bought the first pressing of the BD in '07 and thought it looked great, but as the years went by, and better transfers of films appeared, I thought it had more video look to it in certain instances than some newer transfers of film. I had no reference for color, so I had to assume it was as close as possible. Maybe a more representative phrase for the future could be 'as close to perfect as presently possible'.

 

[haineshisway]

Mark, your tongue-in-cheek observation about what may have been at the bottom of this semantic soup seems *practically* perfect in every way.

------------

As to this conversation as a whole, I think that Mr Kimmel's evidently popular assertion that Mike Boone was trying to paint RAH into a corner is incorrect.

If anything, from what I've read here, this all started with Mike defending RAH's original review against a seemingly opposing viewpoint in Mr Kimmel's earlier post: ["...way too brown. Needs to be redone with correct color timing. It's not brain surgery".] The connotation of "not brain surgery" seeming to suggest that the colour is so obviously wrong that no fool could miss it ...and Mr Harris is clearly no fool; quite the opposite. [I don't think for a moment that this unfortunate connotation was what Mr Kimmel meant, btw]

Under pressure from multiple quarters asserting that RAH's opinion of the colour would no doubt have changed over time, Mike offered that the explanation could simply be two differing private prints. This turned out to be exactly right, by RAH's own clarification.

From what I glean of RAH's further comments, the colour of the 2007 Blu-ray was as true to his print then as it would be now. Nevertheless, other characteristics of the Blu could stand improvement with a new scan and post-op. Mike's request for clarification on this further post by RAH seems to have been taken as some sort of veiled attack instead.

Mike, for what it's worth, your respectful manner of expression - even when you're clearly impassioned - does you credit. I wish more folk (both on HTF and in everyday life) would have the strength of character that you display in saying your piece with conviction, but apologising once you recognise you may have been in error, inadvertently shown disrespect or hurt another's feelings.

You do know that you comment negatively on many, many of my posts. You do know that, right? You do it subtly, you do it blatantly but you do it. I'm trying to understand why.

 

[Mike Boone]

Well, I will no longer comment on the WB, as promised, but am so tired from even thinking about the WB, that any comments I could offer, would be very likely to only devolve into a wild bunch of BS.



Edit: This post is in response to Dr Griffin's post, (#88) and NOT to

post 89 from Bruce.

 

[haineshisway]

Speaking of The Wild Bunch, I own an original script from it - it belonged to Anthony Goldschmidt, who was a PA on the film and I believe assisted Mr. Peckinpah. Many interesting differences between it and the finished film. I do feel the script is a little too brown, however

 

[RMajidi]

You do know that you comment negatively on many, many of my posts. You do know that, right? You do it subtly, you do it blatantly but you do it. I'm trying to understand why.

[The following long post is not remotely connected to the topic here, but I do ask for the moderator's indulgence to allow me to adequately respond to Mr Kimmel's post]

Mr Kimmel, as I've mentioned several times before, I hold your expert opinion as high as anyone's on HTF - in fact when it comes to colour matters, on a par with RAH's.

I have also seen that you can be one of the best writers here. Your recent post in which you walked us through your history with Spartacus was one of the standout highlights on HTF for me. Indeed, if HTF has statistical counters, it would show that I've "Like"d many, many of your posts.

To be clear, my post that you quoted above was in no way intended to be critical of you; I was merely pointing out that I think a misunderstanding of your earlier post probably led to the fork in this discussion.

However, I have on a handful of occasions been vocal about some of your other posts - that is true. Can't think that it was ever subtle, mind you. I thought I had been quite forthright in each instance.

If you were to review any of those critical posts, you would see that on every occasion I was asking the same thing: Why the continuous ridiculing (and simultaneous highlighting) of identifiable - and often explicitly named - reviewers and posters on external forums? The manner has always been derogatory and demeaning in my opinion, so I've spoken out on those occasions, earnestly asking you to stop to consider the value of such postings.

The fact that I personally can't abide back-biting has a lot to do with that. HTF rules are pretty clear-cut in terms of behaviour between members, but less so when it comes to persons external to the forum. In this grey area, I suspect there's not a whole lot of room for moderation; so within the bounds of that same ruleset, and never, ever with any malice, I've posted on those occasions to point out the counterproductive and counterintuitive nature of your attacks on external reviewers.

In defending one of your recent posts, you pointed out that you did not know the reviewer, so clearly it was not personal. The same holds true for me towards you, sir. I don't know you personally, and indeed have every reason to be grateful to you (which I am) for your many contributions both on this forum, and in your professional career.

I'm not crazy otherwise to cross swords with you, so to speak. I know I'm on a hiding to nothing and will get no support from any members here; as I'm sure they hold you, your celebrity, your popularity on HTF and no doubt your personal friendship with HTF-deity, Mr Harris, in such high regard that they would consider my criticism as mere impudence by an irrelevant upstart. Nevertheless, I have been moved on those occasions to speak out as I considered those postings unjust.

Whether intentionally or inadvertently, you have slighted many posters on HTF with dismissive expressions of incredulity and astonishment at their posts [to be clear, I have never been on the receiving end of such]. Please consider the relative imbalance of perceived 'power' in such situations, and that real people with feelings are at the receiving end who are being slighted, embarrassed, mortified and made to feel stupid for daring to express an opinion on a film. Some have had the courage to respond directly, but I've no doubt others would have found it too daunting to do so.

I have also respectfully spoken out in criticism of posts made by other HTF members - again with no personal malice, but hopefully factually and reasonably. I recall only one instance of being bluntly forceful in my criticism, as I took serious exception to the post, which I considered was offensive and insulting to all HTF members (it was on the Alamo thread - I don't recall the identity of that poster).

So please know that my handful of critical posts in your direction are only a reflection of the number of times you've attacked others without provocation (in my opinion, that is).

I tend to be effusive in praise and equally forthright when I feel there's been an injustice ...and I've had plenty of occasion for both concerning your postings.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Well, I will no longer comment on the WB, as promised, but am so tired from even thinking about the WB, that any comments I could offer, would be very likely to only devolve into a wild bunch of BS.



Edit: This post is in response to Dr Griffin's post, (#88) and NOT to

post 89 from Bruce.

I felt that my post was a load of BS, but I could not stop myself.

 

[Mike Boone]

I felt that my post was a load of BS, but I could not stop myself.

Just because someone has the title of Dr, it does not mean he's over serious, or lacks a sense of humor.

 

[Alan Tully]

So, er...that Peckinpah western box set (including of course a remastered Wild Bunch) anytime you like Warner

 

[marshman1138]

In 1080p, nothing beats a well calibrated, high-end Pioneer/Panasonic Plasma Display.... Yet.

 

[Mike Boone]

In 1080p, nothing beats a well calibrated, high-end Pioneer/Panasonic Plasma Display.... Yet.

Certainly the flat panel displays you refer to provide a very high level of performance, but I'd be very interested to know how RAH's observations have revealed to him how today's best 1080p front projector/screen combinations may exceed the performance of those flat panels in certain areas.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's get back on topic please.

 

[Mike Boone]

Let's get back on topic please.

I hear you Robert. But I was simply giving a brief response to a short statement from a fellow HTF member. And besides, as a number of other members have already indicated, hasn't the main topic of this thread already been thoroughly beaten to death, anyway?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I hear you Robert. But I was simply giving a brief response to a short statement from a fellow HTF member. And besides, as a number of other members have already indicated, hasn't the main topic of this thread already been thoroughly beaten to death, anyway?

Again, take it to an appropriate thread. If the main topic of this thread has been beaten to death then let it die.