"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

Someone might have a more precise answer to give you.

Sorry, I’ve signed a blood oath not to comment about its release date for the foreseeable future but, I haven’t deleted any of my past posts concerning info on that title.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

.....the print provided by BFI.....

Dr.A

That reminds me.
Several months ago, the BFI remastered in HD, two classic films from its archive namely……
one of the Hammer Dracula films (1958 ?) and

Terence Davies’ Distant Voices.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095037/

Good dedicated folks across the pond.

[FourToedStatue]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

That's precisely what I don't understand. QoS was written by the same team who wrote CR (or so we're told). And we know Paul Haggis is a talented creator.

So what happened there? Some of the suits decided to cut back on dialogue and story? Marc Forster's involvement? Hence the 106 minutes running time??

After the great effort that was CR, I just don't get how you get into trouble again with the same team behind... I thought they got it...

They obviously want to make more money this time around in the US. But do they understand that after a bitter taste in the mouth (previous Brosnan's Bonds), people need time to recover and have faith again. The same thing happened with Batman Begins. People needed time to get past previous Batman films and B.O. returns just soared with TDK.

They should have stayed with what was successfully rebooted in CR and this one would have benefited but more importantly the third one since it would have two strong efforts behind. (now the trick would be to get a 3rd film right. A difficult task )

Maybe like Incredible Hulk there's deleted scenes that might be released in an extended package? I hope so

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

.............So, yes, we shall agree that there are plenty of claims and assertions that do not make any sense.

Dr.A

Dr.A., what you’re describing has been the modis operandi over in the *science* forum for quite some time which is one of the reasons why the tech people from the majors no longer read that particular board.

I’m told that the newest accusation today (by the screenshot KING) is that Baraka not only has obvious EE but………. and this is the quote I was PM’ed….. ”DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing. The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio.”

I think I’ll e-mail that one to Paul Chapman for a good laugh.
Honestly, these people think that they can throw out these wild accusations and two weeks later, everyone will forget about their incorrect observations and conclusions and accept what they say as credible for some future Blu-ray *analysis*.

If this self-destructive downward spiral continues, even the minors and independent distributors will dismiss them as a fringe group of video loonies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll try to find out if QoS beats Batman Begins’ 1.9 seconds *record*.

I received a PM in regards to “what did you mean by this ^ ^ phrase? ”.
What I meant was that Batman Begins averages 1.9 sec per cut.
I didn’t mean that the shortest edit is only 1.9 sec. in duration.

For example, with the Bourne Ultimatum there are about 3200 discrete shots in 105 minutes, which yields an average of about 2 seconds per edit.
That's a bit too fast for my taste.
Maybe I'm getting too old.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by GabrielB

That's precisely what I don't understand. QoS was......

There’s a pre-screening on the lot this week.
I’ll see if I can break loose and watch the flick (QoS), as I’ve only seen bits and pieces of it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yo Deci, you listening or do they have your nose to the grindstone?
Just wonderin if this upcoming week your mind will be on this………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thls_tMuFkc

Still M.I.A...............Deci ?

O.K. how's this....................
http://www.amiaconference.com/2008/r..._screening.htm

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m told that the newest accusation today (by the screenshot KING) is that Baraka not only has obvious EE but………. and this is the quote I was PM’ed….. ”DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing. The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio.”

Wow... anyone who comes out against Baraka - - a truly amazing example of the best that High Definition has to offer - - is smoking something. And by "something," I mean crack.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Dr.A., what you’re describing has been the modis operandi over in the *science* forum for quite some time which is one of the reasons why the tech people from the majors no longer read that particular board.

I’m told that the newest accusation today (by the screenshot KING) is that Baraka not only has obvious EE but………. and this is the quote I was PM’ed….. ”DNR on some scenes that almost approaches the level of some of the worst examples of detail scrubbing. The only thing that is worth praising in this transfer is the lossless audio.”

I think I’ll e-mail that one to Paul Chapman for a good laugh.
Honestly, these people think that they can throw out these wild accusations and two weeks later, everyone will forget about their incorrect observations and conclusions and accept what they say as credible for some future Blu-ray *analysis*.

If this self-destructive downward spiral continues, even the minors and independent distributors will dismiss them as a fringe group of video loonies.

I think that at this point there are very few people who actually take seriously the criticism AVS produces. I am also a vehement opponent of DNR alterations but the bias-fueled analysis the few at AVS produce, particularly after the BFI fiasco, is no longer something I even bother reading, let alone consider.

Dr.A

[kapitalisten]

Originally Posted by iceman

I very rarely critize movies online, but I have to make a small comment on Quantum of Solace:

1. Unfortunately they do indeed use the drunken camera man approach. I was sitting quite close -but not too close- in the theater, and the drunken camera man approach combined with changing camera angle 3 times per second, made many of the action scenes unwatchable and most of the other action scenes really annoying.

2. Quantum of Solace must also break some kind of record when it comes to constantly changing camera angles even during normal scenes. This was definitely not something positive/pleasant and it was quite a contrast to older Bond movies.

3. Bond used to solve problems with a combination of finesse, wit, charm and violence, in Quantum of Solace pretty much everything is solved with violence.

Overall they have taken Quantum of Solace too far away from the original Bond concept to be acceptable for me. The movie wasn't bad, but it could have been much better.

I could not agree more with at least the 1st and the 2nd point. The 3rd point is more up to debate, as I quite liked what they did with Casino Royale and the more realistic approach to the universe. I, however, do not feel that it was Pierce Brosnan who was responsible for the rather lackluster Bond film in his time, but more a result of some rather lame manuscripts.

But to get back to the two first points - constantly shaking the cam along with constantly changing angle has got to stop - I thought that the car chase in the beginning was sublime, the only trouble is I never got a good enough glimpse of the action to really savor the moments and the very nice stunts. So all in all I would say that the DP has learned way to much from how Bourne Supremacy was done and not focused on making a visually great movie.

End of rant!

[dk3dknight]

Originally Posted by kapitalisten

I could not agree more with at least the 1st and the 2nd point. The 3rd point is more up to debate, as I quite liked what they did with Casino Royale and the more realistic approach to the universe. I, however, do not feel that it was Pierce Brosnan who was responsible for the rather lackluster Bond film in his time, but more a result of some rather lame manuscripts.

But to get back to the two first points - constantly shaking the cam along with constantly changing angle has got to stop - I thought that the car chase in the beginning was sublime, the only trouble is I never got a good enough glimpse of the action to really savor the moments and the very nice stunts. So all in all I would say that the DP has learned way to much from how Bourne Supremacy was done and not focused on making a visually great movie.

End of rant!

I am going to have to go with Iceman on this, I could not stand Casino Royale to me that was not bond.. now hes just some generic action hero, and I fear they are taking the series where I just can't go.

[Insert some random emo comment *Since someone here proclaimed me one and no one exaggerates on the internet*]

Oh and for the record so far my favorite bond was Pierce..

[Kris Deering]

Hey Penton

Sorry to break up the QoS talk but I wanted to see your thoughts on this article:

AACS

We have a mutual friend who is just about done authoring a Blu-ray test disc that brought this to my attention recently and how ridiculous the pricing is for independents such as himself. I've heard talk on this from other independents over the last year as well and how it was prohibiting them from really getting into the Blu-ray pool. While I don't see it as a doomsday, it is definitely a concern.

Any thoughts?

[Anthony P]

I think that at this point there are very few people who actually take seriously the criticism AVS produces. I am also a vehement opponent of DNR alterations but the bias-fueled analysis the few at AVS produce, particularly after the BFI fiasco, is no longer something I even bother reading, let alone consider.

some times I think there is a "game" on AVS, the first to see (make up) DNR, EE or bad colour or some other issue with BD wins.

[Anthony P]

We have a mutual friend who is just about done authoring a Blu-ray test disc that brought this to my attention recently and how ridiculous the pricing is for independents such as himself. I've heard talk on this from other independents over the last year as well and how it was prohibiting them from really getting into the Blu-ray pool. While I don't see it as a doomsday, it is definitely a concern.

Any thoughts?

like you said, for a large studio it is insignificant, the "3000$" one time registration fee if you are a studio is insignificant, if you release 30 films in a year that is 100$ and the 1000$ per key is insignificant if you are not replicating just a handful. I don't know if this is possible, but if I was a replicator I would see if I could pay that 3000$ administrative fee, obviously the keys would then be sent to the replicator and he would work as an intermediary and in the eyes of AACS the distributor but this would make AACS fees almost irrelevant, for someone that is creating 1000 copies of a single title (obviously this is not a real studio since none will release only one title, but let's face it there are other reasons to burn content to disks and I have seen people putting presentations on CDs and DVDs for conferences and marketing presentations by vendors)

as for dropping AACS, I don't think BD will do that, there where reasons it was made mandatory in the first place.

[Jeff Kleist]

There are a lot of studios that are serving as distributors on other small studios' product until their volume gets up

[micks_address]

well on highdefdigest - the reviewer states

'I also have to say that, as impressive as the High-Def transfer may be in most respects, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original 70mm theatrical release. '

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1659/baraka.html

which is a bit offputting.. i would have thought the transfer is outstanding.. so much so that a title i've never heard of until recently is quickly rising to the top of my blu-ray wish list..

Originally Posted by Ben

Wow... anyone who comes out against Baraka - - a truly amazing example of the best that High Definition has to offer - - is smoking something. And by "something," I mean crack.

[scott1256ca]

'I also have to say that, as impressive as the High-Def transfer may be in most respects, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original 70mm theatrical release. '

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1659/baraka.html

which is a bit offputting.. i would have thought the transfer is outstanding.. so much so that a title i've never heard of until recently is quickly rising to the top of my blu-ray wish list

Josh Zyber finding a reason to piss on a blu-ray release: There's a shocker.

As to the AACS thing. I also have wondered why one of the replicators has not paid the license fee so they can offer services to the smaller studios. I know there is still a per disk charge, but since that is incremental, it only amounts to a large sum if they sell a lot of disks.
I had posted in another thread that there was a reason AACS was mandatory even if it is (currently) useless for stopping ripping of disks, but at the time I couldn't remember the argument. If I recall now, the argument is that players may not play back a BD-ROM without AACS (if this is not true the argument falls apart), but they may play back BD-RE or BD-RW without AACS. This helps prevents shady replicators from pirating movies, since if they used a key, then the licensee of that particular key could be tracked, and a determination made as to their culpability, and those particular keys revoked so the shady replicator would have to find another key. There are other tracking mechanisms as well.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by micks_address

well on highdefdigest - the reviewer states

'I also have to say that, as impressive as the High-Def transfer may be in most respects, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original 70mm theatrical release. '

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1659/baraka.html

which is a bit offputting.. i would have thought the transfer is outstanding.. so much so that a title i've never heard of until recently is quickly rising to the top of my blu-ray wish list..

I've taken Josh to task many times in the past, but you're being unfair to him there by only quoting the criticism and not the praise.. He does say the transfer is "quite impressive".

Originally Posted by Josh Zyber

For their latest go-round, MPI retransferred the 70mm film elements from an "8K UltraDigital HD" scan that was designed to draw out more detail from the photography before downsampling the results to regular HD resolution. The outcome is quite impressive.

The 1080p/VC-1 transfer is framed at the original 2.20:1 aspect ratio of its 70mm source. The image is very sharp and detailed, often breathtakingly so. Even the widest of master shots exhibit a tremendous clarity throughout the frame. Facial expressions can be read on individuals within a huge crowd. Colors are vivid, yet always natural, without looking digitally manipulated. Some light film grain is present, but the 70mm format is fine-grained by nature so the grain is rarely noticeable and not at all distracting. Shadow detail in dark parts of the frame is well rendered, though the black levels rarely achieve an inky depth. The contrast as a whole is just a little flat, but that's possibly inherent to the photography and not a serious complaint.

Holding the disc just a bit back from perfection is the presence of some minor edge ringing. It's not a constant problem, but does recur regularly enough to be distracting. I also have to say that, as impressive as the High-Def transfer may be in most respects, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original 70mm theatrical release.

His only gripe is the "minor edge ringing". He gives a rating of 4.5 stars over 5 for video.

It's obvious the Blu-ray doesn't hold a candle to a 70mm film projection. How could it?

[micks_address]

if it cant and couldnt hold a candle to the 70mm print then why mention it at all then? just seems to end the video review in negative terms.. is he saying it could match it closer?

Originally Posted by Grubert

I've taken Josh to task many times in the past, but you're being unfair to him there by only quoting the criticism and not the praise.. He does say the transfer is "quite impressive".



His only gripe is the "minor edge ringing". He gives a rating of 4.5 stars over 5 for video.

It's obvious the Blu-ray doesn't hold a candle to a 70mm film projection. How could it?

[iceman]

What I meant with older Bond movies were the ones during the Roger Moore/Sean Connery era. I didn't have a problem with Pierce Brosnan, just that maybe the scripts he had to work with were so-so.

Casino Royale was very good -sort of refreshing and "suitable for our time"- and it's a beauty on Blu-ray and I don't have a problem with the rougher James Bond as long as the other "Bond-components" are there, but I think they took it too far in Quantum of Solace. I think everyone understand that MI6-jobs aren't exactly as glamorous as in the Bond movies, but the idea is to entertain. Like Jeff put it: Bond should be Bond and Bourne should be Bourne, Bond has gotten a cult status because he is Bond

Anyway, this is all subjective, so I will shut up now