posted
Firefly is wide screen; it, like several other recent tv shows, is shown in that (far superior) format.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, it was a scarily thin, lavendar spandex. *shudders* Didn't Abby say that she saw that David Bowie's package actually made the cast list of that movie?
Enigmatic, I'm too lazy to search, but if it was for Jennifer, there are many other movies where she's much cuter. Unless you admire her more when she's still jailbait. You're entitled to that I suppose.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness no. I do not select movies to watch based on female eyecandy, and I actually despise that habit. It allows terrible movies to be successful, a la Tomb Raider. My opinion is if the only reason you're watching a movie is to drool over the actress, stop being a wimp about it and just go watch full pornography. TheCrowsWife's guess was much closer.
And I agree, Connoly is much hotter in Dark City.
Also, I don't think the package is in the credits, but there was a guy whose job it was to play with David Bowie's balls on camera. (The crystal ones! Honestly, you people.)
posted
A mighty belated Amen! to Blade Runner, Corwin My favorite film, if only Ridley had ever surpassed it.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: My copy of Metropolis is not widescreen aspect ratio, defeating the purpose for this exercise. Now that I think about it, I don't think my copy of the original Nosferatu is, either. Was the wide ratio introduced later? Any movie history folks know this?
Yes, the "Academy aspect ratio" of 1.33 : 1 or 4 : 3 was adopted for film in 1932 by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was used for the aspect ratio in early television. This gave way in film in the 50s with the introduction of Cinerama ( 2.8:1), Panavision (2.35:1), and other early widescreen formats. TV has been much slower to evolve, but a 16:9 ratio will probably be the new standard.
quote: So to summarise, the early history of film gave us the academy ratio of 1.33:1or 4:3, (see Aspect Ratio.) When television began in the 1940s it adopted the same ratio of 4:3. Movies transformed to the television screen without any problem. In the 1950s, when Hollywood introduced Anamorphic widescreen movies with a ratio 2.35:1, these did not translate well to television, with up to 43% of the original image being lost to the viewer at home when a CinemaScope film was shown, due to the Pan & Scan method used
My brother's an even bigger Blade Runner fan than I am and in consequence we now have the director's cut too. Haven't seen it yet, but I'm planning to in the near future.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think (not positive) the main difference between the DC and the regular version is the DC cuts out a lot of Deckker's voice-overs. After seeing it with VOs, I didn't miss them.
Have you heard of the Blade Runner Curse? Several of the companies that have giant billboard ads in the flying scenes went belly-up after the film was released. Pan-Am is the only one I remember.
I am probably going to get the DC version next month on DVD. I can't wait! Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blade Runner Curse?! Hehe, never heard of that!
And we'll see soon enough what the DC version's all about, won't we?
I still like the book way better than the movie, but that's just 'cause the book is "teh awesome", not because the movie isn't an excellent one!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ronin, The Professional, Last Man Standing, Toombstone, Empire Strikes Back, the entire Clint Eastwood Pasketti Western Collection. so many movies so little time.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
So, my house is getting decidely more ostentatious on Monday. That's when my HDTV will arrive. No, I didn't pay near that much for it. So don't bother planning to mug me; you'll go away disappointed. And bloody.
Anyhoo, along with the TV I just bought an upconversion DVD player (with an ungodly expensive HDMI cable -- why in the dickens does a 6 ft cable cost $54?). The new TV and DVD player will be integrated into my old 5.1 surround sound.
I need a movie to break it in. Now, while a lot of the movies previously suggested would work fine, a lot of movies have come out since then.
So tell me what you think. Right now I'm thinking about Star Wars (the original, and maybe my all-time favorite movie), Batman Begins, Bad Boys II, Serenity, or The Incredibles.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazingly, one of the films that looks best on our big HDTV is Finding Nemo. It's an excellent color-test.
Although I find that comparing it to other Disney films makes them all seem rather drab by comparison, which is a real shame. For example, The Little Mermaid -- which at the time was visually stunning -- uses much lower contrast values; the blacks are rarely truly black and the whites are rarely perfectly white, which means that it looks considerably less "punchy" next to anything by Pixar. Rather weird, now that I think about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I borrow this thread too to ask a question about DVD choices?
OK, so I'm trying to get the LoTR DVDs. To buy the regular movies is $10 each (so it'd be $30 I guess for all 3 togethor). To buy the extended edition of the 3 movies is $60. Twice the price. To those that own the extended edition or seen it, is it really worth that much more?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. It isn't. I suggest, that you spend the normal amount of money, and get the regualar versions. Hope that helped Gaal! Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends, Gaal, on how long you like your movies. The content added to the extended versions is good, but it slows down their pace and makes them much longer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I know. It's huge. I was looking at a 52", but since I bought this one refurbished it was $350 cheaper than the 52" one.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You're entitled to that I suppose.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
