The Godfather transfer (1 Viewer)

[Matt Everett]

I've just watched the first two films and half of the third film, and most of the "quality" issues seem to be inherent to the film itself, not the DVD transfer. A good DVD transfer shouldn't significantly alter the color palette, lighting, or crispness of focus of the source film. A couple of times it seemed that I saw artifacts in film grain patterns, but that was rare.
For what's it's worth, here is Vincent Canby's take on The Godfather II's photography, from his 1974 review in the NY Times:
...the exteriors are too bright and glowy while the interiors are so dark you wonder if those Mafia chiefs can't afford to buy bigger light bulbs.
Here's my take:
It seems to me that there was more use of natural lighting and far less use of 'stage' lighting in these movies than most. A lot of times the actors were lit from overhead lights, with less than usual use of front lights. I think this makes a big difference in the 'look' of the films.
------------------

 

[Robert Crawford]

True. However, the guy was mouthing off to everyone about it and it was just hard to resist.

Tom,
Let the moderators do our job! Thank you.
Crawdaddy
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[Tom Ryan]

Tom,
Let the moderators do our job! Thank you.

If your job is stop people from being obnoxious like that, you were failing in it concerning this subject; this had been going on for quite a while.
-Tom

 

[Tom Ryan]

Removed previous rude comment.
-Tom
[Edited last by Tom Ryan on October 15, 2001 at 08:20 PM]

 

[Robert Crawford]

Members,
The comments in the last two posts has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Let's get back on topic and stop with the personal comments!
Robert Crawford
HTF Administrator
------------------
Peter Staddon: "I didn't say you can put 'Monkeybone' back!"

 

[frank manrique]

It never stops, does it? Why in the world would anyone want to challenge Mr. Harris' veracity when he asserts the DVD video transfer of The Godfather is as good as it gets? If there is somebody that REALLY knows what films originally looked like is HIM...period. His credentials are peerless, and that is why he is called the "Dean of American Film Restoration."
Btw, if you did not see TG and TG II at the cinema on IB Technicolor and TG III on LPP stock prints then no real frame of reference can be had (of course, Robert Harris gets to see even better films sources, but my point is still valid), so how can anyone be so critical of something they really know little or nothing about?...
-THTS
[Edited last by frank manrique on October 13, 2001 at 02:59 AM]

 

[Dave H]

I watched Godfather tonight. At times, it looked very good. Other times, it looked fair. Overall, I would say it looked pretty good - especially with all things considered (age, condition of elements, etc.).
The transfer isn't as good as I hoped, but it's enjoyable.

 

[JohnRice]

UNBELIEVABLE!!
I'm still coming off the sheer thrill of finally being able to see these films reasonably closely to how they should look. The first two films are works of visual art, plain and simple. Provincial, in-the-box thinking is just not going to get the point of their visuals. I am thoroughly convinced that the complaints about the transfer come from lack of understanding of what happens to film stock over three decades of poor storage, and just "not getting" the visual concept of these films.
If these transfers are so unbearable, get rid of them and forget about it. You're just not going to "get" these movies.

 

[JohnJB]

I have a question regarding Godfather II, which is did anybody else notice what looked like a very large piece of negative appearing for a few seconds at the point where the Cuban freedom fighters are throughing the slot machines down the steps.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I could not find it.

 

[Cees Alons]

In the real world, there always seem to be people going around belching, farting and leaving their sh!t wherever they please. Sorry, Bill, but on this forum you start looking like one of them.
Of course, you are fully entitled to your judgement of the DVD trilogy, but if you want to really add to the discussion here, you should do more than just flatly stating your negative opinion.
What I like to know, for instance, is where you saw a much better version of these films, and when that was. What were the circumstances, how do you propose that better version should have been brought to DVD? Through what means do you know that the people working on this transfer made "no great effort"? And what puzzles me most of all: where ever did you see that bootleg version that was only about $85 less worth than this magnificent version (assuming you got $10 with it, to go)?
In fact, I received my package yesterday, and granted the fact that this was the film (were the films) that I waited for the most since day 1 of the commercial DVD-production days, I have viewed these my favourite films with a very critical attitude. Very critical indeed!
I have never seen a better version. I can see the meticulous work going into this autoring process. I compared several scenes with my VHS version (ha, ha, I know, I know - indeed ha, ha, ha!).
This package is a beauty! Further comments to follow after I've looked at it much more (and many more times ).
Cees
PS Anyone interested in a VHS/PAL copy of the Godfather Trilogy and/or the Epic?
C.
[Edited last by Cees Alons on October 13, 2001 at 05:08 AM]

 

[Deepak Shenoy]

After reading all the negative comments about the transfers, I was pleasantly surprised to see that GF I & II looked really good. It definitely did not look like the films needed a full restoration a la Vertigo, Rear Window, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. The only problem was the distracting specks that could have been easily removed using digital clean-up tools (such as the one that Criterion uses). Paramount could have gone that extra mile and removed all the specks (after all we are talking about two of the greatest movies of all time), but overall I am pleased with the transfers.

 

[Peter Manojlovich]

I had a chance to watch The Godfather the other day. I haven't seen this film in ages. What I remember about the film is that there were many dimly interior shots and the color palette was far from what I would call vibrant.
The nature of the film is sombre and melancholy, and the look of the film reflects that. I don't think you can equate the price tag of this box set with a preconceived notion of how you think it should look for the money.
I noticed only one instance of specks on the transfer. Yes, the interior shots were a little dark for my taste. Should this have been "corrected" in the transfer, or should the transfer accurately represent the intentions of the director and the d.o.p.?
Films aren't perfect, and many times it is these perceived "imperfections" that elevate a film and create a lasting impression. Why shoot in black and white when you can shoot in color? Most do, but black and white photography can be striking, because we're not distracted by the color, so we focus on the the other aspects of the subject matter, such as form, texture, lighting, etc.
I believe that The Godfather looks as it was intended to be, and I'm not about to question the artisitic sensiblities of Francis Ford Coppola and Gordon Willis.

 

[Scott David]

I finally received my Godfather set yesterday through Amazon.com and after reading the many threads about the supposedly horrible transfers I almost left the box unopened to return to Amazon. But I broke down, opened it up, and plopped in Godfather 1. After it was over, I was VERY relieved to find that instead of a godawful transfer along the lines of some of the films in the first Kubrick box set, it looked just like the movie looked in theatres, and I've seen it in theatres many times. A very nice job from Paramount. I'm definitely with Robert Harris on this one (and given his credentials, why shouldn't I be?).
And a note about the price. People have been complaining about the "steep" $75-85 price tag, but let me put it in perspective for you. When the trilogy was released separately on THX laserdiscs a few years ago, they retailed for $50 a pop. Do the math: $150, and the only "extras" were short little documentaries on each disc. Now, on DVD, you get all three films, with transfers at least as good, if not better, than the LD's; PLUS Coppola commentaries on each; PLUS the wonderful fifth disc of extras--for half the cost of getting all three brand-new on laserdisc. To me, a former laserdisc collector (although I still have several), that truly IS an offer you can't...well, you know.

 

[Paul E. Fox II]

OK, now it's my turn!
I'm not nearly sophisticated to see all the things most of you see, or hear things that most of you hear. That being said...if I watched every movie that I have with the intent of PICKING IT TO PIECES, then why the heck would I spend so much cash to own the things anyway. I already HAVE a job. I watch movies for entertainment. I've said it before, some of us don't really seem to give a damn about the movie, we just immediately attack based on something WE view as "wrong".
That being said, I was so fully engrossed in "The Godfather" last night, I watched the whole thing and stayed up waaaaay to long. You know what? I didn't notice ANY of the things ANY of you have mentioned. I'm just glad to own the set, the COMPLETE set.
*DISCLAIMER* The comments above are just one person's opinion and should be taken as such. I'm not asking anyone to share my opinion or telling anyone that my opinion should be their opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that. Thank You.
------------------
Regards,
Paul
Remember, "y'all" is singular, "all y'all" is plural, and "all y'all's" is
plural possessive
_____________
Pap's DVD Collection
_____________

 

[Robert Harris]

Regarding the comments from Mr. Lopez...
It has been properly pointed out here already by others that the histories and production techniques of Godfather and NxNW have very little in common.
However, I'll attempt to set the record straight for you.
The NxNW transfer is based upon a totally unuseable film element as film, but it did serve as the basis for what I consider to be a superb low rez digital correction and following that publication via DVD.
The orig neg of NxNW was faded to a point at which the yellow layer hardly survived and (from what I was told and have no reason to doubt) it had gotten to a point of flicker.
My original points on this transfer were that those involved at Warner (with, I believe, Ned Price out front) and those elsewhere in digital facilities, not only did everything correctly, but covered new ground in doing so.
The final product, while looking nothing like film because it no longer is, is a very high end product. Is it perfect?
No. Colors are still a bit out of whack from the fading of the original negative, but they may have been taken as far as they would go. How many people will notice this out of every ten thousand? Probably three. This tells me that its a superb product and those involved in its creation should be justifiably proud of their efforts.
The original negative of the Godfather had been severely overprinted over the years. Most notably since Technicolor shut down their dye transfer facility in December 1974, and the negative shipped to other labs. The last feature out of Tech dye transfer was Godfather II.
There is a massive amount of original negative which has gone missing over the years, replaced with dupes of varying qualities. I personally didn't feel that the 25th anniversary "restoration" was much of one and that the film looked well...
awful.
So what do we have?
One set of film elements (NxNW) which were no longer commercially printable, but which through the vision and dedication of the studio technical people was ported over via whatever means necessary to create a beautifully rendered DVD, via digital means, and no longer looking like film.
And another set of very well used film elements from another film which took a different route, making them look far superior on this DVD then they could currently be made to look on film, but at the same time using video processing and digital technology to a minimum, yielding a final product which while properly representing the look of the original prints still yielded a product on DVD which looked like film and not a video image.
I hope I'm being clear here. We could just as easily be discussing two ears of corn...
one started from seed while another was engineered, but they are both corn.
RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

(Re: Mr. Harris' last post.) Talk about putting it into a nutshell (or ear of corn, in this case)! Thanks for a concise, clear explanation.

 

[bill lopez]

The Godfather is my favorite movie of all-time. I have watched every version that has hit t.v. Even went to see it again at the movies a couple of years ago when it was re-mastered, and that didn't look good but it sounded good.
And then the laserdiscs came out in widescreen and I liked those. Now when I see NORTH BY NORTHWEST on t.v. and the Criterion laserdisc and then the dvd comes out and blows me away. That they can clean up a movie like that. And when I see what they did with SNOW WHITE, ALIENS,SUPERMAN, DIE HARD
and HALLOWEEN when they looked good on laserdisc and then beautiful on dvd I know they can clean up any movie. So, it seems me people are just happy that it's out on dvd. Like I'm happy AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is out and that movie has grain also but it didn't upset me because it's not a classic. But come on let's be honest here there is grain & white specks in these Godfather transfers. For this dvd not to look better than my 1973 FOXY BROWN movie dvd is a shame.
And that's all I will say. : )

 

[Michael Reuben]

However, I'll attempt to set the record straight for you.

It's great posts like these that make the HTF what it is. Thanks, Mr. Harris!
M.
[Edited last by Michael Reuben on October 13, 2001 at 10:10 AM]

 

[george kaplan]

Just to chime in, although I am disappointed in the cuts used, I have no problem whatsoever with the video quality, it is both the best I've ever seen these movies in, and has the Robert Harris seal of approval which (all due respect to Joe Caps ) is good enough for me.
------------------
13-time NBA world champion Lakers: 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, 2000, 2001

 

[Ed Vandeweerd]

Robert,
Thank you for your Comments re "The Godfather" I also thought the transfer was beautiful and I am happy to have the "Godfather DVD Collection" in my Library. As Always I appreciate your contribution and insightful comments to this forum. Thank you!
------------------
Ed Vandeweerd
[email protected]
my collection