The Last Emperor on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Peter Neski]

"Do you own the new version? "

If you are talking BR ,I don't, But I do have Both The Pal Versions and the Criteron and
did a side by side comparison,and found that are a bunch of shots of groups
of actors in a full 2.35:1 shot,where storrao has to crop 30% of the Picture
some get cut ,not to mention the sets and locations
some shots look the same in terms of design
But the criteron one has three actors where their are four in the shot in
the pal version,While the Pal version is a bit too yellow,I found by using the
controls on my TV ,I could fix it,The French Pal Box is 5.1 too.

While the Cropping is more of a problem with AN.becuse so much is in every frame.
its still makes this set
a real disappointment,and same goes for the BR,why can't they cancel This BR and do "The Spiders Stratagem which isn't out
on DVD and would make a perfect Blue Ray

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Except in the case of TLE, they would've also needed the lab to know exactly how/when/etc to pan-and-scan the 2:1 frame judging from the various screen caps.

IOW, no need for said screw-ups. The film was simply *not* intended to be projected at 2:1 unless they were going to apply all the panning-and-scanning, etc. into the master for the dupes. And if they had actually done that, how would the labs screw up the "centering"? OR did I misunderstand what you meant (or how the process actually works)?

_Man_

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well obviously SOMETHING is going to get cut. But really are the actors that are getting cut out of the scene really important to the scene, IE are they speaking? Or are they set dressing?

I'm not saying that I like the idea of cropping even an extra out of a shot, but the question I'm asking is is that actor really essential to the over all plot?

Doug

 

[Jeff Adkins]

The Korean release of the theatrical cut was the same transfer as the European disc but is NTSC and Region 0. Unfortunately I think its long out of print.

 

[Vincent_P]

I couldn't find any complaints regarding the reframing of SEVEN on this site. Maybe there are some burried in some of the threads, but I think I can safely say they couldn't have been as vitriolic as some of the attacks on Mr. Storaro have been around these parts.

Vincent

 

[Mike Frezon]

Then maybe you should start such a thread. I'm not sure I see how a discussion of that film is pertinent here.

I also take exception to your use of "vitriolic" to describe the remarks made about Vittorio Storaro in this thread. To the contrary, I'm finding this a rather restrained discussion of the topic of two filmmakers changing the presentation of their award-winning film from it's theatrical release to the latest home-release.

It seems the sides of the discussion here are pretty clear: the HTF is a forum built around the idea of trying to get a home viewing experience as close to theater-like as possible (hence, a disappointment for many that this film is not being presented in its OAR); with the other side being that the two main creative forces behind the film are responsible for that change (hence, the discussion about what their motivations could possible be prompting the change to the image).

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Oh, there's plenty of vitriol in this thread, no doubt. But I don't think it's necessarily unjustified!

 

[Mike Frezon]

My judgment must be clouded because I think the action is so egregious!

 

[Jari K]

Exactly. Bringing some other films and "examples" to this thread is not relevant. This is about "TLE" - and "TLE" only.

Then again I don´t really see, that this thread would really go anywhere. Some people feel, that Storaro has the right to alter his (well, DOP point-of-view) film and some feel, that he should leave the award-winning OAR alone.

And since Criterion is releasing the film in 2.00:1, I guess only the "other side" will be happy.

So what´s the point?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well, Jari, for me the point has been to learn a lot about the "why."

I don't know nearly as much about filmmaking as many of the people on this board so this thread and the other TLE threads (surrounding Criterion's SD release) has been a real education for me.

Now even though I still don't have the knowledge of many others, I have formed the opinion that I would like to have a beautifully restored version of TLE in a 2.35:1 AR.

Maybe by discussing it word will reach someone that maybe more money could be made by releasing such a version down the road.

I also think it's healthy to have a discussion on these things when they happen to remind our own community what we are about here at the HTF and maybe be educating others about OAR and the myriad, complicated issues that arise when transferring motion pictures to home media.

 

[dannyboy104]

Aspect ratio from Apocalypse Now Redux info

The aspect ratio of this matte, as chosen by the film's cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, is 2:1, cropping some of the side of the original 2.40:1 anamorphic image. This controversial decision was intended to be a compromise between proper wide-screen framing and the relatively limited resolution of NTSC video. (The cropping did come back to haunt them in one scene where a character outside of the visible frame was speaking unbeknownst to the crew during the sound edit and mix. One cheated line and printmaster fix later, all was well.)


Has some relevance to the discussion.

 

[Vern Dias]

This is not true and was not the main reason this change was made. It's not counterintuitive because it really wasn't the issue.

The actual issue was that Superscope prints only used optical sound tracks and ALL optical prints, both CinemaScope 2.35:1 and SuperScope 2.00:1 have a different image center line from 2.55:1 4 track Magnetic only prints.

This caused problems that required shifting the image horizontally by physically moving the projector to maintain the proper image centering any time that the theater had to change from running a 2.55:1 4 track Mag print to an optical print. It even caused centering issues for the newsreels, previews, cartoons, etc that were optical prints when the feature was a 4 track Mag 2.55:1 print.

All of this was in the early days before the Magoptical print standard was created that reduced the AR of CinemaScope from 2.55:1 to 2.35:1 and standardized the image center line for all formats.

Even more interesting, if you were to look at an early optical sound Cinemascope print, you will find often find that the image is off center, because the labs didn't even attempt to re-center the 2.55:1 image to match the optical print standard centerline before covering the left side of the image with the optical track.

Many of the theaters in the Consolidated chain in Hawaii had 3 projectors installed in the projection booth that allowed one of the projectors to remain on the optical centerline while the other two were positioned to maintain propeer centering for 2.55:1 Mag only engagements.

Vern

 

[Mike Frezon]

Indeed, David. Mostly in that it shows how Storaro has decided to change the aspect ratio (for home viewing) of some of the films that he shot before he switched over to his 2:1 format. Certainly The Last Emperor is not alone in this decision.

Whole threads have discussed Storaro's decisions regarding both Apocalypse Now AND TLE. A simple search will yield those threads to you.

A difference, however, may be that we are now talking about his rationalization for taking this step in the context of these films now being viewed on the substantially better resolution of high-definition media. If you read the .pdf posted earlier in this thread which outlines Storaro's decision on these issues, you'll see part of his concern is that home equipment cannot adequately replicate the look of his wide-screen films so he has decided that they should be cropped from their theatrical presentation aspect ratio to something smaller for home viewing.

 

[Jari K]

This just tells, how Storaro is letting the "home video viewing" have affect on his decisions (about the aspect ratio). Yes, 2.35:1 ratio has big-ass black bars via 4:3-TV. Yes, 2.35:1 ratio has black bars via 1.78:1-TV. Yes, but: So what? Only guys worried about that are Storaro and a couple of "joe six-packs" out there. Rest of us are enjoying the glorious widescreen ratio - via 4:3 or 1.78:1-screen. Perhaps mr. Storaro should too?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

And all this still wouldn't explain why Storaro won't allow us to have a choice between 2 versions of these films (MAR and OAR), if he's just worried about the adequacy of the home viewers' display. We're not even talking about some bland, generic, studio compromised offering here, but something from Criterion that would be targeted at enthusiasts.

RE: the answers about what crops may be acceptable and what not, aside from absolutes in principle, I'd argue that there are definitely some shots that will be significantly altered/compromised due to the aesthetics of the shots (and had provided a few examples in a couple posts I made in the older SD thread), not just a matter of talking heads being cropped out, especially since we are talking about a film that garnered big praises/award(s) for cinematography. I'm pretty sure you don't win those just for keeping talking heads in the protected area.

_Man_

 

[Douglas Monce]

In my opinion awards, particularly the Academy Awards really don't mean a whole lot with regard to what is and what is not high art when it comes to photography.

Take 1982 when Gandhi won and Blade Runner wasn't even nominated. Not to take anything away from Gandhi which is a beautiful film, but in my opinion Blade Runner was the superior effort that year and to not even be nominated just shows yet again how irrelevant the Academy Awards are.

Doug

 

[Jari K]

For you and many people perhaps, but many will also disagree with you.

It´s pretty much impossible to pick up just "one" film to begin with and how can you compare the look of "Gandhi" to "Blade Runner"? So every award in the end is a "compromise" at its best. But still not "irrelevant", IMO.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Gandhi as I said is a beautiful film, but it surely doesn't break new ground or make any attempt to do anything new. Blade Runner was pushing the limits and created something never before put on screen in quite the same way. Why would Tootsie be nominated and not Blade Runner.

I'm not saying that it should have won over Gandhi, but the fact that it wasn't even nominated shows the very limited imagination of most of the members of the Academy.

The Academy Awards are more often than not chosen by the members based on what they thought was either "important" or political (meaning is it someone's turn to win) not based on artistic merit.

With some exceptions most best picture winners are for the most part forgotten or forgettable films. For instance, 1933 King Kong, arguably one of the greatest films ever made was not nominated for an oscar, that year Cavalcade won. A film that has not held up well with time and most people have never heard of.

1941, the winner was How Green Was My Valley, a very good film and worthy of winning, but Citizen Kane was not even nominated.

Add to this the fact that someone of the caliber of Alfred Hitchcock can make some 60 odd films and never once win a best director award is shameful.

Frankly the only thing the Academy is good for is putting a few extra bucks into the box office of the winning film.

Doug

 

[Matt Hough]

Doug, keep in mind that while the entire Academy membership votes on the final awards, the nominations are made only by the individual branches, so if the cinematography of BLADE RUNNER wasn't nominated by the Academy, it was the cinematographers themselves who are members of the Academy who failed to recognize its uniqueness. When experts in the field didn't think it worthy, maybe it was far ahead of its time. (And, let's face it; the film was WAY ahead of its time. The public didn't embrace it either at first.)

We're way off topic, BTW

 

[Mike Frezon]

Agreed. Unless...Doug wants to argue that he thinks the cinematography of The Last Emperor is overrated and, thusly, it's okay to fool with the image.

I'm failing to see how the relevancy of the Oscars has anything to do with the topic at hand--the home presentation of TLE on Blu-ray.