UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ -The Godfather(s) 50th Anniversary Restoration -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[Josh Steinberg]

"alternate take"??

Can anyone explain?

I think Ron may actually have it backwards.

For the 2007 version (and this was touched on in the “Emulsionsal Rescue” documentary) the restorationists discovered that one of the shots in the restaurant scene was damaged due to (if memory serves) a combination of poor lab work at the time of filming and wear and tear in years since. With approval of Coppola, they substituted an identical alternate take of the same shot that was in better condition.

 

[Robert Harris]

I think Ron may actually have it backwards.

For the 2007 version (and this was touched on in the “Emulsionsal Rescue” documentary) the restorationists discovered that one of the shots in the restaurant scene was damaged due to (if memory serves) a combination of poor lab work at the time of filming and wear and tear in years since. With approval of Coppola, they substituted an identical alternate take of the same shot that was in better condition.

There were no alternate takes used in 2007. A couple of instances in a damaged static shot where we accessed head or tail trims. That and extending half the dissolves.

In the ‘22, someone incorrectly re-conformed the entrance to Vegas montage - presumably to add an original shot in VVLA, which makes zero sense - and used the incorrect parts of stock footage with the wrong dissolves - for an Academy Award Best Picture…

 

[Ronald Epstein]

There were no alternate takes used in 2007. A couple of instances in a damaged static shot where we accessed head or tail trims. That and extending half the dissolves.

In the ‘22, someone incorrectly re-conformed the entrance to Vegas montage - presumably to add an original shot in VVLA, which makes zero sense - and used the incorrect parts of stock footage with the wrong dissolves - for an Academy Award Best Picture…

Thanks for the clarification. This is exactly what I was referring to as far as the tinkering that was done to the 4k release in addition to the color timing.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks for the clarification. This is exactly what I was referring to as far as the tinkering that was done to the 4k release in addition to the color timing.

Any serious restoration - unless footage has been lost - should be frame accurate from first to last.

This one…

 

[mdhaus]

Any serious restoration - unless footage has been lost - should be frame accurate from first to last.

This one…

I think it depends on what the goal of the restoration was. The term itself can mean different things depending on the overall design of the project and the intent.

For example, Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie" was released this week on 4K. The restoration that was needed on this particular film was supposedly pretty extensive due to the incredibly poor condition of the materials. For a film like that, the process of "restoration" most certainly means something quite different than projects on other films...where it's perhaps mostly focused on color timing, for example.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it depends on what the goal of the restoration was. The term itself can mean different things depending on the overall design of the project and the intent.

For example, Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie" was released this week on 4K. The restoration that was needed on this particular film was supposedly pretty extensive due to the incredibly poor condition of the materials. For a film like that, the process of "restoration" most certainly means something quite different than projects on other films...where it's perhaps mostly focused on color timing, for example.

Seriously, you're trying to tell a person that for decades in his distinguished career has done such film restorations about the goal of the restoration might be. Talk about hubris and/or are you just trying to be argumentative?

 

[mskaye]

There were no alternate takes used in 2007. A couple of instances in a damaged static shot where we accessed head or tail trims. That and extending half the dissolves.

In the ‘22, someone incorrectly re-conformed the entrance to Vegas montage - presumably to add an original shot in VVLA, which makes zero sense - and used the incorrect parts of stock footage with the wrong dissolves - for an Academy Award Best Picture…

If I remember correctly from an article I'm too lazy to search for, the damaged static shot was of Brando in the hospital w Pacino.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Seriously, you're trying to tell a person that for decades in his distinguished career has done such film restorations about the goal of the restoration might be. Talk about hubris and/or are you just trying to be argumentative?

LOL! He's still at this? I suspect RAH and probably at least 1/2 the rest of us have just "ignored" him by now...

_Man_

 

[Carlo_M]

LOL! He's still at this? I suspect RAH and probably at least 1/2 the rest of us have just "ignored" him by now...

_Man_

I have to admit judging by Robert’s response I was tempted to peek and see the comment…but then I’d just be inspired to further action, and it’s best just to let that lie…

 

[mdhaus]

Seriously, you're trying to tell a person that for decades in his distinguished career has done such film restorations about the goal of the restoration might be. Talk about hubris and/or are you just trying to be argumentative?

I'm merely pointing out that the term "restoration" can mean different things depending on what the goal of the project is. Sometimes it's to restore a film to how it was originally released....sometimes it's only to adjust the color timing, clean things up or something else along those lines. Not every "restoration" is born from the same goal.

That's not hubris or being argumentative....It's just reality.

 

[RATLSNAKE]

In the ‘22, someone incorrectly re-conformed the entrance to Vegas montage - presumably to add an original shot in VVLA, which makes zero sense - and used the incorrect parts of stock footage with the wrong dissolves - for an Academy Award Best Picture…

Yikes! Thank you RAH for clarifying such detail. Perhaps I will open my recent purchase to check this out, if not for the reasons another member also suggested I take a look at it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm merely pointing out that the term "restoration" can mean different things depending on what the goal of the project is. Sometimes it's to restore a film to how it was originally released....sometimes it's only to adjust the color timing, clean things up or something else along those lines. Not every "restoration" is born from the same goal.

That's not hubris or being argumentative....It's just reality.

Well, I guess I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[Martin_Teller]

Well, I guess I have nothing else to say to you.

Probably just as well considering how you overreacted to his previous post, which I read as neither hubristic nor argumentative. Pretty sure Robert Harris can defend himself if he feels some need to.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Probably just as well considering how you overreacted to his previous post, which I read as neither hubristic nor argumentative. Pretty sure Robert Harris can defend himself if he feels some need to.

Perhaps, it's best you follow that same advice.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

After reading this thread and further conversation with others regarding the transfer, I decided not to purchase this 4k release and stick with the Robert Harris Blu-ray restoration which looks fantastic.

Perhaps if this 4k release were to dip down to $30 I might be persuaded -- and there's a good possibility of that happening -- but I am not fond of the tinker work that has been done with the 4k release including (if I am understanding this correctly) an alternate take being used.

I've pretty much made up my mind to do the same. The first two films are among my all time favorite movies, and I just cannot imagine watching them altered in this manner. I certainly am not going to spend over $60 for such a set. I am very happy with the previous BD set.

 

[PaulaJ]

This should be interesting.

 

[Carlo_M]

27m 20s mark is where they acknowledge it is different. It's actually a bit telling how they just gloss over it quickly compared to how much time they spend talking about all the other parts of the restoration. The whole thing is worth listening to. They talk about grain management which is also another issue with this release (though all things considered the altered color timing is my main problem with this version, I can deal with the grain management if the color timing was correct).

Also towards the end they explain why we'll likely never see The Godfather Saga. Which he did as a favor for Paramount and Coppola feels "destroys GF2". I can't argue with his feelings on that, despite loving both the Saga and Trilogy formats.

EDIT: what's telling about the podcast host's lack of knowledge re: color intent by Mr. Willis, he mentions something about (paraphrasing here) being able to correct things that were "blown out". Again completely unaware that blown out anscochrome look was exactly what Willis was going for. It's akin to taking a "sharpening pass" over a Monet painting. It's supposed to be blurry.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Also towards the end they explain why we'll likely never see The Godfather Saga.

Fortunately we don’t really have to wait for them - a good quality HD version exists and has been shown on HBO (both the channel and the streaming service) before, and will almost certainly resurface somewhere again. It might not be the same as owning a disc but at least the work is done and the content is available for licensing.

 

[DarkVader]

Can someone kindly explain to me what grain management actually is?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Can someone kindly explain to me what grain management actually is?

Best example I can think of is To Kill a Mockingbird. It's an attempt to mitigate grain in very grainy scenes or films. Most recently, it involves degraining a harvest, then adding back "simulated grain" in an effort to create a uniform appearance of grain in movies originated on film. Much like "simulated" stereo, it doesn't really work.

In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, it was used to mitigate grain in a handful of scenes where footage was zoomed or cropped, thus enlarging the grain in those shots. If you know what to look for, it's rather obvious.