No. The poster that quoted me said the film was perfect.
And? A film needing to be digitally remastered does nothing to suggest that a film in its original incarnation isn't visually perfect. A remaster is a restoration of what it actually looked like in the theatres originally, not a technological update. In fact most old films that get actual technological updates in their restorations end up looking worse (see what George Lucas did to the original Star Wars).
By saying "no" to "I don't think anyone will deny that <the VHS/DVD transfer leaves alot to desired>," are you suggesting that VHS tapes/DVDs need to be theatre quality in order for a film to be perfect?
I disagree. I thought one of the only things Prometheus had going for it was that it was visually stunning. It "looked better" than Alien. What I think you guys are getting hung up on is that you think I think that somehow translates into a visually stunning film made in 2016 is automatically better than one that passed for visually stunning in 1982.
AGAIN, I'm not saying it wasn't a beautiful film. I'm sure in 1982 the scenes were mind blowing. But try and look at it from the point of view from a guy who only watched it as a child and then watched it again 15 years later. Some of the effects are objectively outdated.
I can't speak for the others, but you couldn't be more wrong about this perception of me. I'm basing my argument on how aesthetically pleasing it looks, not how good the movie itself is. In fact, this was implied when I said that I don't think the movie would be good enough to be considered a lasting timeless classic, without the benefit of the aesthetic presentation still holding up. That's the complete opposite of overstating the quality of the visuals out of regard for the quality of the movie. I think the content of the movie itself is somewhat overrated now but the visuals/presentation as they look currently, are what keep it afloat. Consequently, you saying "I'm not saying the movie isn't great" to meet me half-way is actually in direct disagreement to what I think about it. I think the outstanding visuals/presentation elevate an otherwise merely solid/serviceable movie, not the other way around.
I was not alive in 1982. Try to look at it from the point of view of a late-twenties adult who watched it for the first time no more recently than 2008 and was blown away by the way it looked, viewed completely in a modern context, and continues to feel that way. You actually have more nostalgia attached to it than I do. I just think it's a visually gorgeous film, period. I'm ignorant of what it looked like "at the time". I don't know what the context was, and I don't hold any reverence for that kind of thing (or nostalgia) in general. I just think that some old films look better than some new films.
I disagree but I'll give you a different game that was undeniably praised for it's graphical breakthrough.
Halo: Combat Evolved
This is one of my favorite games I've ever played. I played it over and over again as a 12-13 year old and absolutely loved it. I played it again as a 23 year old and I still loved the game, but it was shocking to see how the visual effects of the game that wowed me back then looked so inferior now. The game looks blocky and outdated. No facial detail, trouble smoothly transitioning from area to area, etc...
I still love Halo 1. It's still one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had and I will always love playing that game. Fast forward to 2015 when Halo 5 comes out and we're two generations of console technology ahead of where Halo 1 was. The graphics are objectively better but the game certainly isn't.
Point being, it's possible to acknowledge the deficiencies of technology 34 years ago and admitting they can be improved upon without degradation of the film. I love Blade Runner. The nostalgia of watching it with my dad is on the same level of enjoyment I got from playing Halo. That doesn't mean it was perfect. It just means it was perfect for it's time.
I suggested that there could very well exist an older game that is visually timeless that would look better than a modern game with more up to date graphics. This doesn't suggest that all games that are praised for their visuals should hold up over time.
This is what I think. Old games/films that are praised for their visuals purely because they're reliant on how technologically ground-breaking they were at the time are doomed to become dated (a modern example of that is Avatar). They are the opposite of timeless, because their visual quality hinges on something that just gets better and better. You may think this sounds like I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not. There is more to what looks good than solely the technology involved. What matters infinitely more than that is how you make use of the technology that you have.
Blade Runner is better looking than most films made with better technology today because it used its limited technology more effectively, with better art direction, more restraint, and a better eye for visual appeal. It's the same principle as why, in the right/wrong hands, practical effects can look better than bad CGI, even though CGI objectively has more capability. In my opinion, visuals only become dated if its deployer misjudges the capabilities of the current technology and uses it in such a way that reaches beyond what it can do that will remain seamless and will hold up. Most films with CGI released today will look dated later, but only because they try to push the technology beyond what it can convincingly do, and we forgive it now but won't later. Some films will avoid falling into that trap, and will look nearly as good in fifity years as they do now.
Point being, it's possible to acknowledge the deficiencies of technology 34 years ago, but it's also possible for lesser technology to look better than more advanced technology, despite these deficiencies. In the end, technology is only as effective as the talent using it and the art direction manipulating it. That doesn't mean that in every case, something visually groundbreaking for its time should then be visually strong forever. But that also doesn't mean that, in every case, it
must be limited to being visually good
only for its time, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
