Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Die Hard 5

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Die Hard 5 (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Die Hard 5

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 02-26-2013 01:49 PM

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
It felt like someone at FOX had bought a Mission: IMPOSSIBLE type screenplay and another said "Let's stick John McClane in it."

According to IMDB this is the only "Die Hard" movie that was actually written for the series. All of the others (including the first) were adapted to fit the John McClane/Die Hard series.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 02-27-2013 05:48 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Anamorphic lenses originally made for motion picture film cameras typically have a 2:1 squeeze.

If you want to use the full 2K resolution of the sensor (which is tipically 1.78:1) and the DMD/LCoS of the projector, you need something different than a "2x squeeze".

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'd hate to see how much more a top quality lens made specifically for 1.77:1 to 2.39:1 anamorphic squeeze would cost.

Since nobody is doing this yet, it would be incredibly expensive. Still, someone has to be the first one.

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
For such a big screen in close proximity, there was way too much shaky cam in the first half of the movie

Shaky cam is often just a bad excuse to hide bad special effects or low quality sets.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-28-2013 10:27 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
If you want to use the full 2K resolution of the sensor (which is tipically 1.78:1) and the DMD/LCoS of the projector, you need something different than a "2x squeeze".

Yes, I said that in my post.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Shaky cam is often just a bad excuse to hide bad special effects or low quality sets.

Not only does shaky cam hide bad visual effects and cheap sets, it also kind of hides how badly choreographed and performed a fight scene or any other piece of action may be. Shaky cam is bullshit "filmmaking" (I put that in quotes since so much of "film" is just video anymore).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-28-2013 12:30 PM

Why don't you just say "moviemaking?" Or possibly "cinematography?"

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-28-2013 01:00 PM

I do say "moviemaking" and "Movie(s)". "Cinematography" is really something that has been associated with film-based motion picture photography. There's already another term for shooting movies with electronic cameras: "videography."

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-28-2013 09:06 PM

It's my night off so I just watched Die Hard 2 (NOT "Die Harder" which so many publications, DVD packages and websites insist on calling it). I haven't seen it in at least 10 years. It's a great movie, a little bit overly spectacular at times and I've never liked the final ending part -- the plane taxis for about an hour, it seems, and there's no way the fuel-as-fuse trick would have worked, at least I don't think it would. (Besides, that gag is right out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon.) And there's not NEAR as much snappy, hilarious dialogue as in the first movie. But it is still a great popcorn flick, which is the whole point of the Die Hard series.

We'll probably play the new one as a fill-in one of these weeks. For a good mindless piece of fun I'm looking forward to it.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 02-28-2013 09:12 PM

Mike, watch this and you will see why people keep screwing up the title.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-28-2013 10:16 PM

Yeah, I remember that trailer...the poster said "Die Harder" also.

I guess it's not the first time people mistook a catchphrase for a title.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 03-01-2013 04:49 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess it's not the first time people mistook a catchphrase for a title.

In this case, it's pretty confusing and inconsistent, so I guess those people can be forgiven:

1: Die Hard
2: Die Hard 2
3: Die Hard: With a Vengeance
4: Live Free or Die Hard / Die Hard 4.0
5: A Good Day to Die Hard

| IP: Logged

Nate Spaulding
Film Handler

Posts: 1
From: Reichenbach-Steegen, Rheinland-pfalz, Germany
Registered: Jan 2013

posted 03-01-2013 06:36 PM

I work at one of the 35mm AAFES theater in europe and was lucky enough to see Die Hard 5 in 35mm.. We did a preview of it, and 21st century fox sent an entire security team with the film and the canisters, monitored me inspect, build, interlock, play, and then break down the entire film

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-01-2013 09:20 PM

I could never call Live Free or Die Hard "Die Hard 4.0". That's incredibly stupid. Though it would explain why it's kind of buggy.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 03-02-2013 02:54 AM

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
For such a big screen in close proximity, there was way too much shaky cam in the first half of the movie...

Bet, with sitting that close, you could count every grain speck in any scene, and shaky cam would be more sickening to watch.

Sorry, digital is just not it - just a poor excuse to rid of a quality medium that proved itself. If we are now using digital, why not make movies that can work with it at the extreme?

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 03-02-2013 05:57 AM

quote: Nate Spaulding
21st century fox sent an entire security team with the film and the canisters, monitored me inspect, build, interlock, play, and then break down the entire film

Such an explosive movie surely needs a whole security team just to keep it safe. But it is nice to know that those 35mm prints are better guarded than many prisoners out there [Wink]

quote: Joe Redifer
I could never call Live Free or Die Hard "Die Hard 4.0". That's incredibly stupid.

I don't know if there are prints or DCPs out there that actually call it Die Hard 4.0, but it was billed as such in many theaters around here and that same title was also featured on most posters. It's not only a stupid name, but the inconsistency in which it was advertised with those two titles being mixed up all the time was even more stupid. But consistency was never the strongest point of the whole Die Hard franchise anyway.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Sorry, digital is just not it - just a poor excuse to rid of a quality medium that proved itself. If we are now using digital, why not make movies that can work with it at the extreme?

The movie was shot in 35mm, but most theaters will be showing it in 2K digital. Personally, I don't like the look of most 35mm to 2K transfers. When you sit too close, the film grain looks more like digital image noise all to often. Things change when you're looking at a 4K transfer, Django for example looked awesome in 4K.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-02-2013 01:45 PM

Considering just how lossy compressed the imagery in some DCP file can be, some of that "grain" may actually be JPEG style compression artifacts.

And if someone really cranks up the compression levels on 4K material to conserve hard drive space it makes the jump to 4K resolution pointless.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 03-02-2013 04:21 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Considering just how lossy compressed the imagery in some DCP file can be, some of that "grain" may actually be JPEG style compression artifacts.

I'm sure that is part of the problem. Film grain and any noise in particular is pretty hard to compress.

A particular good example is The Grey (2011), that movie had a lot of grain in it. The DCP was horrible to watch, it looked like an endless stream of JPEG2000 compression artifacts to me.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.