AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Early review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Early review - Page 3

post #61 of 100
10/5/08 at 10:14am
"Terrible?"
"Horrible?"
"Worst transfer I've ever seen?"
"If you don't think it was the worst transfer you've ever seen, you are a moron?"

It wasn't as bad as all that. Get over yourselves.

Also as long as I am posting... the rambling here about male nudity was just so utterly predictable.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 100
10/5/08 at 10:28am
What he said ^
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 100
10/5/08 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

I have not seen the disc (nor the movie) yet, but I find it very curious and interesting the comments about it looking bad.

By these caps, posted at review site, I would be led to believe it was OKgood looking with no DNR

And you would be right, drama queens on this thread notwithstanding.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 100
10/5/08 at 10:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tai4de2 View Post

"Terrible?"
"Horrible?"
"Worst transfer I've ever seen?"
"If you don't think it was the worst transfer you've ever seen, you are a moron?"

It wasn't as bad as all that. Get over yourselves.

Also as long as I am posting... the rambling here about male nudity was just so utterly predictable.

It looks exactly as it did both times I saw it in the theater. I don't see how anyone could expect more than that.

In regards to the male nudity - Judd Apatow is on a personal mission to include some sort of male nudity in all R-rated comedies he is associated with and it happens to provide some of FSM's most uncomfortably funny moments. I think part of the "outrage" is because we, as Americans, aren't used to see nude dudes in our movies, outside of porn. I don't see what the big deal is. It's adult comedy.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 100
10/5/08 at 12:29pm
If you listen to the commentary - the male nudity is in the film because writer/star Jason Segel had a real-life breakup with a girl while he was naked. So he incorporated it into his screenplay.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 100
10/5/08 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhoq View Post

It looks exactly as it did both times I saw it in the theater. I don't see how anyone could expect more than that.

That's what I pretty much said... it looked drab and soft etc. in the theatre too. And I'm not sure why all the gripes about male nudity...most people around here have one they see on a daily basis (their own), not a big deal...plus it was ****ing funny.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 100
10/5/08 at 12:52pm
Having not seen this in the theater, I can only comment on how it looks on my setup. Fuzzy and dark. Looks very filtered...and the blacks look very crushed. I would swear it was being projected out of focus and with a bulb that is far too dim for the screen, but that is impossible on my CRT. Again, maybe it was this way theatrically...but it looks pretty poor.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 100
10/5/08 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDad View Post

If you listen to the commentary - the male nudity is in the film because writer/star Jason Segel had a real-life breakup with a girl while he was naked. So he incorporated it into his screenplay.

Yeah this movie is loosely based on his break up with Linda Cardellini who he co starred with on the awesome show Freaks & Geeks.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 100
10/5/08 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickTop View Post

Having not seen this in the theater, I can only comment on how it looks on my setup. Fuzzy and dark. Looks very filtered...and the blacks look very crushed. I would swear it was being projected out of focus and with a bulb that is far too dim for the screen, but that is impossible on my CRT. Again, maybe it was this way theatrically...but it looks pretty poor.

you summed it up, i was watching it on my projector, 92" and thats what it looked like, dark, and washed out, like the bub was in low power mode. I was expecting Hawaii stuff to be pretty vibrant too.

Knocked up looked better. oh well, the movie is fantastic. but pq is pretty weak.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 100
10/6/08 at 11:02am
I watched this last night (got my comedy three pack, YEA!)...it didn't look great, but not bad either, just average. And yes I did see this in the theater and I did notice at the time that it looked soft/undetailed/not razor sharp/etc..,
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 100
10/6/08 at 11:43am
If the Blu-ray looks like this I wonder what the DVD looks like.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 100
10/12/08 at 2:42pm
DVD looks like the Blu-Ray but slightly softer and with much more macroblocking.

That said, I rented the DVD, liked the film so I bought the WAY OVERPRICED blu-ray piece of crap. This looks like Talladega did when i first got my Blu-Ray player. It is NOT how the film looked. Anyone compare the HD broadcast version of Talladega to the Blu-Ray. It has none of the color/contrast issues the disc does.

This is just poor quality control.

Skin tones are orangish. The whole presentation, especially water has a horrile cyan cast. The contrast is unbelievably low. Absolute black is probably 25 when it should be zero (hdmi value). ...and as mentioned it is way soft.

I can deal with the softness, and the bland 5.1 presentation because I did like the film a lot, but the color and contrast issues make me feel like I am watching a 1973 grey screen picture tube that has spent to many hours next to a very strong magnet.

Really horrible and unacceptable. If this continues Blu-Ray will have a hard time gaining a foothold against DVD and DL formats.

A major disappointment. They should invest in some color calibrated monitors for the transfer department over there at universal and stop using their iPhones for color reference.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 100
10/12/08 at 4:54pm
I am now planning a netflix policy first. I do not plan to buy way below average Blu-ray titles... I returned this one!
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 100
12/2/08 at 11:24am
Watched last nite.
I would rate the PQ/SQ as fine, for a comedy.

At any rate, this is one of the funniest comedies I have seen in quite some time.
Good acting and excellent characters.
The jokes are non-stop and almost never fall flat.
I kept waiting for the laughs to run out in the 2nd half...that never happened.
Can't recall how many times I hit PAUSE when my giggling got out-of-hand.

Mr. Segel should keep writing, he's a natural.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 100
1/27/09 at 8:40am
Does the BD-LIVE stuff on this disc work? Everytime i click on the BD-Live icon, all i get is the 5 or 6 steps of what I need to do to connect my player. I've had no problem with other Universal BDLive discs.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 100
1/28/09 at 9:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tai4de2 View Post

"Terrible?"
"Horrible?"
"Worst transfer I've ever seen?"
"If you don't think it was the worst transfer you've ever seen, you are a moron?"

It wasn't as bad as all that. Get over yourselves.

Also as long as I am posting... the rambling here about male nudity was just so utterly predictable.

+1

and with two of the most beautiful women ever in it how is the the male scene even catching your eye anyway?
big deal whatever. and on tv i saw him say that he based it off of the most humiliating break up he had in his own life or something like that

PQ is not a top champion but come on it is so, so, so far from the worst HD transfer, i mean get real (with the EE upconvert of a DVD that was traffic and all those 1920x540 titles, and on and on, dozens of discs look a thousand times worse, it looks shaper than lost in translation), and do we want them sharpening up stuff that wasn't the sharpest to begin with??
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 100
1/28/09 at 10:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post

DVD looks like the Blu-Ray but slightly softer and with much more macroblocking.

That said, I rented the DVD, liked the film so I bought the WAY OVERPRICED blu-ray piece of crap. This looks like Talladega did when i first got my Blu-Ray player. It is NOT how the film looked. Anyone compare the HD broadcast version of Talladega to the Blu-Ray. It has none of the color/contrast issues the disc does.

This is just poor quality control.

Skin tones are orangish. The whole presentation, especially water has a horrile cyan cast. The contrast is unbelievably low. Absolute black is probably 25 when it should be zero (hdmi value). ...and as mentioned it is way soft.

I can deal with the softness, and the bland 5.1 presentation because I did like the film a lot, but the color and contrast issues make me feel like I am watching a 1973 grey screen picture tube that has spent to many hours next to a very strong magnet.

Really horrible and unacceptable. If this continues Blu-Ray will have a hard time gaining a foothold against DVD and DL formats.

A major disappointment. They should invest in some color calibrated monitors for the transfer department over there at universal and stop using their iPhones for color reference.

Absolutely. Thanks for taking on all the Blu-ray apologists for this movie. It looked TERRIBLE. Coming from HD DVD, this was yet another WAY below average Blu-ray that I've seen, and I am really losing my patience. Great comment about Blu-ray having a hard time gaining a foothold against other formats - I saw a few bad transfers on HD DVD, but 80% of the Blu-rays I've seen have been underwhelming, and probably 50% have been in the Sarah Marshall category - that is to say, no better than upconverted DVD, with totally inaccurate colours, and, especially - terrible skin tones.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 100
1/28/09 at 10:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moematthews View Post

Absolutely. Thanks for taking on all the Blu-ray apologists for this movie. It looked TERRIBLE. Coming from HD DVD, this was yet another WAY below average Blu-ray that I've seen, and I am really losing my patience. Great comment about Blu-ray having a hard time gaining a foothold against other formats - I saw a few bad transfers on HD DVD, but 80% of the Blu-rays I've seen have been underwhelming, and probably 50% have been in the Sarah Marshall category - that is to say, no better than upconverted DVD, with totally inaccurate colours, and, especially - terrible skin tones.

And you all fail to understand that this was deliberately how the film was designed to look. It truly baffles the mind.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 100
1/28/09 at 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

And you all fail to understand that this was deliberately how the film was designed to look. It truly baffles the mind.

Speed Racer was done with obviously overblown colours - it looked fabulous on Blu-ray. Would you please post your sources regarding the deliberate way in which this movie was made? I get the "effects" part; but film has much greater capabilities than this. Are you saying that the theatrical version also looked this poor?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 100
1/28/09 at 11:33pm
Haven't seen the Blu-ray, but I thought the theatrical version looked pretty awful and the complaints I'm reading here (wonky colors, poor contrast, etc.) were still applicable.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 100
1/30/09 at 8:51am
While I agree it's certainly not the best looking bluray I've ever seen I thought it was a very good movie. Those that haven't seen it because they fear the bad transfer are missing out on a funny movie.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 100
1/30/09 at 11:52am
I saw this movie twice at the theaters and the blu-ray looks exactly like it did in theaters.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 100
1/30/09 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post

That said, I rented the DVD, liked the film so I bought the WAY OVERPRICED blu-ray piece of crap. This looks like Talladega did when i first got my Blu-Ray player. It is NOT how the film looked. Anyone compare the HD broadcast version of Talladega to the Blu-Ray. It has none of the color/contrast issues the disc does.

This is just poor quality control.

Skin tones are orangish. The whole presentation, especially water has a horrile cyan cast. The contrast is unbelievably low. Absolute black is probably 25 when it should be zero (hdmi value). ...and as mentioned it is way soft.


Quote:
Originally Posted by babrown92 View Post

I saw this movie twice at the theaters and the blu-ray looks exactly like it did in theaters.

Wow - this is crazy. I didn't see the film in the theatre, but my Blu-ray experience was exactly like Category 5 described. He says it looks nothing like the film did, yet others say it looked exactly like it. Almost makes you think there could be variances in the discs themselves.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 100
1/30/09 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moematthews View Post

Wow - this is crazy. I didn't see the film in the theatre, but my Blu-ray experience was exactly like Category 5 described. He says it looks nothing like the film did, yet others say it looked exactly like it. Almost makes you think there could be variances in the discs themselves.

More likely a difference in the quality of the theater versions of the films. I've seen some theaters where the projectionist is either asleep, drunk, or blind. Some prints seem to be pristine, others look like they have been dragged around the theater floor to pick up the dropped popcorn.

I thought the movie looked ok on Blu Ray. The visual presentation wasn't near as bad as the script.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 100
1/30/09 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aydu View Post

More likely a difference in the quality of the theater versions of the films. I've seen some theaters where the projectionist is either asleep, drunk, or blind. Some prints seem to be pristine, others look like they have been dragged around the theater floor to pick up the dropped popcorn.

I thought the movie looked ok on Blu Ray. The visual presentation wasn't near as bad as the script.

There's another thread here where people are saying that the Blu-ray looks exactly like the film. I have a hard time understanding why the director would want to shoot a film that looked like this, but I guess that's what he did. To me, it looked quite bad on Blu-ray, sharing many characteristics of other bad transfers I've seen. So I assumed that's what it was. Interesting point about varying quality of prints in the theatres.

I agree that it wasn't a great movie script-wise, either.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 100
1/30/09 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrickTop View Post

Having not seen this in the theater, I can only comment on how it looks on my setup. Fuzzy and dark. Looks very filtered...and the blacks look very crushed. I would swear it was being projected out of focus and with a bulb that is far too dim for the screen, but that is impossible on my CRT. Again, maybe it was this way theatrically...but it looks pretty poor.

i agree with you when i watched i kept messing with the focus on my projector.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 100
1/30/09 at 6:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by moematthews View Post

Speed Racer was done with obviously overblown colours - it looked fabulous on Blu-ray. Would you please post your sources regarding the deliberate way in which this movie was made? I get the "effects" part; but film has much greater capabilities than this. Are you saying that the theatrical version also looked this poor?

Because all movies aren't made to look the same first and foremost. Its funny that you claim to be a "film purist" and a photographer with a keen sense of what film should look like and you cite "Speed Racer" as reference material for Blu Ray?

That film was shot in HD video and mostly against green screen with all of the environments virtually created via CGI. In other words, you aren't even looking at anything that actually existed in the world let a true photographic process. Think of the differences between Stars Wars Ep. 4-6 versus 1-3. Real environments, stages, characters photographed on film versus Fake environments, all CGI, candy coated colors and green screen characters matted into the fake worlds all shot on 1080p video.

Personally I hate the way Speed Racer looks; I think oversaturated colors are gaudy and unrealistic but I'm sure they excite the HT crowd who can in turn show off their systems. But I will say I am glad all movies don't look like this, CGI worlds really really irk me.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 100
1/30/09 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

At any rate, this is one of the funniest comedies I have seen in quite some time.
Good acting and excellent characters.
The jokes are non-stop and almost never fall flat.

If you liked Segel's character, rent the episodes of "Undeclared", another one of Apatow's quickly canceled TV series (if you haven't already). Segel's character on that show was pretty much the same over-the-top mopey guy with slightly less nudity.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 100
1/31/09 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by history2b View Post

Because all movies aren't made to look the same first and foremost. Its funny that you claim to be a "film purist" and a photographer with a keen sense of what film should look like and you cite "Speed Racer" as reference material for Blu Ray?

Personally I hate the way Speed Racer looks; I think oversaturated colors are gaudy and unrealistic but I'm sure they excite the HT crowd who can in turn show off their systems. But I will say I am glad all movies don't look like this, CGI worlds really really irk me.

Now I really don't understand this. Why am I unable to claim that I'm a film purist and say that I like Speed Racer, too? I never said it was reference material for Blu-ray - I simply said it looked fabulous. You are obviously one of those insufferably "literal" fellows who is just looking to pick a fight with anyone, so I should have said it looks fabulous for what it is. Of course oversaturated colours are unrealistic and gaudy - that's the point. Take a look at the Blu-ray PQ thread here. Notice how many reference titles are animated or feature CGI? You are certainly entitled to dislike CGI, but that doesn't mean it doesn't produce some great-looking visuals, however unrealistic.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 100
1/31/09 at 8:38am
look like this movie a winner for a not must own bd,anyway I will rent first.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Early review