On 5/19/2023 6:52 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 2023-05-20 01:09:04 +0000, Arthur Lipscomb said:
>
>> On 5/19/2023 9:35 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-19 08:30:40 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> I watched two things in "UHDTV" yesterday - the second episode of
>>> "Class of '09" off Hulu, and "The Matrix" (the original) off (HBO)
>>> Max. Of the two, I have to say that "Class of '09" actually looked
>>> better (overall) - this is not surprising to me, as "Class of '09"
>>> was actually *made* with UHDTV in mind, while "The Matrix" (from
>>> 1999!!) must have been later "up-converted" to UHD and was not
>>> exactly "made" with UHD in mind...
>>>
>>> When I got home after work, I got through:
>>>
>>> The Matrix (HBO Max) - In UHD!!
>>>   This did look pretty great, in most places, in UHD. But I feel like
>>> because it wasn't "made" with UHD in mind,
>>
>> Keep in mind the movie has a green tint.  So it's not supposed to look
>> normal.  Then added to that is over the years inconsistencies in how
>> it was shown in home media.  The version you're seeing now is probably
>> how it's *supposed* to look, and it was never meant to look pretty.
>
> A lot of scenes (esp. the outdoor ones, or the "lobby scene") do look
> good. But some of them don't. It probably was intentional.
>
>> Pull up a movie shot on 70mm film (with a new 4K print) like 2001 and
>> you will see it looks stunning on your UHD.
>>
>> Keep an eye out for any of these movies in 4K:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films
>
> I think I checked - I was surprised, but HBO Max does not have "2001" in
> 4k. (I earler linked to a page that has all of their 4k offerings, and
> it really isn't much - the four "Matrix" flicks, "The Batman" and a lot
> of the recent DC flicks, and just a few other things...)
>
>> > not every scene "popped" like
>>> it should in UHD. (Example: The scene where Agent Smith interrogates
>>> "Mr. Anderson" didn't look all that great in UHD.) Other scenes did
>>> look pretty great though.
>>>   A surprisingly topical 1999 film, for 2023! it's all about A.I. and
>>> the "robots taking over"! This is happening RIGHT NOW!!
>>>   10 years later, Ted Logan is working a soul-crushing programming
>>> job, while being a nighttime hacker on the side, under the names
>>> Thomas A. Anderson and Neo respectively. (It's not clear what his
>>> "side-hustle" is - Is it V.R.?!!)
>>>   But, wait! The world is not real!! Neo is made aware of this
>>> unfortunate fact by a cool, spacey-talking cat named "Morpheous", and
>>> his supes-hott superhero bade sidekick named "Trinity". (Who comes up
>>> with these names?!!)
>>>   Soon enough, Neo is made aware of some all-too-real uncomfortable
>>> facts, like he's actually in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
>>> (Conveniently, the details how any of this happened are never
>>> explained, in any of the four movies! as far as I can recollect!!)
>>
>> It's shown in the Animatrix.
>
> This is also on HBO Max. I... *may* check it out.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU8RunvBRZ8
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FPP1MElvE
>>
>> The sky is blackened out here:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLMjHrb_w4
>>
>>>   And eventually, he's going to have to square off against the
>>> super-EVOL!!1! Agent Smith, who is played by Hugo Weaving, chewing
>>> the scenery like it's the last act left to man before the coming
>>> apocalypse!! (It's too bad Hugo is so difficult to work with, because
>>> he puts in compelling performances.)
>>>   This is, without a doubt, a seminal work, every bit as
>>> ground-breaking it's own way as the original "Star Wars".
>>>   It's too bad they couldn't leave well enough alone - as a single
>>> film, it's near perfect. But the rest of the franchise is an abject
>>> disappointing mess (film #4 is OK... films #2 & #3 should mostly be
>>> skipped), and they really needed to realize that there was enough
>>> here for one near-perfect film, and nothing else.
>>>
>>> Recorded for later: Just GH.
>>
>> I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I actually prefer The Matrix 2.
>
> Uh, wow.
>
>
>> I watched:
>>
>>
>> Mrs. Davis - "The Final Intercut: So I'm Your Horse" - Episode 8 and I
>> *think* this was the series finale,
>
> "Season" - I think this one has a chance of being renewed.
>
>> but I've been down that path before!   Wiki says the show has a 10
>> episode order, but this episode wrapped *everything* up.
>
> May have changed - they only list 8 episodes.
>

After episode 6 aired they only listed 6 episodes which is why I thought
that was the season finale. Wiki has a bad habit of not listing
episodes until after they air which makes it really hard to know how
many episodes a show is *supposed* to have. I was shocked that it said
10 episodes were ordered, but that only leads to confusion if it is
really only 8.

>> Unless they are doing flashbacks, I really don't see where they could
>> go next with this show considering they answered all the questions and
>> gave a definite ending.
>
> I had not heard that.
>
>
>> Fast X (theatrical) - I'm trying to think what I can possibly say
>> about this movie without massive spoilers. I'll do my best...
>
> Ironically, I noted that Peacock has "Furious 7", in UHD(!).
> But I'm not sure I want to watch it again.
>
> Meanwhile, HBO Max has "F9" ("Fast 9"), and it is *not* in 4k!!?!
>
>> First, this movie was not designed for the casual viewer.  You are
>> expected to have watched all nine previous movies, and remember what
>> happened in them!  Serving as almost a direct sequel to Fast Five,
>> Aquaman plays the son of that movie's villain.  The plot of Fast Five
>> involved the crew teaming up to rob a drug lord.  At the end of the
>> movie Hobbs straight up murders the drug lord.  As he lays helpless on
>> the ground Hobbs puts two bullets in the drug lord's chest!  The drug
>> lord's son (Aquaman) decides to set out for revenge.  Why he waited 5
>> movies to do this is unclear!
>
> Wait, so lemme get this straight! - *Hobbs* shot the dude's father...
> and HE'S NOT EVEN IN THE MOVIE!?!?!!
>
> (I'm guessing they don't just kill Hobbs off, off-screen, do they?!)
>

Did you miss the very public fight between Diesel and the Rock? It's
why in Fast 7 they don't share any scenes together then the Rock was
written out of 8 and 9 altogether. There was also that video Diesel
released where he asked the Rock to come back for 10 and the Rock
publicly said NO!!

Bs pbhefr gur Ebpx vf va guvf zbivr! Vg jnf fcbvyrq nobhg n jrrx ntb.
Qhevat gur zbivr gurl fubj n synfuonpx bs gur Ebpx xvyyvat gur qeht
ybeq. Gura nsgre gur zbivr gurer vf n zvq perqvgf fprar juvpu erirnyf
Ndhnzna vf bs pbhefr nyfb gnetrgvat Uboof. Uboof qbrf n qenzngvp erirny
naq onfvpnyyl fnlf pbzr naq trg zr. Ebyy perqvgf.

Gurer'f nabgure gbc frperg pnzrb gung pnhfrq gur nhqvrapr gb tnfc jura
gurl jrer erirnyrq.

>> Basically, much like Furious 7, Fast X is a straight up revenge flick
>> with an unstoppable killer coming after them.
>
> Maybe I should rewatch "Furious 7"...
>

In terms of important continuity for following 10, 5 and 9 are probably
more important, but for pure entertainment you can't go wrong with 7.

>> But unlike the other "Fast" movies where the villains were serious,
>> Aquaman plays this role more like a cross between a manic Riddler and
>> the Joker.  To say he is over the top and chews the scenery would be a
>> serious understatement. Even Nicholas Cage would beg him to dial it
>> back a little!
>
> Yeah, I've heard criticisms of this, actually...
>
>> And unlike your typical "Fast" movie where the gang is mostly together
>> or broken up into 2 or may be 3 teams, this one has almost every one
>> off on their little side mission as they are all on the run from
>> Aquaman.  Even Vin Diesel's kid (who I'm *sure* is not the right age
>> in this movie!) gets major screen time.  However, Aquaman's mission
>> isn't to kill them, but to make them suffer.
>>
>> One plot hole (out of many!) is they pretty much gloss over Brian's
>> character.  They acknowledge he exists and is being hunted too, but
>> his absence under the circumstances is suspicious to say the least.
>> They really needed to address his absence a *lot* better than they did
>> in this movie.  Which in reality, they don't address it at all.  Just
>> Brian's alive and a target too.  Then nothing.
>>
>> Also of note is this movie is the first of a new "trilogy" and about
>> 90 minutes in it became very clear there was no way they were going to
>> wrap up all the dangling plot threads.  And sure enough this movie
>> does *not* have an ending.  It literally just does a cliffhanger, then
>> ends without resolving *anything*.  So was it good?  Um, I guess.  I
>> didn't not like it.
>
>