New Flash Gordon 4K coming

I was at the Nebraska Grand Comic Con V2 on March 22nd, and they had a free theatrical showing of Flash Gordon. I had not seen it since I was a kid, and it looked stupendous! You could literally see sweat on actors, and every sequin and bead and even stitching in costumes. I couldn't recall ever having seen a movie so clear.

I mentioned that to the theater owner, and he said, "Oh, we forgot to announce, this was the world premiere of the 4K print. The studio just finished the 4K restoration this week, and we're the first to show it!"

So, Flash Gordon is coming to 4K soon, and it looks (and sounds) incredible!

Do You Mean "Gordons Alive"

Did they sort out the see-through Hawkmen during the composite shots?

Klytus i'm boooooooored.

Oh wow! I know that sometimes 4K releases come with DolbyAtmos mixes, so let's hope that we hear that music like we've never heard it before! Maybe even an Isolated Score Track - that would be spectacular.

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

Did they sort out the see-through Hawkmen during the composite shots?[/QUOTE]

FORGET THAT, are there any see through shots of Ornella Muti?!!!

Blu-ray DVD extra shower scenes???

;-)


Yeah i know what u mean though. Very unlikely, they'd have to either digitally animate/enhance or have the pre process original shots and that's VERY unlikely to have been done

But GEEZ, *MARCH 22ND!!** and we're BARELY GETTING THIS INFORMATION NOW????

I've seen it screened several times, I'm certain you saw something better and crisper than any audience had seen yet.

That's how i felt seeing THRILLER 3-D which may not get a proper release thanks to these conniving people doing their lawsuit/smear campaign

I once wrote to Ornella Muti and asked her if she was wearing knickers in the first scene she appears. She confirmed she wasn't (it was pretty obvious). So I then wrote to the guy who published 'Bare Facts' (a pre internet compendium of nude scenes) and told him. He was very excited.

Good days man. Good days.

I remember a review of the film in, I think, 2000AD that said Ornella Muti was particularly striking when walking away from the camera. Even back then, I thought that was a bit risque for a comic aimed at 9-15 year olds. Although they were right ;)

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

I once wrote to Ornella Muti and asked her if she was wearing knickers in the first scene she appears. She confirmed she wasn't (it was pretty obvious). So I then wrote to the guy who published 'Bare Facts' (a pre internet compendium of nude scenes) and told him. He was very excited.

Good days man. Good days.[/QUOTE]

Whoa. I'm amazed that you got through to her. A fan mail site or was this some tricky way through management?

That's an hilarious story though! She actually was cool with that. Hahaha.

I know she bares all in a bunch of other flicks but yeah she's striking in that era

In Flash you can actually see her .. um... muff. How it missed the censors I'll never know.

Is it a proper 80's Afro muff?

[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]



That's how i felt seeing THRILLER 3-D which may not get a proper release thanks to [i]these conniving people doing their lawsuit/smear campaign[/i][/QUOTE]

I hope you're "joking".

[QUOTE] [b]dysan wrote:[/b]

In Flash you can actually see her .. um... muff. How it missed the censors I'll never know.[/QUOTE]

This comment means nothing without a timestamp...

Nah, wasn't joking. To be a guy that fucking busy who's itinerary reflects being elsewhere most of the fucking time, being chased after death by a student prodigy who lost the bid and contract on the "Michael Jackson : One" residency and therefore some huge money, turning around and attempting to sell a story (*people STILL pay heavily for anything bad about mjj) to outlets and publishers because he's BURNED BRIDGES IN HIS INDUSTRY (*fucking the talent/artist's gf etc) all screams of desperation.

The story presented in the "documentary" doesn't stand scrutiny. Read about it. It's all developed around a book published in the early 90's.

The ages and timeframes don't bear scrutiny and even the fucking train station mentioned in the film didn't exist at the time until the alleged victims were over the age indicated in the film.

They're out for money and have debt. Michael had enemies taking on the Beatles and breaking records and being black and within the circles of that industry.

I know the image he presented to the public was something fictitious and deliberately bizarre to retain the whole illusion and cheesy David Copperfieldism of it.

His voice wasn't like that.
anyways. I'm amidst weird people on a subway. Good evening and goodnight y'all.

We'll all know sooner or later and if I'm wrong I'll eat my words

I'm looking forward to seeing FLASH again in HD that sounds awesome

[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]

Nah, wasn't joking. To be a guy that fucking busy who's itinerary reflects being elsewhere most of the fucking time, being chased after death by a student prodigy who lost the bid and contract on the "Michael Jackson : One" residency and therefore some huge money, turning around and attempting to sell a story (*people STILL pay heavily for anything bad about mjj) to outlets and publishers because he's BURNED BRIDGES IN HIS INDUSTRY (*fucking the talent/artist's gf etc) all screams of desperation.

The story presented in the "documentary" doesn't stand scrutiny. Read about it. It's all developed around a book published in the early 90's.

The ages and timeframes don't bear scrutiny and even the fucking train station mentioned in the film didn't exist at the time until the alleged victims were over the age indicated in the film.

They're out for money and have debt. Michael had enemies taking on the Beatles and breaking records and being black and within the circles of that industry.

I know the image he presented to the public was something fictitious and deliberately bizarre to retain the whole illusion and cheesy David Copperfieldism of it.

His voice wasn't like that.
anyways. I'm amidst weird people on a subway. Good evening and goodnight y'all.

We'll all know sooner or later and if I'm wrong I'll eat my words

I'm looking forward to seeing FLASH again in HD that sounds awesome[/QUOTE]

You sound like a stan and use the same "defence". Disappointing.
I don't think it's debatable anymore. MJ was a serial child molester. That said, i'm also looking forward to seeing Flash Gordon in 4K.

What's a stan?

Pakistan?

Nah. The guy had been arrested and searched and gone on trial. And then acquitted by the same defense of these guys. People mj associated with Brett Barnes, Lennon's kid etc have all stated that although he was weird he was not that kind of dude.

The information is out there, however if he were proven a serial molester then I'd be right there with u on it. But that has yet to happen, even with the DA Tom Sneddon abusing chain of custody protections for evidentiary procedures.

It's law vs contrivance and the way these guys are currently changing their stories AND all the inconsistencies presented as "fact" (including robson's wife claiming she had no idea how to deal with his "breakdown" (see UNEMPLOYMENT; in fighting and potential divorce) don't help their case at all. They act as people with something to hide.

The "charitable" group they had INITIALLY stated that robesons wife was a previous victim of abuse.

Within the week the alleged "documentary" aired, all that information was altered in their website and charitable org (one in which earnings can't be scrutinized) changed to reflect the STORY presented as "fact" in the alleged "documentary"

I.e. she's no longer a victim of abuse because that would be inconsistent with the story they presented in the film, among the other things.

I don't want to change this into a mjj discussion and derail it like so many other threads are being derailed. But the information and sources are out there as is testimony in trial and via depositions.

Not my responsibility if people are lazy and want to do any research on something that's involving a music icon and a lawsuit of 1.5 BILLION dollars

Objectivity is out the window sometimes. I watched the films. And like most things i weighted the sides.

If it comes out that any of those things were credible and not just encouraging words (the faxes, videos etc were sent to dozens of people throughout that guys life for encouragement, he visited and donated to victims, ECU ward patients, burn victims, veterans etc and didn't put it out on blast all the time)

If it comes out that he WAS that kind of dude and not simply portraying a role and JW doctrine then I'll say the dude was a monster. But until then, I'll rely on what dude stood for, the good he'd done and what can be proven.

That's about it. Won't burden this FLASH thread with MJJ recourse anymore.