Every time that a new video format is produced, film studios will usually seek to take advantage of it by releasing their existing films in that format, as seen with DVD, blu-ray, and, now, 4K.

4K has had several years to gain a presence in the market, and a significant number of films have been released in that format, but there are still some films that have not yet enjoyed a re-issue in this amazing new format, so I shall open a discussion for the users here to mention the films that they would like to see in 4K.

My first choices are Fantasia and Fantasia 2000, both of which have been released on blu-ray, which certainly was a spectacular presentation, but I think that those two films, with their dazzling display of color and immerse soundtracks, are perfect candidates for the 4K format.

As with the previous example, both Tron and Tron Legacy have been released in blu-ray, but they definitely would be well-served by being upgraded to 4K, with their impressive visuals and innovative effects.

The Matrix trilogy has been released on 4K, but The Animatrix has not, which I find to be weird, as that suggests that the film studio does not consider that film to be an official part of the franchise, but it is another film that would very much benefit from being upgraded to a newer format.

Heavy Metal is a cult classic that will never be regarded with the same level of reverence as the original Star Wars trilogy or some of Disney's best animated films, but it certainly has a small but dedicated fan base. It has been released on blu-ray, but that release barely polished it or cleaned it up; one could argue that the grittiness of that film is a part of its appeal, and I can understand that sentiment, but I still would like to see it given the 4K treatment, including HDR and a proper polishing. Similarly, its sequel, Heavy Metal 2000, would also look great in that format, as it is a much newer and more detailed film (even if its plot was unoriginal and straightforward).

The first Home Alone movie has been released on 4K, but Home Alone 2 has not, amazingly, so I do hope that 20th Century Pictures releases it in that format, eventually.

What does everyone else say about this? What are some films that you feel deserve to be released on 4K?

In the fifth generation of video games, numerous franchises that previously had been exclusive to Nintendo systems switched their allegiance to Sony systems because Nintendo was continuing to use ROM cartridges for their systems, while Sony had switched to optical discs. Nintendo's reason for continuing to use cartridges was that cartridges could load data almost instantly, but Sony preferred discs for two reasons: lower manufacturing costs and greater storage capacity, which would allow for larger games with superior graphics. Given that the Playstation and Playstation II are some of the best-selling consoles in video games history, that was likely a wise decision by Sony, but I still question why they made it and why the players agreed with it.

I, myself, would much rather have shorter loading times over superior graphics, and I could understand if a small percentage of players would choose to sacrifice loading time for better graphics, but the fact the Playstation line has been so successful indicates that a large number of players would choose superior graphics over loading time, which I find to be very odd, as I find long loading times to be very frustrating and detracting from the gaming experience.

Obviously, advances in technology have ensured that, today, players no longer need to choose; they can have both superior graphics and shorter loading times, but, if given the choice between only one of those, I wonder what most people today would choose.

What does everyone else say about this subject? Would you rather have superior graphics or shorter loading times in your video games?

Another fact that may make older viewers feel their age is that Toby Maguire is now the same age that Willem Dafoe was when he (Dafoe) starred in the first Sipderman movie; can you believe that?

Niko9, I, also, prefer to ignore Kingdom of the Crystal Skull whenever possible, as well.

TypicalTimmy, someone online pointed out that both Peter and Aunt May were younger in successive universe, so they joked that that next reboot would have a college-aged Aunt May and an elementary school-aged Peter.

This year is the 30th anniversary of Home Alone 2, the sequel to Home Alone, the bestselling Christmas film that made Macaulay Culkin a superstar. The first film was highly profitable, so it was all but certain that the studio would make a sequel.

The plot of the sequel is almost a complete repeat of the original, but is one of the rare instances where such a formula actually works, due to the quality of the writing and the talent of the actors (with another notable instance of such success being Ghostbusters II), but the writers did ensure that the sequel was sufficiently different to still feel fresh and new. I also personally believe that the sequel is darker and edgier than the original, because, this time, Kevin is in an unfamiliar and unforgiving environment, not in his own house, and the traps that Kevin sets are far more dangerous, or even deadly, in this film. Just as in the first film, Kevin’s family never learned that he thwarted the plans of two criminals, but, unlike in the first film, Kevin was never shown cleaning up the house in which he set the traps, so I wonder what his aunt and uncle thought when they returned to their house?

Home Alone 2 was, as far as I know, also financially successful, but another installment was not made until 1998, by which time, Macaulay Culkin was too old to continue playing his role, so that movie featured an entirely new cast of characters, but I prefer to not mention that movie, as its quality was nowhere close to that of the first two. Some people around my age may vaguely remember Home Alone 3, but it may surprise people to know that two more movies with the Home Alone title were made, but, according to what I have heard, they were of abysmally poor quality and deserve to be forgotten.

The fact that this film is now thirty years old certainly makes me feel old, as I can remember watching it at a young age, shortly after it was released, but aging is an inevitable fact of life, and I am glad that I have my fond memories of that film.

What does everyone else here say about this? What are your feelings about this year being the 30th anniversary of Home Alone 2?

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of Spiderman, the first film in Sam Raimi’s Spiderman trilogy, the significance of which is truly monumental.

The first X-Men film, released two years prior, had dispelled the idea that live-action movies adapted from comics were unprofitable (an idea that had arisen mainly due to the campiness of 1997’s Batman and Robin) and showed that they could be serious stories with well-written plots and well-developed characters, but this film was the one that truly caused a boom in comic book movies, helping them break into mainstream media and become household names. The characters were believable and relatable, the villains were threatening without being overpowered, and the emotional conflicts that the heroes experienced were ones with which the audience could identify and sympathize. Today, movies adapted from comics are ubiquitous (and, frankly, I feel that the market is being saturated), but, at the time at which this movie was released, they were still a rarity, so this movie’s impact upon popular culture was immense.

Given the massive success of this film, it was inevitable that it would have a sequel, which was just as beloved as was the first, and there was even a third installment, which, sadly, fell victim to the curse that seemed to plague nearly every third installment of a movie series at that time: attempting to do too much in too little time (see also X-Men 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End for other examples of this unfortunate phenomenon; fortunately, however, both the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy avoided that curse), which ended the franchise, only for it to be rebooted twice in less than a decade.

What does everyone else here say about this? What are your thoughts about this year being the 20th anniversary of Spiderman?

TheoryCrafter, that is a nice card, but I am so accustomed to using power for combat damage that it would take a long time to become accustomed to using toughness, instead.

Thank you, everyone, for your advice; I ultimately chose Liesa, since I already have Ravos in two other decks of mine, but I also put Vona in the same deck, removing a Tower Gargoyle that I had there only because it was all three of the deck's colors.

I have reinstated Ethersworn Adjudicator in this deck, replacing Tower Gargoyle, because the gargoyle was merely a flying beater, whereas the adjudicator has a very useful ability, and doing so did increase the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.06 to 4.08, but that is only a very slight increase and should not be a severe detriment to this deck.

I have replaced Ghastlord of Fugue with Nightveil Specter because, as great as the ghastlord is, I need to reduce both the mana curve of this deck and the number of colored mana symbols that it has.

I have replaced Ethersworn Adjudicator with Vona, Butcher of Magan, because, while the adjudicator is awesome, Vona's ability can destroy a greater variety of permanents and also does not require mana to use.

I have replaced Divinity of Pride with Liesa, Forgotten Archangel, because the divinity's mana cost was too color-intensive for a three-colored deck and it was little more than a flying beater, whereas Liesa actually has useful abilities.

These changes lowered the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.10 to 4.06, and also improved the balance of colors within the deck, as well.

What about Vona, Butcher of Magan? She is also quite awesome, and that deck certainly has sufficient amount of life gain to use her ability multiple times.

I have replaced Ghastlord of Fugue with Nightveil Specter, which reduced the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.52 to 4.48, because, as awesome as the ghastlord is, I need to reduce both the mana curve of this deck and the number of color mana symbols that it contains.

I have replaced Greed with Fleshtaker, which reduced the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.10 to 4.06, because, as awesome as Greed is, Fleshtaker is a better match for this deck, as it is an additional sacrifice outlet.

I have replaced Greed with Ravenous Squirrel, which reduced the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.06 to 4.02, because, as awesome as Greed is, the squirrel is a better match for this deck, as it is an additional sacrifice outlet.

Grubbernaut, I was already leaning in Leisa's direction, anyway, since her second ability fits the control theme of this deck, and, since I did not mention why I am making the replacement, the divinity is a great creature (getting an 8/8 for five mana is quite awesome), but, in this deck, all it is is a flying beater, and I wish to have something that has more of an impact on the game, plus, its mana cost is too color-intensive for a three-colored deck.

Omniscience_is_life, those are all excellent cards, but I wish to replace one creature with another creature, since I am fond of creatures.

I have replaced Divinity of Pride with Fleshtaker, which reduced the average converted mana cost of this deck from 4.11 to 4.06, because the latter card better suits the theme of this deck.

I have replaced Divinity of Pride with Ravos, Soultender, because Ravos better fits the theme of this deck, which did not change the average converted mana cost of this deck, but it did reduce the number of colored mana symbols in it, which is always a good thing.

I am planning to replace the copy of Divinity of Pride in my Sen Triplets EDH deck with either Liesa, Forgotten Archangel or Ravos, Soultender, but I am not certain which of creatures I should choose.

Ravos makes my other creatures more powerful, but a 2/2 for five mana is rarely ever a good bargain, but he can also reanimate creatures that were in my graveyard before he was summoned. Liesa, however, does not require me to wait until my next turn to recover my creatures, can potentially recover multiple creatures per turn, can also disrupt my opponent's strategies, and has higher power and toughness.

What does everyone else say about this? Between Liesa and Ravos, which creature do you prefer?

The new Innistrad block provided a new cycle of dual lands (Deathcap Glade, Deserted Beach, and so forth), which I appreciate, and I especially like how WotC printed a full cycle of ten dual lands, rather than half a cycle of five dual lands, as they too often do.

Naturally, I am wondering how those dual lands compare to other cycle of dual lands, so I wish to ask others about their opinions of those lands.

The best dual lands of all are obviously the original dual lands (Bayou, Tundra, Plateau, and so forth), but those are too expensive for all but the most hardcore of players, so I shall not mention them any further in this thread.

After the originals, the second-best dual lands are the shock lands (Hallowed Fountain, Sacred Foundry, Godless Shrine, and so forth), which are nearly as good as the originals, with only a very minor downside.

After that, however, it is difficult to say what the next-best cycle is; I say that the "battle lands" (Cinder Glade, Canopy Vista, and so forth), the "check lands" (Glacial Fortress, Sunpetal Grove, Isolated Chapel, and so forth), and the filter lands (Cascade Bluffs, Wooded Bastion, Sunken Ruins, and so forth) are all contenders for the title of third-best dual lands, so I am not certain where the new Innistrad lands rank in comparison to them.

What does everyone else say about this? How good are the new Innistrad dual lands?