gsnoorky-732-223572
Joined Jul 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings3
gsnoorky-732-223572's rating
Reviews2
gsnoorky-732-223572's rating
OK, this seems to be direct to VHS, in the early '80s. Clearly, this is the then-reigning portrait CRT TV aspect--of that now cruciifed, low res era. Some of the era's films were even of worse quality: Dumb California surf movies, etc.
If you want worse, welcome to kinescope--people filming their screens then. Unfortunately sometimes, that's all that is available--for such efforts
Back in the day, this was always acceptable video quality--given peoples' CRT sets at home. Actually, the cinematography here was pretty good--as far as framing, etc. Goes.
The $ were scarce for this type of effort--no major studio--no pricey film-stock. Maybe it's that era's low-budget video tape, and gear.
Did this make theaters? Probably not.
Nature flicks from that era often were then were considered pretty good--expert cinematography--low res, though.
Without major $, at the start (including expert restoration)--results from then turn out poorly, now. It can never be optimal.
This is for those interested, and film students. I commend the film's rights owners for putting this out: They likely understood, well, today's backlash!
If you look at VHS tape content now--you likely will note how poor the res is--crude and limited. That was all that was reasonably available then....
If you want worse, welcome to kinescope--people filming their screens then. Unfortunately sometimes, that's all that is available--for such efforts
Back in the day, this was always acceptable video quality--given peoples' CRT sets at home. Actually, the cinematography here was pretty good--as far as framing, etc. Goes.
The $ were scarce for this type of effort--no major studio--no pricey film-stock. Maybe it's that era's low-budget video tape, and gear.
Did this make theaters? Probably not.
Nature flicks from that era often were then were considered pretty good--expert cinematography--low res, though.
Without major $, at the start (including expert restoration)--results from then turn out poorly, now. It can never be optimal.
This is for those interested, and film students. I commend the film's rights owners for putting this out: They likely understood, well, today's backlash!
If you look at VHS tape content now--you likely will note how poor the res is--crude and limited. That was all that was reasonably available then....
I, too, wish that this were available on DVD. Maybe it will be put onto some budget sci-fi collection DVD, someday--why not? I'm not certain that I still have this on VHS--it's been awhile for viewing, unfortunately.
This film shares a similar problem with the lesser-regarded special effects of the theatrical film "Clash of the Titans"--a work from the same era--that version of the film starred Harry Hamlin, Laurence Olivier, and other legendary Brit actors. Many people wish that some of today's digital wizardry then proved available for such lesser-supported works. Some of that magic might have made this a great TV movie, after all. (Sometimes, though, improbable modern special effects may prove tedious.)
I like Rod Taylor and his movie, too. Really, though, the late '70s is an era in which time travel would have proved more likely to succeed. Thus, the "time-ship," lab, and other prop features appear to be much more "accurate" and likely to succeed at such a task. They're pretty cool! Really, I don't see a problem with John Beck as "scientist," either. He portrays a fellow who proves to be quite calm, logical, and collected.
(Linking John to porn proves very insulting. He proved very highly valued in the '70s and '80s. John was one of the few guys in this biz whom, women--after an initial "shock and awe"--never forget! Really, he's etched forever, easily, as one of the most handsome guys ever to grace a screen. Apparently, that's something which John's harsh critics--mostly men--never will understand.)
This film shares a similar problem with the lesser-regarded special effects of the theatrical film "Clash of the Titans"--a work from the same era--that version of the film starred Harry Hamlin, Laurence Olivier, and other legendary Brit actors. Many people wish that some of today's digital wizardry then proved available for such lesser-supported works. Some of that magic might have made this a great TV movie, after all. (Sometimes, though, improbable modern special effects may prove tedious.)
I like Rod Taylor and his movie, too. Really, though, the late '70s is an era in which time travel would have proved more likely to succeed. Thus, the "time-ship," lab, and other prop features appear to be much more "accurate" and likely to succeed at such a task. They're pretty cool! Really, I don't see a problem with John Beck as "scientist," either. He portrays a fellow who proves to be quite calm, logical, and collected.
(Linking John to porn proves very insulting. He proved very highly valued in the '70s and '80s. John was one of the few guys in this biz whom, women--after an initial "shock and awe"--never forget! Really, he's etched forever, easily, as one of the most handsome guys ever to grace a screen. Apparently, that's something which John's harsh critics--mostly men--never will understand.)