• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,816 Messiah

About CarloOos

  • Birthday 02/08/87

Recent Profile Visitors

1,301 profile views
  1. Yeah, should have phrased that as frame-size.
  2. Gorf has been bang on so far, but for what it's worth regarding 4k content: Unless you're working on Lawrence of Arabia or some other 70mm epic, most older 35mm films are scanned in at 2k Full Aperture. That's 2048x1556, almost a square, for a full frame of 35mm. From that frame, you crop in to get whatever aspect ratio the film was shot in, and then you usually deliver at 1920x1080. The actual detail of many 35mm films can be quite soft at that size as it is, so the only 'benefits' you're likely to see from re-scanning everything at double the resolution are insane file sizes and slightly sharper grain, and that's without even touching on the whole VFX delivery resolution can of worms that Gorf touched on. This is why most of those '4k BluRays' on the market are just 2k upscales, and why I wouldn't hold your breath for a huge wave of 4k remasters around the corner. I also think the term itself is quite disingenuous, branding UHD as 4k almost implies 4x the resolution of 1080p. Calling it 2160p doesn't carry quite the same heft.
  3. Oh, totally. I never imagined the audience as anything but an upgrade option for existing owners, besides a few PS4 owners who were put off by the under-cooked original who now have the chance to scoop up whatever the Xbox exclusives they missed and also get the new highest benchmark for future third party ports. They're definitely not aiming for a mainstream demographic, which is why it's not a new generation and they'll continue to sell the Xbox One S for those less invested, like Apple and the iPhone SE.
  4. Sure, but they've publically stated its been enormously successful, sold far more than they anticipated, and continues to do so. It's been out for almost a year and it's still selling out, right now there's only 1 left on the UK Amazon. There's a market for premium consoles.
  5. You mean like the 'Premium Pad' that cost as much as a console and was sold out for months on end?
  6. Well, there's your answer. TV's aren't designed to be sat two feet away from, monitors are.
  7. Exactly, there are hundreds of factors that can make one screen more impressive than another, resolution is only part of that. I'm also going to assume you sit far closer to your monitor than most people do with their TVs, @Gizamaluke. Uncharted 4 had such high-quality anti-aliasing that you could barely see a single pixel, I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone it would look signifcantly better at over double the resolution on a screen of the same size. 4k DCI is a good working format for film production. The consumer format though, Ultra HD, is basically just a marketing gimmick that display manufacturers hope will trigger another HD boom (it won't).
  8. Ghostbusters (2016)

    Something to remember about MiB3 was that it had a very troubled production which went on hiatus for about 6 months which would have cost a fortune, along with Will Smith's increasingly bloated paycheck compared to the original. That said I'm sure his people would argue it wasn't bloated at all, considering the majority of that $624 million it made back will have been largely down to his international appeal.
  9. Ghostbusters (2016)

    I don't think I've ever met a single person who actually saw Men in Black 3 at the cinema, and yet it inexplicably made more money than the first two.
  10. It's Not You, It's Me

    Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice: Ultimate Edition. By the time those credits roll I guarantee you'll have a newfound zest for the rest of cinema.
  11. Xbox Games with Gold | August

    I would never have even considered buying either of them, but at least that's two couch co-op games for the Bone. Might be worth throwing on with a mate to smack some fools around.
  12. Yeah, I mean they imply there's actually loads of people stranded there but besides those random two guys Jaylah beats off with her stick (fnar fnar, etc) it's never even mentioned again.
  13. I just didn't buy it. Even with the explanations, the whole setup feels tenuous. I know Star Trek has mined the tensions between military and the federation many times before, but Krall was just a nonsense character and the whole thing hinges on him behaving and using all the magical guff at his disposal in a very specifically irrational way purely to set the plot in motion. Arguably you could say that about a lot of films, but this just fundamentally didn't land for me, probably because it's the chemistry between the cast that draws me to these films and that chemistry largely rings hollow here. I think if they wanted to do a smaller scale Star Trek film about a one-off adventure, the stakes should have been lower. Have the balls to make the third act about the saving the crew and escaping the planet, which is far more exciting when done right than yet another threat to the entire federation or whatever. As it is they've tried to have their cake and eat it, resulting in an odd, rather low-key film with a finale straight from Into Darkness.
  14. Haha yeah to be fair, I saw that coming. But I can say with absolute sincerity that I was looking forward to this film enough to see it opening night at the BFI IMAX, and as an attentive viewer I genuinely can't recall a single one of those plot beats. From the halfway point I was quite consciously bored so maybe the never-ending drone of technobabble exposition started going in one ear and out the other, or maybe it was all packed into Elba's almost entirely unintelligible exposition dump right before the third act. I don't think it actually makes much difference, the script is still the weakest link regardless. Re: Spock's dialogue, it just felt wrong, like fan-fiction or something. His lines were littered with absolute clunkers, whereas Quinto seemed pretty much flawless in the other films whenever he wasn't beating people to death with bits of metal paneling. Again, I only really attribute this to the writing because everyone else is fine, although the 'banter' between them does feels largely forced.
  15. I genuinely wish I'd seen the same film you guys did. Broadly made sense? The plot of this might actually be more stupid than Into Darkness, which is astonishing. Considering each of the Trek reboots so far have been critcised for villains with weak, nonsensical motivations, it's quite an achievement that Beyond has managed the worst one yet. Elba's performance is predictably terrible, even by his standards this is some proper ham bollocks. Urban is once again the best thing about it, but he's fighting a massively uphill battle against a script that's content to turn him into a Bones catchphrase sound board; the novelty of which grows old when almost every single line features a variation of "Good GOD, man!". Quinto's Spock didn't land for me at all this time, his dialogue seemed far, far too flowery and overwrought for a character whose whole remit is supposedly straightforward and terse. Pine was fine, and the rest of the cast don't really get much to do. If you were particularly off put by the malicious tone of Into Darkness then I can see why you might prefer this, although personally I think they're equally flawed in completely different ways. Into Darkness was a riveting and spectacular adventure that completely fell apart in retrospect and was severely lacking in whimsy, whereas Beyond lays on lighthearted character moments thick, but they're mostly completely hollow. It also looks a lot cheaper than Into Darkness, despite having the same budget, and never really manages much in the way of excitement. Neither of them are in the same league as the reboot, which personally I'd say is one of the most effortlessly enjoyable blockbusters of the last decade.