AVS Forum banner

141 - 160 of 882 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/18367972


Right now in current dollars Avatar is the most succesful movie ever. With Titanic as second and Dark knight as nr 5.


But if we talk about adjusted dollars since thats the only way of see how successful a movie is in reality.


There I can only check the domestic(US) market for obvious reasons. But there we have The Dark knight as nr 28. And since it was not as great success on the international market as the US market, I think it would be even further down on the worldwide lists.


And the top 5 is by the way


Gone with the wind

Star wars

Sound of music

ET

The ten commandments

+1


In addition to inflation, these things are complicated by an increasing population along with a film, such as GWTW, being re-released. If you really want to do an apples to apples, adjust everything to 2010 prices, only use revenue from the first year of release and weight the formula to balance out the changing population.


It wouldn't surprise me, even though I'm only guessing, that adjusted for population, if Star Wars didn't sell more tickets in its first year than Avatar will. After all, the US population has roughly increased 35% since 1977.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
It's the posts like these that keep me visiting AVS regularly. Much thanks to all the members like Xylon and eric.exe who give us the real scoop on picture quality to help out with buying decisions.


I wasn't planning to buy the LOTR TE set (waiting for EE), and seeing this just reinforces that decision. If Warner had nailed this release, and they looked as good as (say) Casablanca, I would have preordered the EE set, no questions asked. Now I'll have to wait, and worry, about whether that release will be lazy and half-azzed as well.


Seriously, if Paramount can fund Robert Harris' incredible, top-notch restoration of the tattered remnants of the Godfather films, which probably have only a fraction of the earnings potential of LOTR, why on earth couldn't Warner at least spend the little it would take to strike a new and improved master for FOTR? I just don't understand this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
Thanks for posting all the screen compares eric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie E /forum/post/18371723


Seriously, if Paramount can fund Robert Harris' incredible, top-notch restoration of the tattered remnants of the Godfather films, which probably have only a fraction of the earnings potential of LOTR, why on earth couldn't Warner at least spend the little it would take to strike a new and improved master for FOTR? I just don't understand this.

Actually Steven Spielberg had to call Brad Grey and personally convince him to have Paramount cough up the dough for that restoration.


In the case of LOTR, Peter Jackson has already stated that he thinks these Blu-Rays look fantastic, so I suppose no one called Warner to demand any additional efforts be made to maximize the presentation of this set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex /forum/post/18360658


Arrogance is assuming that because someone has a certain set of credentials, they absolutely must be right. Obviously you are wrong in your assumption of this.

Even putting his expertise exceeding yours aside, who's likely to be right about how the movie which they made should look? You or them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Uhm, since we actually finance the whole enterprise via ticket and disc sales, I'm pretty much confident to say that we (a.k.a The Customer) is right about how the movie which they made should look. In every single case.


I thought until just a few years ago that's a given, but I have to take note that in many parts of life there is a creeping brainwashing going on, in terms of: it's not we who finance their enterprise, but we have to be grateful for what they bestow on us. Also applies to: politics. It's the people who have a government, not the other way around.


So given the increasing politicization of public life, it's no wonder that Warner is behaving like this. Yes, we do payroll Warner, and yes, we can and should demand what the final product will be.


In related news: Warner is not doing well financially. Wonder how that fits into the picture? Of course Warner and a number of other media publishing entities would very much prefer to be publicly funded (but with none of the accountability) so as to decouple the actual production values from earnings, but we are not there yet. Keywords to watch for: newspaper bailouts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebEffect /forum/post/18373816


Even putting his expertise exceeding yours aside, who's likely to be right about how the movie which they made should look? You or them?

So wait... it looked detailed in theaters, it looked detailed on HDTV, but now it has to look mushy and smeared for BD?


I'm all fine and dandy with directors intent, but obviously there's no intent here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,473 Posts
Discussion Starter #149
This maybe of interest to some... left is from the FOTR disc, right is from the very beginning of the TTT:









I also tried to compare Pippin's flashback of Boromir getting owned in ROTK to the original scene in FOTR, but they used different angles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
I think that demonstrates that the issue is not the source material...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Test123455 /forum/post/18374281


what exactly is the HDTV version?

Neither. One is a scene as it appears in the first movie, Fellowship, the other is the exact same scene as it appears in the second movie, Two Towers.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44369


The color timing is off on Fellowship and the fine detail is not as good. Fellowship shots are also slightly more zoomed in with more image is shows in the TTT shots. Why? I've had a few more than a few, so that's a little confusing.

So.. I assume that means they rescanned those parts when they originally made the TTT master???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,034 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins /forum/post/18374296


Neither. One is a scene as it appears in the first movie, Fellowship, the other is the exact same scene as it appears in the second movie, Two Towers.

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44369


The color and fine detail on Fellowship: ****ed.


Fellowship shots are also slightly more zoomed in. More image is shows in the TTT shots. Why? I

ve had a few more than a few, so that's a little confusing.

oh, i meant like...what is the HDTV version? like, is it just the movie redone and broadcast OTA or something (that i missed, although im a huge fan
)?


i definitely think your screenshots are interesting...TTT looks so much better (with the exception of the balrog scene--it doesnt seem better in TTT).


if these movies arent done well i'll be pissed off. personally i am waiting for the EE, but anything less than an awesome transfer would be a shame (and i think the EE and theatrical releases should have the same quality).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
Yeah, the HD Broadcast version was made for television stations to broadcast it in HD.


I think the screens Eric's came from were when DISH ppv put out a progressive broadcast of that version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Whoa, the colours and brightness are waaaay different between FOTR and TTT... what the?! Was that always the case even with the DVDs?


And that shot of Gandalf hanging on looks far too red on TTT in my opinion....


But yes the detail is obviously better in TTT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
913 Posts
Yeah, way different. It's hard to tell what colors are "right," or more fitting, because I think during these Balrog scenes there were flames all over the place, spells being cast and throwing light around, etc.... but they're even framed way differently:

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/44375


Eric, this was the same shot? It looks like it's gotta be given the position of the moving whip and everything, but wow.


Totally different.


Gandalf looks out of focus in the Fellowship shot too, although that's not a surprise.


Must've just been redone and rescanned entirely when making the TTT master maybe? I know next to nothing about the technical process of how these were made though, so I have no idea. Someone here must.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Detail is slightly better in TTT in some instances but it isn't a night and day issue (they are both still not so good) and the better detail is nullified by the worse color. The color is all over the place, in only one of the shots is the TTT better (the second set of images), but in others the FOTR has way better color. It isn't just better balance but there are more colors and more dynamic range. FOTR still has weird color but what is left of it is more natural than the TTT examples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickpicker /forum/post/18373951


Uhm, since we actually finance the whole enterprise via ticket and disc sales, I'm pretty much confident to say that we (a.k.a The Customer) is right about how the movie which they made should look. In every single case.

??? - We consumers certainly have a right to complain about whatever we want... but the owners of the film are the ones who determine what they want to sell, and how they want their movie to look. We just determine what we want to buy, or not buy.


Sure consumer dollars ultimately fund movie projects, but buying tickets & DVDs doesn't give us direct creative control of a studio's productions.


We pay for the ticket / DVD, after that the money belongs to the studio to do with as they see fit. If they spend it making more things we like... we give them more money. If they spend it making things we don't like... they go broke and some other studio takes their place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I'm not talking about the intellectual property. I'm talking about who pays for their enterprise. 100% of it is paid by the consumer. And 100% of the production of LOTR, 100% of mastering LOTR, 100% of packaging the discs is paid by the consumer.


So how exactly are we not entitled to criticize and direct their business? The point I'm trying to make is that from a business perspective, the moment a film-maker, a producer, a pre-post technician starts working, he has to think of the product not as his product, but as something that already belongs to the consumer, otherwise they'll fail.


Of course any enterprise is entitled to conducting their business in a different manner. Those stocks are typically in the junk-bond range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,232 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevestevenson /forum/post/18374420


Detail is slightly better in TTT in some instances but it isn't a night and day issue (they are both still not so good).

I disagree. The Two Towers looks like actual HD. There's detail in Gandolf's beard, you can tell what's in focus, etc. FOTR looks like an upscaled dvd in comparison..
 
141 - 160 of 882 Posts
Top