|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 17, 2019 6:52:25 GMT
I viewed it in IMAX on Thursday evening, and I will see it again when it shows again on Sunday afternoon. If you have a chance to view the film in this format—remastered and possibly in IMAX—I highly recommend doing so. To quote from the synopsis:
The movie's best aspects are probably visual and atmospheric, so this format is truly the best one. I will offer some more thoughts on Apocalypse Now after I view it again on Sunday. (Of course, I have seen it four times previously on DVD or Turner Classic Movies, in 1999, twice in 2008, and 2011.)
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Aug 19, 2019 15:16:06 GMT
Do you recall any scenes that were not in the original or Redux?
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 20, 2019 8:51:35 GMT
Do you recall any scenes that were not in the original or Redux? I believe that I have only viewed the Redux version once (although I have it on DVD), so I do not possess much feel for that edition, but apparently, none of the footage is new. See this article from Variety: linkHowever, the visual remastering is truly impressive. One would be hard-pressed to imagine a film looking (or sounding) better, especially one from forty years ago. Therefore, if you possess the chance to see it in the theater (especially in IMAX), I would certainly spend the money.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 20, 2019 10:33:41 GMT
Do you recall any scenes that were not in the original or Redux? I believe that I have only viewed the Redux version once (although I have it on DVD), so I do not possess much feel for that edition, but apparently, none of the footage is new. See this article from Variety: linkHowever, the visual remastering is truly impressive. One would be hard-pressed to imagine a film looking (or sounding) better, especially one from forty years ago. Therefore, if you possess the chance to see it in the theater (especially in IMAX), I would certainly spend the money. Is it being shown in true IMAX or just that crappy 2K Lie-MAX?
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Aug 20, 2019 11:56:18 GMT
I saw it theatrically twice back in the day and it was a spectacular experience. Much better than the redux.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 21, 2019 6:50:57 GMT
I believe that I have only viewed the Redux version once (although I have it on DVD), so I do not possess much feel for that edition, but apparently, none of the footage is new. See this article from Variety: linkHowever, the visual remastering is truly impressive. One would be hard-pressed to imagine a film looking (or sounding) better, especially one from forty years ago. Therefore, if you possess the chance to see it in the theater (especially in IMAX), I would certainly spend the money. Is it being shown in true IMAX or just that crappy 2K Lie-MAX? You would have to explain this distinction to me ...
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 21, 2019 9:49:03 GMT
Is it being shown in true IMAX or just that crappy 2K Lie-MAX? You would have to explain this distinction to me ... IMAX was developed fifty years ago using 70mm film projected onto a huge screen. It is impressive and immersive. But it is being phased out without the IMAX Corp. making any distinction between true IMAX and the digital presentation that they call IMAX using two ganged digital projectors onto a bigger than normal screen but far smaller than a true IMAX screen. Two projectors are needed to keep it at usable brightness, but they are at only 2K resolution, half the resolution of a regular digital presentation. it is big, but not very sharp. Some of us call it Lie-MAX because it is a fraud to call it by the same name of a process that has the most impact of any available format. Christopher Nolan has his films released in true 70mm IMAX. I saw "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" in both true IMAX and Lie-MAX. The difference was incredible. I would rather see a regular digital presentation than one in Lie-MAX and never select the latter option.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 24, 2019 6:50:40 GMT
You would have to explain this distinction to me ... IMAX was developed fifty years ago using 70mm film projected onto a huge screen. It is impressive and immersive. But it is being phased out without the IMAX Corp. making any distinction between true IMAX and the digital presentation that they call IMAX using two ganged digital projectors onto a bigger than normal screen but far smaller than a true IMAX screen. Two projectors are needed to keep it at usable brightness, but they are at only 2K resolution, half the resolution of a regular digital presentation. it is big, but not very sharp. Some of us call it Lie-MAX because it is a fraud to call it by the same name of a process that has the most impact of any available format. Christopher Nolan has his films released in true 70mm IMAX. I saw "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" in both true IMAX and Lie-MAX. The difference was incredible. I would rather see a regular digital presentation than one in Lie-MAX and never select the latter option. ... fascinating, thanks. Well, what I can tell you is that I definitely viewed Apocalypse Now: Final Cut on a true IMAX screen and the imagery seemed extremely sharp. Beyond that, I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Aug 24, 2019 7:05:47 GMT
The longer the better to my eyes. This movie was always more about immersion and atmosphere than any kind of tight construct.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 30, 2019 8:32:53 GMT
IMAX was developed fifty years ago using 70mm film projected onto a huge screen. It is impressive and immersive. But it is being phased out without the IMAX Corp. making any distinction between true IMAX and the digital presentation that they call IMAX using two ganged digital projectors onto a bigger than normal screen but far smaller than a true IMAX screen. Two projectors are needed to keep it at usable brightness, but they are at only 2K resolution, half the resolution of a regular digital presentation. it is big, but not very sharp. Some of us call it Lie-MAX because it is a fraud to call it by the same name of a process that has the most impact of any available format. Christopher Nolan has his films released in true 70mm IMAX. I saw "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" in both true IMAX and Lie-MAX. The difference was incredible. I would rather see a regular digital presentation than one in Lie-MAX and never select the latter option. ... fascinating, thanks. Well, what I can tell you is that I definitely viewed Apocalypse Now: Final Cut on a true IMAX screen and the imagery seemed extremely sharp. Beyond that, I am not sure. Actually you couldn't have seen this in true IMAX as no 70mm IMAX film prints were struck. So you saw a Lie-MAX presentation. If you thought it looked sharp, it would have looked an order of magnitude sharper in true IMAX. Actually as I explained it would have been sharper in a standard digital presentation. Read this article for a comparison of the real thing versus the fraud. IMAX vs. Lie-MAX
|
|