A few words about…™ 48 Hrs. & Another 48 Hrs. – in Blu-ray

Looking forward to revisiting this film.

Not seen it for over a decade but really enjoyed it and as a millennial I am a sucker for 80s films.

I refrained from purchasing the previous BD release as I was put off by all the unfavourable reviews.

But as this release has the RAH stamp of approval it's a thumbs up from me.

RAH, you didn't suspect noise reduction on the 1982 film?

I saw some grain but it seemed awfully light for a 1982 movie shot in so many dark locations!

Colin Jacobson said:

RAH, you didn't suspect noise reduction on the 1982 film?

I saw some grain but it seemed awfully light for a 1982 movie shot in so many dark locations!

Click to expand...

Grain was more natural in shots with less exposure.

It’s become virtually impossible today, with all of the digital tools to ascertain whether grain has been maneuvered - unless you know the film.

If a film that I know appears disturbingly wrong, I’ll mention a problem.

If not…

These fulfill their purpose.

I haven’t rewatch the second one but did watch the first a few months ago and for me it does not hold up or stand the test of time.

Its horribly dated and extremely high in bad racist content.

Robert Harris said:

Grain was more natural in shots with less exposure.

It’s become virtually impossible today, with all of the digital tools to ascertain whether grain has been maneuvered - unless you know the film.

If a film that I know appears disturbingly wrong, I’ll mention a problem.

If not…

These fulfill their purpose.

Click to expand...

I was tentative in my opinion of noise reduction with the 1982 film. (Haven't watched the sequel yet.)

If there's NR, it's not overwhelming, to be sure.

I just found it tough to discern much grain period, and it simply didn't "feel right" to me.

Agree that it's really tough to gauge the use of NR unless you're intensely familiar with how the film should look or it's egregious.

I still feel like the 1982 film just looks a little too "cleaned up" given its age and genre. But I could be wrong!

TonyD said:

I haven’t rewatch the second one but did watch the first a few months ago and for me it does not hold up or stand the test of time.

Its horribly dated and extremely high in bad racist content.

Click to expand...

I think aspects of the movie fare poorly due to non-PC content - can't argue that.

On the other hand, the way Jack casually throws out racist comments was realistic - that's how a character like that would've talked.

Jack does apologize - and notably, Reggie doesn't really let him off the hook. He doesn't offer some "it's all good" comment after Jack's mea culpa.

Parts of the movie work very well still, IMO, but it's also very much of its time in other ways...

Colin Jacobson said:

I was tentative in my opinion of noise reduction with the 1982 film. (Haven't watched the sequel yet.)

If there's NR, it's not overwhelming, to be sure.

I just found it tough to discern much grain period, and it simply didn't "feel right" to me.

Agree that it's really tough to gauge the use of NR unless you're intensely familiar with how the film should look or it's egregious.

I still feel like the 1982 film just looks a little too "cleaned up" given its age and genre. But I could be wrong!

Click to expand...

I can‘t disagree. Mostly in bright, outdoor shots, where the neg would be heavier.

It just doesn’t matter enough to me to give it much thought, as it looks fine from a nominal seating distance.

Robert Harris said:

Personally, I don't care if a modern film has grain or not, as long as it's pretty, and reasonably represents the original look.

Click to expand...

Do 1982 and 1990 really count as "modern" films?

Are these separate releases? Or included in the same package?

Sam Favate said:

Are these separate releases? Or included in the same package?

Click to expand...

Separate releases I believe.

Yes, they're separate releases with Amazon links below.

48 Hrs.

Another 48 Hrs.

JoshZ said:

Do 1982 and 1990 really count as "modern" films?

Click to expand...

To me, they do.

Robert Harris said:

To me, they do.

Click to expand...

When this forum started in 1997, would you have considered LOA released in 1962, a modern film?

Robert Crawford said:

When this forum started in 1997, would you have considered LOA released in 1962, a modern film?

Click to expand...

I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.

Robert Harris said:

I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.

Click to expand...

Alright than you're looking at these films from a perspective that's probably quite different than many of us. Got it!

Robert Harris said:

I would not. It’s less about years and more about negative / duplicating stocks, their longevity, wear and tear, and how they are used.

example: LoA OCN probably run 150 times, plus.

48 Hrs. OCN possibly run 12 times, if that - daily rolls, cut & conformed color timing, a few premiere prints, sep masters, IP.

Click to expand...

I see, they're "modern" in the sense of the processes used to produce and duplicate the elements, as opposed to the "classic" or "vintage" methods.

Perhaps another term is needed, though, as I would think "modern" production would be mostly if not entirely digital.

JoshZ said:

...Perhaps another term is needed, though, as I would think "modern" production would be mostly if not entirely digital.

Click to expand...

Maybe they're post-modern.

JoshZ said:

I see, they're "modern" in the sense of the processes used to produce and duplicate the elements, as opposed to the "classic" or "vintage" methods.

Perhaps another term is needed, though, as I would think "modern" production would be mostly if not entirely digital.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the running MCU gag where Peter Parker refers to 80s movies like "Empire Strikes Back" and "Aliens" as "old movies".

To those of us who were in our teens in the 80s, we view them as "modern movies".

To someone in his/her teens now, they're "old movies".

Crud, today:"Empire" = 1980:"Gone With the Wind"!

Funny thing is that I don't think people who were teens in 1939 viewed "GWTW" as a "modern movie" the same way those of us who were kids in 1980 still think of "ESB" as "modern".

I can't really explain this!

"Modern" is "relative".