Mondo Poster News & Rumors

[mobius006]

Film looks/feels better than digital imo. But you can't go back.
Also, RIP Technicolor.

RIP nothing, they do a ton of digital work.

[jeter0204]

2/4k images have a ton more Aliasing.

A well kept print wins out every day of the week.

Maybe it was the quality of the film used last night then, but no one can honestly sit here and say that the screening last night was amazing quality. The more I sit here thinking about it the more it had to have been the quality of the film because I don't remember being bothered that much in prior 35mm screenings

[Particle]

Lets really talk about the bigger issue. 35mm films suck. I'm sorry I had to say it, I really don't enjoy watching them. Maybe it's because I'm not a hipster but I just don't care for it

This is the dumbest drymounting thing anyone as ever said in this thread. And it's the Mondo thread.

If we had the old mondo thread back, I'm sure you had some gems that would top this one.

And I agree Jeter...that nostalgia factor apparently is more important to people than others

People that say 35mm is more pure than the crap that is out there today are drymounting high off their ass. Nothing about last nights screening had me drooling because of how amazing it looked. I don't care that it is suppose to be recreating the feel of the film when it was first released in theaters. I want HD clarity not some distortion and color fades.

A couple things.

1) When you watch a film on a 35mm reel from the 80's you're not meant to "Drool" over how amazing it looks. It's like uncovering a relic and appreciating what it is and what people appreciated during it's time.

2) 35mm is better, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Digital, I don't care if it is HD or whatever, can never achieve what real film can achieve, because science.

3) If you disagree with #2 because you thought a 3 decade old film reel didn't look better than HD then you have no idea how film works and shouldn't comment on what is better. Compare a brand new reel of a film to the same thing shot on digital and you'll see what I mean.

[fredo]

Film looks/feels better than digital imo. But you can't go back.
Also, RIP Technicolor.

RIP nothing, they do a ton of digital work.

Yooooou know what I mean.

[Nicodimas]

Particle, you better stop making so much sense or people are gonna think we are in the Twilight Zone. First crappy stout posters for amazing movies, now this...

Since this seems to be the Peak/Post-Stout era and now the decline of that particular curve, who will be new poster guy/girl/s for the 2015+ Era.

[Whitey9457]

I watched Alien last night from home and I was so impressed by the quality... I honestly have no idea about 35mm v. digital, etc. I know my copy of Alien was HD director's cut or something so I don't know what gets lost in conversion but I loved it. I'm pretty sure it just feels more real coming from film. I was shocked about how great the sets looked which seems to be a forgotten art due to cgi, etc. The scene where they find the space jockey blew my mind. (it had obviously been a while since I watched it)

[longchamps]

The print last night was definitely beat up, but it wasn't awful compared to some I've seen. Some parts were very red and it was pretty scratched throughout. Didn't affect my enjoyment though.

[nsd]

"Post-Stout"?

[jeter0204]

A couple things.

1) When you watch a film on a 35mm reel from the 80's you're not meant to "Drool" over how amazing it looks. It's like uncovering a relic and appreciating what it is and what people appreciated during it's time.

2) 35mm is better, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Digital, I don't care if it is HD or whatever, can never achieve what real film can achieve, because science.

3) If you disagree with #2 because you thought a 3 decade old film reel didn't look better than HD then you have no idea how film works and shouldn't comment on what is better. Compare a brand new reel of a film to the same thing shot on digital and you'll see what I mean.

1) Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good and I have to appreciate it. This kind of goes back to the VHS debate awhile back. VHS sucks, take the nostalgic aspect out and you just have a shitty video. We have advanced in technology so embrace it. Why back track? ( this is only in regards to certain things so don't take this for everything. Vinyl is still King)

2) I agree with you, So wont argue there. Film is alway better than Digital, however, I think the film last night was just poor quality

[mobius006]

and scene...

[Particle]

A couple things.

1) When you watch a film on a 35mm reel from the 80's you're not meant to "Drool" over how amazing it looks. It's like uncovering a relic and appreciating what it is and what people appreciated during it's time.

2) 35mm is better, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Digital, I don't care if it is HD or whatever, can never achieve what real film can achieve, because science.

3) If you disagree with #2 because you thought a 3 decade old film reel didn't look better than HD then you have no idea how film works and shouldn't comment on what is better. Compare a brand new reel of a film to the same thing shot on digital and you'll see what I mean.

1) Just because something is old doesn't mean it's good and I have to appreciate it. This kind of goes back to the VHS debate awhile back. VHS sucks, take the nostalgic aspect out and you just have a shitty video. We have advanced in technology so embrace it. Why back track? ( this is only in regards to certain things so don't take this for everything. Vinyl is still King)

2) I agree with you, So wont argue there. Film is alway better than Digital, however, I think the film last night was just poor quality

Vinyl is a decent comparison to the 35mm vs Digital relationship. Vinyl is better than an mp3, but if a piece of dust gets on the needle then the whole thing saunds like crap. Film is better than digital, but if it isn't preserved properly, ages, gets scratched by an inexperienced projectionist, then its going to look bad over time.

I think we're comparing two different things at this point and we generally agree. Your statement that "35mm films suck" is probably not what you meant. You would have rather had a BlueRay on a plasma screen over a 30-year-old film reel. But if the film reel was brand new and crystal clear than you would have taken that over anything and we'd be in agreement.

Film is better. But it ages,

[Thalass]

Not to harp on or play armchair artist but the one thing that really bugs me about it is how the eye is confused at to what to focus on in the image.
There are different layers and subjects but it's hard to discern them all on a first glance. The eye is uneasy for a while, rather than talking it all in at once. It's jarring and I don't think that was the intent tbh.

Here's a crude attempt at conveying what I mean with Alien:



It helps one discern the separate subjects: Rear Alien/Center Kane & Egg/Teeth and Space Jockey, Small Kane. The egg looks less like a 'nose' for all intents and purposes...

Again, just my 2c...

This thread is moving at a blistering pace with all the vitriol, but wanted to quote you from a few pages back to say that I agree with your assessment. The structural elements of the composition clash a bit and compete for attention. Your eye is drawn to the text first, partly because it's so bold, but also because of the mess above it: there's just so much detail packed into a fairly flat-looking image that it makes everything look a little disorienting as a whole. Also, that second alien head screws up the symmetry of the composition. Usually asymmetry isn't a bad thing, but using the larger alien head as a "framing shape" for the rest of the image was kind of silly based on the rest of the elements featured here. The whole time I'm looking at the poster I can't help but think, "damn, that's a misshapen alien head if I ever saw one..." Kinda vaguely looks like Hitler's swoop-cut too, but maybe that's a stretch

The teeth also look a bit odd to me...like they were filed flat or something. However I do like the slightly agape jaw, as it reveals the teeth of the inner mouth, and that always adds some tension for anyone familiar with the films. So kudos for that, but the rest... oh boy.

[Particle]

Rubberneck's poster is way better.

He got the dates wrong too though, amatuer.

[wonkabars7]

Fitting you started this page number of the thread, Particle Drew.

[Bikejoh]

Particle=DrewJ=Satan