DVDPhreak
-
Posts
242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DVDPhreak
-
-
While I prefer EXORCIST 3, and find that to be the creepiest film ever made, seeing THE EXORCIST during its original release was very much an event, and edge of your seat, experience. I prefer "the version you never saw" cut of the film.
That version tagged on a nonsensical and unnecessary ending. The original ending is perfect as it is: Father Dyer looks down the fatal staircases, turns around, and walks away. But in the new ending, as Dyer walks away, he sees Detective Kinderman, and the two strikes up a casual conversation about some old movie. Obviously the scene serves to echo the earlier moments that show Kinderman as a movie fan. This scene is also in the book, which was why it was added to the movie. But what works on paper doesn't always work on the screen. All it does is that it leaves the viewers totally scratching their heads as to why it is used to end the movie. It is like when a piece a music already ends with a bang, but the orchestra is still playing on.
-
The complete Welles radio broadcast is in public domain and is free to listen here. It is also included with the DVD of the 1953 film version as a bonus feature. The DVD came out 2005.
-
TCM used to have live actors appearing on screen saying the "coming up next" promos. I remember 10 years ago seeing J.K. Simmons (before he was famous) doing one of those promos. They actually built a set that looked like an old-style radio station, with Simmons behind a microphone broadcasting to the world the upcoming movies. It was nice production value for just a promo.
A thing that never seems to have changed is that black-and-white intro segment for late night movies. It is easy to recognize since it is not in widescreen and the picture quality is noticeably poorer than HD. We see late-night patrons in a bar, people walking in dark streets, an attractive woman at the window putting on clothes (a hooker??), etc.
-
Note that TCM aired the old 142-minute version, not the 162-minute director's cut that was restored in 2010. Both versions are available on DVD from Criterion. The longer version is also on Criterion Blu-ray.
-
The more tragic cases are those films that were totally lost, and don't even have fragments of celluloid that exist. Some people have done "still-frame reconstructions" out of existing photographs just to give us a feel of what the lost films would be like. The 2003 Milestone DVD of "The Phantom of the Opera" has two still-frame reconstructions of the two earliest versions of the Lon Chaney silent film.
-
TCM wants to make sure you don't miss the air date.
The air date is shown on the screen for 2-3 minutes so it is hard to miss, and doesn't have to occupy so much room.
-
TCM is probably trying to capture the original aspect ratio of the trailers.
But as I said, the TCM air date at the bottom takes up too much room, and there is a lot of empty even at the top and bottom of the trailer picture. Click here to see what it would look like if I reclaimed all that wasted area. You would get 30% increase in height and width for the picture, which would lead to a seventy-percent increase in picture area for the trailer.
-
Whatever point you were trying to make may have been totally overshadowed by the fact that you seemed to have a lot of hostility towards, I dunno, something.
The crux of the matter is that people who are involved in rescuing silent films are, in my mind and many others', unassailable due to the nobleness of their endeavors! Thus, they can clown, drone on, be nerdy, and compose sleep-inducing music as often as they like.
-
1
-
-
They probably figure that is the time the viewers take toilet breaks so they won't look at the trailers. But by showing them at such a reduced size, TCM may be unintentionally making the viewers subconsciously feel that the trailers aren't important and don't deserve to be seen.
TCM also never shows some of the longer trailers, like the
. But I understand long trailers may pose scheduling problems.As I said, trailers can be pretty memorable, such as the ones for Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, Psycho, The Birds, etc.
-
I don't know if there have been many requests for this. From the fact that TCM hasn't done a thing about this for as long as I can remember, maybe not. I'm talking about the fact that all the trailers are always shown on a much reduced picture size (click here to see screenshot). Much of the screen area is devoted to the large horizontal band at the bottom that shows the next TCM air date. Does the air date have to take up so much room? The trailer is reduced to roughly half its size horizontally and vertically. Some of the trailers are fairly interesting too and deserve to be seen full screen, or at a larger size.
-
I have copies of TCM schedules of every month of the last 7 years, all the way back to June 2008. If you remember roughly when you saw it, it would be a lot easier to find what it was.
-
He said, "Jean Simmons may have hated that wig, but I think it's pretty hot." He clearly meant to say that he found the wig attractive -- which may be a stretch, but it does add a sense of "oddness" about her character that is fitting for the movie.
-
Thanks, mod, for the quick and decisive action.
I think it would be okay to post certain Youtube videos, such as trailers, clips, and other short videos posted for the sake of a discussion. For instance, this post has a link to a video of Ben Mankiewicz at the Oscars. The video is short, and is clearly for the purpose of discussing the subject at hand, not for showing pirated material to others. And it was not like the poster posted 100 clips all over the thread. So in this case, I should say it would be okay.
But it is definitely wrong to post a whole movie (especially the copyrighted ones), let alone 50-page of them like those posters did, the intention of whom was clearly to disseminate pirated material.
The length of the thread was why I didn't use the report button. There were just too many posts to report.
-
Hahaha, this busybody here is detecting a tinge of disappointment and bitterness from you all who put SO so much "work" into the Youtube thread. But didn't I warn you politely in that thread, to which you essentially responded with a "F U, talk to the mod"? Needless to say, I'm feeling effing happy right now. And STOP BEING DISINGENUOUS to everyone by saying I "snitched" on you. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO DEFIANTLY TOLD ME TO TELL THE MOD. See, I merely did what you told me to, LOL. Next time, be careful of what you wish for.
The 9th Circuit Court held in: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 that linking does not invoke copyright law because no copy of the material is made on the computer(s) hosting the link.
That's why nobody has come to your home to arrest you yet! Forum rules DON'T have to follow federal laws. As I said in my post to the mod, you go to any film forums, even PORN FILM FORUMS, and you'll likely find the same rules. Posting a link may not be illegal, but UPLOADING PIRATED MATERIAL CERTAINLY IS. So is downloading them. So don't blame others for making rules that make it inconvenient for
(edited) who try to rationalize posting illegal uploads obtained from SOMEBODY ELSE'S HARD WORK.
-
Dear Moderator, I don't know if you are aware that somebody has been posting links to ILLEGALLY UPLOADED classic movies from Youtube on this very forum almost daily in the last few years (click here to see the 50-page long thread). TCM is about SUPPORTING classic movies. How ironic and disrespectful to have links to BOOTLEGGED VIDEOS of classic films on this site. I asked the posters in that thread to stop what they were doing, and they essentially said, "Go to hell, talk to the mod if you like." So here I am. Are you going to doing something, mod? Do you realize that there are many film forums out there who simply FORBID the posting of illegally uploaded videos? I went to a porn film forum once, and even it forbade posting illegal uploads. Mod, surely your forum is no worse than a porn film forum?? Do you know why those forums have such a rule? Because they don't want to get into trouble with the studios, that's why. So please DO THE RIGHT THING, shut that Youtube thread down, for the good of the filmmakers and yourselves, and tell forum members explicitly that no more postings of illegal uploads would be allowed.
-
I don't recall Ted Turner himself has ever spoken about TCM, the network that bears his very name. Has he? I've seen him speak about CNN, calling it one of his proudest creations. Has Ted shown up in any of the TCM events, festivals, etc.? The 20th anniversary would've been the perfect time to do so. But of course, this was the very guy who spearheaded the colorization of classic films in the 80s (something he has stopped doing), and that might not have endeared him to TCM fans. With TCM getting so much mileage the last 20 years, I hope Ted would come out and gloat a little, and give TCM the boss's approval. This is not a trivial matter, people. We surely want to know: does he like TCM like we do, or does he care so little about it that he may one day turn TCM into post-2002 AMC??
-
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that DVD's are "costly" to make. Costly compared to what? It's just a little disc that's coated with bits and bytes so it can be 'read' by a laser. And what would make the Blu-Ray disc itself cost more? And I don't believe what passes for 'artwork' these days costs much, either. That Warner Archive disc I bought for the 1974 Tv movie "Killdozer" looks like it cost 5¢ along with the cheap-looking insert artwork stuffed in to the jewel case . . . another 5¢ piece of 'material', The alleged artwork isn't even clear; it's fuzzy-looking. I don't believe it cost much to put together at all. Cheap bought-in-bulk DVD recordable disc + cheapo artwork + plastic jewel case couldn't possibly be an expensive endeavor compared to the early 1980s when Warner Home Video was releasing loads of movies in BIG clamshell cases with heavy videocassettes and large-sized, colorful insert artwork. I have an old clamshell release from 1983 of 'PIRANHA' on Warner and no way would I believe a modern DVD release of "Piranha" would cost more to put together than the '83 big clamshell release. ► I do think a company like Criterion would spend more $dosh$ for their DVD releases overall, but I don't think they'd spend a lot of money just to obtain the discs used.
Who pays for the design of the DVD artwork, menu screens, etc.? Who pays the technicians to author the disc, which comprises of such tasks as video encoding, audio encoding, etc.? Who pays the guy who writes the jacket essay? Who pays for the guy who writes the subtltles: for French, Spanish, Portuguese, Cantonese, Japanese, etc.? Who pays for the DVD supplements such as making-of featurettes, interviews, etc.? Not to mention, the cost of the plastic case. DVDs and Blu-rays cost a lot more than just the cost of the plastic disc alone. That is why we have these crappy MOD discs that have no subtitles, no supplements, minimal features and artwork, and are only made "on demand", meaning it is not produced wholesale. Wholesale production of DVDs and Blu-rays nowadays are only reserved for blockbuster or "prestige" titles. Even Criterion has a "low budget" line of products called the "Eclipse" collection that comprises of barebone discs of lesser-known films that don't sell as well. Those who sell low-budget discs like Warner Archive are doing us a favor, so we shouldn't really bemoan them. They don't get rich making them; and if they didn't make them, nobody else would do it at all.
(Also, if VHS tapes have 'disappeared' how come I still have so many of them?
)So where is that VHS version of "Gravity" that I've been waiting for? If VHS tapes haven't disappeared, where are the VHS versions of "Argo", "Life of Pi", the latest restoration of "Lawrence of Arabia", etc.? I hope you see my point by now.
-
Some of this sounds a little advanced for me...but thanks for telling us about it. At least we have options...right?
For TCM fans, the most natural streaming service to try out would be Warner Archive Instant. It doesn't have a lot of movies yet, and most movies don't have subtitles. But it is a good way to see old movies in HD that probably won't be available in HD otherwise. Some will probably not even be on DVD. Another way to see them in HD is to just watch the TCM channel, which seems to be showing HD broadcasts more and more frequently. As I said, studios are not going to keep making DVDs and Blu-rays. They will disappear just as VHS tapes have disappeared, because DVDs are already costly to make, and Blu-rays even more so.
-
Sounds like you may need to change your screen name to StreamingPhreak.
Absolutely, I second that! Or at least "BlurayPhreak". The DVD format is almost 2 decades old and is no longer optimal for showing video on modern TV systems, which need progressive, high-resolution, and efficiently compressed video that DVDs inherently can't offer.
As some of you may have heard, Walmart is able to convert your DVDs into streaming HD video with a fee. They just put out a "do it at home" version of the service, so you don't need to go to Walmart to do it. You put your DVD in your computer's DVD drive, pay $5, and you automatically get an HD cloud streaming version of the movie, which you can either stream online or download to be watched offline. If you convert 10 movies at once, you get 50% discount. This is an important service, because a lot of their HD movies are not available on Blu-ray at all. I've already converted "Paper Moon", "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", "Duck Soup", and "A Night at the Opera", films that you currently have no way to watch in HD otherwise because no Blu-rays have been made for them yet.
-
Yes, the MOD disc phenomenon is really crappy. But has any of you considered using STREAMING VIDEO services? You watch movies instantly, and don't have to deal with all the unpleasantness of the physical discs. No, you don't just watch them on your computers. You can watch them on your TV too, provided that you have a streaming device set up. Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu are the most famous video streaming services. Then there is Warner Archive Instant that shows old movies. And if you don't want to pay monthly fees, there are "a la carte" services as well, such as Vudu and iTunes, where you buy and/or rent by title. Forget those MOD discs. Forget DVDs in general; their days are numbered. Consumers and the industry have moved towards streaming. There are more and more titles available for streaming but not on disc (such as the 4-hour version of the silent classic "Greed" on iTunes). Studios are reluctant these days to make physical discs because fewer people are buying them. Naturally, costs are cut and you see the results on these crappy MOD discs. Join the revolution and go stream!
-
If you want to request a title to be shown, go to the Suggest a Movie page.
-
I can't stand watching anything on my computer for too long. Wonder why that film is so expensive?
You need a streaming device that lets you watch "computer video" on your TV. I use a Roku device that lets me watch Netflix, Amazon Instant, even Youtube videos on my TV.
This DVD is not expensive. One seller only charges $24.47. You gotta look at all the sellers. But as you see, they are all third-party sellers, which means Amazon doesn't sell it directly. That usually means the DVD is out of print, and that explains some of the high prices.
-
Thanks, HelenBaby2. Also want to mention that last year's festival had the nicest looking STAGE to conduct those interviews. It was nice and large, with a beautiful blue curtain at the back. In other times, the stage often looked too small, and/or poorly set up. I remember when Robert interviewed Maureen O'Hara, they used some kind of makeshift stage with Robert and Maureen's BACKS TOWARDS THE AUDIENCE. Very poor setup.
-
I have only see bits and pieces of Twentieth Century. Amazon wants $96.00 for the DVD. Ha ha!
Amazon also offers it for digital streaming and/or download, only $13 to buy and $4 to rent, and in HD to boot. Forget DVD, go digital.
)
YET ANOTHER SCHEDULE SNAFU - JAMES DEAN'S TV LEGACY
in General Discussions
Posted
I have Time Warner cable, with a cable box that has analogue outputs (component video outputs and optical audio output). Thus, I can record programs in HD with a third-party recorder that accepts component video and optical audio. This is a PC-based recorder setup, so the resulting recordings can be converted with PC software to other formats: DVD, BD, mp4, etc. If your COX box has analogue outputs, you can do the same.
I use the cable box ($12/month paid to Time Warner) only for recording. All my TV viewing is done on a Roku box ($80), which has a Time Warner app that lets me watch live TV from TWC. It also allows me to view live TV on smartphones, tablets, and PC, but only at home.
As you may already know, the market for physical discs is dying and more and more people want online streaming instead, hence your difficulty finding good solutions. Computer tools for recording are also dying. Many of the popular PVR software have been discontinued. Microsoft recently announced the discontinuation of its Windows PVR tool "Windows Media Center" (which had been around since XP) from Windows 10 and beyond.
Btw, after I record programs with my PC setup, the recording stays on my PC hard drive. I don't burn them to discs at all. In fact, I haven't burned a disc in the last 5 years and have been using external hard disk drives for mass storage. It's faster copying files to a USB3 HDD than burning them to discs. You can search files in seconds on a large HDD. HD is cheaper per GB. And most importantly, the disc-burning technology is inherent TOO unreliable. That was one reason the public rejected it and adopted streaming. Another importance issue is space. A 3TB HDD takes up much less space than 3TB of DVD+Rs, which is about 6 spindles of 100 discs. Finally, videos in a HDD can be streamed, if you have a such a thing set up (it is gaining popularity). In short, HDD storage has all kinds of advantages.
The company that made what many believed to be the best quality blank discs, Taiyo Yuden, recently announced that it would no longer make blank discs due to poor sales. Another writing on the wall that the future of physical discs is no more.