The Abyss and True Lies - ETA Unknown

[gazza1975]

I'm watching the abyss special edition now from a Russian tv broadcast which thankfully does have a English 5.1 track - it doesn't look as detailed as the Cinemax tv version but it still knocks spots off the DVD and best of all its open matte so there is more detail at the top and bottom - I really hope the blu Ray is in this version as I prefer the 16x9 version and I never understood this weird ratio where we see less at the cinema 2:35 version ???

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by popcorntreect

Couldn't they release this without Cameron's involvement? A remastered version with existing extras wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

He has to sign off in the discs, that is the reason they are not out

[car2nst]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Doesn't matter how long he waits after the first one. If he wants to make 4 more Avatars, then he is well within his right to. Making 4 movies at once will take over your life for many years. Plus, it can't be that much of a cash cow it 50% of people, as you say, don't care anymore. And who's to say he isn't as passionate about the Avatar sequels as he was with all the underwater stuff? Bein a perfectionist, he is probably waiting untl he can devote time to see the best possible release.

That is very true, but His credibility is out the window since he has said the HD transfers were complete (i believe anyway) and they would be out in blu ray soon and that was over 2 yrs ago. Now he says he gonna do 4 more avatars but cant seen to answer the question why The Abyss or True Lies haven't been released after all this time? The only reason Avatar made so much $$ was it was one of the pioneer movies for modern 3D in theaters, it wouldn't bring it that much $$ again today where 90% movies are now released in 3d in theaters (whether filmed or post production) The market is over-saturated with it unless he creates a new evolution to movie making, its just not happening, not to mention the story wasnt all that great...but thats is an opinion

[gazza1975]

I thought it was FOX who were delaying these releases ? Didn't someone ask Cameron last year at some convention for terminator and when he was asked about the blu s being released he just pointed to one of the FOX execs ? Which to me says it's their decision ? I think the widely thought theory is 4K ? Maybe they are waiting to see how catalogue titles like Independence Day are gonna sell in 4K and see if it's worth pushing it out on that format ? Anyway we have both versions in hdtv quality so I can wait now ? I still haven't seen a new master version of true lies on to yet though ? Has the Lowry transfer been shown on hdtv yet ? Can someone suggest a link for it ?
Also this new hdtv of abyss special edition I'm watching - this was never released in open matte before was it ? Wasn't it only released on laserdisc and DVD in 2:35 ? Meaning this new hdtv could be a new source ?

[ck105]

As far as I know, the newly remastered HDTV version and the DVD version are 2:35. I don't believe either are in any specific open matte format as far as I can tell.

[gazza1975]

I did a comparison of the Cinemax 2:35 theatrical version and this different special edition 1:85 version and there is more picture at the top and bottom - I vivid to remember the tidal wave sequence from the DVD and in this hdtv version there is definitely more detail - you can even see at the very bottom another wave too ? This would mean this open matte 1:85 does have more picture at the top and bottom so is the best version although it doesn't have that teal colour that the Cinemax version does so there must be 2 different masters/restorations ? I'm confused now about this colour timing

[ck105]

Originally Posted by gazza1975

I did a comparison of the Cinemax 2:35 theatrical version and this different special edition 1:85 version and there is more picture at the top and bottom - I vivid to remember the tidal wave sequence from the DVD and in this hdtv version there is definitely more detail - you can even see at the very bottom another wave too ? This would mean this open matte 1:85 does have more picture at the top and bottom so is the best version although it doesn't have that teal colour that the Cinemax version does so there must be 2 different masters/restorations ? I'm confused now about this colour timing

If I'm not mistaken, in order to play some films in HD widescreen on HDTV's, a lot of films change the aspect ratio to fit the widescreen. I mean a 2:35 film will be adjusted to 1:78 just to fully fit widescreen TVs.

[jess1581]

Honestly, if Cameron is too busy to do simple supervision of films he already made so they can get top quality mastering for blu ray release, then he can certainly entrust in the right people to honor his vision and do him justice. Maybe have some of the producers who worked on both films to supervise and make suggestions as his confidants... SOMETHING. I know there are good options and alternatives to just get these ****ers on an HD disc. There is ZERO good reason why The Abyss and True Lies are not on Blu-ray at this point... It's been 10 years since the format was released, and these are both high profile genre films with one of them starring one of the biggest action stars of all time. How much time does it really take out of his precious day to handle what is clearly just "side business"? Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about Avatar sequels, the first film was a demo for new 3D technology and cgi fx... At best.

[car2nst]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Honestly, if Cameron is too busy to do simple supervision of films he already made so they can get top quality mastering for blu ray release, then he can certainly entrust in the right people to honor his vision and do him justice. Maybe have some of the producers who worked on both films to supervise and make suggestions as his confidants... SOMETHING. I know there are good options and alternatives to just get these ****ers on an HD disc. There is ZERO good reason why The Abyss and True Lies are not on Blu-ray at this point... It's been 10 years since the format was released, and these are both high profile genre films with one of them starring one of the biggest action stars of all time. How much time does it really take out of his precious day to handle what is clearly just "side business"? Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass about Avatar sequels, the first film was a demo for new 3D technology and cgi fx... At best.

Well said

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

He has to sign off in the discs, that is the reason they are not out

Except he said he had, and at a recent screening called out Fox for not releasing them yet.

Originally Posted by jess1581

Honestly, if Cameron is too busy to do simple supervision of films he already made so they can get top quality mastering for blu ray release, then he can certainly entrust in the right people to honor his vision and do him justice.

He's already supervised the remasters.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Except he said he had, and at a recent screening called out Fox for not releasing them yet.



He's already supervised the remasters.

Wait... So it's FOX that is holding out on us??? Those sons of b!tches....

[filmmusic]

Honestly now, FOX says it's Cameron's fault, Cameron says it's FOX's fault.

Which is it?

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Wait... So it's FOX that is holding out on us??? Those sons of b!tches....

That makes sense that they'd be waiting for Avatar 2 for maximum cash grab...

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

That makes sense that they'd be waiting for Avatar 2 for maximum cash grab...

What about blu-ray's peak for maximum sales?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by ck105

If I'm not mistaken, in order to play some films in HD widescreen on HDTV's, a lot of films change the aspect ratio to fit the widescreen. I mean a 2:35 film will be adjusted to 1:78 just to fully fit widescreen TVs.

Yes, but that cuts off the left and right. That also drives me totally insane - I won't watch a movie that way. It's the equivalent of having half of the height cut off in the horizontal dimension. It's also why I won't buy an HBO subscription. They used to show movies in the proper aspect ratio, but now they don't, probably because idiots complain about the black bars. At least TCM shows films in the original aspect ratio.

He's claiming that the 1.85 version has more top and bottom, which actually is possible because these films were shot in Super 35, which is a method to shoot spherically, but still produce an anamorphic print.

In Super 35, the negative finder markings for scope is 0.945" x 0.394. Full background area is 0.980" x 0.735". If they were shooting for a flat print, the negative finder markings would be .945" x 0.511".

They take the 0.945" x 0.394" and optically convert it to Scope with dimensions of .838 x .7 with a 2:1 squeeze. But as you see from the dimensions above, there's more background in the finder markings for a flat print (and even more full background area, although it's usually not protected when shooting).

Also, as a matter of practice, in almost every case, 1.85 films are opened up a bit in the vertical dimension for release on Blu (and broadcast) so they fill the entire 16:9 (1.78:1) screen. I used to despise this until I was told by a famous film restorer that "it's no big deal" and I felt that if this guy could accept it, I would have to.

So this is a case where there's more image in that 1.78 version than the 2.35:1 version, but more is not necessarily better as it wasn't meant to be seen.

Many cinematographers prefer shooting in Super 35 because of the lens choices. But for a scope film, it uses 60% less negative area and you wind up with lots more grain, although having said that, I saw both these films in 70mm (blowup) and they looked fine.

But these films also have a strange history on home video. Back in the day, I bought "The Abyss" on DVD and it was labeled "letterboxed" or "widescreen", but it turned out to be 1.33:1 (4:3). It was a very inexpensive disc, but I remember being really pissed off. It wasn't worth the carfare to return it.

[Mr.Twinks]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Except he said he had, and at a recent screening called out Fox for not releasing them yet.



He's already supervised the remasters.

Exactly, Fox owns the distribution rights so it is on them to release or not to.

[OLY82]

Universal use to have the distribution rights outside of North America. Not sure if they still do, or not.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Wait... So it's FOX that is holding out on us??? Those sons of b!tches....

The remastered, re-colored Abyss has played in HD on cable channels. I have a copy of it, but it's only the theatrical. But it is 100% Cameron's new color grading, replacing blues with teals, but it's not a blanket filter which means it was done scene by scene.

At a recent Q&A after the screening of one of his films, someone asked about these releases, and Cameron pointed to the Fox executives and in essence said to "ask them."

[Eusthenopteron]

And did they ask them?

[zee944]

Originally Posted by gazza1975

I did a comparison of the Cinemax 2:35 theatrical version and this different special edition 1:85 version and there is more picture at the top and bottom - I vivid to remember the tidal wave sequence from the DVD and in this hdtv version there is definitely more detail - you can even see at the very bottom another wave too ? This would mean this open matte 1:85 does have more picture at the top and bottom so is the best version although it doesn't have that teal colour that the Cinemax version does so there must be 2 different masters/restorations ? I'm confused now about this colour timing

The 1.85:1 open matte version is probably from an old master, hence the sub-par HD quality with the old color timing.
The Lowry 2.35:1 is a new (2 years old) HD transfer with new color timing.

The Blu-ray would probably be 2.35:1 with black bars, like most 2.35:1 movies on Blu-ray.
The open matte print shows things (technical equipment) on the picture we're not supposed to see here and there, so it's not a perfect viewing experience. Because of that, I prefer the 2.35:1 version instead.
The open matte method is only possible when the movie was shot with that in mind too; The Abyss was shot that way but they still made some mistakes which affects the open matte version. Most movies would look like a disaster if you'd open them up on the top and bottom. The cropped-at-the-sides 1.78 or 1.85:1 you see sometimes is for the stupids who complain about black bars.