If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Badass Digest)   Paramount Pictures celebrates its 100th anniversary this year by pushing all its new movies to Year 101. Way to climb that mountain   (badassdigest.com) divider line 27
    More: Fail, Paramount Pictures, Josh Schwartz, Titanic 3D, Charlotte's Web, Barbra Streisand, Saturday Night Fever, Jack Reacher, Seth Rogen  
•       •       •

5486 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 Jun 2012 at 7:49 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-18 03:42:06 PM
Robert Evans should take Paramount again.
 
2012-06-18 03:49:06 PM
The article has a really good point. Why NOT re-release Raiders of the Lost Ark in its new format? You'd spend a few bucks on marketing but the movie is long finished, and I KNOW people would go see that in a theater if you gave them a chance.

The question is why aren't they doing this? I mean, that's so low-risk. How about you spend $300 million on Battleship 2 instead.
 
2012-06-18 07:09:12 PM

Confabulat: The article has a really good point. Why NOT re-release Raiders of the Lost Ark in its new format? You'd spend a few bucks on marketing but the movie is long finished, and I KNOW people would go see that in a theater if you gave them a chance.

The question is why aren't they doing this? I mean, that's so low-risk. How about you spend $300 million on Battleship 2 instead.


Well, the problem is, Hollywood thinks it's 1952 again, and anything rereleased has to be in 3D. And converting the old movies to 3D is probably expensive. So there probably wouldn't be any real savings after they remastered, restored, and 3D-ized the movie.

And that brings up something else... most classic movies are in farking horrible shape and need restoration. Sure, the old faithful standbys have been cleaned up... The Godfather, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind, My Fair Lady, Citizen Kane... but would there be a decent print of, say Sabrina or Breakfast at Tiffany's out there to be screened?
 
2012-06-18 07:39:07 PM
What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.
 
2012-06-18 07:58:44 PM

Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.


ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!
 
2012-06-18 08:01:03 PM
Maybe they could celebrate by buying back their theme parks?

The former Paramount theme park here in the Bay Area is now run by some joke of a company that refuses to to basic maintenance or even cleaning. It's really sad.
 
2012-06-18 08:19:09 PM
Paramount still exists? I thought it dissolved into a bigger corp because of the recession.

I'll love it forever because it's a brand from my childhood - not only Grease or The Brady Bunch, understand.
 
2012-06-18 08:22:54 PM
And if Paramount had actually done some summer re-releases of classic films, we'd be reading more or less the same low budget, second hand blog post whining about the fact that, rather than develop something new, Paramount went the lazy route or that Paramount was re-releasing its intellectual property in some legal bid to ensure its classics can't/won't/don't fall back into public domain or some shiat like that.
 
2012-06-18 08:23:27 PM
On the big screen, how would a 4k Indiana Jones compare to the original film version? It doesn't seem like it could look better?
 
2012-06-18 08:25:16 PM

ParadisePornoTheater: Paramount still exists? I thought it dissolved into a bigger corp because of the recession.

I'll love it forever because it's a brand from my childhood - not only Grease or The Brady Bunch, understand.


Paramount has been part of a bigger corporation since the 60s.

They were owned by Gulf and Western from the late-60s until the late-80s, and then G&W was bought by Viacom, which was part of CBS.

What you might be thinking of is the CBS/Paramount split in 2006. The original Viacom became CBS Corporation and got the TV side of things while a new Viacom was spun off and got Paramount pictures and some production companies. Both are still owned by National Amusements.
 
2012-06-18 08:32:31 PM

ClavellBCMI: Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.

ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!


Same here.
As time goes on Raiders has become one of my all time faves.
Perfect delivery for the type flick it was supposed to be.
 
2012-06-18 08:38:38 PM
spoiler: Perry is no Bieber

Yeah, she actually has talent.


Primitive Screwhead: ClavellBCMI: Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.

ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!

Same here.
As time goes on Raiders has become one of my all time faves.
Perfect delivery for the type flick it was supposed to be.


What does "4k" mean, in film terms?
 
2012-06-18 08:39:51 PM
"Jack Reacher"?
 
2012-06-18 08:48:57 PM

fusillade762: What does "4k" mean, in film terms?


There are a few different standards, but it basically amounts to 4x 1080p resolution. Most digital projectors used in theaters are 4k these days.
 
2012-06-18 08:49:32 PM

fusillade762: What does "4k" mean, in film terms?


4k means there are roughly 4,000 lines of digital resolution - that's more pixels than previous digital cinema standard which I think is about 2,000 lines. Home televisions have 1080p which is roughly "1k", so a 4k image has 16 times as many pixels as 1k. The idea is that you get the clean, pristine picture with digital yet with enough resolution to rival the analog medium of film. In practical terms, whether it really makes that much difference to your movie going enjoyment is pretty subjective. If you're a movie buff with an eye for technical details then you will appreciate it. If projection technologies don't excite you then the difference will be meh.
 
2012-06-18 08:54:50 PM

The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight: On the big screen, how would a 4k Indiana Jones compare to the original film version? It doesn't seem like it could look better?


It would be like Avatar. With hats.
 
2012-06-18 09:05:44 PM

FirstNationalBastard: but would there be a decent print of, say Sabrina or Breakfast at Tiffany's out there to be screened?


Given those films are still shown here and there, there are good prints around. Also it would be trivial to take a good print and convert it to digital format and then you just have a file to send around to theaters with digital projection equipment.
 
2012-06-18 09:24:33 PM
FTFA: Titanic made 300 million? Is that the rerelease?
 
2012-06-18 09:30:39 PM

The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight: On the big screen, how would a 4k Indiana Jones compare to the original film version? It doesn't seem like it could look better?



*facepalm*
 
2012-06-18 11:29:32 PM

ClavellBCMI: Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.

ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!


filmfanatic.org

I'd still sneak in minibottles, but I'd be less upset about the price of the giant soda... maybe I'd even splurge and buy Mrs. Kraftwerk Orange some candy or something.
 
2012-06-19 03:29:58 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Jack Reacher"?


It'll be around.
 
2012-06-19 09:34:20 AM
Paramount? I liked them better when they were Desilu Productions.
 
2012-06-19 11:45:15 AM

ClavellBCMI: Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.

ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!


As long as all of the Nazis are replaced by walkie talkies.
 
2012-06-19 01:07:00 PM
A local drive in just installed a 4k projector system this year. Their first week to show it off was a double feature of Raiders and Back to the Future. They digital prints were made for 2k and not 4k, but still looked incredible.

Best part, the first weekend was free!
 
2012-06-19 01:59:31 PM
Most interesting thing in that article is from the comments.

Apparently, there's a Snow Crash movie in the works at Paramount. How the heck is that going to work? The timeline barely worked 20 years ago when the book was released; it's broken completely now (it requires two characters in their thirties to have fathers who fought in World War II, yet is set in the future). Plus, that is not exactly an easy story to film in general.
 
2012-06-19 02:45:27 PM

tagkc: A local drive in just installed a 4k projector system this year. Their first week to show it off was a double feature of Raiders and Back to the Future. They digital prints were made for 2k and not 4k, but still looked incredible.

Best part, the first weekend was free!


I'm seriously jealous. Two of my favourite movies. If Superman had been there too I would have driven to wherever you are.
 
2012-06-19 05:50:36 PM

Kraftwerk Orange: ClavellBCMI: Mugato: What I'm picturing is a full, 3000 theater rerelease of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which has a new, astonishing 4k print available)

I just came.

ME WANTS TO SEE THIS VERSION OF RAIDERS! Hell, I'd pay $20 to see it! AND pay the outrageous concession prices!

[filmfanatic.org image 640x360]

I'd still sneak in minibottles, but I'd be less upset about the price of the giant soda... maybe I'd even splurge and buy Mrs. Kraftwerk Orange some candy or something.


1/4 pints of Jim Beam are nice.

Small enough to slip into a pocket, and only cost $1.29 at the liquor store up the street.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report