Spielberg's new mantra for Blu-ray?

Good article Paul.  I always wonder why we notice things in films now when we didn't in the theater.  I guess our eyes have become trained to see these things over the years or maybe like you said subconsciously we have blocked them out.

Im glad he plans to leave his film in the form they were presented to us in the theater at the time they we first saw them.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I often think theatrical prints are sometimes multiple-generations removed from negatives, so through a process of steadily-reduced resolution, some of the flaws we see on Blu-ray may not have been noticeable in a theater. Add to the mix the inevitable scratches and wear that happen with film and there would be a thousand other flaws vying for our attention in addition to a couple of wires.

 

That being said, I don't really have a horse in this race either way. I believe in preserving original presentations, but do make an exception for any correction that really doesn't interfere with the structure of the image. In other words, hiding wires with a computer isn't a big deal to me. It's still the same movie IMO. Also, Blu-ray often requires a bit of electronic tinkering to make the image palatable. Scratches and dirt are electronically scrubbed from film all the time. I don't see a lot of people complaining about that. The scratches were there at the source, so by the same argument isn't it wrong to remove them? Maybe they're a product of age and wear as opposed to technical limitations, but it's a pretty fine line. Since many wires may not indeed have been visible during a theatrical showing, why would it be wrong to stay in the same spirit of that showing? The resolution on our HDTVs is still only a fraction of that on film. It's a mistake to think that by not performing any changes to film whatsoever via a computer that we're honoring the spirit of film, because at the end of the day film and video are two different mediums. Blu-ray can come a lot closer to film via video than ever before, but we all need to keep in mind that many of these titles were designed to be projected on enormous screens via a bright bulb shining light through a piece of celluloid. If directors want wires removed, OK. If, ala Spielberg nothing will be removed (a change of tune on his part), then that's OK as well.

 

I would wager that there are changes made to titles each of us considers "reference" that we're not even aware of.  

That's a common misconception. The original 35mm camera negative has more detail than blu-ray, but typical release prints - what you actually see in the theatre - have about the equivalent of 720p video. Added to that, you can have imperfect focus, projector gate weave, dust and scratches etc.

So hopefully when E.T. is released on Blu-Ray, we'll get the original version, and not the cops-with-walkie-talkies edition?

Seems like he and George Lucas need to step outside for a discussion on this. 

I'm with Nick on this one. For example, in 1941 I honestly never even noticed the wires on the airplane. In Jurassic Park, I never noticed the rope pulling the tree when the dinosaur is eating the leaves. I certainly can see these flaws on the current dvds of these. Blu-ray will make those wires and ropes more noticeable. And yeah--especially back in the day, moviegoers would have to put up with bored projectionists ordering pizza while the film goes into imperfect focus. And prints certainly got beaten up after playing for just a few days.

 

In all, blu-ray offers far, far more flaws than were ever noticeable in theaters. I wonder if it's also because the screen is so much smaller at home that our eyes can take in the whole picture easier and we notice everything. If Spielberg wanted to remove those wires and ropes, I wouldn't fault him, but it doesn't really hurt those movies either way.

That's exactly it.  Often, how scenes with wires were planned out and shot were done so with this in mind.  Nowadays, a filmmaker using wires on a new film will remove them digitally in post.  Back then, having them disappear in the printing stage was their best tool to do so, and something that was kept in mind very consciously when doing a wire scene.  Additionally, besides generational loss, different intermediate and release print stocks had different grain structures, and choices were made about which ones to use as part of the process of covering up the wire work and all sorts of other effects.

 

There are definitely instances where we see a wire on a Blu-ray that had never been visible in any theatrical print beforehand.  Even new prints made today from old films, using today's finer-grained stocks, can reveal some of these imperfections.  The example that comes to my mind is something from "2001: A Space Odyssey" - the scene where Floyd is flying to the space station, and we see his pen floating down the aisle before the stewardess grabs it and picks it up and puts it back in his pocket.  On both the Blu-ray and the 70mm prints that were newly made for the year-2001 re-release, you can just see that the pen as she grabs it is stuck on a rotating piece of clear plastic or glass.  In earlier prints, that had never been visible before.  Does it ruin the movie?  Of course not.  Was it an effect that had been hidden by the way films were brought to release in 1968?  Absolutely.  Was Kubrick aware that while the effect might have been visible on the negative, that it would be invisible by the release print?  Undoubtedly.  Now, for the new 70mm prints that were made - they looked so gorgeous, I wouldn't have wanted them to scan the negative and digitally tweak that one little moment and print out to 70mm and splice that in there.  But, when doing the Blu-ray, where the whole film is scanned as part of the process, it's an interesting dilemma to face as to what to do about it.  On one hand, leaving it alone is a valid choice - the film is the film, and let it be.  On the other hand, if today's newer technology is essentially "undoing" some of the effects work achieved by the filmmakers using older technology in their time, is that something that we want?  I would say a compelling case could be made that by presenting a digital image that contains more information than the filmmakers ever intended, that erased the careful work that was done via the release methods of the time to make the effects seamless, is a different kind of revision.  If, in the pursuit of making a great HD copy, some of the original effects are altered by taking away the layers of grain and generation loss that the filmmaker intentionally used to hide their tracks, that in my opinion is making a change to how the film is being presented.  They used generation loss and release stocks to achieve wire removal - today, we use digital tools - but the intention and result is the same: the wires aren't visible.  Afterall, there are plenty of things on a negative that aren't meant to seen by an audience.

 

In a perfect world, my take on this would be simple: if the wires (or other effects) were not visible in the original release prints (even if they're on the actual negative), I think it's acceptable to remove them from the Blu-ray.  That's not, in my opinion, altering the film - that's retaining the original look of it.  If, on the other hand, the wires have always been visible in the film, back to when it was in theaters, then I think they should be left alone for the Blu-ray.  It's a really fine line to walk.

 

 

Edited by Josh Steinberg - 6/5/11 at 11:42am

Its not just a matter of resolution. I too have read the study that the average release print shown in the average theater has no more resolution than 720p, and that sounds about correct to me.

However there is something else that resolution doesn't take into account. Video, even HD video, has a considerably lower dynamic range from brightest to darkest parts of the image than film does. This means that the garbage mattes in Star Wars for example, vanish into the black of the space background on film, but black is so close to visible, on video, that they stick out like a sore thumb.

The same is true of many things that were likely not visible in the theater, but suddenly show up on video, particularly in HD, like the wires holding up the Lion's tale in Wizard of Oz. With the contrast of the original Technicolor IB prints, the wires likely blended into the backgrounds 90% of the time.

Doug

So... does this mean the Blu-ray for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" will have the reflection in the glass put back in for the scene with the Cobra? Wonder how old George will feel about that! 

 

 

We'll probably never hear about it officially, but I bet the two of them will have an interesting discussion about that.  In the end, I think Spielberg probably gets his way if the two of them having conflicting views -- otherwise the title card on that movie would have been changed by Lucas to "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" years ago...

I have no problem with alterations that respect the original intent - ie. removing wires/matte lines that were never intended to be seen, or if they were visible in release prints, were only there because there was no way at the time to remove them. No one wants a print that is riddled with scratches or other debris, but grain structure is a part of film and should be left.

 

I do have issues with digitally updating effects, especially if they are obvious.

 

George should hire Steven to oversee his releases....

In this (not-so-humble) poster's opinion, George and Steven should get together with Harrison and do another Indy film.  Because good or bad, it's still more fun than 99.9% of the other things out there, and I liked the last one.

As long as Lucas is confined to producing and has zero say in the story and script.

Judging by this quote in the new interview, I'd say that's a certainty.

 

 

 

 

 

The entire interview has been posted now.

 

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49921

Agreed. I really enjoyed the last Indy film and I'm ready for some more!

Doug

We may be the only two people on this forum willing to admit to that! 

 

The scene with Indy and Marion sinking in "quicksand" as Indy gives a lecture about what kind of sand it actually is, all the way through him having to grab onto a "rope" to get out of there, that was just pure fun.  After all those years, it was great to see the chemistry still there.

Glad Spielberg is saying this.  I suspect the backlash he got for the digital removal of federal agents; rifles in "E.T." might have made him more aware that fans of his movies really do care about the movie itself and don't just treat it as product.

 

Now if Steve could just talk George into releasing the original untouched Star Wars movies on Blu Ray...that'll never happen, though.

I think the expectations for that film were WAY too high for many people. Folks just had ideas of what it SHOULD be rather than just enjoying what it was. For me it was like visiting with an old friend for 2 hours. But obviously many people agree with both of us. A film that people don't like doesn't make $800 million on its own.

Doug

Agreed.

 

I also found something curious - I liked the film way more the second time I saw it than the first.  The first time (at the midnight showing) I thought it was OK - and then I saw it a week or so later and thought it was much, much better.  It took me a while, but I think I figured out what that was for me.  With the first three films, I had seen them so many times, that the surprises of the plots at the time were the least important things about the movies - it was about the characters, and watching them interact with each other, and just enjoying the ride.  Crystal Skull was the first one that I saw as a new movie in theaters, so for the first time in memory, I was watching an Indiana Jones movie wondering what was going to happen next, what the movie was about, instead of enjoying the characters, actors and set pieces that I loved.  So once I had seen the new movie, saw how it ended and all that, it was suddenly a different experience: for every viewing since, I've just enjoyed the movie without thinking about the mystery involved or whatever.

 

I happened to have liked that they did something with aliens (or "interdimensional beings" as Spielberg was able to get Lucas to concede).  The original moves took place in the 30s and played as old serials from that time, which I am familiar with; the new movie took place in the 50s, and played more like a b-movie from the 50s.  It was appropriate to the time it took place in, and I both got and liked that about it.  I also liked that it did take place the appropriate number of years later, instead of acting as if everyone had still been the same age.  I'd also love for them to keep making more... when there's a new one coming every few years, it's less important for each film to seem "important" or to somehow be expected to sum everything up.  I really hoped that they'd get cracking on a new one, but being that the last came out in 2008 and it's now 2011 and there's been no word of even considering another one, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

IIRC, that's exactly what they were going for. I thought it was a decent movie, if not in the same league as the original Raiders (but then again, what is?).

 

Thanks for linking that interview -- it's a good one.

Edited by Aaron Silverman - 6/8/11 at 10:07am

I've said this before, but while I really hated Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in general, I thought the "alien" theme worked.  It really evoked the 50s vibe and fit into the Indiana Jones universe rather well, I thought.  I've never understood the complaints about that aspect of the movie.

It is quite simple for me.  In the first three movies he was an archaeologist of ancient human / religious artifacts and used that knowledge to get to the end goal.  He would explain to the characters (and us) what the artifact was, its purported powers, and general knowledge about it.  There was basically zero of that in KotCS.  He was just a human compass that somehow happened to get to the right place instead of an expert in the field and he was the muscle and is a bit too old for that.  If they had somehow established that he also had studied ancient alien artifacts and legends and used that knowledge in the movie immediately after Area 51 (now knowing what the Russians were after) then it would have gone a long way to making it feel like an actual Indy movie and not just in namesake.   As I have stated, to me KotCS makes Temple of Doom seem like a really good Indy movie.

 

Your take on Crystal Skull it is interesting, because that is exactly the way I saw Raiders in 1981. I was a member of the Star Wars fan club, and got an invite to see a sneak preview of something called Raider of the Lost Ark. I had no idea what it was. I thought it might be about Noah's Ark. But it said from Lucas and Spielberg, so I went to see it. After the 15 min intro, people were clapping and cheering so loud that you couldn't hear the scene in the class room.

This was about 5 weeks before the movie opened. To this day it is my favorite film of all time.

Doug

Well they did state that he was obsessed with crystal skulls as a young man. Personally I put Crystal Skull second behind Raiders, then Crusade, and Temple bringing up the rear.

Having said that, all 4 films are head and shoulders above most of the junk being made today.

Doug

They keep hinting that they're thinking about it, but no, nothing set in stone as of yet. I hope they don't wait another 19 years between movies this time.

 

 

Also, would he revert to the original "car falling into abyss" scene which was digitally re-done for HDTV for no reason at all?

 

I think the thing was that they kind of tried to find a theme that would fit with the timeperiod in question,  the 1950's had a bit of UFO hysteria and Little Green Men going on,  and this storyline kind of fit the legends from that time period.  It was kind of a risk to take,  tieing the mythology to the myths of the time period,  rather than the previous religious ties.

 

I like the movie for what it is,  but I understand how some people can find it a jarring shift.

 

[quote]They keep hinting that they're thinking about it, but no, nothing set in stone as of yet. I hope they don't wait another 19 years between movies this time.[/quote]

 

DarkHorizons had a news bit up yesterday or the day before in their news shorts,  with Shia Lebouf saying that he talked to Harrison and that Harrison was "Staying in the gym" in preperation for Indy 5,  and that they were waiting for George to "Come up with his McGuffin".

 

I guess it's a good sign Harrison's staying it shape,  means there might be some movement to get it done sooner rather than later.

I agree. The script was too convoluted, too many characters, etc. But the aliens fitted nicely with the supernatural things from the first three.

 

And I still don't really get the backlash that Temple of Doom always gets. I love it. At least it didn't try to replicate the first movie too much (I'm looking at you, Crusade).