Rambo 4K UHD (2008)

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by monstermidget

Off the top of my head... maybe Hard Boiled. The Raid 2. Old boy even, a hell of a lot of asian cinema. Paul Verhoeven liked himself some untra-violence too, I'm sure theres loads more.
To be honest Rambo's violence only stuck out to me at the time because it was a call back to the kind of hard r violence that the likes of Stallone, Arnie et al had turned their back on in the early 90s.

Can’t say I find any of these alternatives to be as extreme as Rambo, especially not in their R-rated cuts. But it’s all subjective. I think Rambo’s genocidal context makes it feel even harsher.

[monstermidget]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Can’t say I find any of these alternatives to be as extreme as Rambo, especially not in their R-rated cuts. But it’s all subjective. I think Rambo’s genocidal context makes it feel even harsher.

yea its pretty subjective, What you find extreme I may not. I can't say i find much movie violence extreme at all( perhaps thanks to spending my formative years chasing down video nasties). To be honest I remember finding the violence in this pretty cartoonish at the time (especially with that cg blood). I mean its not quite Riki-oh or anything but I don't find it particulary affecting either. Maybe it was Sly's old gurning face in the middle of it all that was mitigating the impact.

[Markgway]

Rambo is more violent than First Blood, Rambo: First Blood, Part II, and Rambo III put together x 100.

[monstermidget]

Originally Posted by Daredevil666

Hard boiled as nothing on it. There are lots of gunshots and squibs, but nothing like people cut in half, legs blown away, or thumped into pulp.

Hell Rambo even rips some nasty guy throat off.

NOTHING COME CLOSE.

Whats the criteria here, do we need a good throat pulling for it to meet the quota?
How bout Road House??

Unfortunatly John Woo had to make do with the type of violence that could be wrought with hands and feet and bog standard weaponary in Hard Boiled. Old john J was definitely better armed for that sort of bloody mayhem.

If questionable cg gore is the only barometer though, what about Punisher war zone?

[JustinZed]

Hot Shots! Part Deux - Body Count - YouTube

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Rambo is more violent than First Blood, Rambo: First Blood, Part II, and Rambo III put together x 100.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Mine shipped from WowHD.

[DR Herbert West]

Caps are up: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=13366&d2=13365&c=5240

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Daredevil666

Is it me or the UHD is sightly cropped?

It's definitely cropped a little.

[DR Herbert West]

The Blu-ray is 2.40:1. Looks like they went with 2.35:1 for the UHD.

[imsounoriginal]

Doesn't seem to be much of a difference in detail, but the more neutral color timing looks better.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Mine shipped from WowHD.

Same here, woohoo!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Caps are up: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=13366&d2=13365&c=5240

UHD looks softer yet grainier. My "Lionsgate filmout transfer" sense is tingling...

[gates70]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Mine shipped from WowHD.

Mine too yesterday, so it's another race!

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by gates70

Mine too yesterday, so it's another race!

Still waiting on Apocalypse Now...

[gates70]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Still waiting on Apocalypse Now...

Same here...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

UHD looks softer yet grainier. My "Lionsgate filmout transfer" sense is tingling...

Just to add to that, the caps for the extended cut should be interesting because there should've been no subsequent filmout of that version, so will that version be a straight shootout between upscaled UHD data vs HD data? This makes the need for two separate encodes even more apparent if the two versions have been derived from completely different sources.

[bendermac]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Just to add to that, the caps for the extended cut should be interesting because there should've been no subsequent filmout of that version, so will that version be a straight shootout between upscaled UHD data vs HD data? This makes the need for two separate encodes even more apparent if the two versions have been derived from completely different sources.

I've asked a friend, who has the disc, if it's seamless branched or two separate encodes. He said separate files for each version.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bendermac

I've asked a friend, who has the disc, if it's seamless branched or two separate encodes. He said separate files for each version.

Thanks for the confirmation, I already guessed as much (see below) and I was thinking aloud as to another reason why they were done separately, i.e. they don't even use the same "transfer", never mind the same branched encode.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That scan is of the director's cut, by my reckoning the video and audio encode takes up about 41GB so it looks like they've put two entirely separate encodes on there rather than branching them. If they can pull it off without harming the quality then why not, an average of 42 Mb/s for video isn't too shabby at all and with the Dobly layer on top that can smooth out any encoding kinks.

[Filmmaker]

Wow. This is really...underwhelming. The proof for my pudding, however, will be the extended cut.