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

[Colin Jacobson]

I was born at night, but not last night.

You're seeing "potshots" that don't exist.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You're seeing "potshots" that don't exist.

I'm not but I'm fine if you want to deny it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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

You're the one who accused me of anger and outrage.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm not but I'm fine if you want to deny it.

Enough already.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You're the one who accused me of anger and outrage.

Then you should have quoted me instead of Travis. Furthermore, I never accused you of being violent or having uncontrollable anger as you're now embellishing my words.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm bailing on this bananas thread and any discussion of these recent Cameron movies.

Have fun without me. I'm done so anyone who wants to insult me, discredit what I said or claim they know my thoughts and intentions... party on, Garth.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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.

Well, I wish JC would indeed pull a Lucas (sorta) while he's at this and give us a much better ending to The Abyss, LOL -- that ending, especially in the SE, is truly awful... and I don't just mean the crappy FX, LOL... so if we're getting an alternate, preferred SE anyway, might as well give us a (substantially) better ending.

_Man_

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

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.

Actually, Aliens is an Oscar winner, it won two Oscars, as we all know. Not best picture, though.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I'm bailing on this bananas thread and any discussion of these recent Cameron movies.

Have fun without me. I'm done so anyone who wants to insult me, discredit what I said or claim they know my thoughts and intentions... party on, Garth.

Please don't, you're a voice of reason in this thread, and despite the occasional disagreements, I think this is one of the more interesting threads in recent times.
Do stay and contribute.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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 forever. That obviously doesn't happen.

You may disagree, but that's not how many foodies feel, LOL. Not saying it's exactly the same thing of course, but the general notion of purism/authenticity still holds. Also, cuisines and food traditions have been around far far longer than motion pictures. Give films another several centuries and film presentation and appreciation may indeed resemble that for food a good deal more (clearly).

Neither does the classical music analogy work because it still has the sheet music and that is all that is used. It would be analogous to changing the sheet music and no one would agree with that.

This is more akin to removing brush strokes on paintings in restorations. Anyone with any semblence of respect to art should be horrified at that. Film is art and no different.

Well, the OCN and/or answer print and/or well preserved IP is (very often or usually) still around... just as the original sheet music (most of the time). The main diff is we don't generally get nearly as many options w/ movie presentations as w/ classical music. But again, part of that is simply because music has been around far longer than movies and (most) individual pieces of music are not as costly (in multiple respects) to present and enjoy, so the practices have had much more opportunity to vary.

But consider silent films though... as they were typically presented w/ music that aren't perfectly replicated, if at all, especially today. Also, the exact (monochrome) toning and thus image presentation of many silent films may well be debated.


Anyway, sure, both analogies do not perfectly correspond to the motion picture, but they don't need to be perfect in every respect to speak meaningfully and substantively on this topic. And I'm not saying we shouldn't care what Cameron does w/ his films anyhow -- I already said multiple times I don't like what he's done -- but simply trying to put all this in perspective given the larger, evolving (cultural and artistic) context that might be helpful...

_Man_

 

[tenia]

Please don't, you're a voice of reason in this thread, and despite the occasional disagreements, I think this is one of the more interesting threads in recent times.
Do stay and contribute.

And The Abyss won Best visual effects and was nominated for Best Cinematography... but which cinematography exactly ?

 

[OliverK]

I'm bailing on this bananas thread and any discussion of these recent Cameron movies.

Have fun without me. I'm done so anyone who wants to insult me, discredit what I said or claim they know my thoughts and intentions... party on, Garth.

Your input is appreciated Colin and in any case we have now seen everything that had to be said - and a lot more - in this thread.
I am bowing out too, at least until I get a chance to check out True Lies when it gets released over here.

 

[mi_z]

You may disagree, but that's not how many foodies feel, LOL. Not saying it's exactly the same thing of course, but the general notion of purism/authenticity still holds. Also, cuisines and food traditions have been around far far longer than motion pictures. Give films another several centuries and film presentation and appreciation may indeed resemble that for food a good deal more (clearly).



Well, the OCN and/or answer print and/or well preserved IP is (very often or usually) still around... just as the original sheet music (most of the time). The main diff is we don't generally get nearly as many options w/ movie presentations as w/ classical music. But again, part of that is simply because music has been around far longer than movies and (most) individual pieces of music are not as costly (in multiple respects) to present and enjoy, so the practices have had much more opportunity to vary.

But consider silent films though... as they were typically presented w/ music that aren't perfectly replicated, if at all, especially today. Also, the exact (monochrome) toning and thus image presentation of many silent films may well be debated.


Anyway, sure, both analogies do not perfectly correspond to the motion picture, but they don't need to be perfect in every respect to speak meaningfully and substantively on this topic. And I'm not saying we shouldn't care what Cameron does w/ his films anyhow -- I already said multiple times I don't like what he's done -- but simply trying to put all this in perspective given the larger, evolving (cultural and artistic) context that might be helpful...

_Man_

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 authentic one from existence. Neither does a different rendition of a piece of classical music. A film is its own thing so changing it and not preventing other transfers from being shown is exactly the problem. If all were available, no one would complain. Lucas, Wong Kar Wai, Jackson, Coen Brothers, Cameron, can make all the changes they want as long as the original is kept intact. So I don't think the analogy works at all.

With music in silent films or colour temperature, since there is no right or wrong, people tend to be much more lenient here, as I've pointed out above for the latter.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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 authentic one from existence. Neither does a different rendition of a piece of classical music. A film is its own thing so changing it and not preventing other transfers from being shown is exactly the problem. If all were available, no one would complain. Lucas, Wong Kar Wai, Jackson, Coen Brothers, Cameron, can make all the changes they want as long as the original is kept intact. So I don't think the analogy works at all.

With music in silent films or colour temperature, since there is no right or wrong, people tend to be much more lenient here, as I've pointed out above for the latter.

Actually, your argument is untrue. There are already multiple (typically slightly different) versions of many films released over the years. And I also already pointed out why there are fewer different options so far... but that might not always be so, particularly if we allow the motion picture situation to evolve for another century or more, especially w/ the advent/trend of tech.

We actually don't know that there won't ever be more revised versions of True Lies in the future for instance. We are currently very limited in timeframe to see/know in large part because wide releases/availability of films beyond the theatrical experience has still actually been quite relatively short. This whole sell-through media bizz has only been some 40 or so years old afterall...

_Man_

 

[mi_z]

Actually, your argument is untrue. There are already multiple (typically slightly different) versions of many films released over the years. And I also already pointed out why there are fewer different options so far... but that might not always be so, particularly if we allow the motion picture situation to evolve for another century or more, especially w/ the advent/trend of tech.

We actually don't know that there won't ever be more revised versions of True Lies in the future for instance. We are currently very limited in timeframe to see/know in large part because wide releases/availability of films beyond the theatrical experience has still actually been quite relatively short. This whole sell-through media bizz has only been some 40 or so years old afterall...

_Man_

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 wars will someday be released but it's hard to say from this vantage point. But we know Lucas' attitude and that's the problem. I just still think there is much more unique to a film than a meal.

 

[Dave H]

Well, I wish JC would indeed pull a Lucas (sorta) while he's at this and give us a much better ending to The Abyss, LOL -- that ending, especially in the SE, is truly awful... and I don't just mean the crappy FX, LOL... so if we're getting an alternate, preferred SE anyway, might as well give us a (substantially) better ending.

_Man_

I watched the Abyss for the first time ever with the UHD BD extended version. I really enjoyed it until the ending. Major WTF at the end. Still wondering how and why this happened.

 

[JohnRice]

I watched the Abyss for the first time ever with the UHD BD extended version. I really enjoyed it until the ending. Major WTF at the end. Still wondering how and why this happened.

That’s basically been the reaction to the ending since it came out.

 

[Paul Penna]

At some point I believe we'll be seeing demands to burn the heretics.

 

[Nick*Z]

For me, I just wish some director's post-theatrical release 'vision' of their own work didn't clash so readily with what was released theatrically and was embraced then as 'definitive' - thus, no need for future proof tinkering.

So, no re-imagined original Star Wars trilogy where Han does or doesn't shoot first depending on Lucas' interpretation of the scene. No Return of the Jedi with John Williams' 'Celebrate the Law' cue replaced by some cheap-o disco-beat/techno dance club mishmash. No Godfather III Coda (not an improvement anyway, in my opinion), no E.T. with the guns left out, no artificial manipulation of the color for The French Connection, no Exorcist 'the version you've never seen' and really shouldn't want to..., no Last Emperor reformatted from 2:35.1 to 1:85.1.

Lots of examples to crib from.

But if movies are to be legitimized as the 20th century's art form then let's afford them the same rules and respect applied to other art forms throughout the ages. So, no lipstick and body wave perm painted on the Mona Lisa. No Prince Albert piercing drilled into the marble of Michelangelo's David. No insertion of trans figures into Jane Austen's Emma, and so on.

Getting back to film: extended director's cuts are okay, as long as its just footage reinserted into what already existed before, and, the theatrical cuts also get the love, respect and exposure they deserve.

As per True Lies. Although looking light years better than anything ever witnessed on home video, I concede it looks nothing like it did theatrically.

Does that mean Cameron's improved upon what he released '94, or piddled on the respect audiences' had for what was, instead of what's been offered up in its place?

Hmmm. Not sure.

I only know a few shots looked remarkably soft, including the first shot of Heston confronting his team about their botched assignment.

Does that mean True Lies was a total write off?

Not for me, in the same way that the new color grading and 4K presentation of The Godfather Trilogy didn't ruin my memories of those movies either.

So, my purism for movies has bent a little too with time.

True Lies looks incredible...for the most part...in 4K. It's not what you remember and you can argue whether or not the changes mark as an improvement or desecration of the theatrical experience. But in the end, it is what Cameron would have hoped it could be. Lord knows, he took long enough to make up his mind!

Was he right or wrong in his assessment?

According to some, well...yes. And according to others...decidedly not. Glass half empty and glass half full. Drink up.

PS - my only real peeve with True Lies now is that in its pretty, cleaned-up 4K format, it's pretty darn obvious, stunt man Peter Kent - not Arnold - was riding that horse through the streets and hotel chase sequence.

I mean, really obvious, in a way I really can't remember it being theatrically - even though the screen size I saw it on then as opposed to now was like a hundred-thousand times larger.

Still a fun film, though - warts - digitally created and some indigenous to its production - and all.

 

[brioni]

For me, Cameron has cheapened the aesthetic to a cookie cutter Netflix production. Sure, it's his prerogative. I’m glad we can debate that and try and rationalise the scoring. Certainly, back in the day it was tent pole popcorn but I'd like to think it's been elevated somewhat since then. OK it might not be The Last Supper, but compared to a lot of what comes through now...

It’s a huge shame when trying to get behind physical releases, plus given the history of this and The Abyss, languishing for so long. They were effectively forgotten films that didn’t showcase the talent of the crews and craftmanship when technology caught up. Now the position is technology has been used to over engineer for a current day style.

It’s been acknowledged… many have found it passable and enjoyed the UHD, it doesn’t take you out of the film for the best part, the entertainment and magic is still there.

But then equally, without the cold grade and Park Road dismantling the image… for old and new audiences, the film and its great supporting cast would still hold up on its own, so why bother retro fitting it?! Maybe it’s not the reason or intention but that’s how it comes across to me.