Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[thethingwithnoname]

Originally Posted by laidbacklarkin

Each to his/her own. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a film. It took me 4 attempts to sit through this 'lean' 4 hr flick that I thought was just a huge vanity project. The first 3 times I fell asleep and just couldn''t care much. On the final attempt at a restored version on the big screen, my jaw dropped at the spectacular photography in 65mm but was bored to s**ts with the narration and the bombastic score. Yes, it is peppered with cliches and genre tropes of the white man's regard from a tribal perspective, white man playing a tribal man's role with perfect English accent and such innumerable oddities that can't be overlooked and affect the viewing experience, not to mention the numerous pretentious sequences that go on for so long with no payoff whatsoever. I didn't care for Toole's over acting or his character, didn't grab me at all - it was stagey theatrics what he portrayed on the screen. It just worked as a solid travel docu for me, thanks to gorgeous desert locations and exquisite framing of the shots. But I can never ever sit through this again just because there are 1000 pages of fan praise for this - that's just how it is. Don't insult someone or go on a name calling spree because their opinion doesn't match yours. If you enjoy the film, good for you.

Don't think anyone was having a go about not liking the film for whatever story reason, or plot etc, but that twat commenting that after 25years all films are rubbish with no other reasoning needs ignoring

[trespoochies]

I'm not getting into any of the arguments like this - to each their own - but it reminds me of the interview with Martin Scorsese when asked about his favorite films. He cites no film beyond the very early 80's I think. He doesn't outright say no films after a certain aren't worth watching, but it's amusing (and kind of sad really), that he feels there are no "great" movies after this era.

And yes, he does cite recent films like Maxxine and Tar that he liked, but no recent films that are deemed "significant" in terms of great films.

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/ma...mcdmaxx-ec119/

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I wanted to share some humor today. However, this was a seriously written post about this movie (and others) from a mod at another forum.

4 hour movie from the 60s? Wow super hard pass.

I'm guessing this won't be a popular opinion, but it's mine: There's just no such thing as a good classic movie. Once a movie hits ~25 years old that old favorite just looks super old and cheesy. The cameras, acting, everything just looks like you cant believe you ever thought it was convincing. I went back and watched one of my all time favorites - matrix 1 a couple years ago. All those incredible fight scenes I remember just looked so fake. Not to mention trying to "enjoy" the star wars a new hope saber fight (a movie I once loved but its too painful to watch now). That saber fight looks like something you might see in a high school play

Relating it all to these projectors...I have never seen these old movies actually look good, either. Just something about the old film just doesn't look good I can't put my finger on it. The sources don't look clean and the colors are just super washed out.

To think people with that opinion walk the Earth unironically. Soul draining.

[Streamingsux]

So Die Hard looks/is cheesy and bad now? Seven? Saving Private Ryan? Jurassic Park?

What a complete dumbass lol. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but....good grief. That's just not bad taste. That's NO taste..

[Areyakiddin]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

To think people with that opinion walk the Earth unironically. Soul draining.

Probably the same type of person that falls hook, line, and sinker every time a studio says that their new blockbuster has zero CG!1!1!!1

[scififan73]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

To think people with that opinion walk the Earth unironically. Soul draining.

Even more incredible that such a person supposedly moderates a home theater enthusiast site. Probably also a given that such a person hates film grain, black and white productions and practical special effects.
This is the danger when streaming takes over fully (if it hasn't already). You are only exposed to what some damn computer algorithm recommends (good chance it's very recent) and lack the full exposure to movie history someone like me got simply from being older (pre-internet).

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by scififan73

Even more incredible that such a person supposedly moderates a home theater enthusiast site. Probably also a given that such a person hates film grain, black and white productions and practical special effects.
This is the danger when streaming takes over fully (if it hasn't already). You are only exposed to what some damn computer algorithm recommends (good chance it's very recent) and lack the full exposure to movie history someone like me got simply from being older (pre-internet).

Yes. He made a comment once before not understanding how anyone could ever watch a B&W film.

[grahams76]

Originally Posted by jamesfloodiii

Thanks! That's the exact info I was looking for. Think I'll go the Bravia route (I have credits to burn anyway) and save the $35 for some other purchases. Thanks again.

Great avatar!

[jamesfloodiii]

Originally Posted by grahams76

Great avatar!

Thanks! I can see that you are a man of taste.

[drush9999]

Get a room

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by jamesfloodiii

Thanks! I can see that you are a man of taste.

I just like things that taste good.

[CarbonUnitM78]

I noticed in the audio section of the Lawrence of Arabia 4K steelbook listings, there is two different values listed for the original and reprint editions. For the original steelbook release, it says English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (48kHz, 24-bit) where the steelbook reprint release it says English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit). So does the reprint edition have a lower bitrate in the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track?

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by CarbonUnitM78

I noticed in the audio section of the Lawrence of Arabia 4K steelbook listings, there is two different values listed for the original and reprint editions. For the original steelbook release, it says English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (48kHz, 24-bit) where the steelbook reprint release it says English: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit). So does the reprint edition have a lower bitrate in the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track?

No, it's the same disc. Sometimes bdinfo will wrongly read the core TrueHD track as 16-bit. As far as I know disc atmos is always 24-bit.

[CarbonUnitM78]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

No, it's the same disc. Sometimes bdinfo will wrongly read the core TrueHD track as 16-bit. As far as I know disc atmos is always 24-bit.

I wish someone would correct the info in the entry.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by laidbacklarkin

Each to his/her own. Everyone has their own reasons for liking or not liking a film. It took me 4 attempts to sit through this 'lean' 4 hr flick that I thought was just a huge vanity project. The first 3 times I fell asleep and just couldn''t care much. On the final attempt at a restored version on the big screen, my jaw dropped at the spectacular photography in 65mm but was bored to s**ts with the narration and the bombastic score. Yes, it is peppered with cliches and genre tropes of the white man's regard from a tribal perspective, white man playing a tribal man's role with perfect English accent and such innumerable oddities that can't be overlooked and affect the viewing experience, not to mention the numerous pretentious sequences that go on for so long with no payoff whatsoever. I didn't care for Toole's over acting or his character, didn't grab me at all - it was stagey theatrics what he portrayed on the screen. It just worked as a solid travel docu for me, thanks to gorgeous desert locations and exquisite framing of the shots. But I can never ever sit through this again just because there are 1000 pages of fan praise for this - that's just how it is. Don't insult someone or go on a name calling spree because their opinion doesn't match yours. If you enjoy the film, good for you.

You could argue its dated uin terms of things like Guiness's casting I spose although I think for its time it was more willing than most to make castings like Omar Sharif. I would argue though that the deeper politics are actually more "progressive" in this than they likely would be in a modern Hollywood version of TE Lawrence's story, looking critically at his "white savour" role and that the British did not honour their promises.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by CarbonUnitM78

I wish someone would correct the info in the entry.

Anyone can do it, it's a user edited database.



Done btw.

[CarbonUnitM78]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Anyone can do it, it's a user edited database.



Done btw.

I didn't know just anyone can change the specs. I wouldn't do it myself anyway though, because I don't have the proof that it is 16 bit and I wouldn't change it just based on an assumption. You said you changed it from 16 bit to 24 bit but it looks like it's back to 16 bit.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by CarbonUnitM78

I didn't know just anyone can change the specs. I wouldn't do it myself anyway though, because I don't have the proof that it is 16 bit and I wouldn't change it just based on an assumption. You said you changed it from 16 bit to 24 bit but it looks like it's back to 16 bit.

Mods need to approve any changes, and this hasn't happened yet. Sometimes it's instant, other times it takes weeks

[Eye Candy]

Why Lawrence of Arabia Still Looks Like a Billion Bucks

Why Lawrence of Arabia Still Looks Like a Billion Bucks - YouTube

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by moreorless

You could argue its dated uin terms of things like Guiness's casting I spose although I think for its time it was more willing than most to make castings like Omar Sharif. I would argue though that the deeper politics are actually more "progressive" in this than they likely would be in a modern Hollywood version of TE Lawrence's story, looking critically at his "white savour" role and that the British did not honour their promises.

People tend to forget the 'context' of whatever they watch, and when they're reminded about it, they don't understand that context by no means excuses 'problematic' situations.

LoA is one of my top five favorite movies of all time. It's a movie that yes, has slow pacing sometimes but that's what it needs to be. It has problematic issues, but it also doesn't shy away from them.

Also, just like when watching The Batman (after watching The Godfather re-release) made me realize how The Godfather influenced The Batman, watching the Boba Fett series and even Dune 2, amongst many others, make me realize that as long as creators keep watching older films, we're in good hands.

But, to the point of the original post...people don't want to watch 'old' movies, and one of my theories is that because people can't sit still and focus on a movie when we have the 15-second dopamine hits from social media...although that's a different issue.