• 
  

  dvdtalk’s review slated this disc as badly mastered - in a position to delve into the technical belly of this discs encoding? would be interested to hear about it…

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 11th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  I think that might just be overly picky. Now, to be fair, I don’t really notice bad transfers unless they’re completely terrible (think the original Fist of the North Star release, with rampant color bleeds, or some of your VHS bootleg DVDs). Furthermore, I just have a standard television with component hookups. No HD for me. What the DVD Talk reviewer describes is a bit strange. I didn’t see any combing issues. No one seemed to be redrawn with frame passes out of sync. It could be a matter of DVD player incompatibility though. I know most of the old Image releases can’t be played on my Toshiba. They can be brand new out of the box, but the player will play them as if they’ve been severely scratched. The Shinsengumi DVD looked fine both on my Toshiba and Sony, as well as my computer. Tthe quality of the restoration was solid. It’s a soft technicolor film, and everything was represented clearly. Really, I have no qualms with it.

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 11th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  it’s a toughie, i know. i’ve the dvd with me now - i have a HD tv and was upscaling it, scanning it over, checking it out. not only does it look soft, it looks doubled-up like, well, double vision at times. odd. can’t work it out.

  there’s the situation then, another dvd where you can’t tell quite if its the mastering or the production values. the time the film was made, in relation to other work, would suggest (as does animeigo’s recent reputation - shakey) that it’s a mastering thing. not happy. personally, i’ve had it with the company. won’t buy another of theirs.

  btw, CRT sets tend to be much more forgiving of bad encoding. they tighten and compensate, don’t differentiate as clearly between sequences that work and those that don’t - bad DVDs are rarely just simply bad, they tend to be done badly and it shows in certain parts of any film more than it will in others.

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 13th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  But, do you think that’s a product of the upscaling itself? Have you tried watching it without upscaling? Again, not having an HDTV I’m not too familiar with the actual result of upscaling, but I know how it’s done in theory. Still, since it looked fine on our CRT television I’ll still stick with what I said

  Btw, what did you think of the film? DVD mechanics aside, I thought it was a pretty good movie, and I’m glad AnimEigo took a chance on releasing it here in the states. And the supplementals they provided were all intended to (and for me, did) further the enjoyment and understanding of the film. I think in that respect their heart is in the right place, no? It’s hard enough getting these great films released stateside, and it’s rare to find a company that doesn’t just stamp out a blah disc with no extras (see: TokyoShock).

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 13th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  i tried it at 480p last night - it’s no better, still blurred, still double visioned.

  besides, i don’t think these issues should be something the consumers are all individually running around trying to pin down. either get it right, or if you think it will be taken wrongly or needs explaining, then do jsut that at tell us the story behind it all, or it simply adds to the confusion, loss of faith in DVD and so on. don’t just stick something you can see is open to interpretation or has limitations onto the market otherwise, as it will be open to interpretation, and that’s damaging - and it’s not down to fan obsessiveness and lack of professionalism from those criticising their product, it’s got to be dealt with at the root or it’s never going to be dealt with entirely.

  upscaling (as i saw, oddly, with ‘blind womans curse’ can cause slight issues - a pale edge is apparent before the black bars on each presentation) is resulting in some issues, but generally it would be logical to assume if you upscale crap, the upscaled image might well be crap. and, as i say, HDTV is unsympathetic to bad encoding - particularly inconsistency and faults in encoding. i haven’t watched the film, and to be honest i’m unlikely to subject myself to it, because i just think there’s something going on that people are talking about and animeigo aren’t dealing with, and the confidence has gone no matter what the film is, no matter how unlikely it is that it will appear again, no matter what extras are on the disc. plus i’ve got decent presentations of films i am interested in there to watch - lee chang-dong, park chan-wooks ‘im a cyborg’, and so on…

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 14th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  No problem. But, hey, if you ever find yourself stuck with an old CRT and analog hookups, you might want to take a look. I think I tend to be a little lenient with the visuals (My wife and I still watch VCDs occastionally), but I will try to keep watch for such oddities in subsequent releases (particularly when grabbing screens on the computer). Are you going to be posting a Cyborg review on twitch?

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 15th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  no review of ‘cyborg’ from me, no. someone else, maybe. i dont like writing reviews, don’t see much point in them. what i primarily need is a) knowledge of a films existence b) a snippet, taster, trailer, screener. if you can’t apply your understanding of what you’ve seen to what you’re getting a taster of, either in knowing a films out there (and who’s involved, etcetera etcetera) and / or seeing a bit of it, then i don’t see how someones writing helps. i prefer to leave the opportunities for my own opinions as open as possible - find what i want to see when i want to see it, for the most part.

  as for ’shinsengumi’ - binned. £13 that cost me.

  silly mistake to make repeatedly. yes, films are the priority, but if you’re releasing films that are unlikely to have been released before (or to get a release again - particularly with a recent USA market downturn and lack of subs in other countries) then label it digitally remastered and yet it’s soft, blurry, lacking detail, depth, general quality… well, you kind of get the reputation you’ll begin to gather.

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 17th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  Ah, but that’s the thing. I think a review is more interesting than the news of the film or its trailer, as the final product may differ quite a bit from what was presented. Plus, so often the hype surrounding a film proves more exciting than the actual film itself. See: Spider-Man 3, Grindhouse, etc. I think if a person finds a reviewer they consistently agree, or even disagree with, they can then use them as a barometer for whether a film might actually be of interest to them, and thereby worth their time. As film nuts, I think we probably spend more time looking at trailers and news bits than other folks, but I do happen to know people who absolutely refuse to watch trailers or read the spoiler rumors on the web.

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 17th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  the hype does differ from the film, naturally. firstly, excitement for a film is taken to be hype. i say hype is press office writing, excitement often gets very close and certainly does lack measure, objectivity very often - especially online - but it doesn’t maliciously intend to decieve for the most part, it just manages to reveal the differences in experience between those of different age groups, experience levels, knowledge, that exist side-by-side in fairly anonymous terms. naturally it does.

  then there’s also the issue of contradiction in saying writing helps you get more of a sense, and yet writing is where the most effective hype, manipulation, distortion exists. hype cant be an image or a trailer as much as it can be the reaction to those kinds of things.

  i don’t tend to find reviewers i agree with, also heavily inclined to steer clear of writings on film in general, as far from providing a contrasting or similar perspective from which to gather your own thoughts, they can manage to either provide you with a perspective that hasn’t been independantly constructed (an amalgam of other peoples thoughts that have been digested) or they can cause a barrier between you and a film which might actually be of interest because you can eassily begin to adopt others thoughts as your own.

  for me, ultimately, writings get in the way of independant judgements more than they provide insights into what i ultimately will be spending my time and money on. facts and figures get in the way of the emotional journey of experiencing a film, emotions will vary dramatically from one person to another even with two people who would seem to have everything in the world in common. others views impact upon my own.

  certainly, it’s the case that no man is an island or that each film has infinite possibilities for interpretation, because we need to communicate (however faultly or flawless anyone might think someones writing is) in order to get at least some sense of what’s of interest and so we do pick up snippets of other folk. we needn’t. not as much as a reliance on reviews would seem to suggest.

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 18th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  Hey Logboy,

  I had a nice replay all typed up and lost it on post. My week’s been so busy I haven’t had a chance to reply until now. In short, my response is: I can definitely agree with you on some of your points. I see the influence of reviews on popular opinion all the time. I have one friend who basically spouts whatever the newspaper critic stated about any film you ask him about. Then there’s the general hive-mindset when a review catchphrase actually catches on (ie: everyone referring to “emo” spiderman.).

  But I think reviews that provide different perspectives from that of the mass critique, or shed light on a misunderstood or overlooked film can be of service. Personally I won’t read a review for a film I plan on reviewing. Furthermore, I don’t really enjoy reviewing mainstream titles all that much. You’ll find that for a good number of films we review, other reviewers aren’t talking about them. In fact a few are linked as the only external review of the film on IMDB. I think raising awareness of “off the beaten path” flicks is something you at Twitch do as well, no?

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 24th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  well, it’s the only reason to spend time writing on a site - to talk about things that either aren’t being talked about, or aren’t made as obvious as they could be because it’s both true to say film watchers would prefer doing just that to talking i suspect, and because companies ability to promote their work is fairly lax and they can’t even spot that they’re not up to the task on basic business practice even when they’re increasingly inclined to say the DVD ship is sinking…

  most of what i watch remains comedy on TV, plust dramas and documentaries, and i go to see other stuff at the cinema too. not adversed to mainstream at all, because one country’s mainstream is anothers oddity for a lot of the time (it’s the old “films viewed out of time and place” situation), and because it’s only been possible to access lots of stuff since the advent of dvd and the general growth (now seen as downturn in recent times) of licensing and subbing.

  as for influencing thoughts and opinions… well, i think there’s a huge issue with this. people clearly opt for easy decision-making as a way of not being able (or willing) to manage their own opinions; theirs no substitute for self control, management, for the sake of getting more bang for your buck. it can set you at odds with people (yes, teens perhaps dominate forums, but there’s a telling sign of wanting to fit in even within experiencing material which they also intend to use as a method of describing themselves as able to do just the opposite of that), turning too far away from what people are generally watching as you’ll be less able to latch into discussions which give pointers to the next place to visit, but it can set you free and allow you to explore your own connections between films.

  the range of methods to jump from one viewing experience to another is far greater than is generally used - people seem to also prefer narrowing their perspectives down, intentionally getting obsessive about particular aspects (genres, filmmakers) without realising it also removes the objective idea of how creativity flows much more freely, that common solutions in different genres or countries is far more substantial a connection than staying within a genre or country and almost intentionally tiring yourself out of your own interest as a way of declaring obsession as dedication. by all means stop and keep an interest in genres and filmmakers, but remember that connections lying at deeper levels exist to provide good connections between experiences - and if you can spot one aspect of a film there’s a good chance you’ll find something similarly expressed elsewhere that from within the most obvious elements of the film.

  for instance, having watched both ‘i’m a cyborg’ and ‘nightmare detective’ on DVD this week (as always, my purchases are a form of access to what i wouldnt otherwise see) and seeing responses from those who’ve bought ‘cyborg’ after falling in love with park’s vengeance trilogy, i’ve seen what i expected … people not managing to find reasons to dislike it (at least they’re not expressing it in their writing) beyond the expected “it’s not a vengeance movie! do what you’ve already done! keep doing it! stagnate! give me reason to be obsessed!” responses which show that although the film’s certainly going to find those who dislike its abstract puzzle of a narrative and dislike it for other perfectly good reasons, that discussions often sit within limited time, typing skills, experience, at the most obvious points of dislike rather than more individually-observed perspectives, and with little consideration for what impact their comments have on other people dipping into pick up brief opinions that may also be misunderstood from a perspective of limited time, limited arguing capability, lack of money or inclination to stray into even slightly unknown territory. “it aint’s no oldboy!” is not much of an argument. still, although people who think alike tend to hang out together, much of the spaces that are shared in that manner also have those within their ranks who would love to find a much larger group that they can more directly relate to - and many niches of film sites don’t exist; twitch is a good example, as it avoids the misdescription of dedication and specialty as full understanding, and it shows many simply have an interest in films no matter the time or the place they come from, because any given time and place only serves to find any given range of solutions or approaches and you’ll need to navigate them to find suitable places to jump to and from.

  personally, ‘cyborg’ was refreshing (if potentially muddled) because of it’s puzzling storytelling techniques. the production values are sharp (much lighter atmosphere and look), and for those familiar with the kind of story found in a graphic novel, there should be some common ground / experience to go on to unravel the puzzle. tsukamoto’s ‘nightmare detective’ isn’t typical of his work in many ways, but it also remains an extention of some of the superbly suggestive minimalist DV filmmaking we saw in ‘marebito’, and the imagery / story gets increasingly abstract and more like him the further you delve into the ideas and the further the script carries us into existential territory. i can see people looking for one thing (another ‘tetsuo’ perhaps) and ignoring the broader perspectives of their being many things within any given film that do and do not work, which all need to be at least partly considered before an opinion on it can be formed individually - i can see people’s positive prejudice that’s used in making purchases going too far towards talking themselves out of increasingly varied or better experiences, understanding, because they’re unwilling to adjust to different ideas beyond their own or because they expect from one country what they’re perhaps more inclined to cope with from within their own domestic products choices.

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 25th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  To be honest, that was one of the reasons I was interested in Cyborg. I’m not the usualy Chan wook park fan, as I quite enjoyed Oldboy, but didn’t particularly care for Mr. or Lady Vengeance. They’re beautiful to look at, but I found the subject matter overly dark and mean-spirited. Just not my thing. Still, regardless of my reaction to his films, his skill is undeniable. Cyborg sounds like quite a big change, and therefore should be quite interesting to see. I see a similar sort of criticism with Fincher’s Zodiac. “It’s not SE7EN part 2, so it sucked!” I actually thought it was a bold evolutionary move for Fincher, and an extraordinary film. I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, so I won’t spoil anything here. Suffice it to say at the close of the film you’re still unsure as to who the real Zodiac might be.

  I guess you see that exact thing not just with directors, but with the films are running out into the cineplex to see these days. Shrek 3, Pirates 3, Spider-Man 3. Near everything this Summer has been done before, and is pulling in greater numbers than it’s previous incarnation. It’s sad though, because there are some truly awesome independents hitting the theaters….but I’m preaching to the choir here.

  Regarding Tsukamoto, I think I’ve always enjoyed him as a personality more than as a director. I dug him in Blind Beast, Marebito, and others, but I more often than not find his films hard to sit through. Still, they’re undeniably fascinating. I’ll definitely keep my eye out for it though.

  But, back to the topic at hand. What do you see as the best way to get those sorts of audiences interested in expanding their horizons in the first place? I think that so long as you consistently present the alternatives, and point out the merits and benefits of those alternatives, eventually they will bite. It may take a while, but over a long enough period of time, you may just happen to nurture a sizeable audience.

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on May 26th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  seeing finchers ‘zodiac’ in the next couple of weeks. it has opened here in the UK, but i’ve plumped to take it in at a local arts centre cinema in order to have a better seat, less people around me (well, us) and to actually watch the movie. i suppose the interest in the film comes from the case being unsolved, fincher also knows (as i think i’ve read him put it) that he isn’t there to “make a film about flares and platform shoes” certainly he’s a talented director though, been there at the opening weekends for all his films so far - saw ’seven’ twice, and even though the ending has always made it fall apart, at least i saw what i’ve always understood to be an early variation on the film with an odd sound mix that makes the rain very loud in the opening minutes of the film. could have just been a crap cinema employee, but i’m sure i’ve read about it somewhere before, so it could have been a common thing…

  as for the stuff at multiplexes, it’s been churning over the same ground forever, to a greater or lesser extent. yes, there’s been some great films making it stateside in greater quantities, with greater variety than perhaps ever before, but the audiences perhaps still allow themselves to be at the mercy of others because they’re not entirely interested in taking control over their decisions, and perhaps they’ve developed a taste for popcorn and coke more than they have for experiences and emotions from the actual film…? it’s where the dodgy territory begins, the potential patronising, because i don’t think you can force that horse to drink even when you might lead it to water. there are, however, lots of people who would be very interested in finding and experiencing more but perhaps lack the key to open the door - a bold site with an interesting range should play a part in a gateway situation like that, and i suspect it often does, but it’s amazing how you can capture an audience and blind them to the concepts of looking elsewhere for a variety of sources in order to then grow more confident, informed from a variety of perspectives, and in control of their own choices.

  
  

  logboy  posted on May 28th, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  I know you don’t care for reviews, but once you do see it, I invite you to check out our Zodiac revieww and post your response

  The whole “less people” thing is exactly why we either attend the mainstream movies in the mornings on a saturday, or during a weekday evening about second or third week in. We saw Pirates III that way. As my wife put it, “half a bad film, half a mediocre one.”

  Also, the leading the horse to water thing is true as well. I have a few friends who refuse to watch anything with substance. One friend says he doesn’t want to think, and wants just to be entertained. He even spent his hard earned money on Phat Girlz. Try to get him to watch something like Zodiac? Never going to happen. Still, I think if you lead enough horses to water, some are bound to drink

  
  

  Chris Nelson  posted on June 1st, 2007

  
  
• 
  

  i prefer to wait to spot people looking for something a little different and not managing to find it. then they’re open to suggestions… otherwise, they’re not in control entirely, and when you’re not in control you’re at the mercy of others.

  still, i’m surprised by the sheer lack of discussion with regards film, online that is. i would have thought it would be rampant, competative, information and passionate. it kind of hides away, generalises and whimpers somewhat. it’s a shame, though ican understand that watching films is about doing that before anything else - just, given how we suffer from lack of information, or information being obscured, you would think there would be solutions and systems which bypass this. such things would go a long way to tempting people in - if companies and inviduals we able to come together and give tasters of more obscure stuff in a more obvious ways… and we all need to suggest that foreign or so-called substantial films, oddities even, are often not as far removed in how understandable they are or entertaining they can be (though not often as directly or in the same fashion perhaps) more often than not. given the chance, i think many would find charms in stuff which might well get described in dry terms, but which actually share lots of similarities to films considered major classics of contemporary american (or other) cinema.

  
  

  logboy  posted on June 2nd, 2007

  
  

Say something

Name (Required)

Email (Required . Will not be published)

Website

Please add 1 and 3