Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The World at War (1 Viewer)

[bigshot]

In motion, the last scene is amazing, especially projected onto a large screen. The camera is on the back of.a truck retreating slowly. The crowd is surging forward overtaking and surrounding the truck.These newsreel photographers really did beautiful work. I'm sure that if one had never seen the full frame, they wouldn't know it had been cropped. But a lot of the storytelling power and compositional beauty would have been sacrificed. I really don't care what the producers say about the intelligence and sensitivity of their reframing techniques. It's butchery and those who love film shouldn't make excuses for it.
If we don't raise a stink now, we'll start seeing more Academy format films hacked down to widescreen and we'll be right back where we were in the bad old pan and scan days.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by bigshot
I've been thinking about the reason why they would release a cropped version of this on bluray when they say that the full frame was captured in high definition, and I think I figured it out...
I bet they made the deal with Discovery to remaster the series in hidef widescreen. They did a telecine transfer of the full frame to 1080p and struck a submaster to crop. After the pan and scan was completed, they did the restoration. (Why spend money restoring a third of the frame that was going to be cropped off anyway?) When the job was all done and delivered to Discovery, some executive said, "Now that we have a hidef master, let's recoup some of the cost of restoration by releasing this to bluray." The people who did the mastering were left in a pickle... They had a hidef full frame telecine master with no restoration, and a cropped one with restoration. So they shifted to damage control and started doing press releases on how skillfully the pan and scan was done and how cropping was a commercial necessity. These justifications got picked up by the press and repeated. But the real reason the bluray is cropped is because they didn't go the extra mile of restoring the full frame because no one would see it on Discovery anyway.

I don't think that is the case. if you look at the restoration clip, it seems clear that the restoration team are working on the original 1:33:1 version (look at the monitors): http://www.theworldatwar.com/

 

[David_B_K]

Originally Posted by bigshot
If we don't raise a stink now, we'll start seeing more Academy format films hacked down to widescreen and we'll be right back where we were in the bad old pan and scan days.

This is my concern, too. You still see people posting the question "why are there black bars on my widescreen TV?" and "should I watch The Maltese Falcon zoomed in or stretched?" I just hope we do not see more releases like World at War cropped for HD broadcast.

 

[bigshot]

Very interesting.
The bluray has been pulled from sale at Amazon and they've dumped all of the positive reviews for the 30th Anniversary DVD set into the bluray batch to bury the one star complaints about cropping. Looking through the pile of brand new one star reviews, it appears that the first batch of discs were delivered to customers and Amazon got hit with an excessive rate of returns. No points for guessing why.

 

[BobO'Link]

Originally Posted by bigshot
I've been thinking about the reason why they would release a cropped version of this on bluray when they say that the full frame was captured in high definition, and I think I figured it out...
...They had a hidef full frame telecine master with no restoration, and a cropped one with restoration...

I've looked and looked but can't find the article I read about this issue in which it is stated that the producers *restored the 4x3 version* and *then* did the cropping. A fully restored 4x3 copy exists. It was strictly commercial concerns, especially marketability to HD stations/program directors, that drove the WS version. They, IMHO, stupidly assumed the public would rather have the altered version. As you mentioned, the simple fact that Amazon removed the ability to order a BR copy "because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here" speaks volumes about what the public really wants.

If I can find that article again I'll post the link.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't see what the bitch is. The director has approved this release and according to a lot of people on this forum the director is always right. Just witness the discussions regarding Cameron and Nolan's decisions to suppress alternate theatrically released OARs of their films.

 

[cafink]

I find the HTF pretty inconsistent on the issue of directorial control. I was surprised at the lack of support I got when I suggested that the 2.35:1 versions of The Dark Knight and Avatar should have been released on Blu-ray, and yet there doesn't seem to be anyone who was happy with the director-approved decisions to release Apocalypse Now or The Last Emperor in alternate aspect ratios.

Personally, I don't think the director's preference should always be taken as the last word on such things. I do like knowing what the director thinks of such issues, and that knowledge should play an important role in our decision-making process as consumers of their product, but they are still capable of making poor decisions, and we should be willing to call them out when they do.

 

[bigshot]

The best reason for a director to release an alternate version of a film is if the studio interfered with the final cut. That may have been true of Brazil or Blade Runner, but it sure wasn't true of World at War.
Also, the person who gave his blessing to the crop job on World at War wasn't the director, it was the producer, who in this case was a network executive. He did a lot to get the series made and was knighted for it, but there were a few directors on the series that were responsible for the individual episodes who probably had much more creative input
I think it's painfully obvious to everyone right now that the cropping was a very bad idea, at least for the bluray release. Second guessing the composition decades later is a stupid idea, and chopping off a third of the image is not going to make it better even under the best of circumstances.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by bigshot
Also, the person who gave his blessing to the crop job on World at War wasn't the director, it was the producer, who in this case was a network executive. He did a lot to get the series made and was knighted for it, but there were a few directors on the series that were responsible for the individual episodes who probably had much more creative input

Please don't belittle the work of Jeremy Isaacs. He was the overall creative force behind THE WORLD AT WAR and contibuted far more than individual episode directors. He was hands-on throughout the series and worked on the editing of every episode. No one was more responsible for the brilliance of the series than Jeremy Isaacs. If he is pleased with the latest version then his view should be respected.

 

[RobertR]

I disagree. His view is not respectable. It reduces the respect for him.

 

[bigshot]

Why should I respect his opinion on this when my own eyes show me that he's dead wrong? The cropping destroys the compositions. If I respect his decision, it's going to change the respect I have for the series as a whole. There are more reasons for changing things than trying to make a better film. This cropping is a commercial compromise that never should have been made. If he was part of the decision, he's part of the problem.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by cafink
I find the HTF pretty inconsistent on the issue of directorial control. I was surprised at the lack of support I got when I suggested that the 2.35:1 versions of The Dark Knight and Avatar should have been released on Blu-ray, and yet there doesn't seem to be anyone who was happy with the director-approved decisions to release Apocalypse Now or The Last Emperor in alternate aspect ratios.

Personally, I don't think the director's preference should always be taken as the last word on such things. I do like knowing what the director thinks of such issues, and that knowledge should play an important role in our decision-making process as consumers of their product, but they are still capable of making poor decisions, and we should be willing to call them out when they do.

I agree that The Dark Knight and Avatar should have been released in those aspect ratios as well. Especially with Avatar I thought it was pretty obvious that it was intended to be in 2.35:1.
I think most don't think of it as a problem because you see more than you would in 2.35:1. If a title is cropped, all hell breaks loose, but opening it up doesn't seem too big of a deal. Probably because you're seeing more, and that's always better, right?

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by cafink
I find the HTF pretty inconsistent on the issue of directorial control. I was surprised at the lack of support I got when I suggested that the 2.35:1 versions of The Dark Knight and Avatar should have been released on Blu-ray, and yet there doesn't seem to be anyone who was happy with the director-approved decisions to release Apocalypse Now or The Last Emperor in alternate aspect ratios.

Personally, I don't think the director's preference should always be taken as the last word on such things. I do like knowing what the director thinks of such issues, and that knowledge should play an important role in our decision-making process as consumers of their product, but they are still capable of making poor decisions, and we should be willing to call them out when they do.

I don't disagree with you. I just remember how anybody (including myself), who criticized Cameron and Nolan for their decisions, had it rammed down their throat that what the director wanted or approved of was sacrosanct. We were all told to take what the director gives us or don't buy it. In this case, apparently it was the producer who was heavily involved in the process of creating this series and now he has given his approval to this new iteration. All of a sudden, now OAR becomes a big issue whereas in the case of Cameron and Nolan the idea that both theatrical OARs of their films should be provided was roundly criticized. You are right there is no consistency now; although, at one time there was.

 

[Brian Borst]

I don't disagree with you. I just remember how anybody (including myself), who criticized Cameron and Nolan for their decisions, had it rammed down their throat that what the director wanted or approved of was sacrosanct. We were all told to take what the director gives us or don't buy it. In this case, apparently it was the producer who was heavily involved in the process of creating this series and now he has given his approval to this new iteration. All of a sudden, now OAR becomes a big issue whereas in the case of Cameron and Nolan the idea that both theatrical OARs of their films should be provided was roundly criticized. You are right there is no consistency now; although, at one time there was.

How can there be consistency when there's no one simply answer here? Director's intent isn't always a good thing. I, personally, do not care for the SEs of the Star Wars trilogy, but I'm not as bothered by the fact that Nolan let the IMAX sequences open up on The Dark Knight Blu-ray. I still think that it should have been included, just as Lucas should include the original cuts, whichever he prefers. Others might feel completely different, that's why it's a difficult subject.

 

[theonemacduff]

In the old days, cameras did not allow you to see precisely what you were shooting, thus, you soon learned to stay back a bit and leave space around the subject to make sure that you hadn't inadvertently cropped it. This is one reason why older 4:3 documentary footage so often has quite a lot of headroom and footroom. In the case of World at War, another reason might be that the cameramen (mostly men; Dicky Chappelle who worked for Life was one of the few women war photographers at that time) were concerned not to get shot or blown up in some cases, and didn't have the time or luxury to compose shots that were tight. The point is, that quite often nothing except sky or dirt is missing from a 4:3 shot when it is re-framed at 1.78. If Rich is correct – and he's not alone, other reviewers have said substantially the same thing – the reframing was done with great care and very few reframed shots omit anything essential. If you want the 4:3 experience, hang on to your old DVDs.

 

[bigshot]

I think you haven't seen this series. Although it includes combat footage, it also consists of newsreel footage of political events and other more carefully photographed subjects. The cropping wreaks havoc with a great deal of the footage. It may not be immediately evident when just viewing the cropped version, but when you look at the full frame version it becomes obvious that a lot of baby is being thrown out with bathwater. When presented with 40 hours of footage to comment on, reviewers aren't always able to grasp the full impact of something like this, especially reviewers wh haven't seen the program before or don't have access to the previous DVD releases.
Check out the frame grabs I posted a page or two back and compare them to some of the bluray grabs posted on the web. You'll see exactly what we're talking about.

 

[bigshot]

From what I'm told, reviewers of this set were only sent the first disk of this set to view. It contained a couple of episodes, but was mostly taken up by the documentary on the restoration. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by theonemacduff
The point is, that quite often nothing except sky or dirt is missing from a 4:3 shot when it is re-framed at 1.78.

Taking away 25% of the image area loses a lot more than just dirt; as for sky, ask Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange or any other great landscape photographer whether or not sky was an important part of their photographic compositions.

The fundamental rationale for what was done was not to enhance the program, not to communicate its message more effectively, not to give its imagery more impact. Instead it was done purely and simply for the mere fact that the prevailing aspect ratio for TV has shifted from 4X3 to 16X9, and that since that a goodly proportion of the market prefers to have their screens completely rather than partially filled, reformatting would make it more economically viable. In other words, exactly the same reason for "formatting to fit your screen," "pan and scan" or whatever term you want to use.

There are two problems with citing the surviving producer of the series as an authority for what was done. In the first place, he was presented with a fait accompli: the decision had already been made, for commercial reasons, to reformat. Would he have been motivated to do so on his own absent this decision? It's been said here he was "pleased" with the result. This can mean anything from "It looks better this way" to "We made the best of a bad situation."

Secondly is the assumption that the makers of the program are the "creators," and thus their word should be accepted, ex cathedra, as final. I'd agree that would be the case as far as the choice and assembly of the historical documentation is concerned, but the actual creators of the images used were the photographers.

The argument that's been advanced that the act of cropping these photographers' work is no different than the act of choosing which of it was to be used is specious. Let's envision a scholarly analysis of Shakespeare's plays; would we demand that every single line of every single play be included? Of course not. What we would demand is that those portions of his work chosen to be used not be rewritten.

 

[dana martin]

Victory At Sea, before this, is availabe on blu, and it has had some extensive restorations, decient review on blu-ray.com and it is in OAR!

 

[Tino]

Does anyone here think they may eventually release this Blu-ray set in 4x3?