APOCALYPSE NOW Blu-ray: Oct. 19, 2010 (2 versions) (1 Viewer)

[Kevin EK]

I kept the original Paramount Apocalypse Now DVD because it had the Kurtz Compound destruction footage, which the later DVDs did not have. I didn't even think that there could be a difference in the edit on the Dossier version. At this point, I have the Dossier and that original DVD. This new Blu-ray should render both of those obsolete - but I'm keeping my eyes open just in case. For the same reason, I'm hanging on to the Hearts of Darkness DVD because it has the Youth Without Youth documentary.

 

Carl, I hear what you're saying about the difference in edit, and most likely there's no problem. When I read the interview, it sounded like they were talking about the original just being a shorter version of Redux, and that the seamless branching was just to add back in the extra scenes. I'll be glad to be proven wrong in any worries here. (As Tom Petty says, "Most things I worry about, never happen anyway...")

 

Will, the issue for me of the color timing is a critical one that I really have to respect the Director of Photography on. It's the same thing as the work that Gordon Willis did for the Godfather movies which Robert Harris talks about on those Blus - where he was literally leaving nothing in the blacks to bring up by someone after the fact. I can disagree with Storaro on the merits of his framing of the home video editions, in the same way that I disagreed with Stanley Kubrick over his reluctance to have widescreen home video editions of his later films. But when it comes to color temperatures and shadings, we're in a completely different world.

 

[GuruAskew]

When "Redux" was announced Coppola said he re-edited the whole thing from scratch and as such there was the possibility of using different takes, angles etc.

 

For what it's worth, I have NEVER seen anyone point out an example of this occurring, and it's been available for 9 years. People pick up on this stuff pretty quick. The "Back to the Future" DVD has alternate audio of at least one line (the original release had a much more-energetic reading of Doc saying "Marty, you made it!" when he shows up at the mall) and people picked up on that right away. I've never once seen anyone claiming that a certain reading of dialogue or angle was actually different in "Redux" so I chalk that initial "edited from scratch" thing up as a bit of puffery. They may have edited it from scratch but if they did they were probably following their original notes.

 

Ultimately I don't think there's any evidence that the theatrical "Apocalypse Now" is anything BUT "Redux" minus the additional scenes and some very basic re-sequencing of a scene or two, so treating the Blu-ray that way is an appropriate and efficient way to handle it. I know some people were also peeved on the "Complete Dossier" DVD release because some people actually want "Redux" to look better than the theatrical edition which makes no sense to me. If FFC had set out to restore the theatrical edition of the film in 2001 rather than the "Redux" version I'm sure it would have looked just like "Redux". I can't really wrap my head around the desire to essentially freeze any improvement on the visual quality when dealing with the theatrical cut.

 

As far as I'm concerned every foot of film should be made to look as good as possible per the specifications of the director and then the viewer should be given the option to watch their preferred cut utilizing that footage on the Blu-ray and since this is apparently what they've done I have to say I'm pleased.

 

[cafink]

 

Originally Posted by Bill GrandPre .

 

[JonZ]

I looked through the thread and didnt see any info on this, maybe I missed it, but will the bombing of Kurtz compound be on this set in HD?

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by JonZ , they said it will be in HD, as opposed to the other deleted stuff.

 

[Peter Neski]

Gee Finally 2.35:1 never though I would see the day,Still haven't got a idea on how and why Storaro could change the design of the frame ,since I am pretty sure Bertollucci

and even Coppola must be in chagre of the design of the frame in there movies,Maybe they felt storaro know best,or that its only video

 

I am also not sure( haven't not seen the the new Blue Ray yet) why they changing the color on the Original film to match the look of the Die Transfer prints of the Redux

instead of the wonderful Original Rome Tec. Prints ,Or just improving Storaros latter color design,I guess we will know when the Blue Ray is out

 

 

 

 

[JonZ]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst , they said it will be in HD, as opposed to the other deleted stuff.

Just did. Finally had to time to day. Good stuff. Cant wait for this release.

 

[Lord Dalek]

On the subject of the new "altered" color pallet, I can easily assume that the saturation was dialed down on the 2001 transfer to accomodate the limited color space available on DVD. Coppola and his colorist probably weren't anticipating Blu-Ray so a raw version wasn't kept.
 

Also woot to a HD Hearts of Darkness! This truly IS the set to buy.

 

[GMpasqua]

Bluray.com gave "Apocalyspe Now" a rave. A+ for video and Audio. Seems Lionsgate did a geat job with this release. Since they are in talks to acquire MGM/UA this is a good sign


http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Apocalypse-Now-Blu-ray/14093/#Review

 

[David Wilkins]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

That's great news, especially since Kaufman seems to be a reliable reviewer, from what I've gathered in the past. After all the posts at AVS tearing down the transfer, this comes as welcome news, at least for starters.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Except that Lionsgate is just the distributor and had nothing to do with the transfer, which was done by Coppola's Zoetrope.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Worth





Except that Lionsgate is just the distributor and had nothing to do with the transfer, which was done by Coppola's Zoetrope.

Is that true though, Lionsgate had nothing to do with the master created but didn't they encode the disc, thus they could have gone too far with noise reduction, i am personally not that happy about what i see on the disc, it's serviceable but it could have been a lot better in my opinion.


I am hoping Lionsgate did do the encode and that i can pick up a UK edition or an edition from another country that retains more of the natural film grain.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Bill Hunt's review


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews101310.html

 

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder




Is that true though, Lionsgate had nothing to do with the master created but didn't they encode the disc, thus they could have gone too far with noise reduction, i am personally not that happy about what i see on the disc, it's serviceable but it could have been a lot better in my opinion.


I am hoping Lionsgate did do the encode and that i can pick up a UK edition or an edition from another country that retains more of the natural film grain.

Agreed. Even in Bill Hunt's review, he mentions the slight amount of DNR adding after the mastering process.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Dave H


Agreed. Even in Bill Hunt's review, he mentions the slight amount of DNR adding after the mastering process.

But he took pains to stress that this was routine:

Just a hint of noise reduction was applied after the initial HD mastering process (applied, it's worth noting, as a normal part of the process of BD compression) but it's in no way excessive . . . .

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben



But he took pains to stress that this was routine:

I think thats where the disagreements will start, what is considered excessive by me may not be considered excessive by him, indeed the wording is perhaps wrong, i would say they have gone a touch too far rather than call it excessive.


Indeed it seems Bill is perhaps trying not to offend anyone in case he loses a few future exclusives, if they can keep more of the normal grain structure intact in longer films like Saving Private Ryan then i don't see the need for this so called "normal" procedure on Apocalypse Now, what they are perhaps saying is the compressionists at Lionsgate are not as good at doing blu ray encodes as they should be thus they went and degrained a tiny bit more than the people working on a transfer like the aforementioned movie would have.


Yes i know its two different movies but it's a fair comparison of grain reduction given the length of each film regardless of the artistic look of each movie.


In fact i disagree with the review which i have just read, there was absolutely no need to degrain the film more, the original screencaps at The Digital Bits were excellent and i went into viewing the film expecting the highest quality, the extra noise reduction does not impress me, i feel Bill is just ass kissing with the review and i hope it's ok for me to say that but it's how i feel.


So it's a decent transfer but it could have been great, and i have seen enough great transfers to know they did not need to go a little extra with the grain reduction, this so called "normal" procedure needs called out by someone.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Indeed it seems Bill is perhaps trying not to offend anyone in case he loses a few future exclusives . . . .


In fact i disagree with the review which i have just read, there was absolutely no need to degrain the film more, the original screencaps at The Digital Bits were excellent, the extra noise reduction does not impress me, i feel Bill is just ass kissing with the review and i hope it's ok for me to say that but it's how i feel.

You can express any opinion you wish (within the Rules), but the additions made to your post while I was composing the above only serve to exemplify what I said: Lacking any objective basis to justify their disagreement, people often start looking for other grounds to fortify their position -- in this instance, by impugning the integrity of the person with whom they disagree (also without any basis).

 

[Dave H]

Michael,


I don't believe DNR is 'always' a normal part of the BD encoding process.

A 50 gig Blu-ray disc for a ~3 hour 2:35 AR movie should provide enough space.


Robert Harris confirmed that no DNR was added to the Godfather BD encoding process. DNR was only used during the mastering process in order to make sure all of the materials looked more even and in harmony. Godfather would be more challenging to encode than Apoc. Now, as well.


Let's not also forget that Lionsgate also added DNR during the encoding of T2 Skynet as confirmed by Van Ling. Yet, the overseas release (Genium I believe?) did not add this and it looked noticeably crisper and more detailed.


I'm not saying this release doesn't look good, but it was unnecessary to add DNR as it is slightly noticeable.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben



I haven't seen the disc, but it strikes me that, if the disagreements are down to such fine distinctions, it's going to be difficult for anyone to claim to be right unless they have access to the original interpositive and 4K restoration for comparison.



You can express any opinion you wish (within the Rules), but the additions made to your post while I was composing the above only serve to exemplify what I said: Lacking any objective basis to justify their disagreement, people often start looking for other grounds to fortify their position -- in this instance, by impugning the integrity of the person with whom they disagree (also without any basis).

DNR and compression are two different things and not mutually exclusive despite what Bill Hunt says, Lionsgate have a record of applying DNR to their releases to make it easier for them to compress the films, they could have stopped right there and actually attempted to do things the right way but instead took the easy option of grain reduction to make their working life easier.


I have the disc, i have seen it, and i have my own opinion on what i see, thats being objective, indeed i tend to say what i think regardless of what others think, you don't get more objective than that, i don't kiss ass and i don't have time for people that do.


I hope that clarifies things, this is one of the greatest films ever made and Lionsgate did not need to apply any additional DNR, it's not normal to do so, it may be standard procedure for them but that doesn't make it right.


Indeed your last statement suggests i have an axe to grind, not at all, i have seen the film, i disagree with Bill Hunt and yes i do read beneath the lines, i think most intelligent people will, on what grounds is Bill saying that grain reduction was a normal part of the encoding process, now if he had said it's a normal part of Lionsgates encoding process i could understand but nope Bill is trying to word things in such a way that it makes it look like it needed to be done, it didn't and thats my objective opinion on this.


Oh and the basis for saying Bill is ass kissing is because he got exclusive interviews out of it, there are more Zoetrope releases on the horizon coming from Lionsgate, so you see there is a foundation there for believing that maybe his review is less critical than it could be, you may think otherwise but i can't help but think that this is the case and let's wait and see if an oversea's distributor makes a better encode sometime next year and then we can come back to this subject, perhaps you think the term ass kissing is offensive, well it's pretty light and not at all offensive where i come from, it's merely used to describe the situation and what i perceive as a review that is going very easy on Lionsgates encode of this fantastic film.


I think Bill has firmly said in the past that he is against the use of DNR and he has mentioned several films on his site but this time he says it's normal procedure, thats what set my alarm bells ringing and i question all that and the reason he would say it's normal procedure this time, hopefully on a forum such as this i am allowed to do so but if not then by all means edit my posts to remove any reference to words which may be against the rules.


I will try to use different terms though in future to describe things but i'm actually a little annoyed with Lionsgate and as a film fan this truly bugs me that they are trying to say dnr was needed as part of the normal process for encoding this film, you see i totally disagree with that statement.


Anyway my annoyance is with Lionsgate and not Bill.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Dave H

I think Bill has firmly said in the past that he is against the use of DNR and he has mentioned several films on his site but this time he says it's normal procedure, thats what set my alarm bells ringing and i question all that and the reason he would say it's normal procedure this time, hopefully on a forum such as this i am allowed to do so but if not then by all means edit my posts to remove any reference to words which may be against the rules.

There is no reason to edit your post, and I certainly wouldn't want to. For better or worse, you've expressed yourself very effectively.