Originally Posted by FoxyMulder
I have been thinking about what you have said and maybe if a link to a good review is included with each film in the listings it would help as then people will be able to read that Cloverfield for example uses a lot of hand held camera techniques.
No doubt about it though it's a very hard thread to do but with time maybe it can become useful.
I watched Rambo tonight.....Stallone knows how to make a great action flick and i enjoyed it....Someone has already nominated Rambo and i will too and thus i will add it to the main list....I thought the image quality looked great and faces had proper detail ( No excessive DNR ) Some fine grain was visible during the night scenes and i didn't notice any major issues.
If anyone has comments on this then please post.
I can see this thread becoming a valuable list, but I don't think the focus should necessarily be Artistic Intent. An example I can give is Predator on Blu-ray. I think Fox did a great job bringing us the film as it is, with no EE or DNR, giving us both the good and the bad of this film in terms of picture quality. However, was it intended for Predator to be a mixed bag of good and bad shots, or was McTiernan filming under challenging on-location conditions with poor film stock? And with that said, how many film makers are 100% satisfied with their finished product?
I've watched titles in the Tier thread start where I think they should have been placed, and then drop down the list because the film doesn't look like Ratatouille or Cars. Are we rating the films or the BD release? It has become confusing, and that is the biggest flaw of the Tier thread.
Where we actually know that a film looks a certain way because of Artistic Intent, I think then that this quality of the film should be a point of consideration. But to diversify from the Tier thread, I think this list should focus more on how well the BD release replicates what was presented in the theater.