Escape from L.A. (1996)

[ddwall]

Personally I like this movie and I'm patiently waiting for a better release.

[FarewelltotheFlesh]

Originally Posted by eledoremassis02

Me too! I hope they do too! I have the current one but I would not mind getting special features! Also hope they use this poster


It's almost the same as the current bluray but that has mostly blue on it. The only reason I care is because the VHS was red and I played it too much

Yes! Love the poster! Such nostalgia associated with it.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by FarewelltotheFlesh

First time in this thread and reading all thr comments, I get the idea many disliked the film. I remember renting the VHS when I was in grade 7 (if memory serves) and loving it. Finally stopped waiting for an ultimate super edition and bought the barebones release.
Roger Ebert's review was *** 1/2/**** which I was surprised about since the movie was panned quite harshly by many reviewers. While I don't love the film as much as he did, I understand the points made in his review. I'm a fan and think the blu-ray looks pretty damn good, all things considered. Count me as one of the few people who actually enjoyed what Carpenter attempted with this sequel.

Roger Ebert also gave high marks to movies like Van Helsing and Daredevil, so every once in a while he just went kinda nutty

I actually like Escape from LA myself too, but its kind of more of a guilty-pleasure kind of like. I confess I don't actually know what Carpenter was attempting to do with this one-- some people seem to think it was being satirical of rehash sequels, but I didn't really pick up on that while watching the movie. It just kind of feels like a bizarre sequel rehash. Plus the surfing scene was a jump-the-shark moment for Snake if I've ever seen one.

But yeah, I'd be surprised if we got a better release of the movie. I was actually surprised it even got a Blu-Ray release at the time, but it was definitely a great upgrade from the non-anamorphic DVD.

[happydood]

I like this movie, too. It's stupid fun. I don't really have guilty pleasures, per se. It's okay to take something for what it is. There's a place in the world for Citizen Kane AND a place for Escape From L.A. The only thing I ask is that a movie be honest to what it is and I think he knew EXACTLY what he was doing with this one...

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by mredman

gotta love snake plissken. would be cool if they made a 3rd

I am a HUGE fan of both Escape From New York and L.A. (and Carpenter in general), and have always said he should have attempted a third one -- my thought was for perhaps an "Escape From Vegas" where Las Vegas becomes the shithole prison, after, perhaps California completely breaks off from the rest of the country from another mega-quake, and Snake comes in to wander through the abandoned hotels, casinos and icons on the famed Vegas Strip...this was dabbled in a bit, if you can recall, in Resident Evil: Extinction, where Vegas was "reclaimed by the desert"...I always thought that would make for an AWESOME "Escape From..." film.

I remember reading a story, to this point, about how Carpenter and Russell wanted to make another Escape film, but call it Escape From Earth or something like that, where the action would shift to Snake in space -- after we saw the results of Jason X, I'm glad they didn't go down that route, but I believe those elements are what became Ghost of Mars...

As for L.A. on Blu, I never got around to picking this up but I should because the non-anamorphic Paramount DVD looks pretty atrocious in many scenes (aliasing and shimmering like you've never seen it before ). I remember seeing Escape From L.A. theatrically back in '96 or '95 and asking people that were coming out of the theater what they thought of it -- the mostly older crowd, who obviously never saw the first one, was like "I don't know what the HELL I just watched..."

LOL...

[Bates_Motel]

I wish they would put a few more dollars into it and fix the absolutely horrible CGI of the sub going to LA. That's really the only low pint in a $50 mil movie that should've looked way better than it did.

[IntelliVolume]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I wish they would put a few more dollars into it and fix the absolutely horrible CGI of the sub going to LA. That's really the only low pint in a $50 mil movie that should've looked way better than it did.

TOTALLY agreed Bates -- I have always had a big problem with this film's CGI work in general; it looks atrocious in most places, but that sub sequence (complete with snapping sharks under the water that some have called "Bruce the Shark" from Universal Studios' tour!) as well as when Russell is surfing with Peter Fonda look especially bad...

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I wish they would put a few more dollars into it and fix the absolutely horrible CGI of the sub going to LA. That's really the only low pint in a $50 mil movie that should've looked way better than it did.

I agree. I don't get involved with public funding exercises like Kickstarter, but I'd definitely through some cash towards having the CGI redone here.

[levcore]

These days I bet one dude who is proficient with VFX could fix the CG in that scene for very little expense. I mean it's a brief scene.

[scissorpuppy]

If what I have heard is correct, the VFX company handling the CGI went bankrupt late in production and the producers didn’t have any budget left to finish the effects. So everything that made it into the film was probably early passes, even for 1996 era computer effects work the majority of it is bad.

Anyone else ever notice the digital blocking in the background plate of the sky in this shot?



I don’t think this is a Blu-Ray or Dvd compression issue because if I remember correctly I noticed it on the VHS as well. It’s odd, I guess perhaps it was early in digital compositing and they used a low res/badly compressed file for the background plate.

[WesReviews]

Originally Posted by scissorpuppy

If what I have heard is correct, the VFX company handling the CGI went bankrupt late in production and the producers didn’t have any budget left to finish the effects. So everything that made it into the film was probably early passes, even for 1996 era computer effects work the majority of it is bad.

Anyone else ever notice the digital blocking in the background plate of the sky in this shot?



I don’t think this is a Blu-Ray or Dvd compression issue because if I remember correctly I noticed it on the VHS as well. It’s odd, I guess perhaps it was early in digital compositing and they used a low res/badly compressed file for the background plate.

I don't know anything about a CGI company going out of business but I do know that the effects people only had 3 MONTHS to get the effects done start-to-finish. Plus, I believe ILM was one of the main companies working on the film.

[scissorpuppy]

I just looked it up, Buena Vista Effects handled a good deal of the CGI and they were dissolved in 1996. Seeing that they were an arm of the Disney Company, I doubt they officially went bankrupt but they ceased to exist after EFLA. There is another story going around that they had just started getting into digital effects being mainly an optical effects company that were learning as they went digital.

I highly recommend this site for more insight on the Escape films, it seems there are a few articles there that cover the effects work of both films. I haven’t read them all, but look forward to doing so.

http://www.theefnylapage.com

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I wish they would put a few more dollars into it and fix the absolutely horrible CGI of the sub going to LA. That's really the only low pint in a $50 mil movie that should've looked way better than it did.

At least it's a brief and unimportant part of the movie. Try watching Resident Evil today, where the main enemy and half the zombies have horrible, obvious CGI.

[Val Lewton]

Originally Posted by scissorpuppy

Anyone else ever notice the digital blocking in the background plate of the sky in this shot?

I'm pretty sure that particular shot is a matte painting. It's been a while since I watched Escape from LA, but I remember a couple of other pretty unconvincing mattes in addition to the poor cgi. Here's a picture of a young James Cameron working on a far more convincing matte on Escape from New York:



It's always interesting when movies made years prior and for a fraction of the cost can pull off more effective SFX.

[rocknblues81]

eh... I hated it when I saw it on PPV back in the day, but I last watched it in 2012 and I liked it. Not a great sequel, but it entertaining enough. I might pick it up on blu ray if I find it cheap enough.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Val Lewton

I'm pretty sure that particular shot is a matte painting. It's been a while since I watched Escape from LA, but I remember a couple of other pretty unconvincing mattes in addition to the poor cgi. Here's a picture of a young James Cameron working on a far more convincing matte on Escape from New York:



It's always interesting when movies made years prior and for a fraction of the cost can pull off more effective SFX.

Then is it wrong of me to see the Escape From L.A. matte-ish paintings as old-school artistry compared to what we get now and t actually prefer it?

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

At least it's a brief and unimportant part of the movie. Try watching Resident Evil today, where the main enemy and half the zombies have horrible, obvious CGI.

Oh man, you think that's bad, I watched The Mummy (1999) recently, and holy hell, those are the worst holding-up special effects I've ever seen. I couldn't even believe we all thought it was passable at the time.

[TylerDurden389]

I saw it on PPV when I was around 13 as well and remember just hating it. However, after this guy reviewed it, and I loved all his previous action movie reviews, I gave it another chance. Now it's in my Carpenter top 5. And as far as "action" Carpenter goes, it's in the top 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkkGpXHVaFE

NSFW language

[levcore]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Oh man, you think that's bad, I watched The Mummy (1999) recently, and holy hell, those are the worst holding-up special effects I've ever seen. I couldn't even believe we all thought it was passable at the time.

That's nuts, the FX in the first Mummy are fantastic, Mummy Returns has far more ambitious and as a result far less convincing CG.

[Monty Cora]

Originally Posted by Val Lewton

I'm pretty sure that particular shot is a matte painting. It's been a while since I watched Escape from LA, but I remember a couple of other pretty unconvincing mattes in addition to the poor cgi.

Most (if not all) of the mattes in EFLA are digital matte paintings rather than traditional. Given the vintage, I'd bet that's why most of them look less than awesome. Old school matte painting takes a special hand, to know when detail is needed and when it will look better to be more impressionistic.