Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 1/16/2011 11:25 AM PaPPa JUDAS wrote:
  I've had 2 or 3 chances to pick up a ton of video's cheap and never jumped on it shamefully the last VHS I bought was the new guy.
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 11:59 AM Dominic wrote:
  I'm one of those younger folk that you got into enjoying the 'exploitation' film genera [17], but even before then I've been pretty lucky by my influences. There's a media thrift store that I always go to that sells VHS tapes for almost always under $5, and they're buy one get one free. That's where I got my love for the 30's monster films like Frankenstein, the invisible man, the silent 20's films like Nosferatu and metropolis, and the 70's and 80's horror like the original Evil Dead and the like. Hopefully I can find a way to get a hold of the Bruno Mattei films, I'd love to see them.
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 1:03 PM LucasChad wrote:
  This'll be my first time actually listening to Radiodrome. I don't know if whether or not I'll like it, but it's always nice to listen to your voice. Your voice can really make people listen!
  Reply to this
  1. 1/16/2011 2:22 PM LucasChad wrote:
     You guys should talk about any favorite vampire movies since Twilight has been taking over and we need to see better vampire movies.
     Reply to this
     1. 1/17/2011 11:53 AM Dominic wrote:
        I personally recommend the 1983 film, The Hunger. It got mixed reviews, but I thought it was overall decent. It's in a Big Box too!
        Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 1:52 PM Endless wrote:
  Great first Radiodrome. I totally agree that the younger crowd today is growing up without B-movies from the past. I grew up right at the tail end of that era myself. Like I remember when AMC showed uncut movies with no commercials, 50's horror and sci-fi flicks, and Cinema Secrets. And I remember watching movies like Heavy Metal late night on Cinemax.
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 4:48 PM cornbredx wrote:
  I share your guys' feelings on the old film qualities. I totally agree and have had and seen arguments about this on forums around the internet.
  
  The problem with Blu Ray is it doesn't observe the fact that one of the great things about the old B movies is they were filmed in a specific quality intended for the way it looks (dirty). Even when it's not intended, it's one part of what makes the movie so fun. Films are filmed in the quality of the era, or in an intentional way (in certain cases like homage films, some slasher films, and what not) and at the time of their filming looked great and no one would've wanted it to look different. The reason they generally look wrong on modern TVs is it doesn't produce the quality at the same refresh rate and pixel size so it messes up the original quality, and when they up res it to Blu Ray it just starts to look to clean which is not generally the way it was intended (like in the case of Evil Dead, which would be a travesty to watch any other way then on VHS imo).
  
  All my Evil Dead movies, for instance, I have on VHS and I wont get them any other way. It doesn't work when they polish a movie that should look dirty. I don't mind getting newer movies this way, though, as that's how they are intended to look.
  
  I also haven't gotten rid of my old CRT because of that kind of stuff.
  
  Also I find it very sad that more people these days (at least on the internet) don't seem to realize that a B movie can be a lot of fun to watch. I do notice in your comments, Brad, sometimes people miss the point and think you really hate these old B movies. The serious shame is they only watch 'cus they think the movies are not worth watching and need to be bashed. Unlike Spoony, though, you actually want people to see them (sometimes) 'cus they're fun to watch. I guess enjoyment of a good B film is a dieing hobby, I dont know. Just a guess.
  
  As you guys pointed out in the show, there's sadly less kids these days that get what's so fun about the B movie genre (and honestly these days they don't even make B movies that often that are very interesting to watch although there's an occasional few that work).
  
  Something I wanted to note for Josh, though, the black and white in Kill Bill (correct me if I'm wrong) was done to appease the censors. In order to get the movie an R rating Tarantino had to cut out a lot of the blood. Since that particular scene had so much blood in it he switched it to black and white (last minute, I don't remember that being planned) so it was lit for color.
  
  I agree, the lighting is all wrong, and it's obvious, but for me at least knowing the limitation can be enlightening so it's interesting to know if nothing else. This is what I recall him saying about it, I could be wrong though as my memory is really bad.
  
  You are right, though, the black and white scenes in that film are lit poorly and it comes off a little strange.
  
  Anyway, great new refreshing of Radiodrome. Looking forward to next time guys =)
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 7:21 PM Terrence Cain wrote:
  Halloween 3 should have been named "The Three Masks Of Halloween" because it had absolutely nothing to do with the first two other than showing Michael Meyers on a TV in a movie trailer form. How it is part of the cannon is beyond me because it's just not even the same movie as the first two.
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 8:30 PM Samurai Karasu wrote:
  You guys were talking about kids getting killed in movies and I thought, "Oh I'll bring up the 1988 Blob. A kid died in that and it was good!" Then you guys did and that certainly won't stop me from commenting.
  Reply to this
• 1/16/2011 11:09 PM CS wrote:
  You can get the original cut (the studio cut) of Brazil on DVD in the Criterion Collection. I don't know why you'd want to since the Director's Cut is the best version =)
  Reply to this
• 1/17/2011 5:08 AM John wrote:
  First off, I like this format of Radiodrome better than the last one. It's much tighter and more focused, and you seem to have the levels figured out. Good job.
  
  As for the issue of quality, I personally think you guys were overrating the shitty quality adding elements, and were just speaking from nostalgia. It was like bizarro version of these mutants that act like Gladiator is all of a sudden better movie, because they just watched the blu ray version, maaan. Equally misguided, but just from the other side of the spectrum, as far as my tastes go, anyway.
  
  You either dig the movie. Or you don't. Format be damned.
  Reply to this
• 1/17/2011 7:33 AM N-gon wrote:
  Good show, guys! I always like podcasts/radio shows, good to listen to while doing other things.
  
  On the quality of blu-ray/HD issue, That's not so much the format's fault. All HD video does is present the film in a higher resolution. If it was shot on film and you saw it in theaters, even 3rd rate grindhouses, you saw the movie at a higher res then even Blu-ray still offers. Any dirt or grain on the original print can be maintained, just at a higher resolution.
  
  The problem comes from studios filtering the ever-loving shit out of movies when they prepare HD transfers. They feel that people expect 20+ yer old movies to be as clear as something shot digitally (and sadly, many do) in HD, so they run filters which basicly blur out all the grain and finer details. The result is usually an overly soft image that gives the illusion of being "clean".
  
  Some directors do take grain into account when choosing what film stock to use, and what kind of mood it will set for their movie, so yea, the noise level IS important to the film. This is quickly becoming the film industry's equivalent of the "Loudness War" which occurred with music in the early days of CDs. And like I said, most people simply don't care.
  Reply to this
• 1/17/2011 4:08 PM Nevet1212 wrote:
  I loved the conversation about Flash Gordon.
  Reply to this
• 1/17/2011 4:23 PM DesertEagle wrote:
  Great show, brad. Really enjoyed listening to you guys talk. The internet needs more good podcasts like this one.
  Reply to this
• 1/17/2011 6:17 PM MindLayer wrote:
  I think Josh might be mistaken/confused in regards to Ridley Scott talking about the chestburster scene being cut from Alien due to projectionists taking a keepsake frame. I've watched a Ridley Scott interview (on the collector's edition dvd disc 2 I believe it is, "A Nightmare Fulfilled: Reaction to the Film" featurette) in which he talks about the original theatrical showing of Alien, and he tells a story in which a theater owner complained to him about the horrible effect the scene was having on moviegoers: people were getting ill and being too greatly disturbed, etc, but "not to worry, we've fixed the problem." Ridley, curious naturally, inquires as to how they could fix the problem, and the theater owner told him they simply edited out the offending scene.
  
  So the point I want to make is that it wasn't a case of the scene being slowly picked apart and removed frame by frame as the print traveled from theater to theater, but rather a decision by theater management to make edits, localized censorship essentially, resulting in many people missing the chestburster scene entirely.
  
  I feel sorry for anyone who was denied the full experience of the film during their first viewing because of this. Just imagine how much weaker the overall impact of the film would have been if you had not seen the birth of the creature, if the chestburster scene began, but, let's say, as soon as John Hurt began choking the film immediately cut to the next scene. It would have been awful, but you wouldn't have known it at the time. You'd just be confused, wondering where the hell did this creature come from. Then later perhaps you're talking about the movie with friends who saw it elsewhere, and of course they talk about the chestburster scene, and soon enough you realize you got totally jipped.
  Reply to this
  1. 1/17/2011 11:41 PM N-gon wrote:
     Perhaps he blended stories in his mind? I've heard a similar story to what he recounted in the show regarding a film that included one of the first nude scenes. Projectionists took frames from it as keepsakes until the entire scene was gone. Actually, I believe the original novel of "Fight Club" (but not the movie) retold the story.
     
     Although I'm sure it's the sort of thing that has happened to a lot of films through the years.
     Reply to this
     1. 1/21/2011 2:04 PM Anonymous wrote:
        Let's be fair - Fight Club is the same book that said you could silence a gun by drilling holes in the barrel. It's not exactly a firm factual basis for anything.
        Reply to this
• 1/18/2011 1:21 AM Josh Hadley wrote:
  Yeah, I mixed up that story and the Angie Dickenson story, I have no idea how Angie Dickenson and Alien got togather in my brain but they did.
  Reply to this
• 1/18/2011 9:09 PM srew wrote:
  I'm sorry but I want to kick your son's ass for not liking 12 Angry Men just because it was in black and white
  Reply to this
• 1/21/2011 1:15 AM Anon wrote:
  I hope you get the chance to tip us off to more awesome old public domain movies. They're usually available for free download, so if I go on a trip or something they're handy to put on my iPod to get through a plane ride or the like. In fact, that should be one of the criteria for judging old movies: how well they facilitate my being a cheap bastard.
  Reply to this
• 1/24/2011 12:04 AM bounce0u812 wrote:
  gotta love the misfits
  Reply to this
• 1/24/2011 8:37 PM Richard wrote:
  I'm surprised that Clerks never came up in the discussion of b&W films. I don't know if today's teens like that movie but my generation (few years younger than Brad) definitely does.
  Reply to this
• 3/19/2011 4:56 PM Morpheus Low wrote:
  Great to hear you mention Flash Gordon and especially how gorgeous Ornella Muti was in it. I live in Ireland and I used stay up all night watching old horrors on after midnight on weekends on Irish and English channels, all the old Hammer classics and 50's American stuff and Dr. Terrors Vault of Horror on BBC 2 introduced me to a lot of stuff
  Reply to this
• 6/14/2011 12:10 PM nnsadjwewey wrote:
  kohq xj hrlhkn
  Reply to this
• 3/19/2012 9:34 PM Handsome Pete wrote:
  I also hate this fanatical obsession with improving film quality. Ever since the friggin' 1910s it's been common knowledge that movies have nothing to do with realism, in fact that was a major advantage of black and white, that it was definitively distinct from reality, and to this day black and white has a strong association with fantasy and dreams and escapism and pretty much every other word that's the opposite of reality. I still like color, it's done some amazing stuff over the years, but deep down I still believe that it works because it still looks unreal to an extent, because the screen is flat and usually there are lots of cinematic things going on, filters and color correction at the very least. Plus, color is ancient, it's in paintings and shit. Which is why 3D is just so wrong-headed to me, I wouldn't even call it 3D because you can't look around it or get into it, it's just the same old filmmaking with an added layer of annoyance that protrudes out of the screen into your face. Now holographic movies, that would be cool. I saw something like that once actually.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment