Your Unpopular TV/Film opinions.

[chuckster]

That's a good point. Now they all just sound like generic jpop or jrock songs. None of them seem to have really tuned-in themes that are clearly recognizable.

I've been thinking of this today, and the only recent anime (say, the last 5 years or so) that I've watched where I can remember the opening theme is One Punch Man. And half of the reason for that, is that the song literally starts with someone screaming "ONE PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNCH!" right at the beginning. Other than that, I'm coming up blank.

I love One-Punch, it's the first anime in a long time that got me reading the manga. I had to stop after the Metal Bat part so I wouldn't be spoiled one they announced the second season. Whenever I hear that opening, I can't help but get pumped.

I'd never put the NT over the OT, but I've become a bit of an apologist for the new trilogy haha. George Lucas was good at world building and there's a lot of stuff you can do from his blueprints. I don't have much faith in where Disney is steering the ship now. The Force Awakens has gotten worse with a few rewatches and I thought Rogue One sucked, it was insanely boring and they utterly disgraced Peter Cushing.

Don't get me wrong, I think the OT is a lot better overall, I just liked how the Prequels 'expanded' the universe (sorry). I was 8 when TPM came out so I have a lot of nostalgia, especially for Episode 2 and 3. Even so, watching now their flaws are painfully obvious. George Lucas laid a great roadmap for the mythology, and that's something that is definitely lacking with the Disney movies. You can tell they're just not made in the same spirit, that it's a different company that is trying to shift the franchise toward their own, so far less colorful standard.

And as a Peter Cushing fan, I totally agree that they messed up. He would have worked just fine as an off-screen voice (though the voice was way off too). I ended up loving the CGI character in the new Blade Runner, but both of them in the Disney Star Wars movies fell right to the bottom of the Uncanny Valley.

TFA was good, I was happy with it, but it's still not up to the OT standards (only watched it twice so far). Rogue One just felt empty and boring.

[Segata]

Hollywood films shot in the 90s on actual film to me look better quality wise than current films shot digitally. Just Watch something like Star Trek First Contact and then look at Beyond. I feel that little bit of grain adds depth to what is happening on screen to me.

[Gunstar Green]

That's a good point. Now they all just sound like generic jpop or jrock songs. None of them seem to have really tuned-in themes that are clearly recognizable.

I've been thinking of this today, and the only recent anime (say, the last 5 years or so) that I've watched where I can remember the opening theme is One Punch Man. And half of the reason for that, is that the song literally starts with someone screaming "ONE PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNCH!" right at the beginning. Other than that, I'm coming up blank.

JAM Project is one of my favorite anime opener bands so I love the One Punch Man song.

Dragon Ball Super's current opening "Ultimate Battle" is pretty great too.

Star Wars is just ok to me. Just kinda eh whatever. Will watch the films on Netflix if really in the mood but otherwise. Meh whatever. I'm not in the least bit hyped about Last Jedi.

I've come to terms with outside the original trilogy and some video games based around it I don't have much interest in Star Wars. I'm not sure I'm going to even go see Last Jedi. The last two movies just didn't do anything for me.

[chuckster]

Hollywood films shot in the 90s on actual film to me look better quality wise than current films shot digitally. Just Watch something like Star Trek First Contact and then look at Beyond. I feel that little bit of grain adds depth to what is happening on screen to me.

I'm with you. I believe 35mm has a theoretical resolution of 8K or so (IMAX claims 18K for their 70mm at least), and color plays a big part as well. Watching The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly really puts film/video quality into perspective. That thing was shot in the 60's and it is one of the best looking movies I've seen. It seems like the digital jump was just a little pre-mature. Even shooting in 4K, the video quality overall has a far lower ceiling than 35mm.

As an aside, I don't own a OLED but to me, a PVM or a nice consumer CRT looks far better in general than my flat screens for video. I'd just as soon watch a DVD on CRT as a Blu-Ray on my flat panel.

To add to that, I know VHS is going down as a rough, glitchy viewing experience, but on a CRT and a good VCR, and with a well cared-for tape, the gap between VHS and DVD isn't a huge one.

[Xeogred]

The lack of color in modern movies for the last decade and a half is definitely sad.

[isiolia]

Hollywood films shot in the 90s on actual film to me look better quality wise than current films shot digitally. Just Watch something like Star Trek First Contact and then look at Beyond. I feel that little bit of grain adds depth to what is happening on screen to me.

I think a lot of that is kinda like vinyl vs CD - it's a lot less about the medium, and a lot more about what's getting put on it. Digital has come hand in hand with greater and greater ability to tweak things in post, or simply composite different elements together. Offhand, that's a lot of what got people picking up digital in the first place - lower cost and/or facilitating a lot of effects work. I suspect that a lot of the problems with digital - outside of early technical limitations - are more a matter of not putting as much work into the initial shot, so to speak. Some of it may also be a stylistic choice, like different color grading. Still, I think a lot of the "look" for 80s/90s type films comes less from the recording method itself (though the film stock/etc does play a role), and more due to doing a lot more in front of the camera - practical effects, lighting, what have you, when well done.

Productions that elect to put more time into those things now can end up with a similar look, or simply a great look, regardless of the camera type. Whether looking at better shot TV like Mindhunter, Stranger Things, Hannibal etc or films like The Revenant or Blade Runner 2049 or...really almost anything else since the typical workflow now is digital...

It might just be harder to tell now. I mean, back then, bad green screen or effects stood out (Escape from LA anyone?), where now it seems like that's rarer.

[samsonlonghair]

The Force Awakens has gotten worse with a few rewatches and I thought Rogue One sucked, it was insanely boring and they utterly disgraced Peter Cushing.

The Force Awakens is practically the same movie as the original Star Wars 1977 (a.k.a. Episode IV A New Hope). Watch them back-to-back sometime. They have the same exact plot. It's almost a scene-for-scene copy.

I agree that the CGI Peter Cushing face in Rogue One was pretty jarring. Something about the effect was too deep in the uncanny valley. I hope they can re-edit that in the future to fix his face.

I will say that I'm extra apprehensive about Han Solo. I heard a lot of bad buzz about the original director leaving the project. That's never a good sign. Now, Ron Howard is one of the most accomplished directors in Hollywood, but he cannot work magic. He came onto the project too late to re-write the script. I don't know how much re-shooting he could do, if any. Ron Howard is a great film editor, but you can only work with the material you have, right?

[marurun]

I haven't read any accounts yet that blame the material. They all point at the departing director.

[samsonlonghair]

I haven't read any accounts yet that blame the material. They all point at the departing director.

Right. But the departing director is the one who approved the script and oversaw shooting. You dig? That's the material I'm talking about. Now Ron Howard has to take whatever that guy left behind (with a minimum of re-shooting), and assemble it into a good movie.

That's why I'm saying you (Ron Howard) can only work with the material you have.

[marurun]

I haven't read any accounts yet that blame the material. They all point at the departing director.

Right. But the departing director is the one who approved the script and oversaw shooting. You dig? That's the material I'm talking about. Now Ron Howard has to take whatever that guy left behind (with a minimum of re-shooting), and assemble it into a good movie.

That's why I'm saying you (Ron Howard) can only work with the material you have.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. To clarify, the only specific complaints I've heard about the director have to do with him not doing many takes of scenes, not being aggressive about filming, being just way too lax about the filming side. So I haven't seen any reasons to be overly concerned about content, yet. It seems like LucasFilm/Disney was expecting the director to be a lot more active and capture a lot more material instead of being so, "eh, that's good enough" about lots of the scenes.