Only got a colour T.V in 1993. Black and White suited me fine. Even to this day I have very little colour in my T.V and tend to have it a little on the darker side as have bad eyes and colour blind in certain colours.
Alternatively, maybe it is because the refresh rate on my TV is only 60Hz so the 1080i compensates for this. However, I had thought that the difference between 60 and 120Hz was barely noticeable even on the most image intense blu-ray discs. Quite frankly I’m not hugely savvy when it comes to such technical issues as this.
I just tried out my FAFDM DVD and maybe it was slightly more jerky on 1080p than 1080i but it wasn’t that noticeable. On some scenes of MNIN it is very noticeable however.
I tried my copy of the German FAFDM disc on 2 different DVD players and 2 different TV’s—and it looked perfect.
However, if I play it on my PC, there is some very slight jerky movement noticeable; but, not as much as I have seen with some other discs I have attempted to play via my PC (and not as much as is seen in the screencaps shown here).
I guess it is a good thing, in this case, that I don’t like to watch movies on my PC!
Not quite. The disc is actually progressive (I haven’t verified this but according to others) to achieve the best possible quality. So it should show the full frame in progressive screens like computer monitors (and all the new HD TVs?) and interlaced screens should be able to play it fine as well (not quite as fine but almost… because of the way they work they split the image in two fields that very slightly follow each other). But they didn’t include the flag that tells the player that the material is progressive… so the player doesn’t know how to play it and as a result might play it however it feels like… in your case as interlaced and so you need your screen in interlaced mode.
So with your HD TV in 1080p it should look flawless, but it doesn’t because of either the TV or player (I’m not actually sure anymore which it is… perhaps it is a combination of both… the player doesn’t know how to play it and acts like it were interlaced and since the screen is progressive it doesn’t work well…). I suppose changing into interlaced mode solves it (don’t know if all new TVs have this option, perhaps they have) but the best looking image would be progressive on progressive which may not be possible at all with this disc? I wonder how most players out there choose to play the disc… because I guess they could choose interlaced (which it isn’t supposed to be) but it works with most because their TVs are old enough. 
Anyways, I’ll admit I have lots of other titles that look at least almost as bad, because they are in fact interlaced. But that is basically what I expected of them and there apparently was nothing the companies releasing those could do. But these Paramount discs were supposed to look great and they could have fixed this issue at least after it came up with the Nobody discs, but they did not. I suppose to minority was too minor to care about.
[quote=“Sundance, post:174, topic:327”]Not quite. The disc is actually progressive (I haven’t verified this but according to others) to achieve the best possible quality. So it should show the full frame in progressive screens like computer monitors (and all the new HD TVs?) and interlaced screens should be able to play it fine as well (not quite as fine but almost… because of the way they work they split the image in two fields that very slightly follow each other). But they didn’t include the flag that tells the player that the material is progressive… so the player doesn’t know how to play it and as a result might play it however it feels like… in your case as interlaced and so you need your screen in interlaced mode.
So with your HD TV in 1080p it should look flawless, but it doesn’t because of either the TV or player (I’m not actually sure anymore which it is… perhaps it is a combination of both… the player doesn’t know how to play it and acts like it were interlaced and since the screen is progressive it doesn’t work well…). I suppose changing into interlaced mode solves it (don’t know if all new TVs have this option, perhaps they have) but the best looking image would be progressive on progressive which may not be possible at all with this disc? I wonder how most players out there choose to play the disc… because I guess they could choose interlaced (which it isn’t supposed to be) but it works with most because their TVs are old enough. 
Anyways, I’ll admit I have lots of other titles that look at least almost as bad, because they are in fact interlaced. But that is basically what I expected of them and there apparently was nothing the companies releasing those could do. But these Paramount discs were supposed to look great and they could have fixed this issue at least after it came up with the Nobody discs, but they did not. I suppose to minority was too minor to care about.[/quote]
Ah, makes sense. Well I’m pretty happy with the lovely image I get for both on my TV so I guess I’m one of the lucky ones (actually I noticed the 1080p and 1080i settings are on the DVD player rather than the TV itself and with FAFDM it made little difference to an already good picture - both play perfectly on my laptop too which has a beyond HD resolution of 1920x1200 and was bought in October 2004 if you can believe that!)
[Edit: I think this was due to poor PAL - NTSC conversion by my player than anything wrong with the disc per se]
So what do you think of Alex Cox’s weird interpetation about the flashbacks? That it is actually LVC himself who is having incestic relationship with his sister and got shot by Volonte but survives afterwards to avenge. Cox justifies it with the fact that they both share same flashback which would not be possible if LVC was not around at the time.
Thought this many of times myself during the flashbacks myself.
Never thought of that. But he does say that it is he’s sister and let’s hope he’s no pervert ;).
Would seem like a plausible interpretation if only Peter Lee Lawrence actually looked like a young Van Cleef.
[quote=“Col. Douglas Mortimer, post:179, topic:327”]Would seem like a plausible interpretation if only Peter Lee Lawrence actually looked like a young Van Cleef.[/quote]That’s what i think too. Cox says that in movies there’s a “rule” that flashback must have a connection with the person in question but I’m not that sure, maybe it’s more like movies evolved to that direction. For example, I just watched Forgotten Pistolero where Peter Martell’s character tells Leonard Mann about the past in flashback sequence but in that sequence Martell’s character is hardly seen.
I think it just a way of making movie, both characters have a history with the chiming watch but it’s more effective to see the same flashback than see two points of view about the same story.
Also, the Colonel seems like a pretty upright guy. Not the type that would be into that sort of thing.
I totally agre that the flashback is not Lee as a younger man. Peter Lee Lawrence has no resemblance to Lee. It is nothing more than defining the reason Colonel Mortimer is pursuing Indio. The Colonel has morals and is only avenging the death and rape of his sister.
It crossed my mind once or twice that it could be LvC the man in the flashback, but then I thought it was too sick and couldn’t fit with Colonel’s character. Besides, he was shot quite badly, chances are that that man wouldn’t survive.
I think it’s quite possible. Just because Lawrence doesn’t look like Van Cleef, it does not mean he isn’t (can you imagine a young Van Cleef?). Cox is right in saying that flashbacks normally feature the character who is having it, so I don’t think it’s impossible that the Col. Mortimer was having an incestic relationship with his sister. I wonder if Leone intended this or it was just a slip-up in the screenplay?
It isn’t possible, at all, in my estimation.
Why? Because not enough time passes between the events in the flashback and the rest of the film to explain Van Cleef looking so much older, while Indio only has slightly grayer hair.
Also, in the flashbacks, Indio is portrayed by Volonte (made up to look younger). If the young man in the bedroom was supposed to be Mortimer, why wouldn’t Leone have just used Van Cleef (made up to look younger), as well? It certainly would have made sense for him to do so if the character was supposed to be Mortimer. It would have been the logical choice for many reasons (including the film’s budget). But, Leone didn’t cast Van Cleef. Why? Because the character isn’t Mortimer…simple as that.
Cox loves to stir up this sort of discussion by the way. He is famous for seeing latent homosexuality in the simplest of handshakes in a film! But, that is what makes reading his books and listening to him talk about films so interesting and entertaining—you just never know what he is going to come up with, or why. I often think Cox says stuff he knows isn’t "right’—just to see what sort of reaction he gets.
No one else thought about that Van Cleef actually says it’s he’s sister?
And also, Indio looks pretty much the same in the flashback so it’s impossible that Mortimer could have been that much younger. And why would you cast Peter Lee Lawrence of all people to play the young Lee?
They look all the same don’t they ;)?
[quote=“Silence, post:186, topic:327”]No one else thought about that Van Cleef actually says it’s he’s sister?
And also, Indio looks pretty much the same in the flashback so it’s impossible that Mortimer could have been that much younger. And why would you cast Peter Lee Lawrence of all people to play the young Lee?[/quote]
Precisely my point, amigo!
High Noon!
All good pints chris, but the Col. had to be there otherwise he wouldn’t have remembered it.
OR!!!
is Cox having it totally wrong? I just browsed through FFDM and unless I missed something I don’t think there is any scene where LVC is remembering the rape/murder. They’re always Indio’s memories.