Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I find all surround sound extremely distracting, and know many others in real life who agree. Won't find too much support for that on a home theater forum like this one though, granted.

I have a Pioneer SC LX-76 receiver from 2012 (it was also sold in the US with the Elite badge) which is a 9.1 receiver from the pre-Atmos era.
I have it set up for 5.1, first because I much prefer to have the three front channels pre-ampped (this arrangement uses 6 of the 9 power stages just for the 3 front channels) and second, I find that 5.1 is good enough for me. I have the room and the cash to get a pair of side speakers and have a 7.1 set up with my current receiver but I think 7.1 is way too much for me.

[slimdude]

Why are there duplicate threads in two categories? it doesn't make sense!

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Interesting. I guess you'd get some minor "high up" sounds in the 2 bonus speakers? I might look into that. My old 2.1 system actually failed a year or so ago and I've been using studio headphones lately. I have been kind of wanting a sound system back though, mostly for music.

I think a 2.1.2 or 3.1.2 setup - adding front height speakers - could be a great alternative for you, since you dislike surround sound. It gives you "bigger" (or however you want to describe it) soundstage while still keeping the whole thing up front.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

I, however, much prefer mono. Woody Allen is a man way ahead of his time.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

I, however, much prefer mono. Woody Allen is a man way ahead of his time.

I don’t know, I think Roman Polanski beat him to it around 1978...

[bradnoyes]

Can't believe I missed all the classic console gaming talk a few pages back. Genesis was the best. It did what Nintendon't.

[Show spoiler]WELCO
METOT
HENEX
TLEVEL

Anyway, I finally had a chance to watch Superman last night and it sure is a mixed bag. Highlights for me were the outdoor scenes, particularly the Smallville and missile heist sequences which have a soft and grain-heavy look that I absolutely love and for whatever reason to me just feels like what film is supposed to look like. The entire Krypton section looked weird and there was an overall inconsistency to the PQ that was unsettling. But overall I enjoyed it, even if watching the movie left me feeling pretty down and out. I don't think I ever realized until now what a melancholy film it really is.

[imsounoriginal]

Good lord this looks amazing. I do wonder if they cranked the HDR dial up a little too high, as the colors seem almost unnaturally bright at times. But faithful or not, the transfer looks incredible. I really wasn't expecting this. Already one of my favorites.

[MerrickG]

Im really happy this film got a 4K release, but still can't get over that it only includes the 1978 theatrical version. Over the years I had really grown to like the extended Donner cut with all the extra Marlon Brando footage. About the only scene I didn't really care for was the fire and ice trial.

[ltb2.0]

Finally got around to watching this. It's definitely worth the upgrade. Still amazes me that most of the EFX are better than some movies today.

[mars5l]

Watching it currently, not overall impressed yet. Seems hazy or foggy most of the time.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by mars5l

Watching it currently, not overall impressed yet. Seems hazy or foggy most of the time.

That's what the original cinematography was meant to look like. It's caused by a softening filter on the camera lens. DP Geoffrey Unsworth was known for a dreamy look to his style.

[ltb2.0]

Originally Posted by mars5l

Watching it currently, not overall impressed yet. Seems hazy or foggy most of the time.

That's intentional. Exactly as the DP intended.

[VonMagnum]

Yes, it's intentionally blurry looking! Get the vaseline out for the lenses! A woman is in the scene coming up! (A Star Trek trick that worked on 15" NTSC sets for incredibly cheesy sets and aliens and to make women "shine"; it looks a bit dodgy in 1080p today, though, let alone 4K)

I just find it's funny how sub-standard CRAP is always excused by some as "intent", as if intentionally crappy is acceptable somehow....

Ask the director of Freejack if he meant for the future to be that cheesy looking.

Ask Emilio Estevez (the mighty duck) if every character he ever played was meant to behave like a B-grade actor.

Ask Michael Bay if he even knows what a script is....

I'm sure Luc Besson meant for Valerian to have zero chemistry with Laureline and chose a crappy actor for agent Valerian on purpose!

Yeah, it's their INTENT (not just crap) so it's OK.

After all, the road to HELL is paved with good intentions....

Yes, we the audience are clueless in all things therefore we are easily duped by such "intentions" as opposed to just giving it a lower rating for a BLURRY PICTURE or BAD ACTING or NO CHEMISTRY or CHEESY EFFECTS, etc.

It's OLD therefore it must be good! --Every Film Critic alive about every two-bit crap movie ever made in the 1930s or 1940s.

My current favorite is because Christopher Nolan HATES immersive sound like Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, I do too! I don't want The Dark Knight in Dolby Atmos!

640k of ram should be enough for anyone! --Bill Gates

[Geoff D]

[brian9229]

Wow, yeah woo. Only one of the greatest cinematographers of the 20th century, what did he know?!

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by brian9229

Wow, yeah woo. Only one of the greatest cinematographers of the 20th century, what did he know?!

Yes my son, that's why ALL MOVIES are BLURRY today because they all wanted to emulate that wonderful blurry vaseline on the lens look.....

I guess I should have realized the concept that you can like a MOVIE, and yet not like everything about it is utterly foreign to most people who do not like to think for themselves, but insist on kissing everyone's butt that ever made any money doing anything! You're my hero! You made the bestest most blurry movies ever!

I simply must have the 4K version of that blurry movie so it will look extra blurry on my 4K set next to all those horrible non-blurry movies made by people that AREN'T the greatest cinematographers of the 20th century!

[Geoff D]

[notops]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Yes, it's intentionally blurry looking! Get the vaseline out for the lenses! A woman is in the scene coming up! (A Star Trek trick that worked on 15" NTSC sets for incredibly cheesy sets and aliens and to make women "shine"; it looks a bit dodgy in 1080p today, though, let alone 4K)

I just find it's funny how sub-standard CRAP is always excused by some as "intent", as if intentionally crappy is acceptable somehow....

Ask the director of Freejack if he meant for the future to be that cheesy looking.

Ask Emilio Estevez (the mighty duck) if every character he ever played was meant to behave like a B-grade actor.

Ask Michael Bay if he even knows what a script is....

I'm sure Luc Besson meant for Valerian to have zero chemistry with Laureline and chose a crappy actor for agent Valerian on purpose!

Yeah, it's their INTENT (not just crap) so it's OK.

After all, the road to HELL is paved with good intentions....

Yes, we the audience are clueless in all things therefore we are easily duped by such "intentions" as opposed to just giving it a lower rating for a BLURRY PICTURE or BAD ACTING or NO CHEMISTRY or CHEESY EFFECTS, etc.

It's OLD therefore it must be good! --Every Film Critic alive about every two-bit crap movie ever made in the 1930s or 1940s.

My current favorite is because Christopher Nolan HATES immersive sound like Dolby Atmos and DTS:X, I do too! I don't want The Dark Knight in Dolby Atmos!

640k of ram should be enough for anyone! --Bill Gates

'Da fuq??

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by notops

'Da fuq??

Kids, just say no to drugs!

[ltb2.0]

I have so many words that I could use, but clearly they would be wasted.

Geoffrey Unsworth was a highly respected cinematographer who knew what he was doing.

Nuff, Said.

Now I go back to being speechless.