Justice League official "Zack Snyder" cut on HBO Max

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Ar-Pharazon, May 20, 2020.

  1. Campe

    Campe Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    Texas
    Uncompressed, on average, an hour of 4K video takes 110gb. Obviously, there’ll be some compression involved as the largest UHD is 100g. Mind you, that’s video. Endgame is 3hrs on one UHD. All of the different audio mixes also take up space. I’ll be very surprised if this movie is not spread across two discs.

    I’m sorry you’ll have to get up during the movie to change the disc. I imagine you’ll survive. ;)
     
  2. thribs

    thribs Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2017
    Ha! At least the film is split into parts so it would be easy to divide it over 2 discs.
     
    The Borgified Corpse likes this.
  3. LaxScrutiny

    LaxScrutiny Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2003
    I see others have asked and there's no answer.

    An ancient casting technique that is still used is to create a clay mold, fill it with molten metal, and then crack open the clay once the metal cools. This was pretty obvious to me, I've seen it done in some craft studios. The Amazons and Atlantians appear to be doing the same thing using different technology. I would assume they used lead or some alloy that would block signals in or out. When the Amazons are attacked we see the Motherbox shedding its cast.

    We're watching the film one "chapter" at a time over seven nights so I just saw the casting flashback.
     
    Dick Whitman and Saul like this.
  4. thribs

    thribs Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2017
    The score is out on YouTube now and it’s 7 hours long. There is some discrepancy there. :)
     
    The Borgified Corpse likes this.
  5. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    Journeying onwards
    I most be getting old.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. captainkirk

    captainkirk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Location:
    South Africa
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was no mention at the end of Clark returning to the Planet and revealing that he’s still alive? I suppose that eliminates the plot hole from the theatrical version where they say he was only missing and presumed dead, even though he had an open-casket funeral.
    Or maybe we’re to assume that his secret is out. Lois did yell his name in front of many witnesses.
     
  7. Saul

    Saul Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    東京
    Yes. We see him with the Clark Kent glasses but nothing about him going back to the Daily Planet. In the abandoned sequel outlines to this movie Clark Kent is dead and he makes point of that to Lois.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    I just finished it. I genuinely liked it. First impression is how much of the basic story is the same as what was released to theaters. With that in mind there was no way a 4 hour version was ever going to be released to theaters. I think if more level headed thinking was in charge at WB - a cut closer to 3 hours would have worked fine. Without losing the follow of the story and better representation of the cast. Obviously a extended cut would have followed on Blu Ray anyways. Clearly the epilogue was partly an afterthought of all these years of thinking of what could have.

    It’s interesting that the words Multiverse and Alternative Timelines is used in this cut. Flashpoint could certainly acknowledge some of this.

    Only issue I have was Superman’s choice of the black suit is never directly addressed at all. I am aware ithat in the comics it was to absorb sunlight. Bought new when it came out. Sure he briefly from orbit seems to take in the sun. But I am skeptical that was a later choice given it was shot with a color suit. I can ignore that always a cool look, liked it since it debuted. (1993?). But very surprise to see him wearing it still when he changes from Clark to Superman. (Figured that was Whedon footage) But in traditional colors in flash forward.

    Call crazy but there are advantages of keeping opinions to themselves or at least wanting. I never was a huge fan of Zack’s work but never hated it either. Never had a motivation to go online and choice a side. So it’s very easy for me to say I like it now. Even though I was privately skeptical for years. It’s a movie, not a religion or political belief. Making movies is hard. So I appreciate good work when I see it. I think this was the best of Zack Snyder’s DC movies. There was a level of restraint I was surprised by.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    That is another issue that confuses me, Him and Lois are engaged. She would marry Clark not “Superman”. So Clark can not be considered dead for them to be ever married. If it’s unofficial how would it be any different than their relationship before he died?
     
  10. Sci

    Sci Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    Re-watching Man of Steel for the first time since it was in the cinemas, and one problem that immediately strikes me is the poor editing choices Snyder makes with the flashback sequences. Filmmaking is all about creating and releasing tension; in Man of Steel, the broadest tension is, "Will he put on the cape and become Superman?," and the parallel tensions in the flashback sequences (Clark on the bus, Clark talking to Jonathan, Clark at the oil rig) are over whether or not Clark will intervene to save people. But because we get immediate answers to the tensions in those flashbacks -- the bush crash is a continuous sequence of introduction, crash, Clark saving everyone -- the tensions are resolved too soon.

    Rather, we should have continued to cut to these sequences throughout the film to create parallels between the crises Clark faced in the past and the Zod crisis he was facing in the present. And we should only have gotten the resolution of those past crises -- and therefore the resolution of the underlying tension of "will Clark use his powers to save people?" -- roughly when we got the resolution to the question of, "Will Clark act as Superman to save the world?" Clark become Superman and saving the world should have been a triumphal moment of filmatic joy, intercut with past sequences of young Clark saving folks. It would have avoided the problem of premature release of tension in the flashback sequences and created a feeling of joyous catharsis in the film's climax.
     
  11. Saul

    Saul Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    東京
    Beats me. Although from reading the outlines I get the impression that keeping Clark dead is a choice Superman makes after his resurrection which takes Lois aback. So going forward from that maybe after they defeat Darkside they later reveal that Superman was Clark Kent and then he marries Lois.
     
  12. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    The Universe.
    That was awesome, so much more depth than the Whedon failure in every department. Steppenwolf actually feels like a threat who has real reasons for wanting to get the Mother boxes outside of because i'm evil. Darkseid came off really well and not too cheesy or over the top, which is always a potential issue with the big bad ultimate villains. My only gripes were a few scenes that probably weren't necessary like the singing peeps where Aquaman swims off at the start, the CGI is still off in some scenes and i'm not 100% sold on Cyborg's look. I also wish they had kept in the line for Superman asking Bruce does he bleed because it's a nice call back to BvS and shows how the roles have reversed.

    Fuck just getting this version back, we need to see Justice League 2. WB could of had such a huge hit on their hands if they hadn't blown it the franchise with screwing around with edits of BVS, SS & JL that soured the reputation of the DCEU.

    The Batman/Joker exchange was outstanding and you could feel the history, the hate (or Joker's twisted love) between these two. That alone is enough to want to see the sequel.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2021
  13. Sci

    Sci Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Location:
    Montgomery County, State of Maryland
    More reactions, written live as I watched the film tonight.

    * * *

    I'm gonna get this out of the way: I hate this film's color palette. Superman should not live in this morose, dreary, grey world where there's no real color.

    * * *

    “Everyone on Krypton is already dead.”

    “What about those guys on the rig?” “Forget them! They’re already dead!”

    God I hate this nihilistic recurring theme in Snyder’s work. (Literally, he uses that line all the time in his films.) I’ll give him some credit and acknowledge that Clark rejects that concept when he saves the guys on the rig (though, again, the climax of that sequence should have coincided with the climax of the film). But he embraces it whole-heartedly in the Krypton prologue, turning Jor-El into an action hero who doesn’t get to show tenderness to his son because he’s busy being a badass and then dying a macho death.

    * * *

    The very first time we see Lois Lane meeting Clark Kent, he of course rescues her from danger. After Clark has destroyed the security robot that attacked Lois for boarding an ancient Kryptonian ship, however, the scene becomes more disturbing. First Lois is depicted as being overcome with fear, and Clark decides to physically overpower and restrain her. Then we get a plot contrivance to justify a deeply disturbing image: the robot had struck Lois with a tentacle, and we see her bleeding from an abdominal wound as she lies prone before Clark. He declares that she is bleeding internally and the wound must be cauterized or she will die. He warns her that this will hurt, and then uses his heat vision to cauterize the wound. The plot contrivance turns this into an act of mercy, but as the camera pans away, it is hard not to see this as a symbolic act of sexual violence. I cannot help but think someone wanted to find a plot excuse to justify seeing Clark Kent make Lois Lane scream in agony as she lay prone before him.

    And he never asks her permission.

    * * *

    When Perry White refuses to public Lois’s account of discovering an alien ship and being rescued by Clark, she leaks her story to a website notorious for publishing what we would today call “fake news.” I can only hope this dude isn’t supposed to be the DCEU version of Alex Jones.

    * * *

    I like the pseudo-art deco Kryptonian aesthetic. The whole “Kryptonians are genetically coded for their jobs/Clark is their first natural birth in centuries” thing is… fine. I’m not against it but I’m not convinced it was necessary except as a plot device to make Zod want to find Clark and kill him.

    * * *

    I love the ominous Hans Zimmerman score but wish it weren’t associated with the Kryptonians and plaid the first time we see the Superman costume.

    * * *

    I hate this whole recurring element where Clark is always this alienated, disaffected, persecuted loner wherever he goes. That’s not who Clark Kent is. The best version of Clark is that he’s not the kid who got called a freak at school -- he was the kid who fit in, and who made friends with the kids who were called freaks, and who got the bullies to back off. There are good versions of Clark where he’s a bit alienated, left behind -- not called a freak but maybe lonely and ignored, but not angry and resentful. He still goes home to his Pops and Ma and feels connected to them. Snyder’s Clark is an incel in the making.

    * * *

    I do love this scene in the Arctic where Superman flies for the first time. It’s wonderful. And yes, Jor-El’s voiceover about Clark helping humanity accomplish wonders is good. I don’t really like the Snyder version of Jor-El, but that part is good.

    * * *

    I don’t like this thing where Lois immediately figures out that Clark is a superhero right off the bat. It gives her some interesting business in THIS movie, but it leaves her with nothing to do in subsequent films.

    * * *

    C’mon, Zack Snyder. That is NOT what Diane Lane looked like in 1990 and you know that as well as I do.

    * * *

    I really hate how the Kents in Snyder’s version are these misanthropic jerks who think Clark doesn’t have a moral responsibility to help people. We DO get a glimpse of Jonathan as selfless near the end of his life, where he risks his life to protect humans and animals in the tornado. But the whole bit where he’s ready to sacrifice innocent schoolchildren undermines that. As does Jonathan and Martha’s shared that humanity would reject Superman.

    The bit where Clark lets Jonathan die was stupid because there are too many scenarios that are too easy to imagine where Clark could have saved him without exposing his secret. (Hell, “Clark saves people without exposing his secret” was the plot of every Smallville episode for ten years!)

    * * *

    This whole thing where Lois follows a trail of stories to dig up the truth about Clark makes it hard to believe that he gets to keep his secret identity later on. Though I suppose I like the idea that the entire town of Smallville is collectively in on his secret and keeping it for him. Makes it hard to imagine people in all those other places wouldn’t expose him, though.

    * * *

    Zod’s Kryptonian forces are nicely creepy, particularly their introduction, their disruption of the North American power grid, and their communication signal on all the world’s TVs. This sequence takes a lot from horror films. I do really like that.

    * * *

    Channel Awesome’s parody of Man of Steel hits the nail on the head in its take on the Clark-visiting-a-priest scene, with the words slowly becoming more and more audible of someone saying, “I. Am. Jes. Us. I. Am. Jes. Us. I. AM. JES. US. I. AM. JES. US. I! AM! JES! US!”

    * * *

    This probably exemplifies in one little nugget what I hate about Snyder’s version of Superman in general. In the church scene, Clark has told the priest that he’s the Kal-El that Zod announced to the world he’s searching for. (Why Clark is in a Catholic church when he’s coded as a Protestant in most versions is a nit-pick I’ll only note in this sentence.) The priest asks him what his gut says. Clark replies, “Zod can’t be trusted. But that’s the problem: I’m not sure the people of Earth can be trusted either.”

    This. Just… This. It’s the anti-Superman ethos. Superman is, above all, a man of the people -- he’s supposed to be someone who loves and believes in humanity. Not a misanthrope who doesn’t believe people can be trusted.

    The movie tries to make up for it by having the priest say, “Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first. The trust part comes later.” But that’s just not something Superman should have to learn. That should already be in his DNA.

    * * *

    Also, the idea that the people of Earth cannot be trusted never gets followed up on in the film. There's no moment of humanity doing some wonderful thing that makes Superman realize the people of Earth can be trusted. It's lazy to drop an important theme like that and then never pick it up again.

    * * *

    Continuity nit-pick: It’s a little weird how Perry White and Jonathan Kent and everyone acts like the world would totally freak out if they found out aliens were real, when Wonder Woman 1984 reveals that the world pretty much already learned about supernatural/fantastical events 29 years earlier. But maybe they’re thinking specifically of all the riots from the third act? And of course, it's not Man of Steel's fault what a movie made seven years later did.

    * * *

    The Superman-in-handcuffs scene is good. No complaints here. This is one of the few times pre-Justice League I feel like Superman is actually Superman.

    Well, okay, one complaint. It’s petty, but I don’t think Superman should say, “You fear me because you can’t control me. You can’t and you never will.” It’s TRUE, but Superman wouldn’t say that. He would say something like, “I understand why you’re afraid of me. But I am not your enemy.” He wouldn’t feel the need to spell out “You fear me because you can’t control me” because that’s just being kind of a dick. Superman would be emotionally secure enough not to need to establish his dominance that way.

    * * *

    I like the business where the other Kryptonians get messed up because they haven’t adapted to Earth’s environment like Clark has. The bit where Clark starts coughing up blood is a bit much though.

    * * *

    The similarity between Zod’s Kryptonian crest design and a hammer-and-sickle is a bit offensive.

    * * *

    I like that Zod’s whole motivation is an understandable desire to resurrect Kryptonian society coupled with genocidal imperialism. It’s a very relatable set of emotions and certainly evokes more than a few parallels to settler-colonialism.

    * * *

    Superman buried in a field of skulls is a bit much.

    * * *

    Ghost Jor-El the action hero. Sure. Fine. He overshadows Clark just a little bit but then this movie has a weird thing with dads.

    * * *

    Man, IHOP sure paid a lot of money to get its logo in this film.

    * * *

    Listen, I understand reacting angrily to Zod threatening his mother, but God do I hate this whole thing where Superman actively destroys buildings to defeat Zod even though that endangers innocent people. That kind of callous disregard for collateral damage is exactly NOT what Superman is supposed to be like.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, I just do not believe that there’s any real possibility Clark has kept his secret identity after Zod and his crew target Smallville. Even if the town of Smallville is keeping the secret, how could there not be five million journalists descending upon Kansas, walking up to the Kent Farm, and asking, “Hey, so, why did General Zod target Smallville? And why did he target YOUR HOUSE in particular before hitting the rest of the town?” It would be next to impossible to keep people from putting two and two together.

    * * *

    “And if history has taught us anything, it is that evolution always wins” is the dumbest fucking sentence in the entire movie.

    * * *

    Sears paid some logo money too I see.

    * * *

    This movie is a combination of implicit anti-militarism subtext in the Kryptonians (particularly the way their uniforms literally evoke death itself) and explicit pro-military imagery in the depiction of the U.S. Armed Forces.

    * * *

    Superman is incoherent. Textually, he wants to save everyone and that’s why he tells the residents of Smallville to flee and tries to save U.S. soldiers. But we also see him deliberately lead the Kryptonians into heavily-populated areas to do battle and make no effort to lead them out from Smallville or Metropolis.

    * * *

    The Kryptonian World Engine is a nicely creepy threat. I like the use of the Ominous Kryptonian Theme with it. And the name is an awesome bit of reto-futurism.

    * * *

    But, the framing of the Kryptonian ship that descends upon Metropolis uses a LOT of 9/11-imagery. Twenty years after the attacks I’m still not sure how I feel about the use of 9/11-style imagery… though I’ve long felt that the explosion of superhero movies since 2001 is a direct reaction to 9/11.

    * * *

    Jesus Christ, does this movie love to jack off to U.S. Air Force planes or WHAT?

    * * *

    My objections aside, Superman is fighting the World Engine, Lois is trying to drop the science bomb on the ship in Metropolis, and I am finding myself loving this movie a bit in spite of his flaws. Its characters have clear objectives and motivations, and its thematic content once the present-day plot kicks in has been mostly unobjectionable (graded on a curb for U.S. military idolization). And Superman saving the world from Zod’s imperialism is a genuinely thrilling opening story.

    * * *

    I say that, and then they immediately turn up the 9/11 imagery to overload, and this pisses me off and is honestly kind of offensive.

    * * *

    But Perry White gets to be heroic and I am here for it.

    * * *

    Superman has destroyed the World Engine in the Pacific, but now we’ve reached the point where the destructive imagery in Metropolis can only reasonably be described as apocalypse porn, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

    * * *

    “If you destroy this ship, you destroy Krypton!” “Krypton had its chance!” Jesus, Clark, social darwinism much?

    * * *

    More apocalypse porn. It’s really too much for a film that children ought to be able to watch with their parents.

    * * *

    Military dude destroys the Kryptonian ship and sucks all the Kryptonian ships except Zod by… 9/11-ing the alien ship with his airplane.

    Jesus, Zack.

    * * *

    “A good death is its own reward.” That’s uh. That’s a little fashy there, Zack. Little death-cult-y.

    * * *

    The kiss scene is good. I like it. Also, Perry White must know he can never assign Lois to write about Superman after this.

    * * *

    Zod’s monologue is good. Delusional but good.

    * * *

    The Superman/Zod final showdown. Just turns the apocalypse porn up even further and it’s just Too. Much. And once again, Clark making no effort to lead the fight away from Metropolis!

    * * *

    “Either you die, or I will!”

    Listen, this whole thing where we need to “justify” why Superman doesn’t kill, to establish that it’s because he had to kill once and it was so terrible he realized he must never do it again, is just… gross. The idea that you need a JUSTIFICATION to not be willing to kill people is deeply disturbing.

    It’s also just a bad way to do Superman, because Superman is supposed at its core to be an optimistic children’s story about a morally just Apollonian hero who defeats Dionysian forces. It’s not supposed to be a morose, nihilistic story about a good man’s original sin for which he must spend his life seeking redemption.

    There are two ways to do this story, then. In the first, Superman just does not kill, and he finds a way out of making that choice.

    In the second way to do this story well, Superman WILL kill a villain if it’s impossible to avoid, but it’s not framed as a moral defeat or as something for which Superman must seek redemption. It’s not a thing where he does it, saves people, but then the “be disturbed and unsettled” music plays -- it’s a thing he does that the narrative does not frame as a failing.

    Either of these two options are valid ways to do Superman. But this whole “we need to justify why Superman doesn’t kill so we’ll have him kill Zod to save innocent people but frame it as a moral failing from which he seeks redemption” is just… gross. And it plays into a nihilistic idea that there’s no such thing as true goodness.

    * * *

    Clark destroying the drone was cute.

    * * *

    This whole thing where child-Clark puts on a red towel and pretends to be a superhero would be great in another story. But it’s so meta that it undermines verisimilitude -- how could there be red-caped superheroes for Clark to imitate in the early 1990s if he is Superman??

    * * *

    Clark getting a job out of nowhere at the Daily Planet is not super-believable… unless you assume that Perry White put two and two together after reading Lois’s leaked story and saw the Smallville attack, and already knows Clark is Superman.

    * * *

    Overall, much better than I remembered it being! I did enjoy it in spite of its flaws. This is probably the least Zack Snyder-y of all his films. Clark is the closest to his recognizable self here, the villain’s motivations and plan actually makes sense, and the narrative frames most people sympathetically.

    Clark MOSTLY feels like Clark in the present-day scenes, but that’s because the present-day plot is working against the characterization established for him in the flashbacks. His flashback self is all about feeling angry and resentful and alienated, about only helping because he’d feel guilty not to. His current-day self wrestles with whether or not to turn himself over to Zod at first, but once he does he’s fully committed to the idea of doing what he can to save the world. Even before he turns himself over, we don't get a sense of present-Clark as angry and resentful or alienated -- even though the Clark-at-restaurant flashbacks had him as all of those. There's no real sense of why Clark started being less anti-social between the flashbacks (even the recent flashbacks) and the present-day sequences; it's just a fiat accompli.

    This is good insofar as Superman should be fully committed to the idea of saving the world and being heroic. It’s not as well-executed as it ought to be, though, because, again, the flashback sequences establish this tension over whether or not he’ll Do The Right Thing, but then resolve that tension very quickly. Those flashbacks should have been more interspliced with the present-day plot, and either should have been resolved when Clark commits to turning himself over to Zod or when Clark defeats the World Engine in the Pacific.

    There are also some definite Snyder-isms that creep into this film that hint at the nihilism toxic masculinity that will reveal themselves in Batman v Superman: a preoccupation with (bordering on fetishization of) extreme violence that goes right up to the line of being inappropriate for a movie with a significant child audience; subtexts of sexual violence against women; the appropriation of deeply-disturbing real-world imagery vis-a-vis the 9/11 allusions; characters whom the narrative expects us to agree with depicted as casually endorsing horrible beliefs (letting a bus of children die, humanity as too inferior to accept Superman, social darwinism justifying Kryptonian extinction, imagery idolizing the military, a fashy death-cult celebration of “a good death”).

    Again, I return to the death of Zod and the way the narrative frames it. This just isn’t how you ought to do a Superman movie. Either, the narrative should depict Superman as refusing to kill and finding a way to stop him without it; OR, the narrative should depict Superman as willing to kill bad guys in extreme, unavoidable circumstances, and should frame it as something that is okay in those circumstances rather than as something that tears Superman apart with guilt.

    Because at their core, Superman stories are stories for children about having morally righteous power. There’s nothing wrong with deconstructing that idea -- Batman v. Superman tries but fails to deconstruct Superman and would have done better if it had done so on those terms -- but that deconstruction should probably be done in either smaller stories aimed exclusively at teen and adult audiences, or should be done in Superman-pastiche stories. Doing it in a big-budget, this-will-be-a-definitive-version-of-the-story-for-millions-of-people movie is just the wrong way to adapt an icon; it sends disturbing messages, particularly to children, that I'm not sure the creators even understood they were sending.

    And running with this idea that Superman is NOT wholly righteous in his power but is instead a deeply flawed person who needs redemption for this terrible thing he did… is not true to the spirit of Superman.

    In fairness, Man of Steel does not linger on Zod’s death. It moves on pretty quickly once his neck is snapped. (Again with the extreme violence!) In most of the present-day scenes, Superman is just Superman.

    But when you combine that “Superman as guilty for killing Zod” concept with the earlier scenes of Clark as morose and resentful and alienated… I’m sorry, but it 1) creates an incoherent character, since he’s so much more well-adjusted in the present-day scenes until he kills Zod, and 2) leaves an impression of an angry, alienated, guilty character who lives in a defeatist, nihilistic world instead of an inspirational, life-affirming hero.

    There’s a lot here I like in spite of all that, but that stuff does weigh it down. B+ on the strength of the rest of it.

    * * *

    Tomorrow, Batman v. Superman. Ugh.
     
    Anwar likes this.
  14. crookeddy

    crookeddy Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Can someone confirm that the HD (not 4k) version has the 4:3 IMAX scenes?
     
  15. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in it's final stage
    The whole movie is in 4:3
     
  16. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    The Universe.
    So when can I buy this beauty on Blu Ray? I might make it my first ever 4K Blu Ray since I now have a 4K TV.
     
    The Borgified Corpse likes this.
  17. The Realist

    The Realist Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2001
    Rumor has it as late May. Hope that's right. It may be they're just holding off on announcing it till they think they've milked the most out of its HBO Max premiere.
     
  18. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    The Universe.
    Perfect, should have my 4K player AKA X Box One X by then.
     
  19. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    Rishi's Sad Madhouse
    You'll also need a 4K Blu-ray player, of course. Apart from the slight (in my opinion) colour enhancement due to HDR, I saw so little improvement for the cost that I stopped buying 4K Blu-rays.
     
  20. Boris Skrbic

    Boris Skrbic Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    If you stick with HD Blu-ray as a rule, the worst-case scenario is a wonderful, newly-remastered 4K Blu-ray showing off film grain as never before, but without an accompanying HD Blu-ray release derived from the same remastering, so the usual recommendation is to read the reviews and evaluate a release case-by-case. Sometimes 4K really doesn’t make much of a difference, and occassionally newly-added degraining makes it controversial or (as with the T2 release) even decidedly sub-par.
     
    Asbo Zaprudder likes this.