New VHS Rental store in Liverpool

WhiteMemento9

Sad Professor wrote: »

You could probably make this argument for old tv shows (even ones shot on 35mm) where there was no expectation that that they would be viewed on anything larger than a 20 inch CRT television - but not films which were never designed to be watched on VHS.

I understand the appeal of vinyl and retro games. And VHS may appeal to some people for the same reasons, but they are deeply misguided reasons because VHS was always a very poor imitation of the original theatrical experience that movies were meant to be seen in.

I think most people get this which is why a VHS revival ain't gonna happen.

You thinking you know what other people should like is the misguided thing in this post. Pleasure is a strange animal. It means completely different things to different people. One mans trash is another mans Mona Lisa. See sexual nature of people in all its weird, wonderful and strange nature to see what motivates people is completely different.

Tony EH

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

No, you think they do it because they think it makes them look cool. That is a judgment you have made with your eyes without knowing the person. I'm sure a certain portion of them do it for those reasons but I KNOW many do it just because they enjoy doing those things. Just because you don't understand the pleasure they derive from certain things you make sense of it by saying things like the above.

No need to get rattled.

If someone is genuinely enjoying something and not just doing it "to be seen doing it" or "to be cool"...then they're not really a hipster, are they?

When people say hipster, they mean a faker, or someone who does something because it's trendy to do it...and there's plenty of them about.

Sad Professor

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You thinking you know what other people should like is the misguided thing in this post. Pleasure is a strange animal. It means completely different things to different people. One mans trash is another mans Mona Lisa. See sexual nature of people in all its weird, wonderful and strange nature to see what motivates people is completely different.

And that's great. Like whatever you like, whether its weird kinky sex or renting VHS tapes of popular movies, I don't care. I was responding specifically to briany's argument that watching movies on VHS is similar to the appeal of retro video games or watching a film shot in black & white. It's not. Black & white films and first person scrollers were designed around their technological limitations, where as VHS tapes of films were never anything but a poor quality imitation of seeing a film projected in 35mm - that's the retro form of media people should be trying to revive rather than VHS tapes.

WhiteMemento9

Tony EH wrote: »

No need to get rattled.

If someone is genuinely enjoying something and not just doing it "to be seen doing it" or "to be cool"...then they're not really a hipster, are they?

When people say hipster, they mean a faker, or someone who does something because it's trendy to do it...and there's plenty of them about.

I'm not sure what the rattled comment is about but anyway. It just seems like that judgment about people has become a very popular way for people to make themselves feel better, they see someone acting a certain way which they think is pretentious or faking without ever actually talking to that person so they like to call them names without any understanding. I don't find much reason in judging what other people do unless it is hurting themselves or people around them.

WhiteMemento9

Sad Professor wrote: »

And that's great. Like whatever you like, whether its weird kinky sex or renting VHS tapes of popular movies, I don't care. I was responding specifically to briany's argument that watching movies on VHS is similar to the appeal of retro video games or watching a film shot in black & white. It's not. Black & white films and first person scrollers were designed around their technological limitations, where as VHS tapes of films were never anything but a poor quality imitation of seeing a film projected in 35mm - that's the retro form of media people should be trying to revive rather than VHS tapes.

You are making all those assumptions from the brain that you live in. Try living inside someone else for a day and come back to me. Oh wait . . . .

Tony EH

briany wrote: »

The Atari 2600: The graphics are crap, the controls are crap, the sound is crap, the gameplay is basic and the stories are almost non-existent. Everything about the Atari 2600 is crappy when you compare it to what we have in 2018, and yet you'll find a community of people out there who are enthusiastic about that console and its games. And the same is true for many old gaming platforms. There's usually very little about them that is objectively better than current technology. Still many people out there into them, though.

I suppose the point I'm making, here, is that you give any outmoded technology about 15-20 years, and you'll see some sort of spike in its use or demand once again, and it's not really a demand predicated on practicality. It's not necessarily about looking cool, either. It could as easily be about nostalgia or recapturing a certain feeling or aesthetic. There's certainly a community out there into the old VHS stuff (watch the documentary Adjust Your Tracking about VHS collectors for evidence of this), although I don't know if enough of these enthusiasts live in Liverpool or the surrounding area to keep this particular shop afloat.

There's a difference though.

The Atari, megadrive, Speccy, or whatever are of their time. The graphics weren't ever going to get better and the game will always play the same. That type of gaming was the best the format was.

VHS, on the other hand, was just always a poor format that bastardised the original source. It took high definition film and reduced it to mush. Not only that, it sounded poorer than it's source and also, it generally cropped that source from 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 down to an awfully shaped 4:3.

In other words, the retro games were the actual source material, never going to get better, never going to get worse. Video was a vastly reduced product of an original source.

Not only that, video tape looks absolutely WOEFUL on modern large format TV's. They were fine enough on contemporary CRT sets. But, on today's 50 inch LED's etc, they're a swampy mess.

Put it this way, 'Jetpac' on the Spectrum, or C64 will always look like that. Because that was the way the game was designed to look and play. But, if you compare 'Jaws' on a panned and scanned VHS to 'Jaws' on Blu-ray. There's only one clear winner.

WhiteMemento9

Why people always come back to the bloody logic of why something is better is beyond my comprehension. Many things in this world are completely and utterly illogical. Sam Harris talking about free will is a good start.

Tony EH

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the rattled comment is about but anyway.

Your post sounded very defensive.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It just seems like that judgment about people has become a very popular way for people to make themselves feel better, they see someone acting a certain way which they think is pretentious or faking without ever actually talking to that person so they like to call them names without any understanding. I don't find much reason in judging what other people do unless it is hurting themselves or people around them.

I'm not sure it's about people making "themselves feel better". It's about recognising that there are folk about that pursue a fake caché and exude a fake charisma. These people most definitely exist in very real terms.

That doesn't mean that someone who genuinely enjoys something that is leftfield or whatever automatically falls into this category.

However, when you see some lad huffing and puffing up a hill on a fixie that he paid a fortune for, in a Ronnie Drew beard and a top knot...more than likely, he thinks he looks "cool".

WhiteMemento9

Tony EH wrote: »

Your post sounded very defensive.

I personally think video quality is awful but I also haven't lived inside another person so I can only make that judgment from my understanding, experience, brain etc. I know it is entirely possible that a person gets a complete different experience from VHS. How is that defensive?

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not sure it's about people making "themselves feel better". It's about recognising that there are folk about that pursue a fake caché and exude a fake charisma. These people most definitely exist in very real terms.

That doesn't mean that someone who genuinely enjoys something that is leftfield or whatever automatically falls into this category.

However, when you see some lad huffing and puffing up a hill on a fixie that he paid a fortune for, in a Ronnie Drew beard and a top knot...more than likely, he thinks he looks "cool".

I don't really care what he thinks or how he looks or what he doing. I hope he is happy and doing things he enjoys is all.

I do care now if he hurting others as I said, otherwise let him at it.

Its very easy to dismiss anothers opinion as hipster because its not to your taste but its pretty lame if you ask me when you can make any number of arguments as to why VHS is not a good format without resorting to the cheap insult, which calling someone a Hipster essentially is. If theres a few lads who are Hipsters doing Hipster ****, let them at it, otherwise you are gonna have lobby groups for hipsters, and referendums for hipsters before too long.

I will stick by my guns that some films are more appealing to me in the VHS tone. I have an extensive collection of hundreds of VHS tapes collected from the age of about 10. (My copy of Wrong Bet is black and white for some reason, and I would not watch it in any other format) Original cases with the first cover print and stuff like that. I would dig out stuff like Shivers or Eraserhead or the original Omen and much prefer to immerse myself into that older grainier version of those films then on a crystal clear format. Maybe its easier to believe, especially when you have special effects instead of CGI. Special effects can get by a hell of a lot easier.

As someone who used to record a lot of music for film in my college years, I often found my production mistakes could often turn out to enhance what I was trying to do. Might sound weird but, but I feel like theres ways flaws and imperfections can increase the experience. Thats what is happening with analog vinyl. The imperfections improve the experience, it feels more raw, it doesn't feel manicured. Maybe thats just a personal thing, but there is no way anyone can convince me that there is not some films out there where the experience is more enjoyable on a VHS then a cleaner digital picture.
But then again I hate people like Neymar with a vengeance, and all the kids love him despite his ultra manicured personality and antics. So I am pretty dated.

pixelburp

To be reductionist, the simple question I ask myself would be: is this format how the director wanted or meant the film to be seen? Now it could be yes, given how even in the digital age a film might use artificial grain or texture for aesthetic effect, but by and large I just don't see VHS as anything other than much less than what was intended, doing the film a disservice even. Same as watching Dunkirk on a mobile phone; oh sure it's viable and maybe even preferred for a particlar person's context, but it ain't how Nolan would want his film to be seen

WhiteMemento9

pixelburp wrote: »

To be reductionist, the simple question I ask myself would be: is this format how the director wanted or meant the film to be seen? Now it could be yes, given how even in the digital age a film might use artificial grain or texture for aesthetic effect, but by and large I just don't see VHS as anything other than much less than what was intended, doing the film a disservice even. Same as watching Dunkirk on a mobile phone; oh sure it's viable and maybe even preferred for a particlar person's context, but it ain't how Nolan would want his film to be seen

An artist may have their own vision of how they want something to be seen but most good ones will tell you, art is what people want to make of it.

WhiteMemento9

Deleted User wrote: »

Its very easy to dismiss anothers opinion as hipster because its not to your taste but its pretty lame if you ask me when you can make any number of arguments as to why VHS is not a good format without resorting to the cheap insult, which calling someone a Hipster essentially is. If theres a few lads who are Hipsters doing Hipster ****, let them at it, otherwise you are gonna have lobby groups for hipsters, and referendums for hipsters before too long.

I will stick by my guns that some films are more appealing to me in the VHS tone. I have an extensive collection of hundreds of VHS tapes collected from the age of about 10. (My copy of Wrong Bet is black and white for some reason, and I would not watch it in any other format) Original cases with the first cover print and stuff like that. I would dig out stuff like Shivers or Eraserhead or the original Omen and much prefer to immerse myself into that older grainier version of those films then on a crystal clear format. Maybe its easier to believe, especially when you have special effects instead of CGI. Special effects can get by a hell of a lot easier.

As someone who used to record a lot of music for film in my college years, I often found my production mistakes could often turn out to enhance what I was trying to do. Might sound weird but, but I feel like theres ways flaws and imperfections can increase the experience. Thats what is happening with analog vinyl. The imperfections improve the experience, it feels more raw, it doesn't feel manicured. Maybe thats just a personal thing, but there is no way anyone can convince me that there is not some films out there where the experience is more enjoyable on a VHS then a cleaner digital picture.
But then again I hate people like Neymar with a vengeance, and all the kids love him despite his ultra manicured personality and antics. So I am pretty dated.

You are who you are and you seem like you have a pretty good grasp on things. Never apologise for being yourself unless your actions are harmful to those around you. That can sometimes be extremely hard for people to see. People who are living a lie of what they like just to look cool aren't really themselves anyway which takes a toll on people personally. I think our lack of free will, pressures of the world and tonne of other factors especially in the world we have created make it extremely hard for people to figure out who they are as a person so they latch onto any identity to help them fit in. That includes being snide and hurtful to those around them that don't deserve it.

WhiteMemento9

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

You are who you are and you seem like you have a pretty good grasp on things. Never apologise for being yourself unless your actions are harmful to those around you. That can sometimes be extremely hard for people to see. People who are living a lie of what they like just to look cool aren't really themselves anyway which takes a toll on people personally. I think our lack of free will, pressures of the world and tonne of other factors especially in the world we have created make it extremely hard for people to figure out who they are as a person so they latch onto any identity to help them fit in. That includes being snide and hurtful to those around them that don't deserve it.

Incisive wisdom

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

To be reductionist, the simple question I ask myself would be: is this format how the director wanted or meant the film to be seen? Now it could be yes, given how even in the digital age a film might use artificial grain or texture for aesthetic effect, but by and large I just don't see VHS as anything other than much less than what was intended, doing the film a disservice even. Same as watching Dunkirk on a mobile phone; oh sure it's viable and maybe even preferred for a particlar person's context, but it ain't how Nolan would want his film to be seen

Yeah but your asking that question today when the films put on VHS were made at the time VHS was the format outside of the cinema to watch stuff. So who knows what was inside the filmmakers mind in terms of how they are thinking people are going to watch the films...

Technocentral

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I
However, when you see some lad huffing and puffing up a hill on a fixie that he paid a fortune for, in a Ronnie Drew beard and a top knot...more than likely, he thinks he looks "cool".

Rather him than the identikit types in there Man Utd and Rugby shirts. Someone doing something less mainstream always gets my thumbs up.

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah but your asking that question today when the films put on VHS were made at the time VHS was the format outside of the cinema to watch stuff. So who knows what was inside the filmmakers mind in terms of how they are thinking people are going to watch the films...

Given how 4:3 was the standard ratio on TVs, and more often than not, the cropped broadcast versions of fillms, I'd be confident in saying filmmakers didn't factor in home releases at all. Why would you? Your canvas was 16:9 or other widescreen formats - especially with the David Leans or Kubricks of this world, folks who pained with a wide brush - and adding to the stress of anticipating a reduced format with lesser fidelity would have been madness. To stick to the art analogy, it'd be like a painter trying to second guess their work on a A3 canvas being reproduced on a postage stamp.

I totally get the emotional attachment someone might have to VHS, I really do, and as I said it can be a deliberate creative decision to add lofi grain, but I don't think it's how most fimakers would want their work shown. It kinda goes against the grandeur of the cinematic.

Conservatory

I always think these hipster shops are a money laundering venture but I’ve no idea if they are or not.

WhiteMemento9

Technocentral wrote: »

Rather him than the identikit types in there Man Utd and Rugby shirts. Someone doing something less mainstream always gets my thumbs up.

This thread has gone off the ****ing rails

I agree but I have no problem with the guys in shirts. As I said I don't proport to know what makes someone happy. I can make judgments from my own opinion but I don't judge the person. I will get all high and mighty here but this is something I stole from Hitchens who stole it from Socrates so it isn't really any insight from myself.

I don't know that we all have it but I have it and Socrates believed we all have it. It is something like an internal witness that when we don't do something that we fully believe in we know it as a person. We can ignore it but we are aware. It might bubble in our subconscious but we understand on some level that we are either not being true to ourselves or doing the wrong thing.

The world we have created though makes it very hard for people to live in this world and listen to that voice. That eventually damages people though, bitterness etc flows out to other people and you can see if you are alive enough that they aren't really home. I think Hitchens gave the example of saying something clever to someone to get a laugh that you don't truly believe, an inner voice tells you, that was funny but it wasn't something you should have said.

WhiteMemento9

Conservatory wrote: »

I always think these hipster shops are a money laundering venture but I’ve no idea if they are or not.

What is a hipster shop?

Wedwood

Videotape is one format that should stay in the past. If you ever watch those vintage music channels, the 70s tracks shot on film look far better than the 80s videos shot on tape.

The idea of browsing the video store could be done just as well with Blu rays and DVDs. I suppose this is a riff on the resurgence of vinyl. (BTW, I reckon the premium subscription Spotify tracks and albums sounds much better than vinyl, plus you don't have to flip the disc over every 20 minutes !)

johnny_ultimate

TBH, I do miss genuine label holograms and demanding a genuine cassette from my video store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSu5_qxfunk

WhiteMemento9

It is incredible to me that a poster has made this hugely passionate posts about his love of VHS much of which is intangible and emotional which are far better ways I think to enjoy things than many of the more logical arguments put forward in this thread. Still, we have people trying to apply their own logic to why others should see things the way they do instead of understanding and seeing the other person point of view and just accepting it. It isn't like he is a guy who clearly hasn't thought about this quite alot.

wonski

I am surprised people comparing vinyl to the VHS instead of cassette tape which is a direct equivalent in music. Poor quality and reliability.

Vinyl, film cameras etc have their place even these days.

Magnetic tape was a badly executed step into digital quality and should be forgiven and forgotten.

Wedwood

Each to their own I suppose. It's a harmless enough venture, it'll be interesting to see if it takes off (again!)

nix

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

TBH, I do miss genuine label holograms and demanding a genuine cassette from my video store.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSu5_qxfunk

Got a receipt? Got a receipt?!

Look you said!

Nah, saids no good mate, oooooral contract! Not worth the paper its printed on..

:pac::pac::pac:

EDIT: HAHA i found it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QI9haisZWo

Tony EH

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I personally think video quality is awful but I also haven't lived inside another person so I can only make that judgment from my understanding, experience, brain etc. I know it is entirely possible that a person gets a complete different experience from VHS. How is that defensive?

Your sentiment wasn't defensive, it's perfectly fine. But the tone sounded as such.

If not, then it's all grand.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I don't really care what he thinks or how he looks or what he doing. I hope he is happy and doing things he enjoys is all.

I do care now if he hurting others as I said, otherwise let him at it.

Which, again, is perfectly fine. It has nothing to do with "hurting" anyone.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I will stick by my guns that some films are more appealing to me in the VHS tone. I have an extensive collection of hundreds of VHS tapes collected from the age of about 10. (My copy of Wrong Bet is black and white for some reason, and I would not watch it in any other format) Original cases with the first cover print and stuff like that. I would dig out stuff like Shivers or Eraserhead or the original Omen and much prefer to immerse myself into that older grainier version of those films then on a crystal clear format. Maybe its easier to believe, especially when you have special effects instead of CGI. Special effects can get by a hell of a lot easier.

Sure, there's something to this. The likes of 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' loses a bit in a 1080p blu-ray, ironically, and there are certain films I haven't enjoyed in subsequent viewings in hi-def as I did when I saw them on VHS in the 80's. But, as a general viewing experience, video loses all the time.


But, I can certainly understand its dubious appeal.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

To be reductionist, the simple question I ask myself would be: is this format how the director wanted or meant the film to be seen? Now it could be yes, given how even in the digital age a film might use artificial grain or texture for aesthetic effect, but by and large I just don't see VHS as anything other than much less than what was intended, doing the film a disservice even. Same as watching Dunkirk on a mobile phone; oh sure it's viable and maybe even preferred for a particlar person's context, but it ain't how Nolan would want his film to be seen

I would never watch a film on a phone but when watching a Nolan film that last thing I care about is how Nolan wants us to watch it, I always find him a little irritating in all his talk of how it needs to be seen on a big screen. Notice that he has no issue with Oscar voters getting sent out screeners though this year they did sent out Blu-Ray screeners to them.

It's very easy for someone like Nolan to say "if you do not see it in the cinema projected from an actual print then you have not seen the film" but I missed Dunkirk in the cinema and watched it on Blu-Ray over Christmas and still enjoyed it.

A more valid argument can be made in regards to is VHS the best format accessible to me to watch this film or TV show. In many cases it shockingly is, Rolling Thunder skipped DVD entirely and for years was only available on VHS. Up until the advent of Blu-Ray if you wanted to watch one of the most underappreciate revenge thrillers of all time you had to track down a degrading VHS. There are plenty of great films which still have not gotten a proper release, I've on more than one occasion in recent memory watched a lost Japanese film that I ripped from VHS and added fansubs to as otherwise there is no way to watch said film. Same way that from time to time I have watched a VCD of a film as it does not exist on DVD or Blu or streaming.

The Keep, Grim Prairie Tales, The Last Movie, Black Moon, Freddy’s Nightmares, The Great Gatsby, Fedora, The Naked Runner, Song of the South, Nothing Lasts Forever, The Traveling Executioner and The Glass Menagerie are just a couple of examples of films that if you want to watch then the best way to do so is tracking down a VHS. There are thousands of others just like those which for some reason or another have never made the leap to either DVD or Blu and it's why I love companies like Vinegar Syndrome. Yes a lot of their output is trashy, sleazy exploitation pictures but they are saving and restoring films that would otherwise be lost.

Technocentral

Deleted User wrote: »

I would never watch a film on a phone but when watching a Nolan film that last thing I care about is how Nolan wants us to watch it, I always find him a little irritating in all his talk of how it needs to be seen on a big screen. Notice that he has no issue with Oscar voters getting sent out screeners though this year they did sent out Blu-Ray screeners to them.

It's very easy for someone like Nolan to say "if you do not see it in the cinema projected from an actual print then you have not seen the film" but I missed Dunkirk in the cinema and watched it on Blu-Ray over Christmas and still enjoyed it.

A more valid argument can be made in regards to is VHS the best format accessible to me to watch this film or TV show. In many cases it shockingly is, Rolling Thunder skipped DVD entirely and for years was only available on VHS. Up until the advent of Blu-Ray if you wanted to watch one of the most underappreciate revenge thrillers of all time you had to track down a degrading VHS. There are plenty of great films which still have not gotten a proper release, I've on more than one occasion in recent memory watched a lost Japanese film that I ripped from VHS and added fansubs to as otherwise there is no way to watch said film. Same way that from time to time I have watched a VCD of a film as it does not exist on DVD or Blu or streaming.

The Keep, Grim Prairie Tales, The Last Movie, Black Moon, Freddy’s Nightmares, The Great Gatsby, Fedora, The Naked Runner, Song of the South, Nothing Lasts Forever, The Traveling Executioner and The Glass Menagerie are just a couple of examples of films that if you want to watch then the best way to do so is tracking down a VHS. There are thousands of others just like those which for some reason or another have never made the leap to either DVD or Blu and it's why I love companies like Vinegar Syndrome. Yes a lot of their output is trashy, sleazy exploitation pictures but they are saving and restoring films that would otherwise be lost.

Good post, anyway I dont think anyone here is saying that watching films otr TV shows on VHS is the BEST way of all formats, just that its a fun alternative.