A few words about…™ Forrest Gump — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

Paramount's new 4k is a viable addition to one's home theater library. 4 Stars

Forrest Gump, directed by Robert Zemeckis in 1994, and which won a few awards, is a timeless, wonderful film, that beautifully stands the test of time.

Sooo…

When I began assessing the new 4k Blu-ray with HDR, I had to look at certain attributes multiple times, and I’m still scratching my head.

While it generally looks superb, there are certain instances, presumably involving HDR, when things just look a bit out of wack.

Which causes me to wonder, once again, if certain films should be re-visited with the process.

I’m thinking that this one might have been better off going without.

With that single query, which is in no way a call to alarm, Paramount’s new 4k is a viable addition to one’s home theater library.

Dolby Atmos is always a welcome addition.

Image – 4.2

Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

Published by

Robert Harris

editor,member

74 Comments

  1. PMF
    "HDR is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get".

    For the most part, this box of HDR looks pretty good. IMO, it's an improvement over the previous BD release. I love this film as it tears me up every single time I view it.

  2. The iTunes digital copy is currently $9.99. I'm thinking I'll wait until it goes on sale and then buy just a digital copy in 4K to go with my current Blu-ray.

    Studios are asking too much for catalog titles in 4K. I'm happy to double (triple, quadruple) dip for certain titles but only if the price is right. $17.99 (current price at Amazon) is too much. At $9.99 for 4K Blu-ray catalog titles I'm a buyer.

    In the meantime, I'll wait for an iTunes sale.

    Mark

  3. I got a feeling you'll be waiting a long time as I've seen very few 4K releases selling for $9.99. You might get lucky in late November. As to the current price at Amazon of $17.99, I wish all catalog titles were priced that low.

  4. Robert Crawford

    As to the current price at Amazon of $17.99, I wish all catalog titles were priced that low.

    I'm with you, Robert. I have wanted Gladiator on UHD, and would bite at $18 – – but not at the $25 or more price it's going for. Same with some other titles. I haven't bought a UHD disc in awhile. Prices don't seem to be dropping much this time of year. Maybe around the holidays.

  5. I understand we’d all like cheaper prices on discs, but these are 4K UHD discs not blu-rays.

    It does cost money to do these transfers. If consumers are only willing to pay bargin bin prices for a premium format or settle for a 4k stream of the movie then look for fewer films to be released to 4K disc.

    You will end up getting less than optimal looking 4K transfers, and say goodbye to Dolby Atmos audio upgrades.

  6. I pre ordered Die Hard on UHD on Amazon for $24.99, it dropped before release to $19.99, and was available at Wal-Mart on release day for $17.99.

    Ghost Protocol was $24.99 on release day at Amazon. Within a week it was down to $19.99.

    And there are numerous other examples. So I don't think its completely fair to blame consumers unwillingness to pay more than $20 for a UHD since vendors are more or less conditioning is to do so.

    I paid 28.99 for the matrix uhd (minus a barnes and noble coupon), and 27.99 for best buys pacific rim uprising uhd/3d combo.

    So I am willing to pay for the fantastic product that is UHD blu ray. But just because I'm willing doesn't mean I'm going to if I'm fairly confident that if I wait a week or a month I can get it for less.

  7. Mark Booth

    The iTunes digital copy is currently $9.99. I'm thinking I'll wait until it goes on sale and then buy just a digital copy in 4K to go with my current Blu-ray.

    $9.99 is the sale price.

  8. Powell&Pressburger

    I understand we’d all like cheaper prices on discs, but these are 4K UHD discs not blu-rays.

    It does cost money to do these transfers. If consumers are only willing to pay bargin bin prices for a premium format or settle for a 4k stream of the movie then look for fewer films to be released to 4K disc.

    You will end up getting less than optimal looking 4K transfers, and say goodbye to Dolby Atmos audio upgrades.

    However, some studios find a way to offer UHD discs for a lot less than others. Is it a lot cheaper for Lionsgate or Universal to create a 4K transfer and put it on a UHD disc than Disney or Warner? Those same 4K transfers can then be found on iTunes or Vudu for $10 quite often while they are still $25 or more on a UHD disc. Does the actual disc justify a 2.5 – 3 times price difference? Those same 4K transfers are downsized to 1080p and sold on BD for much less in many cases, too. Is the cost difference between pressing a BD and a UHD enough to justify that much higher price?

    We all have our price limits for buying products. I have set mine at no more than $20 for a single film on a UHD disc, and have about 60 UHD titles on my shelves sticking to that limit — my average cost is around $16 per UHD title. So why should I pay $25 – $30 for a title when it's been shown they can be offered for $15 – $20?

  9. Scott Merryfield

    I'm with you, Robert. I have wanted Gladiator on UHD, and would bite at $18 – – but not at the $25 or more price it's going for. Same with some other titles. I haven't bought a UHD disc in awhile. Prices don't seem to be dropping much this time of year. Maybe around the holidays.

    With this is a film that I think you are really missing out, it is just gorgeous. The real improvement isn't just resolution but the bright daylight and shaded conversations etc are just so convincing looking. The gradations of color in skin from actor to actor is something I've yet to see better. What a great film.

  10. CarlosMeat

    With this is a film that I think you are really missing out, it is just gorgeous. The real improvement isn't just resolution but the bright daylight and shaded conversations etc are just so convincing looking. The gradations of color in skin from actor to actor is something I've yet to see better. What a great film.

    We missed out on a lot of things in life. We all have our own discretionary spending budgets, some larger than others. I will never criticize somebody else for showing spending restraints when it comes to their personal situation as I can only walk in my own shoes.

  11. Scott Merryfield

    I'm with you, Robert. I have wanted Gladiator on UHD, and would bite at $18 – – but not at the $25 or more price it's going for. Same with some other titles. I haven't bought a UHD disc in awhile. Prices don't seem to be dropping much this time of year. Maybe around the holidays.

    It's not $18, but it's $19.99 on Amazon now.

  12. Tino

    $9.99 is the sale price.

    Yeah, I figured that out after I posted. That’s too much for just a digital copy of an older catalog title I already own on Blu.

    I’ll wait for the 4K Blu to fall below $10.

    Mark

  13. Mark Booth

    Yeah, I figured that out after I posted. That’s too much for just a digital copy of an older catalog title I already own on Blu.

    I’ll wait for the 4K Blu to fall below $10.

    Mark

    Good luck with that.:)

  14. Mark Booth

    Yeah, I figured that out after I posted. That’s too much for just a digital copy of an older catalog title I already own on Blu.

    I’ll wait for the 4K Blu to fall below $10.

    Mark

    Doubt that will ever happen. Has any major title been below $10?

  15. Tino

    Doubt that will ever happen. Has any major title been below $10?

    No. $15 is the drop price for 99% of titles that have been out for a long time…unless it is WB, or Disney/Marvel. They hover around $20-$22.

  16. Robert Crawford

    We missed out on a lot of things in life. We all have our own discretionary spending budgets, some larger than others. I will never criticize somebody else for showing spending restraints when it comes to their personal situation as I can only walk in my own shoes.

    True but even then there are certain films ,Gladiator being one, that I think the OP would find that it was money well spent since it not only has been done right but it is a great film. Not many of those out there IMO.

  17. Tino

    Doubt that will ever happen. Has any major title been below $10?

    I figure it will happen if you're willing to wait long enough. Ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen a $10 Blu-ray. Personally, I wouldn't wait 5 years to save $10 but if someone wants to wait, they'll probably be able to save that money.

  18. Michel_Hafner

    Uneven UHD. Some shots are quite degrained. Others look +- unmolested. I'll pass for now.

    It's very bothersome this is still happening on some UHD discs. Some things just never change.

  19. CarlosMeat

    True but even then there are certain films ,Gladiator being one, that I think the OP would find that it was money well spent since it not only has been done right but it is a great film. Not many of those out there IMO.

    I like Gladiator, but it's not a great film to me. It's funny how this subjective thing called film appreciation works.

  20. CarlosMeat

    True but even then there are certain films ,Gladiator being one, that I think the OP would find that it was money well spent since it not only has been done right but it is a great film. Not many of those out there IMO.

    You'll be happy to know that the UHD of Gladiator will soon be in my possession. Thanks to a coincidental post by Robert Crawford pointing out a price drop in Mr. Harris's "A Few Words About… Gladiator & Braveheart in 4K" thread, I was able to order the title for $14.99 plus tax at Best Buy.

  21. Dave H

    It's very bothersome this is still happening on some UHD discs. Some things just never change.

    It’s just one opinion Dave. Not saying he’s right or wrong. But I’ve heard nothing but good things about FG and I think it looks terrific. I own it.

  22. Glad to hear it, I think you will enjoy it very much. As I said ,really two points that just stood out was the many different skin tones in the film I've never seen anything like it. The second is the great way HDR has been implemented.

    Get back and tell us your thoughts.

  23. Michel_Hafner

    Plenty of bad/mixed reviews around on the net.
    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Forrest-Gump-4K-Blu-ray/202137/
    And negative comments from people who bought it.
    http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=303398
    There are positive ones too, of course. As I said, an uneven disc.

    I am waiting to rent, hopefully that will be possible soon.

    The increase in detail is often stunning:
    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…967&d2=11966&s1=118130&s2=118105&l=0&i=0&go=1
    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…967&d2=11966&s1=118121&s2=118098&l=0&i=8&go=1

    but there are also a number of scenes with an almost complete absence of film grain and a reduction in textures:
    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…967&d2=11966&s1=118122&s2=118099&l=0&i=7&go=1

    So indeed very uneven, the color grading also seems quite different.

  24. Michel_Hafner

    Plenty of bad/mixed reviews around on the net.
    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Forrest-Gump-4K-Blu-ray/202137/
    And negative comments from people who bought it.
    http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=303398
    There are positive ones too, of course. As I said, an uneven disc.

    Sorry Michael I don’t trust any reports from that site.

    But I’m not doubting you. I just thought it looked great. I was too caught up
    In the film to notice the issues you and Oliver mentioned.

  25. OliverK

    So indeed very uneven, the color grading also seems quite different.

    I hate that when you see the potential and then they ruin it for a subset of shots for no valid reasons. Instead of letting you buy the final version of a film on consumer video you get strung along for yet another version that fixes some issues and creates new ones so only next time it will be what we want (or not). Sony is exemplary here for UHD releases concerning image quality. Once you buy for example "The Patriot" you know this is it and there is no need to buy it again because the image was not always up to snuff. There may be other reasons, of course (supplements, extended cuts…).

  26. Michel_Hafner

    I hate that when you see the potential and then they ruin it for a subset of shots for no valid reasons. Instead of letting you buy the final version of a film on consumer video you get strung along for yet another version that fixes some issues and creates new ones so only next time it will be what we want (or not). Sony is exemplary here for UHD releases concerning image quality. Once you buy for example "The Patriot" you know this is it and there is no need to buy it again because the image was not always up to snuff. There may be other reasons, of course (supplements, extended cuts…).

    Well, this disc looked great to me for the most part so I doubt there will be another version that is released for this particular title as this isn't a Patton situation.

  27. Robert Crawford

    Well, this disc looked great to me for the most part so I doubt there will be another version that is released for this particular title as this isn't a Patton situation.

    FG is very much mixed media. Doubtful that original prints were 4k, which necessities massaging the elements.

    Viewers want 4k? With HDR?

    You got it.

  28. Robert Harris

    FG is very much mixed media. Doubtful that original prints were 4k, which necessities massaging the elements.

    Viewers want 4k? With HDR?

    You got it.

    And most viewers are going to be happy with this release. It's quite simple, most people that view this disc are not going to view it through the critical eyes of RAH or Michel.

  29. Robert Crawford

    Well, this disc looked great to me for the most part so I doubt there will be another version that is released for this particular title as this isn't a Patton situation.

    When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your "Forrest Gump" 4K… you'll know what to do.

  30. Robert Harris

    FG is very much mixed media. Doubtful that original prints were 4k, which necessities massaging the elements.

    So is what you're saying the grain on Forest Gump was likely always uneven?

  31. FORREST GUMP has a lot of "hidden" CGI shots, which were likely no more than 2K resolution, so I wonder if that's the reason for the "inconsistencies" we're seeing. The increase in detail in so many of the 4K screenshots is significant, so I don't see why they would use "selective DNR" on only some shots of the film for this release. More likely, those "degrained" shots were CGI and were possibly degrained way-back in 1994 during the original post-production.

    Vincent

  32. Vincent_P

    FORREST GUMP has a lot of "hidden" CGI shots, which were likely no more than 2K resolution, so I wonder if that's the reason for the "inconsistencies" we're seeing. The increase in detail in so many of the 4K screenshots is significant, so I don't see why they would use "selective DNR" on only some shots of the film for this release. More likely, those "degrained" shots were CGI and were possibly degrained way-back in 1994 during the original post-production.

    Vincent

    If you look here you can see plenty of grain in the Blu-ray but it is all gone in the UHD version:

    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…967&d2=11966&s1=118122&s2=118099&l=0&i=7&go=1

    I would like to think that this was one of the first titles that Paramount brought to UHD and that they have not redone their early work in so far as that they stayed with choices that were made some years ago regarding DNR and how to handle film grain.

    Releases like Braveheart and the first two Mission Impossible movies seem to confirm that there is hope that future film based releases will handled more carefully.

  33. Not by any means am I reading anything about the Forrest Gump 4K that makes it a deal breaker.
    But, I am curious, is the accompanying Blu-Ray the same transfer from the Sapphire Series?
    If not, I wonder how things play out when the new 4K scan is seen as a BD up-rezzed?

  34. Looking at the screencaps it is clear that the UHD version does have much improved detail while having less grain. Maybe the existing blu-ray was a scan of an interpositive and not of the original negative? That could account for the lessened amount of grain in the new version.

  35. OliverK

    If you look here you can see plenty of grain in the Blu-ray but it is all gone in the UHD version:

    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…967&d2=11966&s1=118122&s2=118099&l=0&i=7&go=1

    I would like to think that this was one of the first titles that Paramount brought to UHD and that they have not redone their early work in so far as that they stayed with choices that were made some years ago regarding DNR and how to handle film grain.

    Releases like Braveheart and the first two Mission Impossible movies seem to confirm that there is hope that future film based releases will handled more carefully.

    The very shot you link shows significantly more detail in the 4K UHD screencap, so I don't know what you're point is. I'll take actual detail over the clumpy looking "grain" on the Blu-ray screen-grab any day.

    Vincent

  36. Wayne_j

    Looking at the screencaps it is clear that the UHD version does have much improved detail while having less grain. Maybe the existing blu-ray was a scan of an interpositive and not of the original negative? That could account for the lessened amount of grain in the new version.

    NO! CLEARLY IT'S DNR!!!

    😉

    Vincent

  37. Vincent_P

    The increase in detail in so many of the 4K screenshots is significant, so I don't see why they would use "selective DNR" on only some shots of the film for this release.

    Vincent

    Grease (another Paramount title) seemed to have some scenes with virtually no grain where as others were fine.

    I probably will buy FG on UHD BD at some point – but will probably wait for a Black Friday type of deal. I bought and watched the Blu-ray (which seemed reasonably solid – and consistent – from a PQ standpoint) earlier this year and I'm not ready to watch it again for a while.

  38. Vincent_P

    The very shot you link shows significantly more detail in the 4K UHD screencap, so I don't know what you're point is. I'll take actual detail over the clumpy looking "grain" on the Blu-ray screen-grab any day.

    Vincent

    I did not say that there was not more detail in the UHD version. If that is the only criteria we are looking at there certainly is technology that helps to extract all film grain from every frame of Forrest Gump on UHD and still retain more detail than there is in the Blu-ray but it does not have to be grain or detail, we can obviously have both.

    So my point is that there was grain before and indeed it was not looking that great. This is where a UHD usually can improve upon a Blu-ray release, like for example here in Mission: Impossible 2:

    https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?…055&d2=12054&s1=119097&s2=119094&l=0&i=6&go=1

    More detail and nicer looking grain, I'll take that 🙂

  39. Dave H

    Grease (another Paramount title) seemed to have some scenes with virtually no grain where as others were fine.

    I probably will buy FG on UHD BD at some point – but will probably wait for a Black Friday type of deal. I bought and watched the Blu-ray (which seemed reasonably solid – and consistent – from a PQ standpoint) earlier this year and I'm not ready to watch it again for a while.

    Grain structure can/usually does vary from shot-to-shot in the same film based on lighting, some shots possibly being "pushed" at the lab, etc. Going to IP/IN/release-print can "smooth out" and normalize the grain structure, but going back to the original negative doesn't allow for that, so you'll now see the grain variances more clearly from a new OCN 4K scan. And not to mention, anamorphic 35mm is generally a 'fine grained' shooting format to begin with due to the size of the negative. A "lack of grain" does not necessarily mean DNR. Some films are just inherently very finely grained and you won't see much grain in a video transfer.

    Vincent

  40. Big Gay Andy

    If I may pose a content-related rather than technology-related question, how many of you Forrest Gump fans realized that Jenny died of AIDS?

    I realized it on the first viewing of its initial theatrical run. Why? Is there someone out there who didn't?

  41. Big Gay Andy

    If I may pose a content-related rather than technology-related question, how many of you Forrest Gump fans realized that Jenny died of AIDS?

    Yea ,same here that's what I thought was the way it was presented. Her lifestyle and age etc all indicated that that is what it was.

  42. Big Gay Andy

    If I may pose a content-related rather than technology-related question, how many of you Forrest Gump fans realized that Jenny died of AIDS?

    I don't know if I knew it the first viewing-I was about 13 years old-but got it loud and clear as I got older.

  43. It's possible it was AIDS though supposedly in early 80's (1982) and the fact she says it was a virus, the better guess would be Hep C (known as NonANonB at that point). Forrest Jr was born around 1977 as best as I can find which is supposedly after she cleaned up her act after the visit to Forrest in July 1976, though it's certainly possible she was infected much earlier and only started getting sick later.

    As far as was known AIDS/HIV was just being described in gay men in 1980-1981 and of course wasn't known to be a virus until 1983-1984 years though it was suspected and movies have taken far more liberties in the past.

    I think the sequel actual says HepC which wasn't though AIDS could work just about as well and among the Movies "moments' would fit better with movie's historical points.

  44. Vincent_P

    Grain structure can/usually does vary from shot-to-shot in the same film based on lighting, some shots possibly being "pushed" at the lab, etc. Going to IP/IN/release-print can "smooth out" and normalize the grain structure, but going back to the original negative doesn't allow for that, so you'll now see the grain variances more clearly from a new OCN 4K scan. And not to mention, anamorphic 35mm is generally a 'fine grained' shooting format to begin with due to the size of the negative. A "lack of grain" does not necessarily mean DNR. Some films are just inherently very finely grained and you won't see much grain in a video transfer.

    Vincent

    Understood and agreed. But there is definitely some noise reduction (and artifacts) on Grease which is not organic in some scenes.

  45. David Norman

    The movie/book of course never really said and it was left open-ended likely for a reason.

    It's possible it was AIDS though supposedly in early 80's (Jenny died 1982) and the fact she says it was a 'unknown virus' in 1981, the better guess would be what was later identified as Hep C. Movies have taken far more liberties with such details in the past. Forrest Jr was born around 1977 as best as I can find which is supposedly after she cleaned up her act after the visit to Forrest in July 1976, though it's certainly possible she was infected much earlier and only started getting sick later. It could even have been both with the immuno suppression allowing the Hepatitis to cause the real damage

    As far as was known AIDS/HIV was just being described in medical circles in gay men in 1980-1981 and wasn't specifically known to be a virus until 1983-1984 years though it was certainly suspected.

    I think the sequel specifically says HepC though many people want to tell the author he is wrong. AIDS could work just about as well (maybe better in many ways) and among the Movies "moments' would fit better with movie's historical points.

    Given how hard the movie tried to tie in everything to the eras in which the film existed, I always thought it was clearly HIV/AIDS just because that was the "timely disease" to use. It allows the audience the sad, knowing signs of recognition…

  46. Colin Jacobson

    Given how hard the movie tried to tie in everything to the eras in which the film existed, I always thought it was clearly HIV/AIDS just because that was the "timely disease" to use. It allows the audience the sad, knowing signs of recognition…

    Certainly fits the narrative though probably a bit too early in the epidemic if you want to take the timeline as gospel. The exact cause was left unnamed probably to serve that very purpose. The author of FG and the sequel specifically says it was intended to be Hep C which certainly by the numbers was substantially more of an issue in the 70's and early 80's. It still is today and it's getting much worse with 3-5x more people carrying the HC virus than HIV and 2-3x more people dying each year from HCV.

    It didn't have the scare factor, was transmitted pretty much the same ways, and wasn't considered the ultimate death sentence despite killing 2-3 times more people yearly, but many of the factors that curbed the HIV epidemic also helped with slowing Hep C spread. Many people with HIV died directly from HepC since the combination was considered far worse than either alone. I hung out with plenty of Inf Disease folks from those years and they were significantly more worried by HCV than HIV once it became obvious neither was spread by casual contact. When discussing Forrest Gump an overwhelming number of them thought it was Hepatitis (or a co-infection) even before the book sequel

  47. David Norman

    Certainly fits the figurative narrative better though the literal timeline gets very squishy. The exact cause was left unnamed probably b/c it really didn't matter to the overall story line . The film seem to leave it far more open and HIV/AIDS certainly fits as well as long as you don't dig too deep into the details .

    The author of FG and the sequel specifically says in the book it was intended to be Hep C so I have to take his word on that. All the Inf Disease people I hung out back then certainly believed Hepatitis made more sense though happily understood the HIV as a metaphor for the 80's explanation since they share quite a lot esp in transmission, Reality and by the numbers HCV is/was responsible for far more deaths and devastation annually than HIV/AIDs in the US and worldwide (then and even worse now).

    Whether or not Zemeckis and company intended for HIV to be the commonly accepted cause of Jenny's illness, I think it is, especially given how metaphor happy the movie is! 🙂

    The downside is that this makes the movie's seeming punishment of Jenny for being free and independent even more intense. Whether truly valid or not, the movie's gotten a lot of criticism for its apparent espousal of head in the sand ignorance – witless Forrest bumbles through life and prospers while intelligent, adventurous Jenny suffers at every turn.

    Tossing any fatal illness her way seems cruel, and making it HIV comes across in an even harsher manner since it implies it was "her fault" for being promiscuous or a drug user or whatever…

  48. Colin Jacobson

    Whether or not Zemeckis and company intended for HIV to be the commonly accepted cause of Jenny's illness, I think it is, especially given how metaphor happy the movie is! 🙂

    The downside is that this makes the movie's seeming punishment of Jenny for being free and independent even more intense. Whether truly valid or not, the movie's gotten a lot of criticism for its apparent espousal of head in the sand ignorance – witless Forrest bumbles through life and prospers while intelligent, adventurous Jenny suffers at every turn.

    Tossing any fatal illness her way seems cruel, and making it HIV comes across in an even harsher manner since it implies it was "her fault" for being promiscuous or a drug user or whatever…

    Well ,I guess looking at it from a different perspective Forrest represents good in it's purest childlike form. Jenny was intelligent but made many poor life decisions and ultimately paid the price.

  49. CarlosMeat

    Well I guess looking at it from a different perspective Forrest represents good in it's purest childlike form. Jenny was intelligent but made many poor life decisions and ultimately paid the price.

    Sure, that's one way to view it.

    One can also see the theme as satire – ie, the filmmakers don't really espouse the notion that being stupid and ignorant is the way to go and they're mocking that concept…

  50. Colin Jacobson

    Sure, that's one way to view it.

    One can also see the theme as satire – ie, the filmmakers don't really espouse the notion that being stupid and ignorant is the way to go and they're mocking that concept…

    Well that was definitely the case in the book, but the film dulls the edge somewhat.

  51. The implication certainly certainly seems to be that it was AIDS, given the timeframe and the fact that disease is unnamed. If it was supposed to Hepatitis, why wouldn't it be referred to as such? It's not as though they didn't know what it was in the early 80s.

  52. David Norman

    The movie/book of course never really said and it was left open-ended likely for a reason.

    Well the book didn’t say because she didn’t die in the book. That’s my main problem with this movie. After seeing it, and not liking it, I decided to read the book to try and figure out what I had just seen. It’s one of the funniest books I’ve ever read. My wife banned me from reading it in bed while she was trying to sleep because I was laughing so hard.

    The book was brilliant, and the ending perfect:

    Forrest realizes he has no business being a father and so he leaves little Forrest with Jenny and goes off to become a professional wrestler.

  53. Big Gay Andy

    If I may pose a content-related rather than technology-related question, how many of you Forrest Gump fans realized that Jenny died of AIDS?

    My Dad whispered "she has AIDS" right in my 11-year-old ear the first time we saw the film.

    Colin Jacobson

    Tossing any fatal illness her way seems cruel, and making it HIV comes across in an even harsher manner since it implies it was "her fault" for being promiscuous or a drug user or whatever…

    It also showed that it was not something that all gay men and only gay men get. Consider the movie Tom Hanks made before this one. That bothered me quite a bit more and still does to this day.

  54. Robert Harris

    Forrest Gump, directed by Robert Zemeckis in 1994, and which won a few awards, is a timeless, wonderful film, that beautifully stands the test of time.

    Sooo…

    When I began assessing the new 4k Blu-ray with HDR, I had to look at certain attributes multiple times, and I'm still scratching my head.

    While it generally looks superb, there are certain instances, presumably involving HDR, when things just look a bit out of wack.

    Which causes me to wonder, once again, if certain films should be re-visited with the process.

    I'm thinking that this one might have been better off going without.

    With that single query, which is in no way a call to alarm, Paramount's new 4k is a viable addition to one's home theater library.

    Dolby Atmos is always a welcome addition.

    Image – 4.2

    Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

    Pass / Fail – Pass

    Very Highly Recommended

    RAH
    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfafewwordsabout-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07BQCMMKM&asins=B07BQCMMKM&linkId=5b71e10512e75e043d801fed5cad733f&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

    Robert Harris

    Forrest Gump, directed by Robert Zemeckis in 1994, and which won a few awards, is a timeless, wonderful film, that beautifully stands the test of time.

    Sooo…

    When I began assessing the new 4k Blu-ray with HDR, I had to look at certain attributes multiple times, and I'm still scratching my head.

    While it generally looks superb, there are certain instances, presumably involving HDR, when things just look a bit out of wack.

    Which causes me to wonder, once again, if certain films should be re-visited with the process.

    I'm thinking that this one might have been better off going without.

    With that single query, which is in no way a call to alarm, Paramount's new 4k is a viable addition to one's home theater library.

    Dolby Atmos is always a welcome addition.

    Image – 4.2

    Audio – 5 (Dolby Atmos)

    Pass / Fail – Pass

    Very Highly Recommended

    RAH
    [parsehtml]
    <iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ss&ref=as_ss_li_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=htfafewwordsabout-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B07BQCMMKM&asins=B07BQCMMKM&linkId=5b71e10512e75e043d801fed5cad733f&show_border=true&link_opens_in_new_window=true"></iframe>
    [/parsehtml]

    Forrest Gump has never been my cup of tea, or maybe I should say box of chocolates. I'll take a pass on this one, but happy for those who do love him.

  55. filmnoirguy

    Forrest Gump has never been my cup of tea, or maybe I should say box of chocolates. I'll take a pass on this one, but happy for those who do love him.

    DItto. I've never seen the appeal, personally, but kudos to those who want it.

  56. Worth

    The implication certainly certainly seems to be that it was AIDS, given the timeframe and the fact that disease is unnamed. If it was supposed to Hepatitis, why wouldn't it be referred to as such? It's not as though they didn't know what it was in the early 80s.

    Sort of, but not really. In 1994 terms it certainly fits better for the metaphor

    Spoiler

Leave a Reply