UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - True Lies -- in 4k UHD (5 Viewers)

[Robert Crawford]

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.

I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with RAH's explanation. To a certain degree, I don't agree with it. However, that's his stated logic whether we like it or not.

 

[SD_Brian]

But isn't this just what George Lucas did with the special editions of Star Wars OT? I don't remember much praise for those changes, him doing in -97 what he wanted to but couldn't in -77.

The big difference is that George Lucas changed the content of the Star Wars OT, replacing effects shots, changing dialogue, plot points, actors, color timing, etc.

Aside from a few cosmetic fixes here and there (fixing the visible hole in the floor around Bishop at the end of Aliens, for example), Cameron has essentially left the films as they were (wonky miniature shots at the end of The Abyss and all), but utilized a process for video mastering that some people find unappealing.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

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.

Now, this is where we must agree to disagree. With all due respect, of course.
I feel just as strongly for popcorn movies as I do for art movies, and I have lots of both on my shelves. Popcorn movies are also works of art, and should be treated as such.
Just as a Mona Lisa, a Lichtenstein or a Haring should, and are.

 

[OliverK]

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'.

Very true!
I have no interest in telling other people or myself which movie deserves to be treated with respect for their original look and which ones can be treated as a digital playground because they are either not worthy or because their director happens to have other ideas how they should look today.

They should all fall in the first category and if changes are made then please for a new release offer both versions and not only the playground version.

 

[mi_z]

I'm sure there are plenty of people that disagree with RAH's explanation. To a certain degree, I don't agree with it. However, that's his stated logic whether we like it or not.

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?"

The big difference is that George Lucas changed the content of the Star Wars OT, replacing effects shots, changing dialogue, plot points, actors, color timing, etc.

Aside from a few cosmetic fixes here and there (fixing the visible hole in the floor around Bishop at the end of Aliens, for example), Cameron has essentially left the films as they were (wonky miniature shots at the end of The Abyss and all), but utilized a process for video mastering that some people find unappealing.

I really ask, what's the difference? A lot of the changes both have made are about how things look, whether that be replacing things in the shots or aggressively changing the appearance of the overall image. You mention colour timing. I could equally argue that goes into the "Cameron changes" category, especially since he has also altered the colour timing to some quite significantly compared to previous releases (which I am not claiming are reference). In the end, I don't know which one I dislike more. I won't watch these like I don't watch the special editions of star wars.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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?"

You can always disregard RAH's review. That is your prerogative.

 

[SD_Brian]

I really ask, what's the difference? A lot of the changes both have made are about how things look, whether that be replacing things in the shots or aggressively changing the appearance of the overall image. You mention colour timing. I could equally argue that goes into the "Cameron changes" category, especially since he has also altered the colour timing to some quite significantly compared to previous releases (which I am not claiming are reference). In the end, I don't know which one I dislike more. I won't watch these like I don't watch the special editions of star wars.

Forget I said "color timing" and focus on what I said about changes to dialogue, plot points and actors. If you can't see that there's a difference, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JoshZ]

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!

Only because of the In that time low res format.

James Cameron has always had complicated and conflicting feelings about aspect ratio and has never liked letterboxing on home video. Back in the day, he often blamed TV size or the low resolution of NTSC. Later he'd make excuses that the 3D versions of his movies had to be open-matte because... I don't know, reasons.

And yet he still fully opened the mattes on both of his Avatar movies (the first to 16:9 and the second to 1.90:1, exposing everything on the camera sensors, respectively) even in high-res 4K and 2D.

Honestly, I'm pretty surprised that these 4K remasters of True Lies and The Abyss aren't open-matte 16:9. That would have been fully on-brand for Cameron.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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.

What "potshots"? I said I don't get why so many are rationalizing the modifications made to these releases - and I don't, not on the HTF.

That's not vaguely a "potshot".

 

[Robert Crawford]

What "potshots"? I said I don't get why so many are rationalizing the modifications made to these releases - and I don't, not on the HTF.

That's not vaguely a "potshot".

I was born at night, but not last night.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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.

Since I've been accused of anger, I'll point out I'm not mad.

I'm disappointed and unhappy, but I'm not a churning ball of rage.

Weird to me that "I don't like what was done to these movies" somehow has been painted as "I'm blind with violent, uncontrollable fury" in these discussions.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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?

It's about not using means to manipulate the source - ie, changed colors, added "sharpness", removing all grain, etc.

 

[mi_z]

Forget I said "color timing" and focus on what I said about changes to dialogue, plot points and actors. If you can't see that there's a difference, we'll have to agree to disagree.

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 looking past it difficult. To be clear, the changes Lucas made are so egregious and numerous, I can't watch it, especially with 4k77 existing, etc.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Weird to me that "I don't like what was done to these movies" somehow has been painted as "I'm blind with violent, uncontrollable fury" in these discussions.

Your use of “I’m blind with violent, uncontrollable fury” is just wrong.

 

[TravisR]

Since I've been accused of anger...

Not by me. Before posting, I was more specific on who I felt was mad but decided for the sake of keeping things polite that it would be better to speak more generally. Apparently, that was a mistake.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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.

I don't think anyone claims that we want movies to replicate problematic theatrical experiences.

Is this really the bar we want to set?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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.

I strongly disagree with this idea that some films are untouchable and others can be mucked with however someone wishes.

One man's trash = another's treasure and whatnot.

IMO, "Aliens" is art. It's about as good an action movie as one can imagine, and it deserves to be treated with the same respect as any Oscar winner you wanna name.

Taking home some arbitrary awards shouldn't be what determines whether or not a film gets treated respectfully when brought to video.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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?

Precisely. There's no objective way to decide what's "art" and what's just "entertainment".

Would "LOTR: Return of the King" be "art" because it won Best Picture but the prior 2 movies not because they didn't?

Objectively, all movies should get the same level of respect in terms of how they're presented.

This won't happen due to economics. A little-known kid-oriented comedy - for instance - isn't gonna be the same return on investment as "Godfather" or "Citizen Kane".

But I completely disagree with any notion that we need some form of hierarchy to decide what's "art" enough to deserve a quality reproduction.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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.

Exactly. The only thing that makes "MFL" stand "above" "Aliens" is its BP award.

Same with plenty of other movies.

And I like "MFL"! It's a well-made movie.

But it's undeniably a trifle. It's a romantic comedy and totally lightweight.

Plenty of movies that seem viewed commonly as "art" are also popcorn entertainment.

"Lawrence of Arabia" is a rousing adventure. "Casablanca" and "Gone With the Wind" are romantic melodrama. Etc.

As you say, all films are art. A lot of 'em are crappy art, akin to a toddler with a spray can, but they're still art.

We can't create some artificial hierarchy of movies that "deserve" respectful treatment and those that're just commodities to be mucked with due to whatever whims strike the filmmaker 40 years after the fact.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The big difference is that George Lucas changed the content of the Star Wars OT, replacing effects shots, changing dialogue, plot points, actors, color timing, etc.

Aside from a few cosmetic fixes here and there (fixing the visible hole in the floor around Bishop at the end of Aliens, for example), Cameron has essentially left the films as they were (wonky miniature shots at the end of The Abyss and all), but utilized a process for video mastering that some people find unappealing.

And I do give JC credit for not Doin' a Lucas and revamping the movies in that way.

It must kill him to leave some of those "Abyss" effects shots untouched - the pseudopod, the wave - but he did, as far as I can tell.