Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

...The main difference between 35 and 65 is (was) resolution, not aspect ratio -- the ability of the film via proper projection to put highly resolved information on the screen.

Example:

Huge 70mm image of camels crossing a flat desert landscape, mountains in background -- camels half a mile away. And all identifiable.

vs.

35 - something akin to a visualization of the Lithuanian flag, with something possibly moving between the colors. ...

Thank-you. Now I understand the comments about David Lean in the extras for A Passage to India. The comments were that he would worry about the red-colored shirt on a laundry line seemingly far away in the background distracting the viewer from the foreground action.

Assuming he was shooting in 65mm, your comments help to make sense of his concerns.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Thank-you. Now I understand the comments about David Lean in the extras for A Passage to India. The comments were that he would worry about the red-colored shirt on a laundry line seemingly far away in the background distracting the viewer from the foreground action.

Assuming he was shooting in 65mm, your comments help to make sense of his concerns.

In the case of the HBO funded PtI, he was not. It was shot 35mm spherical, protected to 1.66:1.

RAH

[PaulGo]

This is on the front page of Blu-ray.com - as you may guess I agree with this opinion:

Analyst: 3D Blu-ray Exclusives Could “Stymie” Format


https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5130

Also, I was not aware of this poll on Blu-ray.com

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...xclusives.html

[Jeff Kleist]

Anyone can make a poll (unless it's been limited to moderators), it's a standard feature of the forum package, unless they disabled it. JW (a moderator) made that poll himself, it's not an "official" feature.

This issue is a popular trend right now, just like in the mainstream media where consumers "don't care" about 3D. Just like 4 years ago they "didn't care" about Blu-ray, and "didn't care" about HDTV before that

Screen Digest is in the business of selling reports to businesses and other outlets, so producing a relevant report to current trends is good business

The report uses a lot of "some people say" vagueries where in the end it doesn't mean much at all when it comes to whether or not this will have an effect. They also write about how holding back the "crown jewels" can hurt them. The same thing was written about DVD and Blu-ray, if we don't get Star Wars/Indy/BTTF/Jurassic Park/etc etc right now, the format is doomed!

I stand by what I said, by the time this really matters, there will be plenty of titles on the shelves. The exclusivity deals should start expiring in Q1, and I'm sure they'll be hot to get them out on the shelves quickly once they do.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

Is there any news on what Warner has planned for a new Superman film? I am still hoping it can get made.

And yes, I still think they should bring back Brandon Routh.


For the third Nolan Batman film they should have Justin Bieber play Robin.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

And yes, I still think they should bring back Brandon Routh.

How 'bout a Superman movie that doesn't hew to the Donner interpretation, for once? Routh did well with what he was given, but Superman needs him like Batman needs Adam West.

[Jeff Kleist]

WB will make a Superman movie come hell or high water cause they lose the rights in 2012, and will be forced to pay the Shusters big bucks to make another one

How 'bout a Superman movie that doesn't hew to the Donner interpretation, for once? Routh did well with what he was given, but Superman needs him like Batman needs Adam West.

Don't fix what ain't broke, and comparing Brandon Routh with Adam West is simply cruel and unnecessary

One man did honor to the character he was given, and most fans would not have a problem with him playing Superman again

Another man mocked it and poisoned the character for over a decade after. It took Neal Adams to bring it back.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't fix what ain't broke

It is broke- I don't want to see it again, 'cause I've already seen it half a dozen times and there's so much more that can be done with the character/story.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

and comparing Brandon Routh with Adam West is simply cruel and unnecessary

One man did honor to the character he was given, and most fans would not have a problem with him playing Superman again

Another man mocked it and poisoned the character for over a decade after. It took Neal Adams to bring it back.

Jeff, don't make me do it... oh... here it comes...



All I'm trying to say is that the Donner version is stale, simply because we've seen it so much and it's all we've seen for so long. Would you be excited about another Burton-style Batman movie right now? I wouldn't. And not from a qualitative standpoint. I happen to think the Nolan stuff is worlds better, but that's beside my point. The other interpretations have run their courses. Give Superman some fresh blood.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It is broke- I don't want to see it again, 'cause I've already seen it half a dozen times and there's so much more that can be done with the character/story.



Jeff, don't make me do it... oh... here it comes...



All I'm trying to say is that the Donner version is stale, simply because we've seen it so much and it's all we've seen for so long. Would you be excited about another Burton-style Batman movie right now? I wouldn't. And not from a qualitative standpoint. I happen to think the Nolan stuff is worlds better, but that's beside my point. The other interpretations have run their courses. Give Superman some fresh blood.

Jeff is NOT saying that it has to slave itself to the Donner version.

He is saying that there is nothing wrong with keeping Brandon Routh as Superman even if everything about the new Superman film is dramatically different from Superman Returns.

You seem to think (correct me if Im wrong) that keeping Routh as Superman is the same thing as slaving itself to the Donner's vision. The two are not mutually inclusive.

If the script is right and Brandon demonstrates that he is up to the task there is NOTHING wrong with keeping him as Superman. He did a fine job and I'm not sure such a film needs a reboot so soon. I think the familiarity of Routh would help ease the audience into a new direction for Superman.

[HeavyHitter]

I think Superman needs a total re-boot from the origin and along the lines of what Nolan did for Batman I think could work. Donner's Superman was great, but it's time to move onto to something more original and new for crying out loud.

[Mr. Cinema]

I think Nolan has said that the new Clark Kent won't be the clumsy version we saw in the Donner movies. That'll be a nice change.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Jeff is NOT saying that it has to slave itself to the Donner version.

Fair enough. I just don't see a lot of reason to especially consider Routh for the role, if it's not going to continue on from the direction they'd been going. If it's doing something else, we should find out what that is before casting it, right? We know that Routh would be good for more Donner-style stuff, but who knows what else he might be good for?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Fair enough. I just don't see a lot of reason to especially consider Routh for the role, if it's not going to continue on from the direction they'd been going. If it's doing something else, we should find out what that is before casting it, right? We know that Routh would be good for more Donner-style stuff, but who knows what else he might be good for?

We don't know, but Im saying that a reboot so soon may not be a good idea. I think that keeping the familiarity of Routh will make that transition easier.

Either way it seems like Warner is going to have to decide something on Superman relatively soon.


If they want to a new origin story then I would hope they would use Birthright as the basis.

[Jeff Kleist]

All I'm trying to say is that the Donner version is stale, simply because we've seen it so much and it's all we've seen for so long. Would you be excited about another Burton-style Batman movie right now? I wouldn't. And not from a qualitative standpoint. I happen to think the Nolan stuff is worlds better, but that's beside my point. The other interpretations have run their courses. Give Superman some fresh blood.

Nope, Bryan Singer's Man of Steel please. Chris Nolan is doing a fine job with Batman. Returns was fresh blood. It updated without destroying. While some may have objected to him trying to make a character piece instead of an action film, and didn't like that Luthor was the villain again. No one can say that it wasn't a very new take on the character in the world of film

I think Superman needs a total re-boot from the origin and along the lines of what Nolan did for Batman I think could work. Donner's Superman was great, but it's time to move onto to something more original and new for crying out loud.

So by telling a story that's already been told half a dozen times on film it's new? The only way to do it "new" is to ruin it. Just make a Superman movie that's good, everyone knows your first hour already, and it's been done to perfection by Donner. The Year One stuff had not been done before in any mainstream way, and therefore was appropriate to go for

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Nope, Bryan Singer's Man of Steel please.

Do you trust Singer not to lay a second egg? Returns had plot-holes big enough for, well, Superman. Whatever you may think of Returns, you must acknowledge it didn't quite set the world alight. Would "Returns 2" really get a mega-budget's worth of people to the theatre/Toys R Us?

[Jeff Kleist]

Do you trust Singer not to lay a second egg? Returns had plot-holes big enough for, well, Superman. Whatever you may think of Returns, you must acknowledge it didn't quite set the world alight. Would "Returns 2" really get a mega-budget's worth of people to the theatre/Toys R Us?

The biggest most consistant complaint was that they wanted a big-ass Superman fight with a really powerful supervillain, a modern take on the end of Superman 2. They would have gotten it in Man of Steel.

The movie made a healthy profit I might add, even after you subtract the $80 million they blew on all those aborted projects for 15 years (and dear god, be thankful those never materialized. That picture of Nick Cage is just the tip of the iceberg).

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

That picture of Nick Cage is just the tip of the iceberg).

Jeff, I was thinking the same thing when this discussion started. Talk about a freaking train wreck!

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff, I was thinking the same thing when this discussion started. Talk about a freaking train wreck!

TIP OF THE ICEBERG. Some of this stuff haunts my dreams it's so bad.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

They would have gotten it in Man of Steel.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda is all well and good, but Returns now has a bit of a reputation. I would expect that announcing a sequel in the current climate would be extremely unlikely to whip up a lot of excitement in the average moviegoer. As I was saying, regardless of individual opinion on Returns, itself, in the marina of pop culture opinion, that ship has pretty much sailed.

[Jeff Kleist]

This much is true. Perhaps we'll get a miniseries at some point based on the treatment done for Man of Steel.

Speaking of which, if you never read the adaptation of Robocop 2's original script, I highly recommend it. It was much better.