Iron-man sequel on track...

Mike LoManaco

Looks like they settled on a villain:

First Look: Mickey Rourke As Whiplash In 'Iron Man 2'

by Access Hollywood   

June 10, 2009 LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- Paramount has released the first peek at Mickey Rourke as Whiplash, and he's geared up to wreck havoc for Tony Stark in "Iron Man 2."

The actor is seen sporting a partial exoskeleton with a power pack on his chest reminiscent of Iron Man's own.

The character's alter ego, Ivan Vanko, is a Russian who "has constructed his own version of a suit," director Jon Favreau told USA Today. He also wields a pair of whips, which are powered by his exoskeleton and should make him a formidable foe for the armored superhero.

Rourke told the paper that Whiplash "is going to light them up."

Whiplash, along with The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) will take on Iron Man in the eagerly anticipated sequel, due in theaters May 7, 2010.

...sounds like Stark's gonna have his hands full with Whiplash and Black Widow; not sure if I see Johansson playing the Widow though...

Looking forward to this!

Now all we need is for someone to greenlight a damn Daredevil sequel already; actually, a prequel story would be nice, examining his beginnings with Stick and such...

Mike LoManaco

Keiko wrote: »

Damn! Almost a whole year away.

Looking forward the this also. Thanks for the heads-up.

You got it, Keiko; Favreau and Raimi will have some big shoes to fill after the success of The Dark Knight, which has slightly surpassed Spider-Man 2 as one of the most popular sequels of all time; me personally, I don't think there will EVER be a comic adaptation like Raimi's Spider-Man 2. The fight sequences, the look of Ock...everything was spot-on.

comfortablycurt

Awesome!! I'll be looking forward to this one. Looks like we've still got quite a while to wait though.

Hopefully it lives up to the first one.:) Iron Man has become one of my reference DVD's for setup and demo purposes. Hopefully the second surpasses it!

comfortablycurt

Keiko wrote: »

Try the Spiderman and Spiderman 2 Superbit DVD's for reference Curt.
Airforce 1 and The Patriot are also on Superbit. These are good reference DVD's also.

U571, Gladiator, Master & Commander and Lord of the Rings-Two Towers come to mind as well.

Here's a list of SD DVD's w/DTS soundtracks you may find useful.

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

I don't have any of the Superbits...I'll have to look into those. I've actually never even seen any of the new Spiderman movies...I've been meaning to check them out.

U-571 and LOTR Two Towers are two of my other reference DVD's...excellent soundtracks.

Thanks for posting that link of DTS titles. I've been looking for something like that for a while actually...that'll come in handy.

Ron-P

The first is the perfect example of a good comic book movie, I look very forward to the second. Good casting as well.

bklynNupe

I am so glad that Don Cheadle will replace cry baby Terrence Howard as Co. James Rhodey Rhodes!

Monster Jam

Ive got more than a few Superbit flicks and I'll say that the quality is as good as DVD gets (near HD) and in some cases FAR superior to Blu-Ray movies with poor transfers. Check out my post on "Predator" for Blu-Ray.

nguyendot

Fifth Element Blu Ray is one of my reference. I love that movie. Great picture, Great sound.

Mike LoManaco

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Awesome!! I'll be looking forward to this one. Looks like we've still got quite a while to wait though.

Hopefully it lives up to the first one.:) Iron Man has become one of my reference DVD's for setup and demo purposes. Hopefully the second surpasses it!

I, too, await this sequel, Curt; the first one captured the feel of the comic but with a more modern edge. I originally accused Favreau of not staying to the origin story enough -- for example, Stark is wounded in Vietnam and needs an artificial heart and here he's in Iraq -- but it seemed fitting to modernize it a bit by putting him in an area we're in military squabbles with now.

The Iron Man Blu-ray's Dolby TrueHD track is pretty aggressive once it gets going; have you not seen the Blu-ray Disc of it? I'll try and post my review of it when I get a chance...

As for STANDARD DVD reference titles, these are my top picks for AUDIO:

Black Hawk Down Superbit
Air Force One Superbit
Jurassic Park (DTS)
Jurassic Park III (DTS)
The Haunting Signature Selection (DTS-ES)
Gladiator Signature Selection (DTS-ES)
Saving Private Ryan (DTS)
War of the Worlds (remake)
The Patriot Superbit (DTS track)
Terminator 3
Poseidon
Daredevil (DTS mix)
Bad Boys/Bad Boys II Superbit (DTS mixes)
Casino Royale
Fast & The Furious (DTS track)
U-571 (DTS track)


Speaking of superhero films, the Spider-Man 2 Superbit disc sounds wild in DTS -- LOADS of detail.

Mike LoManaco

bklynNupe wrote: »

I am so glad that Don Cheadle will replace cry baby Terrence Howard as Co. James Rhodey Rhodes!

I personally don't care for when they change character actors; I think it ruins the narrative -- I didn't like when Katie Holmes didn't come back as Rachel in Dark Knight and I think I would have cared for Howard to stay as Rhodie in this one...

Mike LoManaco

Keiko wrote: »

Agreed. The PQ is probably the best of all my Superbit titles as well. It's rad! :cool:

While decent enough, I have found that the "Superbit" moniker used by Sony isn't really all that it's marketed to be; there is supposed to be a plethora of breathing room on these discs because extras are left off so the audio and video can shine, but in reality, there really isn't one Superbit in my collection that looks all that great -- and I have a lot of 'em.

In all fairness, Spider Man 2 Superbit looks okay for standard DVD, and Black Hawk Down looks better in Superbit than the original release did (I had both and sold the original), but in Spider-Man 2 there are moments of compression artifacts galore and some sequences just look "off" and weak in color and contrast; Air Force One is the WORST looking Superbit I've ever seen, with artifacts, noise, macroblocking and just a bad presentation. Its DTS track, on the other hand, is OUTRAGEOUS.

comfortablycurt

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I, too, await this sequel, Curt; the first one captured the feel of the comic but with a more modern edge. I originally accused Favreau of not staying to the origin story enough -- for example, Stark is wounded in Vietnam and needs an artificial heart and here he's in Iraq -- but it seemed fitting to modernize it a bit by putting him in an area we're in military squabbles with now.

The Iron Man Blu-ray's Dolby TrueHD track is pretty aggressive once it gets going; have you not seen the Blu-ray Disc of it? I'll try and post my review of it when I get a chance...

I didn't even realize that it differed from the comic, since I've never read any of them. I've never been too into comic books though personally.

No, I haven't seen Iron Man on Blu-ray. I've only seen a handful of Blu-rays actually. I just watched The Dark Knight on Blu-ray a few days ago, it looked great, but sounded like crap. The guy has a huge 65" 1080p TV...and no surround sound. It really kills the experience.

broncsrule21@

it sounded like crap for a reason then.....How about Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Superbit? i thought that was great.

Mike LoManaco

Keiko wrote: »

Sorry for the thread jack...What's your source player Mike?

I have a Yammie S1800. Not once have I ever had any blocking/artifact issues with this player. ( That I've noticed anyway ) Up-conversion to 1080p over HDMI is outstanding. SQ is pretty good to IMO, considering it's a Universal. It utilizes 4 two channel Burr Brown dacs which, as I understand are quite good.

My source is in my signature; but I have noticed these artifacts with previous DVD players...

comfortablycurt

broncsrule21@ wrote: »

it sounded like crap for a reason then.....

Yeah, that was kinda my point.;) I'm sure it sounds fantastic on a good setup. The SD DVD sounds incredible on my system, I can only imagine how good the Blu-ray sounds.

Mike LoManaco

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Yeah, that was kinda my point.;) I'm sure it sounds fantastic on a good setup. The SD DVD sounds incredible on my system, I can only imagine how good the Blu-ray sounds.

The TrueHD mix on the Blu-ray probably sounds about as good as the Dolby track on the DVD; its aggressive, sure, but it's not an audio mix that you'd sit and say "HOLY ****...I think I have to go change my Depends..."

Ron-P

Sorry Mike but you're way off on your comment, the TrueHD mix kicks the DD track on the DVD to the curb, and then some. The envelopment of the TrueHD track is hands down far superior.

Mike LoManaco

Okay, Ron; I'm "way off" in your opinion -- but that's your opinion; most of the TrueHD tracks I've sampled personally and in CES/CEDIA demo rooms haven't "bested" lossy Dolby Digital yet as far as I'm conerned. But I am a critic the likes of which would terrify Charles Manson in that regard. :eek:

Ron-P

There is a very noticeable difference between lossy on DVD and lossless on Blu-ray/HD-DVD. At least to me, it's quite significant, and of course, many others. Guess it all just depends on the gear and the setup.

danz1906

comfortablycurt wrote: »

Awesome!! I'll be looking forward to this one. Looks like we've still got quite a while to wait though.

Hopefully it lives up to the first one.:) Iron Man has become one of my reference DVD's for setup and demo purposes. Hopefully the second surpasses it!

Agreed,I cant wait for this to come out.

Mike LoManaco

That may indeed be what it is...

Yet, I have asked countless times this same question, and it always comes back to "No, you don't need $100,000 equipment to enjoy the new resolutions..." with the question being, "What if someone has, say, Onkyo's affordable 600-series receiver with some Polk speakers hooked up to it, and an average Blu-ray player, from, say Panasonic...can the TRUE benefits of high resolution audio from TrueHD and Master Audio be experienced? Do you need to have mega-buck setups in order to experience this difference?"

The answer has ALWAYS been "No; Affordable gear will net sonic benefits of these new codecs and such..."

Yet, most TrueHD tracks (in particular) don't sound TREMENDOUSLY better, open or detailed to me compared to well-mixed Dolby Digital ones; of course, I am still running a system where the PLAYER is decoding the TrueHD signals, passing them as multichannel PCM, so perhaps when I one day have a player that sends these bitstreamed, I may hear a difference (as many who are bitstreaming the new codecs are arguing).

McLoki

Just like in any other upgrade. You notice the largest improvements by upgrading the weakest link in the chain.

I would speculate that the more high end your gear is - the closer the source comes to being the weakest link and the more difference you will hear between SD and HD audio.

Does that mean with a lo-res system you will get no benefit from a better source - no. It just means as your system becomes more and more high resolution, the quality of the sound you hear becomes more and more dependant on the quality of the source.

Michael

Edit - after re-reading your comment about bitstreaming the audio - I still feel I am correct in the ability of your system to resolve the source and accurately reproduce it. I would not expect you changing your source to an even higher quality one would have much affect at all on the sound you are hearing. Your money would be much better spent identifying and upgrading the current weak link in your system. (made fairly hard in your system because most of the components in your system are pretty evenly matched. I would speculate for movie impact - a sub upgrade would give you the best benefit though).

wingnut4772

I love Terrence Howard. I wish he was coming back.

wingnut4772

Keiko wrote: »

Ewwwwww! NO!!! He has cooties.

I'd hit it.

Monster Jam

...tmi

Mike LoManaco

McLoki wrote: »

Just like in any other upgrade. You notice the largest improvements by upgrading the weakest link in the chain.

I would speculate that the more high end your gear is - the closer the source comes to being the weakest link and the more difference you will hear between SD and HD audio.

Does that mean with a lo-res system you will get no benefit from a better source - no. It just means as your system becomes more and more high resolution, the quality of the sound you hear becomes more and more dependant on the quality of the source.

Michael

Edit - after re-reading your comment about bitstreaming the audio - I still feel I am correct in the ability of your system to resolve the source and accurately reproduce it. I would not expect you changing your source to an even higher quality one would have much affect at all on the sound you are hearing. Your money would be much better spent identifying and upgrading the current weak link in your system. (made fairly hard in your system because most of the components in your system are pretty evenly matched. I would speculate for movie impact - a sub upgrade would give you the best benefit though).

Are you suggesting a move to a better SOURCE deck -- my Panasonic Blu-ray player -- or to a sub? The sub situation is out of the question because of my current living conditions; we have neighbors and right now my 10" Polk is too much...as for the source deck, I am being told that all the players today simply bitstream the audio and it's how the receiver processes it that's maybe making a difference; would a switch to a $2K Denon BD player make a difference in the tactile response of these new codecs?

McLoki

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Are you suggesting a move to a better SOURCE deck -- my Panasonic Blu-ray player -- or to a sub? The sub situation is out of the question because of my current living conditions; we have neighbors and right now my 10" Polk is too much...as for the source deck, I am being told that all the players today simply bitstream the audio and it's how the receiver processes it that's maybe making a difference; would a switch to a $2K Denon BD player make a difference in the tactile response of these new codecs?

Sorry for the confusion. I am saying that your source is not even close to the weak link in your system and money spent on improving on your source further would be wasted in your system.

If you would like to improve the sound in your system - spend money elsewhere other than at the source. (That is where the sub suggestion came from)

I am not saying you have to upgrade - just that you are resolving about as much info from the source as your system will allow. I was also speculating that it could be the reason that SD and HD audio sound so similar with your system (lack of resolution).

Michael

Mike LoManaco

There have been two sides to this fence from what I've heard. Most who say there is a distinct difference between the formats, and some who agree that legacy DTS tracks and Dolby tracks don't sound all that "worse off" compared to the new TrueHD mixes...

What I was trying to convey was that it has been my understanding up to this point that you didn't necessarily NEED mega-buck electronics and systems to reap -- or even detect -- the benefits of the new surround codecs, that even with mediocre at best HTiBs that include receivers that decode the new formats, the differences can be heard. Further, people in the industry have assured me (and the other consumers of Earth) that buying products that aren't necessarily very expensive -- such as receiver models like Onkyo's TX-SR605/606 -- but which DO support the new audio formats will allow the end user to experience the TrueHD/Master Audio soundtracks in full detail even though they "only" paid $500 or so for that piece. That said, I am still experiencing a very similar sound between the new high res codecs and the old legacy ones, but to nitpick, there MAY be some detail differences between channels. THE DARK KNIGHT is a good example of a film with some serious detail in the TrueHD mix -- but truth be told, when I flip back to the Dolby Digital soundtrack on the Blu-ray, which is bitstreamed from my player, the bass is fuller and the sound is just as "dynamic" as the TrueHD mix. There could be many factors here...perhaps my BD player isn't up to snuff for decoding these tracks into multichannel PCM internally? Perhaps my receiver doesn't process these PCM signals correctly? It's almost infinite the possibilities of what this could be.

Are you suggesting that perhaps my speakers and sub is where the weak link in hearing these new codecs is coming into play?

McLoki

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Are you suggesting that perhaps my speakers and sub is where the weak link in hearing these new codecs is coming into play?

Yes.

I do not believe the electronics in your system are currently the weak link, meaning that they will not show the best (or in some cases, any) improvement for the money spent.

The reason I suggested your subwoofer as the place to start for an excellent bang for the buck upgrade is that the sub you have now only plays down to about 40hz. You are missing about an octave and 1/2 worth of information - not that it is distorted or not playing as loudly as it should - it just is not there.

If you were to upgrade the rest of your speakers - their would be an increase in clarity, imaging and perhaps presence (but at least they are playing the info presented to them - your sub isn't even doing that)

Think about what these new codecs give you..... A lower compression (or in some cases no compression) Not new information. It is similar to the difference (although to a lower amount) to listening to MP3's vs CD's. The better your system - the more difference you hear. (also - the better your system, the more interant of poor recordings you will become.)

Another way to think of it is this. the 1080p of blu-ray is higher definition than the 480p of SD DVD's. If you play them on a 20" display and watch from a distance of 20' I bet you will not see hardly any difference between the formats. (heck - you may not see the difference between blu-ray and cable or a VCR on that set, from that distance) but as your screen gets larger and you move closer - the differences become more apparent.

Better speakers will do to audio the same thing a larger screen or sitting closer will do for the video.

Michael

wingnut4772

+1 on the sub upgrade at least.

Mike LoManaco

McLoki wrote: »

Yes.

I do not believe the electronics in your system are currently the weak link, meaning that they will not show the best (or in some cases, any) improvement for the money spent.

The reason I suggested your subwoofer as the place to start for an excellent bang for the buck upgrade is that the sub you have now only plays down to about 40hz. You are missing about an octave and 1/2 worth of information - not that it is distorted or not playing as loudly as it should - it just is not there.

If you were to upgrade the rest of your speakers - their would be an increase in clarity, imaging and perhaps presence (but at least they are playing the info presented to them - your sub isn't even doing that)

Think about what these new codecs give you..... A lower compression (or in some cases no compression) Not new information. It is similar to the difference (although to a lower amount) to listening to MP3's vs CD's. The better your system - the more difference you hear. (also - the better your system, the more interant of poor recordings you will become.)

Another way to think of it is this. the 1080p of blu-ray is higher definition than the 480p of SD DVD's. If you play them on a 20" display and watch from a distance of 20' I bet you will not see hardly any difference between the formats. (heck - you may not see the difference between blu-ray and cable or a VCR on that set, from that distance) but as your screen gets larger and you move closer - the differences become more apparent.

Better speakers will do to audio the same thing a larger screen or sitting closer will do for the video.

Michael

Thanks Michael,

My PSW10, while FAR from a rampaging beast in the woofer world, has actually served me quite well in three systems already -- as I stated in other threads, it shakes the walls of our current condo and I can't really make it much louder due to neighbor constraints. That said, I DO experience nice rumbles with this sub on high resolution TrueHD tracks and Master Audio mixes; THE DARK KNIGHT in particular exhibits WILD pounds of LFE on this PSW10 during the scene where Ledger (the Joker) blows up Gotham General Hospital...the crushing low bass in this scene has me lowering my master volume all the way because of the extensions of bass waves.

Now, with regard to the rest of my speakers, I am indeed wanting an upgrade of my R20 and R15s in the worst way -- I would like to get some towers for the fronts and perhaps something better for the surrounds. I am hopeful that this will improve the overall dynamics of the system in addition to not having to deal with the annoying speaker stands that accompany bookshelves (if you're not wall hanging them, as I'm not). If this gives me the "edge" I am searching for in listening to and evaluating these new soundtracks compared to the lossy versions, it shall indeed be my first upgrade.