Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs - Page 8

Estevan Lapena · 11-19-2003, 03:57 PM

I guess they still want their Boxset to sell. Most people only want the 1st and 2nd one anyways, and I guess this prevents them from avoiding the 100 dollar (CAD) boxset.

Gordon McMurphy · 11-19-2003, 04:50 PM

The reason the slo-mo kiss in Rear Window was restored digitally was because it wasn't possible to restore it photomechanically.

Proper photomechanical film restoration is very, very, very expensive and takes a very, very, very long time to accomplish. Therefore, I can see why Lowry is being utilised more frequently now. I don't see anything wrong with what they do. Their results, for the most part, are amazing.

The elements for certain films are in such a bad state that they simply couldn't be restored photomechanically on film. And some films that were restored photomechanically still have lots of scratches and blemishes and that's where Lowry (and many other companies I might add) come in, because the standards are so high for DVD - a film might well have been restored on film, but it may not be that clean, and the only way to achieve cleanliness is through digital refurbishment.

If a film element is scanned to files and digitally refurbished at 2K, 3K or higher and output to 35mm again, then I don't see that as an inferior form of restoration - provided it is done right and the films looks at close as possible to look of the movie originally. This is the future. In 20 years, no films will be restored photomechanically. Moviemaking will be a 100% digital medium eventually.

Nothing lasts forever.

Gordy

Yohan Pamudji · 11-19-2003, 04:56 PM

So back to Godfather, the original subject

I bought the boxset on release day, and I've watched it through a few times since. The weekend of the release, we had a Godfather marathon and watched all 3 back-to-back-to-back. Good times, good times. Anyway, I've been generally pleased with the PQ (picture quality) of the DVDs. However, even on my puny 32" TV I can tell that it's not reference material, but nothing poked me in the eye as being terrible. To all of you saying that the transfer is horrendous: could you point me to a few scenes that you find particularly bad and tell me why? I'd like to see for myself what all the commotion is about. I know this isn't a popular thing to say around here, but I love the movies so much that even if I could spot a few imperfections I wouldn't be bothered. I'm not a videophile just for the sake of achieving ultimate video quality, but rather a movie fan who enjoys movies first and appreciates PQ at the same time.

Dave H · 11-19-2003, 06:00 PM

I know this is somewhat off of the subject, but did Lucas photomechanically restore Star Wars SE (1997) and Indy?

Rob Tomlin · 11-19-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

In 20 years, no films will be restored photomechanically. Moviemaking will be a 100% digital medium eventually.

Nothing lasts forever.

Yes, it will be interesting journey.

Photography is one of my hobbies, and I am finding it difficult to make the transition to digital photography. It has progressed tremendously, but I still don't feel that it is as good as film. But its getting there (and many would argue that it is there)...and is definitely the format of the future.

Stephen Brooks · 11-20-2003, 12:38 PM

This is my first post, so be kind. The way I see this whole digital restoration thing is this way......

Say you have a scene from Jurassic Park. Alan Grant and the kids are running from a dinosaur. Obviously there is no real dinosaur in the frame. So ILM scans the footage into their computer, digitally adds the dinosaur, and scans it back out to film. Now there is a dinosaur in Jurassic Park.

Now, say you have a scene from the Godfather with a scratch on it. Lowry Digital scans that scene into a computer. They digitally remove the scratch, and scan the footage back out to film.

Now, the scratch was not removed photochemically, so you COULD argue that the "real" Godfather film still has a scratch on it. Of course, by that logic, you could say that Jurassic Park (or any other film with CG effects) doesn't "really" exist on film either.

I'll use a couple more examples. For films like "O Brother, Where Art Thou" and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, literally every single frame of film was scanned into a computer to be digitally color graded to create a specific look for the films. A print of these films directly from the original negative would look absolutely nothing like what the filmmakers intended. Does this mean then that Lord of the Rings and O Brother do not really exist on film? By the logic of this discussion, any time film is digitized, altered, and scanned back out to film, it is not "really" film any more. If it is, then it shouldn't matter what kind of changes are made, whether it's CGI effects, color correction, or scratch and dirt removal.

rich_d · 11-20-2003, 02:50 PM

Stephen,

Nice first post. Welcome aboard!

Galen_V · 11-23-2003, 01:21 PM

Quote:

If the $105.90 list price for "The Godfather DVD Collection" seems hefty to fans, they will be happy to learn that Paramount Home Entertainment (PHE) will start selling the popular films as individual DVDs for the first time next year.

On May 11, 2004, "The Godfather" will be released as a single disc for $24.99. The other two films in the trilogy will come out separately later next year. "The Godfather DVD Collection" arrived in 2001.

"This is really about providing consumers with a choice," says Michael Arkin, PHE senior VP of marketing. "Those who cannot afford to buy gift sets now have the option of buying a single film."

The major drawback to purchasing the films individually will be the lack of special features on the discs. The only added value on each release will be an audio commentary, whereas the five-disc collection includes such extras as a 73-minute documentary, deleted footage and production stills.

The full article is available at Yahoo!.

Dave H · 11-23-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

"This is really about providing consumers with a choice," says Michael Arkin, PHE senior VP of marketing. "Those who cannot afford to buy gift sets now have the option of buying a single film."

BS.

If this were true, they would have given consumers the choice the FIRST time around and not made everyone buy the dreadful part III in order to get the first two movies. Look at what Fox is doing with Alien - that's how it should be done. Paramount should learn a thing or two from Fox.

John Alderson · 11-23-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

If this were true, they would have given consumers the choice the FIRST time around and not made everyone buy the dreadful part III in order to get the first two movies. Look at what Fox is doing with Alien - that's how it should be done. Paramount should learn a thing or two from Fox.

Bah, part III isn't that bad. I think it's quite good in fact. You're still right about the packaging of course

They should have been offered separately from the beginning.

The Paramount title that is even worse was the Indiana Jones trilogy. Temple of Doom is horrid. Of course, I'm a completist and wouldn't be able to live the first and third without the one in the middle, but that's my own problem.

Still, Temple of Doom puts both Godfather III and Star Trek V to shame when it comes to terrible sequels, IMHO.

Rob Tomlin · 11-23-2003, 03:18 PM

What John said! (especially regarding the quality of Godfather III and Temple of Doom being horrid)