Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

I haven’t trolled a single time on any of these movie forums.

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Yeah but most people use his manner to hide the fact they can't admit his insight is superior to theirs 9 times out of 10. Thus we have everyone who has a bias against him curiously sticking a thanks to your post.

I don't see how he was belittling you. Geoff has kicked my butt hard on a number of subjects. You can cry about it, or just leave your ego at the door and say thanks, learn and move on.

I'm not "crying" about it and again, I'm not claiming he's outright wrong about anything other than his frequent rudeness. I have no real beef with him or you for that matter. You can fight his battles and question the thanks I get from my previous posts but I'll move on and hope I like this disc. If you're simply sticking up for the guy because you feel morally obligated, then that's cool too and we simply don't see things the same way. We surely have enough drama in our lives to be getting into arguments on a forum we're supposed to enjoy.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

Yes, the artifacts are definitely there and more noticeable on a projection system. They’ve always been there, though honestly for a 4 year old compressed stream it still looks solid. The audio is such a huge downgrade though that that alone will probably keep me from returning to any streaming version.
Lawrence is a film t3hat absolutely needs lossless.

I know for the purist the Atmos won't be the answer, but man I enjoyed the heck out of it. Thx for the feedback.

I used to have a projector may one day go back but my Z9D makes me pretty happy now especially to have 3D too with a 4K panel.

Great time to see this crazy quality.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Did you get your refund yet?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

Lazy hyperbole? So ironic that you would make that claim. Like I pointed out, I'm not saying anyone is wrong other than the desire to find some kind of balance. You tend to be overly-sensitive and quick to attack others here.

That wasn't a personal "attack", if you thought it was then there's only one person being overly sensitive here just because someone's had the temerity to call them out. Let me quote your post again: no-one has called this UHD an "abomination to mankind", not ever. That really is the laziest of hyperbole that then just perpetuates the cycle, maybe you didn't mean it that way and just used it for forums shorthand, hence your indignant reply which moved straight into a personal snipe that you seemed to be a bit quick on the draw with - dare I say you're not my biggest fan? But it still speaks volumes as to the overall attitude you have to people who might dare question that something is less than perfect, though the wider consensus of "professional reviewers" means nothing to me on UHD, it never has. I only trust my own eyes.

If people like you are taking this "abomination" attitude from the opinions that are being expressed that Lawrence is not all it could be on UHD then that's on y'all, but isn't it always? You talk about balance but from your language it seems like your mind is already made up. We've done this song and dance so many times we know it by rote, and funnily enough the only people being outwardly hostile and snarky are the ones who disagree with the disagreement (and I don't mean everyone who's replied to us either, in case that statement was thought of as hyperbolic, but the only people outwardly taking the piss are the ones who don't agree with us, see the post directly above this one for a bit of creepy forums stalking). Eh, this is just how forums work, I've happily been on the other end of it a zillion times so this is a nice change of scenery. Nothing like a bit of iconoclasm to get the weekend going.

[Geoff D]

Anyhoo, this thread's about Lawrence of Arabia, not Geoffrey of Suburbia, so I wanna talk about the film itself. I mentioned previously that I didn't get the film, I didn't understand what it was trying to say, but it's been difficult to keep it out of my head. People very eloquently explained what it was about (instead of doing the usual reaction of ridiculing people who can't recognise greatness, we were doing so well) and after watching it again I think I finally understand it.

For all the 70mm grandeur and the size and sweep and scope and scale (and any other superlatives starting with 's') of the piece it's not really about any of that at its core. The ironic thing is that the biggest battle in the film is an internal one, taking place in Lawrence's own mind as he struggles with his - I hesitate to say "demons" - drives and desires, wanting to be more than a mere man but the dichotomy being that heavy is the head that wears the crown. Or the keffiyeh.

I see what people mean about the extended balcony scene too, having viewed it on the fixed bonus disc. The latter part of the scene as in the current cut seems a bit mercenary, but the previous part underlines how much they were playing to Lawrence's ego as well as his bank balance. I can also see why it wasn't deemed fit for inclusion, the Jack Hawkins impersonator does a decent job but never quite nails it.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That wasn't a personal "attack", if you thought it was then there's only one person being overly sensitive here just because someone's had the temerity to call them out. Let me quote your post again: no-one has called this UHD an "abomination to mankind", not ever. That really is the laziest of hyperbole that then just perpetuates the cycle, maybe you didn't mean it that way and just used it for forums shorthand, hence your indignant reply which moved straight into a personal snipe that you seemed to be a bit quick on the draw with - dare I say you're not my biggest fan? But it still speaks volumes as to the overall attitude you have to people who might dare question that something is less than perfect, though the wider consensus of "professional reviewers" means nothing to me on UHD, it never has. I only trust my own eyes.

If people like you are taking this "abomination" attitude from the opinions that are being expressed that Lawrence is not all it could be on UHD then that's on y'all, but isn't it always? You talk about balance but from your language it seems like your mind is already made up. We've done this song and dance so many times we know it by rote, and funnily enough the only people being outwardly hostile and snarky are the ones who disagree with the disagreement (and I don't mean everyone who's replied to us either, in case that statement was thought of as hyperbolic, but the only people outwardly taking the piss are the ones who don't agree with us, see the post directly above this one for a bit of creepy forums stalking). Eh, this is just how forums work, I've happily been on the other end of it a zillion times so this is a nice change of scenery. Nothing like a bit of iconoclasm to get the weekend going.

Everyone has the right to express their opinion on this forum and no one’s opinion is above any other. Calling people “nutters” and other personal attacks is not cool man.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Anyhoo, this thread's about Lawrence of Arabia, not Geoffrey of Suburbia, so I wanna talk about the film itself. I mentioned previously that I didn't get the film, I didn't understand what it was trying to say, but it's been difficult to keep it out of my head. People very eloquently explained what it was about (instead of doing the usual reaction of ridiculing people who can't recognise greatness, we were doing so well) and after watching it again I think I finally understand it.

For all the 70mm grandeur and the size and sweep and scope and scale (and any other superlatives starting with 's') of the piece it's not really about any of that at its core. The ironic thing is that the biggest battle in the film is an internal one, taking place in Lawrence's own mind as he struggles with his - I hesitate to say "demons" - drives and desires, wanting to be more than a mere man but the dichotomy being that heavy is the head that wears the crown. Or the keffiyeh.

I see what people mean about the extended balcony scene too, having viewed it on the fixed bonus disc. The latter part of the scene as in the current cut seems a bit mercenary, but the previous part underlines how much they were playing to Lawrence's ego as well as his bank balance. I can also see why it wasn't deemed fit for inclusion, the Jack Hawkins impersonator does a decent job but never quite nails it.

Here's what I, personally, get from LOA, Geoff. I'm sure I don't have any insights to offer that haven't been offered before. Hell, the movie has been around longer than I've been alive. But, for the sake of discussion, here goes.

When the movie opens, I see Lawrence working on the minute detail of a map. This, based on my own personality traits, says, "we've got something of a perfectionist here". Sure, one could argue that armies, especially in that time, need maps as accurate as they can get them (no GPS, etc.). But I get the feeling that was not Lawrence's motivation. I think he was just a perfectionist/OCD Personality Tendencies kind of guy. I also get the feeling that he feels that this is yet another unnecessary war, brought on by "white men" and the colonial attitude that was, simply, part and parcel of the time.

We also have a man that is fascinated...obsessed, even, with this Arab/nomadic/desert lifestyle. Again, this is my personal take on it, I get the feeling that Lawrence is almost, in some ways, ashamed of his "white men playing colonialism gods" roots/heritage. He knows damned well that this is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that a white/colonial nation is content to use and abuse a "primitive" non-white/colonial culture to shift lines on the very map he was drawing...for their own short-term (in the grand scheme of things) gain. Lawrence's army and country/government, even, have no moral qualms about using/abusing these "dirty Arabs" as a means to their ends.

So Lawrence, in a conversation that might have gotten others disciplined/court martialed, convinces leadership to let him set out on this quest of "uniting the Arabs" against a common enemy. This shows, to me, that he is so enamored with the Arab/nomadic/desert culture that he is willing to go in alone, as a "white man"/colonial man, into a culture that has no faith or trust in the white/colonial culture, and show them, essentially, "not all white/colonial men are indeed alike"...I am different. I think he clearly and truly believes that he is, somehow, different than all who may have gone before him in such a capacity, and different from even all white/colonial men.

I think it is this belief, combined with his genuine fascination/respect for the Arab culture, that allows him to succeed in his mission, and to succeed even brilliantly. This combination of Arab culture fascination plus his I Am Different (TM) attitude allow him to transcend, if you will, and become something much, much larger than the sum of the parts. He ascends into, for lack of a better word/ignorance on my part, a demi-god status. Through some combination of luck, admiration, belief, and sheer determination, the man succeeds, arguably, TOO well. But his successes come in such a way that rather than sober, introspective people saying "this is just sheer luck," people begin to believe that Lawrence is, in fact, somehow transcended above normal man.

Now, I think at the same time Lawrence believes some (or even all) of this "transcended man" stuff, he also knows full well, even if it is getting pushed back further into this mind, that the "white/colonial" culture will, for sure, not only use the united Arab in THIS instance as a means to an end, but that they will continue to do so in the future...so all of the gains he/they (the united Arabs) are making will be, in the long run, for nothing, really.

I think he is also conflicted with his man vs. demi-god nature. As a learned, English, "cultured" man, I think he knows that he is ONLY a pure, flawed, mortal, normal man...but he has accomplished feats among a very religious group, traditionally at least, that leave him conflicted and wondering: is the Arab god, perhaps, real and helping him achieve these victories? Is there some greater force at play that all of the formal education in the world can neither prove nor disprove?

Then, finally, I think the rational part of him is torn by the sheer physical violence and killing (sanctioned murder) that are necessary. Religion and culture aside, MOST normal humans would feel that in almost any circumstance (other than maybe self defense), murder is wrong. He abhors the killing and violence, but he acknowledges that it, or some amount of it, is necessary for the Arabs to both unite as a singular tribe and culture and to achieve enough victory/recognition to REMAIN as such.

So, Lawrence is a normal man, with several DSM-type personality issues/disorders (probably), thrust into a moment of greatness inside another culture, which he admires, that has been used and abused by "his" culture for as long as he can remember; he has achieved a demi-god like status, even though the English, educated part of him would say "there are no such things"; the "civilized" human part of him abhors violence, yet some amount is clearly necessary for him to service this people and culture and lifestyle he truly admires and loves; and he doesn't want to let them down and prove that "yeah, the white/colonial folk are always, in the end, out to get you, use you, and/or take advantage of you". I can, in my mind, imagine what it might feel like to be pulled in soooo many conflicting directions at once. But to actually experience all of that, both physically and emotionally, in real life...yeah, I wouldn't have lasted a tenth as long as Lawrence with my wits intact.

That is a lot of rambling, and when I started out, it made sense in my head, and I had a general direction I wanted to go. If I ran off the rails too much, I am sorry. And, finally, I realize we live in a time of heightened racial tension, so I want to stress than any of the terms I used in reference to race and culture are just that: references based on the context and the time period. I am, personally, the least racist person you'll ever meet, probably. Thanks for reading.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Though what is it that they say about nutters, that "you're not paranoid if they're really after you"? There might be something in his sharpening rants re: Sony's UHDs after all, it's like they forgot to sharpen Lawrence or something.

We've done this song and dance so many times we know it by rote, and funnily enough the only people being outwardly hostile and snarky are the ones who disagree with the disagreement (and I don't mean everyone who's replied to us either, in case that statement was thought of as hyperbolic, but the only people outwardly taking the piss are the ones who don't agree with us, see the post directly above this one for a bit of creepy forums stalking).

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Yeah but most people use his manner to hide the fact they can't admit his insight is superior to theirs 9 times out of 10. Thus we have everyone who has a bias against him curiously sticking a thanks to your post.

No one is superior to another and that includes insight. A small child can come up with things that Scientists have overlooked.

Most of us here I venture are not your average audience. Many of us have been watching films before all of the formats in the digital era let alone collecting laserdiscs and 16 mm etc... "Credentials" are highly overrated.

We are here to learn from each other (I would hope) and I don't see how this poster is being ganged up. People are responding to the statements accordingly. That is how I see it. I only outlined a few examples.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by slimjean

No one is superior to another and that includes insight. A small child can come up with things that Scientists have overlooked.

I belong to several forums including topics outside of home theater. One thing is universal: it becomes self-evident to most on the forum who has more insight than others.

I am also curious to know what small children have discovered which scientists have overlooked.

[MeatballSub]

Does anyone else get glitches an hour into the film on the first disc?

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I am also curious to know what small children have discovered which scientists have overlooked.

Though deductive reasoning would tell you that a child can be nurtured and have ideas early that either are cultivated or inspire other scientists to think abstractly, but I suppose anyone asking the question might doubt that this is possible. For me, I was thinking about a child from 3rd grade that had the FBI looking into the idea about fingerprints changing with age. Again, I think the conclusion was self evident because of the elasticity of aging skin, but this is a true story. Whether it went anywhere or not is another matter that I didn't look into afterwards. I was always fascinated that anyone thought to go that young for ideas at all officially.

Still any google of young scientist or child inventors etc will produce very good results. If you are hung up on "small" child, go back to what I just said. Hope this clears thing up just a bit?

As for the "self-evident", I think it also becomes apparent who has blind followers that will worship at every turn no matter if the advice from the "expert" doesn't make any sense.

Of course the problem is that this truth is often dictated by the group as opposed to being grounded in any reality.

Though this is not to cause any trouble, it is just my observation.

For me, one of the weirdest examples is being told not to zoom in on a picture to take a closer look at what is going on. To me this is scientific and essential to making a correlation between what I sense, and what is actually going on.

But alas, this is just my opinion and as I was told, I should just not run off with it and was scolded for it and accused of not reading.

I would prefer if we all would get back to sharing ideas and be open to any kind of constructive discussion, but any disagreeing with this new found UHD is flawed and the Stream has more fine detail talk, will just make it all the more ugly.

[zen007]

can we all stick to the topics of the film and the transfer please

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

can we all stick to the topics of the film and the transfer please

I am all for it! I had someone asking a question and I answered, but my last paragraph was the focus.

While what I said seemed to be more important to some, Pagey 123 wrote up an excellent observation.

I don't agree with the observation that it is not about anything at its core.

If anything I don't think the film takes the easy way out by explaining away a flawed very human character. He obviously had lots of traits that were very heroic (like the desert trek back scene), but then the obvious way that he went through an ordeal after the inevitable slap down showed that there was a PTSD setting in. His demise was pretty tragic in my view.

The movie has so many layers, it really is sad that all this is swept away from what is deemed to be a "soft" transfer.

We are taught to only like harsh digital edges, that the summation of total picture and the incredible detail is deemed inferior. Is that all that different then the flawed logic that the film is not offering more than it is because it isn't given the typical hollywood flairs of a perfect good guy or bad guy in the protagonist?

Reminds me of people that say nothing is going on in a tv show episode because people don't get killed or raped etc.. as if that is the definition of "going on".

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

There are iconoclasts, then there's Reverse Jim. He operates on a higher plane of forums existence than anyone.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Though deductive reasoning would tell you that a child can be nurtured and have ideas early that either are cultivated or inspire other scientists to think abstractly, but I suppose anyone asking the question might doubt that this is possible. For me, I was thinking about a child from 3rd grade that had the FBI looking into the idea about fingerprints changing with age. Again, I think the conclusion was self evident because of the elasticity of aging skin, but this is a true story. Whether it went anywhere or not is another matter that I didn't look into afterwards. I was always fascinated that anyone thought to go that young for ideas at all officially.

Still any google of young scientist or child inventors etc will produce very good results. If you are hung up on "small" child, go back to what I just said. Hope this clears thing up just a bit?

As for the "self-evident", I think it also becomes apparent who has blind followers that will worship at every turn no matter if the advice from the "expert" doesn't make any sense.

Of course the problem is that this truth is often dictated by the group as opposed to being grounded in any reality.

Though this is not to cause any trouble, it is just my observation.

For me, one of the weirdest examples is being told not to zoom in on a picture to take a closer look at what is going on. To me this is scientific and essential to making a correlation between what I sense, and what is actually going on.

But alas, this is just my opinion and as I was told, I should just not run off with it and was scolded for it and accused of not reading.

I would prefer if we all would get back to sharing ideas and be open to any kind of constructive discussion, but any disagreeing with this new found UHD is flawed and the Stream has more fine detail talk, will just make it all the more ugly.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Everyone has the right to express their opinion on this forum and no one’s opinion is above any other. Calling people “nutters” and other personal attacks is not cool man.

"Everyone should be allowed to express their opinion, therefore you aren't allowed to express your opinion" is a dumb argument.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by koberulz

"Everyone should be allowed to express their opinion, therefore you aren't allowed to express your opinion" is a dumb argument.

Calling names and childish gifs are not the same thing.

[DR Herbert West]

Let's just see what's going on in the LOA thread...

[Pagey123]

Heysus Chreestos, Doc West....you nearly owed me a new Asus Zenbook UX305 laptop, lol. Fortunately, I had downed all my coffee right before viewing your post.