A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Raiders of the Lost Ark -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

My point wasn't one of ownership. It was the director-for-hire-equal-to-a-software-programmer analogy Chuck used in post 665. Whereas a random programmer can be replaced and the outcome will likely be very similar to what it would have been with him, subbing out a film's director would likely yield a very different product (or no product at all, in the case where the Director was also the writer and/or main visionary). Even discounting Lucas, would a non-Coppola-helmed Godfather have been the same? A Scott-less Blade Runner? A Nolan-less Batman? A Burton-less…any film he does?
Yes Director's are hired by studios and paid, but they have (rightfully so) more control over their output than some other random hired gun in another industry.

True. A very good example of this is the movie Payback. Compare the studio released version of the film, with Brian Helgeland's cut of the film released years later. Though Helgeland directed both versions of the film (at least directed the filming) the studio cut is very different from what Helgeland eventually produced.
Doug

 

[Moe Dickstein]

True. A very good example of this is the movie Payback. Compare the studio released version of the film, with Brian Helgeland's cut of the film released years later. Though Helgeland directed both versions of the film (at least directed the filming) the studio cut is very different from what Helgeland eventually produced.
Doug

I don't believe he directed the reshoots used for the theatrical cut, I think Gibson did.

 

[zoetmb]

I don't think it is a matter of opinion, the movie is made, it's colour timed, the brightness/contrast levels are set and known by the director and cinematographer and that's it, now make your 4K scan and get it looking like it looked in 1981, don't change it just to keep up with the latest fad, ( teal/orange as examples of a fad ) i don't see how anyone can argue this point, if it's good enough in 1981 it's good enough in 2012, no need to change a film's look, now i want to point out that i am not saying Spielberg changed anything, i am simply asking if this is the exact look, more or less, that cinemagoers got to see on the big screen in 1981. ( minus a few changes such as the snake reflection ) 

Except there's no way to know how it looked then because all the prints have faded, the negative has faded, etc. And even if they didn't, different prints from the same lab (and especially from different labs if they were big runs) didn't necessarily look the same. Back in the day, when big films went to the "prime" theatres first, then slowly rolled out to the second tier theatres, the studios and labs were relatively careful with the first round of prints but after that, no one really gave a crap. I remember seeing movies where the color completely changed from reel to reel. In addition, the way film makes color is different than the way electronic colors are generated. So while it can look close, digital color is never going to look like film color of any generation.
Even if the prints were the same, they looked different when projected. There's another factor: TVs, computers and phones put out a lot more light than traditional film projection. We've now all gotten used to the way films look on TV and digitally projected and film by comparison will look dim and flat. I went to see "The Master" last week in 70mm, which I've posted about elsewhere. When it first started to play, I was a bit startled by how dim it seemed. In reality, it probably wasn't really dimmer than their digital projector, but because of lower contrast, it seemed that way. It probably took me 15 minutes to get used to the look.
So while it's very easy to say, "Make Jaws look exactly like it did when it was released", it's actually not so easy to do in practice.
But I will agree with you on one point: filmmakers should not consciously be retiming older films and purposely changing the color to represent a fad, like the teal push or almost complete desaturation that so many films have today unless they want to stick that on the BD as an additional alternate version.

 

[zoetmb]

I find all this "It's the director's/producer's film" fascinating. In no other industry where people are paid upfront to do work, do the people who do the work own it. The person or company that paid them and took the financial risk owns it in its entirety. Combine that with workers (directors, actors, etc.) getting paid residuals after the work is done and what a strange accounting world.
Imagine of software development used such a model. Any new OS would cost thousands of dollars and go up every time because every developer who ever worked on it or its base products would have to be paid for each copy sold. You would have to pay the DOS, Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista developers for every copy of Windows 7 sold. Also the person in charge of the original DOS could say that the company can't morph DOS into a windowing UI because it changes his intent or the Windows 3.1 person could prevent the UI redesign for Win95 because they don't like that look and feel. Just crazy.
That isn't to say that other industries don't have contracts where a person might take a low or no salary to do work and then get a cut of the profits but it is not the norm. In Hollywood it seems the norm is for people to get paid upfront and get more money later and for some to have a say in the finished product later.

It's true in any creative industry. And in spite of the fact that directors sometimes (and it's actually quite rare) have power over final cut, in very few cases do directors own their films. And in the United States, copyright for films is most certainly NOT owned by the director or screenwriter, but by the studio. In the book industry, in a few cases, authors retain copyright, but far more often than not, the copyright also belongs to the studio or sometimes the production company. In many cases, if a book goes out of print, the author gets the rights back, but that's contractual, not legislative (which is why publishers don't like to declare books out-of-print. Instead, they'll just declare them out-of-stock.) In the music industry, traditionally the record label owned the record, but that's changing a bit as the courts have started to rule that after some period of time, the rights can revert back to the artist. Book authors and musicians do receive advances on royalties, but they're generally very small, except for the top tier (like a Michael Jackson or a Madonna or a "tell-all" book from some dumb celebrity.) But except for the top tier, no one ever earns out. The publishers and record labels see to that. Same in the movie industry: anyone who takes backend based upon net instead of boxoffice is considered a sucker. No movie ever makes money according to "Hollywood accounting".
I don't think your software analogy holds up. A better analogy would be when a big company, say a Microsoft or an Adobe, buys an existing program from a creator or small company. As part of the sale, the original creator gets a royalty (backend participation) for ten years and gets some control over future versions of the software. That happens all the time. As far as a programmer is concerned, they would tend to get, if anything, stock options. Since Warner Brothers is not going to give actors, directors and other creative people stock options in Time-Warner, they're given backend participation. Backend has NOTHING to do with the Guilds. What the Guilds control are residuals, which are mainly payments for widespread TV broadcast. The formulas are quite complex, dependent upon not the Guild contract in place right now, but the one in place when the film was made and probably cost almost as much to track and process as the payments themselves.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't believe he directed the reshoots used for the theatrical cut, I think Gibson did.

Gibson stated in an interview some years later that the art director on the film directed the additional scenes. None the less that was only about 20% of the film.
Doug

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I knew it was someone else - I totally support your point though lol

 

[JoshZ]

Gibson stated in an interview some years later that the art director on the film directed the additional scenes. None the less that was only about 20% of the film.
Doug

Mel Gibson said in an interview that production designer John Myhre directed the reshoots on Payback.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

My point wasn't one of ownership. It was the director-for-hire-equal-to-a-software-programmer analogy Chuck used in post 665. Whereas a random programmer can be replaced and the outcome will likely be very similar to what it would have been with him, subbing out a film's director would likely yield a very different product (or no product at all, in the case where the Director was also the writer and/or main visionary). Even discounting Lucas, would a non-Coppola-helmed Godfather have been the same? A Scott-less Blade Runner? A Nolan-less Batman? A Burton-less…any film he does?
Yes Director's are hired by studios and paid, but they have (rightfully so) more control over their output than some other random hired gun in another industry.

You don't seem to be familiar with the software development field. There are always a few or one top level person who architects the overall software, no different than the claims of a director change out. You are subbing out a programmer like they are one of the people building sets and that is not accurate for all programmers. I have been in charge and also as a worker bee. Believe me when I say that the person in charge controls how the results are achieved and they can be as different as a Coppola Godfather and a Christopher Columbus version. So my analogy holds up just fine in the general sense.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Mel Gibson said in an interview that production designer John Myhre directed the reshoots on Payback.

Yep that was the interview I was thinking of. Production designer and Art Director are sometimes interchangeable terms.
Doug

 

[Carlo_M]

You don't seem to be familiar with the software development field. There are always a few or one top level person who architects the overall software, no different than the claims of a director change out. You are subbing out a programmer like they are one of the people building sets and that is not accurate for all programmers. I have been in charge and also as a worker bee. Believe me when I say that the person in charge controls how the results are achieved and they can be as different as a Coppola Godfather and a Christopher Columbus version. So my analogy holds up just fine in the general sense.

Oh, I believe you, there are queen bees and worker bees and drones in every industry so in that sense, you could equate being a director to being any person hired doing any job.
But software doesn't, in general, generate the same emotional and visceral response from people (programmers aside). No one is "moved to tears" or "pushed back into their seats" by software. No one is reminded of their lost loves, or deceased parents by software. If a company wants software that plays music, and you fire the main guy in charge, sure the resulting software may change from Spotify to Kazaa, but for most people they won't know the difference.
Try to replace any director of any major, popular, successful film with another and see if the resulting output will be the same, or more importantly, if the audience response will be the same.
It's more appropriate to compare the arts with the arts. Sure the record labels own their music, but if John, Paul, or George were swapped out in 1964 by EMI, do you think the Beatles discography would be the same? And Leonardo and Michelangelo were commissioned by the church or other wealthy patrons, if they fired him, does the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa look the same?
The Director for major motion pictures is more artist/musician than programmer. And what's interesting is that for the examples I've given (musicians, artists, etc.) many of them change or alter their works over the years (or have different versions/takes).

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/660#post_3985761
No one is "moved to tears" by software.

I remember Windows 98, it had me in tears many times.

 

[Walter Kittel]

In 1982, Electronic Arts famously asked "Can a computer make you cry?"
I guess it depends on who you ask.
- Walter.

 

[Carlo_M]

I remember Windows 98, it had me in tears many times.

touche! For me, it was Windows Millennium Edition. Damn that thing made me want to throw all of those MS programmers off of a cliff!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/690#post_3985774

Windows XP was nice and stable, at least after the service pack came out and, then they ruined things a little bit with Windows Vista but i'm finding Windows 7 to be an enjoyable hassle free experience. ( so far )

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray/690#post_3985775

Windows XP was nice and stable, at least after the service pack came out and, then they ruined things a little bit with Windows Vista but i'm finding Windows 7 to be an enjoyable hassle free experience. ( so far )

I've never used Vista, but I agree that Windows 7 has been running very smoothly on the laptop I bought a few months ago.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I remember Windows 98, it had me in tears many times.

 

[Dave Moritz]

My XP PC was a very good gaming machine and I can not think of any major issues with XP! Now ME is another story that was horrible!
So who has Raiders Of The Lost Ark on Bluray and does it look good or ok? How is the sound on it?

 

[Douglas Monce]

My XP PC was a very good gaming machine and I can not think of any major issues with XP! Now ME is another story that was horrible!
So who has Raiders Of The Lost Ark on Bluray and does it look good or ok? How is the sound on it?

It looks and sounds fantastic. The best I've ever seen it.
Doug

 

[RickardL]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/323399/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray#post_3968875

So, how do I answer the question about a “restoration?” To my mind, this isn’t one, yet the term adds a certain amount of sizzle to the work performed. That's great for marketing, but isn't precise enough to separate work of this kind from bona fide restorations, with all their heavy lifting.

But neither is this a simple mastering or re-mastering, which could be performed from a color-corrected IP with little expense or loss of sleep.

Our little discussion group came to the opinion that possibly a new term is needed for this type of work. Not a restoration, as there’s really nothing to be restored. The elements had been well kept and highly protected over the years. The OCN is intact, and original tracks are in perfect condition. Yet, this is something highly technical, with all parties working on all 12 cylinders, and at the highest level of technical proficiency.

For the moment, and until someone can coin a better phrase, I’m going to call this a DBR, a Digital Based Re-Visualization.

That said, and now knowing what has been involved, I can’t wait to see the final results on Blu-ray. No doubt, Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures is going to be one of the Blu-ray best sellers of 2012, and deservedly so.

RAH

Robert,
How long are you going to keep us waiting for A few words about...™ Raiders of the Lost Ark -- in Blu-ray?
Or have I missed it??

 

[zoetmb]

I find all this "It's the director's/producer's film" fascinating. In no other industry where people are paid upfront to do work, do the people who do the work own it. The person or company that paid them and took the financial risk owns it in its entirety. Combine that with workers (directors, actors, etc.) getting paid residuals after the work is done and what a strange accounting world.
Imagine of software development used such a model. Any new OS would cost thousands of dollars and go up every time because every developer who ever worked on it or its base products would have to be paid for each copy sold. You would have to pay the DOS, Windows, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista developers for every copy of Windows 7 sold. Also the person in charge of the original DOS could say that the company can't morph DOS into a windowing UI because it changes his intent or the Windows 3.1 person could prevent the UI redesign for Win95 because they don't like that look and feel. Just crazy.
That isn't to say that other industries don't have contracts where a person might take a low or no salary to do work and then get a cut of the profits but it is not the norm. In Hollywood it seems the norm is for people to get paid upfront and get more money later and for some to have a say in the finished product later.

That's true in the U.S., but not necessarily around the world. And it's called the "auteur theory" - - from Wikiepedia:

In film criticism, auteur theory holds that a director's film reflects the director's personal creative vision, as if they were the primary "auteur" (the French word for "author"). In spite of—and sometimes even because of—the production of the film as part of an industrial process, the auteur's creative voice is distinct enough to shine through all kinds of studio interference and through the collective process.
In law, the film is treated as a work of art, and the auteur, as the creator of the film, is the original copyright holder. Under European Union law, the film director is considered the author or one of the authors of a film, largely as a result of the influence of auteur theory.[1]
Auteur theory has influenced film criticism since 1954, when it was advocated by film director and critic François Truffaut. This method of film analysis was originally associated with the French New Wave and the film critics who wrote for the French film review periodical Cahiers du Cinéma. Auteur theory was developed a few years later in the United States through the writings of The Village Voice critic Andrew Sarris. Sarris used auteur theory as a way to further the analysis of what defines serious work through the study of respected directors and their films.