WilliamMcK
Second Unit
Removing information from the original source is a no-no. Better?
Yes, it is.bryan4999 said:Is removing the wires really altering someone's work?
The philosophical problem remains, as "adding" information (by presenting the film at a significantly higher resolution) alters the image, as well.WilliamMcK said:Removing information from the original source is a no-no. Better?
If the wires were truly invisible on the original prints, it would be altering the work to allow them to be seen on the Blu-ray.WilliamMcK said:Yes, it is.
So are you implying that it was the filmakers wish that we see the wires, or was it a result of the technology of the time?WilliamMcK said:Yes, it is.
By the same logic, the wires being rendered invisible by the print-making process in use at the time would also be "altering others' work."WilliamMcK said:But whether they showed or not, altering others' work is always a no-no in my book.
There are other threads...TonyD said:The should we or should we see the wires discussion AGAIN. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
That's a slippery slope, as well, when you start guesstimating how other viewers may have interpreted what they saw.haineshisway said:no one was looking for these things back in 1939
The key words here are "at the time." What was done "at the time" was part of a collaborative effort to create THE WIZARD OF OZ. Guys, I only chimed in here because I think our cultural heritage shouldn't be tampered with (or tampered with as little as possible -- transferring movies shot on film to any other format would obviously count as "tampering"). But the Blu-Ray is out, what's done is done. It's a fine looking rendition of the movie... I just wish it hadn't been altered... but I'm fully aware that this isn't the equivalent to colorizing LA GRANDE ILLUSION. But I maintain my stance that it is a bad thing to change movies because of advancements in technology (I prefer original mono tracks too!).Paul Penna said:By the same logic, the wires being rendered invisible by the print-making process in use at the time would also be "altering others' work."
And part of that collaborative effort was the preparation of practical effects by professionals who were very aware of what would and would not appear on the cinema screen. To defeat the product of their collective wisdom could also be seen as an affront to their cultural legacy.WilliamMcK said:What was done "at the time" was part of a collaborative effort to create THE WIZARD OF OZ.
There's no slippery slope, sorry. Others have pointed it out and so am I - audiences of the day were not looking for these things. I don't happen to think that's guesstimating at all. I saw the film in the 1950s and I certainly wasn't looking for it and hence didn't see it. I didn't see it, in fact, until the home video era. That's one of the reasons I think Hollywood has totally shot itself in the foot, with all these ridiculous extras on DVD and Blu-ray, where every trick is revealed. There is simply no movie magic left because everyone knows everything. I refer you to the words "movie magic" when those word actually had some meaning, and they certainly had meaning in 1939.Doctorossi said:That's a slippery slope, as well, when you start guesstimating how other viewers may have interpreted what they saw.
I wish I could feel so confident in speaking for all cinema-goers of 1939, but I fear your confidence is misplaced.haineshisway said:There's no slippery slope, sorry. Others have pointed it out and so am I - audiences of the day were not looking for these things.
I apologize, I haven't been around here as long as some of you all and hadn't read all of the previous threads. It is a philosophical question that picqued my interest, and I had not ever had the chance to discuss it with anyone. As has been said, there is no single, simple answer, and I am sure it will continue to come up as more vintage films are prepared for blu-ray.TonyD said:The should we or should we see the wires discussion AGAIN. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.