TR Forums

Going back to a discussion as to whether or not SWE7 will be good, I just found this graphic.

I knew for sure that the Spider-Man movies were locked down by Sony, but I did not know that Sony also had Ghost Rider, and that Fox had the X-Men movies. Starts to explain a lot, actually...X-Men fell off the wagon with The Last Stand, and although Spider-Man got a solid reboot, Ghost Rider hasn't produced much worthwhile. (Also explains why no Spider-Man in Avengers).

But when it comes to actually making movies, virtually everything from the Marvel studios since Iron Man has been good, while the Marvel stuff outside the Marvel studios have had...issues. This doesn't necessarily predict whether Episode VII will be worthwhile, but could mean less pressure from Disney in terms of direction.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... mon-393459

OK, 7 may suck. That said Lawrence Kasdan (TESB) is writing and producing 8 or 9. That can only be a good thing.

Spike TV has all the movies running, like they often do. I got my wife to agree to upgrading our 9 year old TV when my kids are old enough to watch the movies for the first time. I'm thinking 46" LED is what I want and what will fit my house. Although my oldest is not quite 2...who knows what kind of TV's will be the flavor du jour in 3 or 4 years?

I was at Walmart yesterday after work and they did look tempting.

Get as big as you can at a given quality Big is good.

That new sony 84" is phenomenal (but it's 25k too, screw that).

.

clone wrote:

Get as big as you can at a given quality Big is good.

That new sony 84" is phenomenal

their was a time early in the thin transition where those gynormous console tv's still looked better because they really were that huge despite sitting 5feet deep, it's nice to finally see the thins being larger and thinner than the old projections.

I'm trying to decide between a 60 and a 70 and whether or not the extra 10" will be worth the added expense..... I don't have anything else to buy atm but it's a matter of principal I don't want to spend more than $3000 on a TV.

The sad reality is that they started engineering the flat TV's cheaper using edge-lit WLEDs. I have one, only because it was stupid cheap and out-of-box; it's far from what I'd consider a real solution. Again, stupid cheap.

The nice ones have the RGBLEDs in zones.

And in two to four years, expect OLEDs to actually take over. Without doing any research or math (maybe someone else has?), OLED panels seem to be about doubling in surface area every year, though I don't think anyone but Samsung is making them in volume yet.

.

Right, you wouldn't want to sacrifice the TV's battery life.

This is a thread diversion now, but if money were no object, what is the best TV? LCD vs LED vs Plasma? I read an article that said Plasma handled black the best but LED was the brightest and most energy efficient.

I don't care about 3D at all nor do I particularly need a smart TV. My main goal is to have Blu-ray movies look as good as possible on my screen. 55" is probably as big as I need to go right now. Some of the movies that I want to see look spectacular are Star Wars, Serenity, Lord of the Rings, etc.

I was looking at Tiger Direct hot deals and this looked like what I want.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... =S222-5525

Any thoughts?

Hawkwing74 wrote:

This is a thread diversion now, but if money were no object, what is the best TV? LCD vs LED vs Plasma? I read an article that said Plasma handled black the best but LED was the brightest and most energy efficient.

LEDs are LCDs, but instead of a CCFL backlight, they're LED backlit. The edge lit models are garbage, the only LEDs worth buying are the ones with local dimming. Still, a plasma is superior in every visual way to a LCD, so as long as you aren't susceptible to the visual anomalies of plasma technology, go with a plasma.

Hawkwing74 wrote:

My main goal is to have Blu-ray movies look as good as possible on my screen. 55" is probably as big as I need to go right now. Some of the movies that I want to see look spectacular are Star Wars, Serenity, Lord of the Rings, etc.

The Lord of the Rings is a poor transfer, so you might be disappointed to see it on Blu-ray. It's still miles better than the DVD, but the theatrical editions have been scrubbed to death with noise reduction, and the extended editions have a weird turquoise hue to them.

At any rate, get a plasma. In my experience you should always get one screen size bigger than you think you'll want, because after a while they start to look small. My 55" LCD looked huge when I first got it, now I am wishing for a 70" screen. And I sit 11 feet from the TV.

I would recommend Cnet for TV reviews, they've never steered me wrong. Pay special attention to color accuracy; a set with good blacks/contrast is important but if it doesn't reproduce color correctly then you've wasted your money.

Those reviews look really informative. Now I'm thinking of something like this:

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/ ... 17941.html

Hawking, I bought the 60" version of that TV and I've been loving it. I mostly use it for sports, blu-rays, and a few TV shows and they all look great. My roommate's XBOX also looks awesome on it. I looked at both the higher end VT and ST series and couldn't really discern a difference so I went with a larger ST. I'm no videophile but the picture looks excellent to my eyes and my nitpicks with it are minor.

I'll also parrot Vrock here on screen size. I had originally planned on the 55" but sprung for the 60" and I'm glad I did. My previous 46" TV feels absolutely tiny in comparison.

To be more specific about my nitpicks... It's not as bright as my parents LED TV but that's to be expected with a plasma. My setup receives some indirect sunlight during the day but the picture still looks great (though I still prefer to close the blinds). I'm reluctant to crank the brightness up any higher because I read somewhere that doing so can damage plasma screens (not sure if this is still true with modern plasmas). You might want to keep this in mind depending on where your TV will live.

I also notice some faint graininess when I look at it up close, but at proper seating distance it's not noticeable. I'm not sure if this is normal for plasmas or it's something with my sources/power/receiver/etc.

I ordered it from Amazon and was really satisfied with their handling of the delivery, didn't have any issues. The price was competitive also, Best Buy was charging significantly more at the time.

Hope this helps!

Yes, very helpful. Thanks for your input.

I've also ordered from Amazon in the past, excellent TV delivery experience.

Damn it...I was hoping that I'd be the first one around here to buy the TC-P60ST50. My 5 year old TH-50PZ700U is still working like a champ, but the upgrade to a sexy 60" panel sure would be nice. It's crazy to think that I spent $2700 on my 50" 5 years ago, and the new 60" is selling for $1600. I'm also planning on (finally) getting a receiver and speaker set-up, so any suggestions would be recommended.

So, uh.....Star Wars?

Dizik wrote:

So, uh.....Star Wars?

No matter how terrible Episode 7 may or may not be... it will look fantastic on your new TV.

Lightsabers!

Now that Mark Hamill has been (supposedly) roped in, here's a clever bit. More like Star Wars meets Gran Torino.

http://tpsaye.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/ ... ith-you-3/

Captain Ned wrote:

Now that Mark Hamill has been (supposedly) roped in, here's a clever bit. More like Star Wars meets Gran Torino.

http://tpsaye.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/ ... ith-you-3/

Jesus no one wants to see him. I was hoping we could move away from the whiny Skywalker family and have something new. (although Hamill's voice overs for the Joker have been top notch)

Yeah I don't get that either unless it is decades after RotJ and he doesn't have a central role.

Hawkwing74 wrote:

Yeah I don't get that either unless it is decades after RotJ and he doesn't have a central role.

That's kind of what happened with I-III to IV-VI. Obi-Wan was a supporting character in the originals, but he's really the main character in I-III (with some Anakin stuff, even though that character was weak).

And the big thing I would point out is that even though Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill have apparently been roped in, special effects are going to allow for a lot more in terms of action scenes. Wouldn't really make sense to throw old actors into something where the action has been set higher by Episode I (yes, I went there).

All I'm really looking for in old characters would be them growing into new roles, Like Obi-Wan to Ben Kenobi, Jedi Master Yoda to hermit Yoda, Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader. There's a ton of room for this, so I just hope they capitalize on years of actor development.

Obviously, none of you nay-sayers have ever read any of the expanded universe books.
There's plenty of fodder to create epic story arcs. By the way, they're all roughly the right age for the Jedi Outcast series.
Whole planet of Sith versus several hundred Jedi, still licking their wounds from Darth Cadeus? Come on, that sounds pretty damn sweet to me.
By that point in the story, Luke is beyond mature, as he is wise beyond his years.

With what they did with Jeff Bridges in Tron, I'm thinking that they could make good use of our now aging actors if they want to include some flashbacks to link a much later story to ~RotJ. I'm also starting to look forward to this project more, and I'm crossing my fingers!

Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy (CLU) only worked because it didn't. That is, I think CLU was better off hitting the uncanny valley because he was supposed to look like Jeff Bridges, but the CGI was distracting and made it clear that it was a copy.

You cannot use something like that to make a convincing younger version of someone. Not yet, at least.