What's new

Degrading the transfer for Animal House to suit the director's vision. Going too far? (1 Viewer)

rich_d

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
2,036
Location
Connecticut
Real Name
Rich
I think so. Respecting an artist's wishes isn't limited simply to things I happen to agree with. If it was, it would be pretty meaningless.
Right. Since you brought up Laurence of Arabia. If David Lean's last will and testiment were discovered tomorrow and he stated that his wish was for all images of his films to be destroyed. What would you do?

Would you respectfully ask the studios to honor Lean's wishes and destroy all negatives, proofs, copies etc. of all his films?

Would you lead the charge by destroying all of your David Lean videos, posters etc?

It's fine to tell other film-makers (with skin it the game) what to do with their films in the name of director's artistic intent/wishes now isn't it?
 

RickER

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
5,128
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Real Name
Rick
It can be so confusing. I hope Landis gives us what he has always wanted. I don't like the changes to E.T. or Star Wars...thats not how it was SUPPOSED to be...but i LOVED the new Star Trek: The Motion Picture. THAT was how it was intended if they had the time. And yes not only did they fix effects, they changed the sound effects, cut things, put things back in...and its great! Best Trek film in 15 years. But they kept with Robert Wise's plan...and the effects were not new ideas...they had been story boarded. I don't like how Lucas has re-done his old star Wars movies either. I ruined Empire (the new cut), for a friend by taking note of the added windows to the sky city. The floors are very reflective, but the new windows don't reflect anything on them, no light, no shadow, no refection at all! So how is that for missing detail? OK...sorry about my rant...good luck Mr. Landis, and thanks for the triple dip! LOL
 

ChrisA

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 25, 1999
Messages
478
For those of us who simply want to know the differences between the two versions:

Could someone please summarize the differences between the Special Edition I already own and the Doule Secret Probation Edition... I want to be well informed on my choice to sell the one I have and buy the double secret probation.
 

Xenia Stathakopoulou

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
2,417
Real Name
Xenia
This will be my first time getting animal house on dvd. So in a way id like to know how it compares to the older versions. If its going to look as good as the older versions im ok with that, but if there actually going to make it worse, ill think twice before getting it.
 

Richard Paul

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
246
I personally think the director is making a mistake by making the movie grainer, but it is his decision. Their are time's you will like changes done by a director and their will be time's that you think the director has no right to do them. I like the director's cut of Aliens and wouldn't mind all future releases of the movie to be the director's cut. On the other hand I hate the changes done to the original Star Wars movies and would prefer their theatrical releases. Of the changes that could be done to Animal House the adding of grain is pretty low on my list. If you don't like what a director does to a movie then don't buy it, and write to the studio explaining why.
 

rich_d

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
2,036
Location
Connecticut
Real Name
Rich
Right. Since you brought up Laurence of Arabia. If David Lean's last will and testiment were discovered tomorrow and he stated that his wish was for all images of his films to be destroyed. What would you do?

Would you respectfully ask the studios to honor Lean's wishes and destroy all negatives, proofs, copies etc. of all his films?

Would you lead the charge by destroying all of your David Lean videos, posters etc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're confusing artistic moral rights with property rights. When you asked me if we should respect the wishes of artists who want to destroy their own works, I assumed both that they were alive and that they had legal possession of their works, such that property rights were not an issue.
Nope, just trying to understand your position. I still don't understand what morality has to do with any of this ... so I'll ask the question ...

What is a film Director's moral rights?
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
Nope, just trying to understand your position. I still don't understand what morality has to do with any of this ... so I'll ask the question ...
It's rather simple. There are two kinds of rights: legal and moral. Since artists don't always have legal rights to their works (e.g., because they sold their painting to another, because they directed a film as a work made for hire for a studio), when we speak of artists having any kinds of rights we are therefore generally speaking about moral rights.

The HTF mission statement that "[w]e the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended" and that "[w]e respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment" are expressions of support for the concept of filmmakers having a moral right of integrity in the works they create. This is not subject to a litmus test of whether a director happened to have final cut, as you would appear to have it. Since this is not a right that can be enforced in a court of law in the United States, it is a right that we express through moral discourse (such as this thread); thus, it is properly categorized as a moral right.

Under French law, at least, the moral right of integrity (which has the force of law) allows an artist (and, in the case of a film, the director) to forbid unconsented modifications. In this way, Angelica Huston was able to recover from Turner for the violation of her father's right of integrity in The Asphalt Jungle when their colorized version aired on French television. French law, by the way, also controversially recognizes the moral right of withdrawal whereby an artist may choose to recall their work. This right is of limited significance in mass-produced forms such as film, however.

The right of integrity presumes that directors are in the best position to decide whether a presentation of a film properly represents their wishes (again, regardless of the existence of a talismanic element such as final cut). We often reasonably extend the goals of that right in the absence of the director to be held, at least in theory, by another qualified involved filmmaker or by qualified experts. In the situation of Animal House, at least, no such extension is even necessary. If Universal had gone ahead and presented the film on DVD in a way that directly contradicted the express desires of John Landis, the right of integrity that HTF respects would have been violated in the very same way that it was when Columbia released Lawrence of Arabia on DVD with improper color timing. The disappointment that was expressed over the improper LoA release is, in fact, a disappointment over the violation of the right of integrity that David Lean had in his film to have it presented as he wished. When people call for a film to be presented in the way that the director wished (without any reference whatsoever to their own personal opinion about what might or might not look "better"), it is an expression of the moral right of integrity.

Admittedly, the situation becomes more difficult for some when the director changes his mind on what represents a presentation of his film that conforms with his right of integrity. This doesn't appear to be the case with Animal House, but I still respect the right of directors to change their minds about their films and believe the moral right of integrity to be better served by presenting a film in conformance with a director's wishes, whenever those wishes were formed. I see no reason to institute an arbitrary time limit upon artists by which their moral interests in their own creations suddenly expire (often by the replacement of some other moral right, often expressed on this forum and elsewhere, of the viewing public to never have to suffer the sight of having a film they saw once 30 years ago being changed). It would seem to me that the interest a director has in his or her film would always trump some kind of right of expectation (?) in the viewing public to be insulated from change. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that a person who watches a film suddenly gets a moral right to have that film, of which they had no part in the creation, never be anything but what it was the first time they saw it. Some kind of rule that says something to the effect of "I respect the right of directors to present their films in the manner they wish until I say they can't anymore" doesn't appear to me to be a very meaningful one at all.

DJ
 

Paul_Stachniak

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
1,303
I got in rather late on this discussion, however, I'd like to add my two cents. I don't think this move is as controversial(?) as it seems to some of you. Landis is entitled to do what he wants with his film. And in a way I agree with him about Animal House. The film is about a crumbling fraternity house, so why should the film be as clean and sharp as the T-1000?

Yes DVD is supposed to offer a high resolution picture, but that's only if the source allows it. And sometimes an auteur prefers to alter his vision to enhance the mood or feeling of the film, as I'm sure you all know. So all the power to Landis on this one, it's his vision, even if it may have been changed after 30 odd years. However, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Some of you totally miss what is going on.

Landis wants Animal House to look like a print made in 1978...not a squeaky clean HD transfer made in 2003.

A 1978 print would not look like a print made in 2003.



It's like how Lawrence of Arabia was released. Sure, the DVD looks more than fine to me (at least until I saw the seas of pixelation...but that's beside the point) but it's not how the film is supposed to look. The Superbit, which I will be re-purchasing, will reflect the intended look of the film.


Think about this...

What if 25 years from now, a SD-HD-DVD (SuperDuper-HD-DVD) comes out with O Brother, Where Art Thou? in remastered form. The film is supposed to look desaturated and soft. Well, the telecine engineers makes the new 2K digital master for the DVD from the negative. The intended look of the film is taken away so the film looks "correct" That's right...bright blue skies...lots of colors...none of this soft "antique photo" nonsense....

How should the film look? Like the incarnation currently on DVD and what was released to theaters...or a bright and colorful film that is a distant cousin to the original?

It's funny how people will be against stuff like revisions made to the Star Wars films by George Lucas, yet here is a director trying to present his film the way it looked when it was released. I wonder how many people are like this.

"So what if John Landis wants to keep the look of his film the same? Would you jump off a bridge if he asked you to?" is basically what I'm hearing.
 

Paul_Stachniak

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
1,303
Well, the telecine engineers makes the new 2K digital master for the DVD from the negative. The intended look of the film is taken away so the film looks "correct" That's right...bright blue skies...lots of colors...none of this soft "antique photo" nonsense....
I can guarantee you the Cohens would never allow for this. Either the Super-Duper whatever transfer will never go above its original 2k resolution. Or the new negative transfer will be recolored to allow a greater resolution, but to represent the theatrical release of the film. This incidentally would be the same process that Landis is doing right now.
 

rich_d

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
2,036
Location
Connecticut
Real Name
Rich
Under French law, at least, the moral right of integrity (which has the force of law) allows an artist (and, in the case of a film, the director) to forbid unconsented modifications. In this way, Angelica Huston was able to recover from Turner for the violation of her father's right of integrity in The Asphalt Jungle when their colorized version aired on French television. French law, by the way, also controversially recognizes the moral right of withdrawal whereby an artist may choose to recall their work. This right is of limited significance in mass-produced forms such as film, however.
Ah yes ... the French.

I don't want to get into bashing the French people - but perhaps the government I'll take on (as you brought it up). I have friends that are French - even they would never suggest patterning governmental decisions on the French government.

The French movie industry is protected by the government. How much is spent to promote the arts and how much is to preserve the French language and culture is unclear. Jean-Luc Godard continues to make films that even the French don't go to see at the expense of the taxpayer. French movie industry personnel are now on strike (unless it just got settled) because their "right" to continue to receive salaries even when they are not working is being taken away from them. The NY Times (even) reported that one of the problems as been the indifference of trade people as to whether they were actually making films or not.

Bottom line, let Godard announce that his next film will be exclusively created in English and see whether he gets any French funding. Where goes "moral right to integrity" then?

Let Godard announce that he wants to change A Bout de Souffle so that any French dialogue is now in English and watch the French Government denounce him tomorrow.

It would seem (overall) that a French regulatory decision to protect Directors (to some degree) is not that different from a Director putting final cut rights into his studio contract. In both cases the artist is more protected.

I don't see the logic of getting excited about protecting a director that can't get final cut rights. If the studio that is paying the money won't support him - why should we (those that don't even know him) support him?
 

Aaron Reynolds

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,715
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Aaron Reynolds
I don't see the logic of getting excited about protecting a director that can't get final cut rights. If the studio that is paying the money won't support him - why should we (those that don't even know him) support him?
C'mon, is that a joke? Or do you need a list of famous, talented filmmakers who were not able to secure final cut of their films?

There are very, very few filmmakers who have received final cut rights. Judging their artistic merit based on whether or not a studio thought that their artistry was or was not commercial seems silly: final cut is awarded either because you are a major name filmmaker who will draw an audience based solely on your name or because you've self-financed the film.

Scorcese did not have sole final cut of Gangs of New York, for a recent example from a "name" filmmaker -- he and Harvey Weinstein apparently had endless arguments about the running time of the film, and the final result was that the film was trimmed down. Is it your argument that Scorcese therefore warrants no protection as to the look of his films on video?
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell
If the studio that is paying the money won't support him - why should we (those that don't even know him) support him?
Why would we take our cues from the studios? Why should our respect for art be dependent upon the respect given to it by its financers? I fail to see the connection between the two. I wouldn't dislike a piece of classical music because its parton happened to dislike it. Why would I decide that a film wasn't deserving of respect because its financers thought that?

DJ
 

Jim Bivins

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
153
This is an issue that always makes me part ways with home theater geeks, and seperates lovers of film from lovers of tech.

Some tend to forget that the advantage of DVD is to present the film as close to the directors vision as possible, NOT to look good on an expensive system! The director wants grain, he gets grain!

two words

"directors vision', say it loud, say it proud!

Later
Jim
 

rich_d

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Messages
2,036
Location
Connecticut
Real Name
Rich
Why would we take our cues from the studios? Why should our respect for art be dependent upon the respect given to it by its financers? I fail to see the connection between the two. I wouldn't dislike a piece of classical music because its parton happened to dislike it. Why would I decide that a film wasn't deserving of respect because its financers thought that?
Comparing a patron of the arts to big companies like Disney and Vivendi is apple to very large oranges. You fail to see a connection between the two because there is no direct connection.

What you choose to respect is your own decision. However, if you are unhappy with the current studio/distribution system and their investors - there are many talented directors working on independently developed films that would love to hear from silent investors. The key word being silent. Or you could just give them money and hope they use it well, become a patron of the film arts (so to speak).

Anyway, I've made the points I wanted to make. To reiterate, seems to me that to transfer a film to video requires no more than skilled technicians whose objective is to bring forth (as closely as possible) the image that was first released to the public as film. I don't see any reason to have to drag in the director to accomplish that unless required by contract. If you strongly disagree with that please don't buy the Laurence of Arabia Superbit as you can be sure that David Lean was not involved.

Presenting the film as originally intended should be the objective not preserving the director's intentions. For those that want that --(nothing wrong with that) slap a director's cut out there and call it that.

As to Gordon's post - I think all movie lovers have the same frustration of hearing about poor DVD efforts. It appears that Halloween has been through several. In all of these disappointing DVD versions, was Carpenter involved in none of them? It doesn't matter one way or the other, just curious.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,817
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top