DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The War of the Worlds (1953) - Special Collector's Edition (Recommended) (1 Viewer)

[BarryR]

Has anyone read about this "wires" situation on Hollywood Elsewhere.com? Scan down until you see the Martian spacecraft photo. Robert Harris gives his opinion regarding the visible wires:

erase 'em

He explains >why< far better than I can, so go look.

 

[Dave Mack]

I went to that site and just saw menu pages. Can you post a direct link?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Same thing with me.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Dave Mack wrote:


Found it @ http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/

Paul

 

[GregK]

I agree 110% Peter!

IMHO, digitally removing the wires as a fix would be doing two wrongs to make a right.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The problem is that it's more than just timing (though that's a big part). According to the article Paul references, the entire process of dye-transfer printing and optical proceses all converged to make such anomolies obscured in the orignal prints.

The article is a good one. It also goes a long way to resonating with what many of us have been trying to communicate...that we're not talking about "revisionist" digital meddling like Lucas...we're talking about restoring the digital DVD presentation to look like the original PROJECTED PRINTS. That's not heresy--that's preservation.

 

[Kevin M]

Oops....well well well, how do you like dem apples?

 

[PeterTHX]

Gah!

I said what RH said back on post #66!

No respect! :frowning:

 

[Kevin M]

No disrespect intended towards you Peter, but it is refreshing nonetheless to hear a professional like Robert echo "our" sentiments.

 

[Mark Lucas]

Let the wires stay intact. Digital wire removal wasn't available in the 1950s and The War of the Worlds (1953) should reflect this.

 

[BarryR]

But, as Mr. Harris states, the new printing negates the intention of the filmmakers, and "takes you out of the picture." That's why for instance matte lines were erased from Ben Hur's latest incarnation. Who minded that?

I'm actually relieved to hear Mr. Harris's words; makes me feel less like a clueless revisionist.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Mark,

The litany of discussion here has been anything but that simlistic. Read the column linked to by Paul http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/ and you'll get a better idea of what folks have been talking about...how the new appearance has enhanced the visibility of many production artifacts that were MUCH LESS VISIBLE in the original projected prints.

The point Mark, is that in the 1950's audiences saw an image that looked very different than this DVD to begin with, inluding much less visible, and much less distracing, special-effects signatures.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If the esteemed Robert Harris says it's okay, it must be correct. After his brilliant work in restoring VERTIGO to Hitchcock's original vision, inclusive of enhanced foley effects, I'd say this is a man who knows what he's talking about.

While they're at it, some of those process shots are a little weak. I'm sure that George Pal wouldn't mind someone fixing those problems as well.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'm sure George Pal wouldn't mind a presentation that strives to capture, as accurately as possible, the look he intended for the original projected prints so that artifacts he didn't want to become a distraction would, in fact, not become so.



If anyone would take the time to read that article completely, you'll see that RAH's comments are offered in the context of preserving the appearance of the *original projected print* as the point of REFERENCE. He's not talking about "hey, I can make this look better with digital!!" tweaking mentality.

 

[GregK]

But wasn't the intended look of the original prints to be darker? Forgetting the registration & detail issues mentioned in the article, because we seem to agree and understand the new version(s) are sharper and have more detail. The issue is Paramount continues to push the timing further away from the intended look of the theatrical presentation.

To me, here's the big question- If the DVD were TIMED to at least somewhat match the original prints, would we be having this big problem with the wires? I don't think so.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

 

[Scott Kimball]

It should be remembered that there is no cut and dried, right or wrong, here. In any kind of artistic restoration, every action has consequences. This type of restoration is more art than science - and as such, artisans who undertake the project filter said project through their own perceptions and preferences.


And this is illustrative of why many choose to take a more conservative approach. The whole, "While we're at it..." phenomenon...

I, too, would prefer that the contrast values more closely match original prints. Regardless of improved definition, that would go a long way to reducing wire visibility without taking a patch and paint approach.

-Scott

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Scott expresses it very well. And kudos to pointing out that choices during restoration are indeed characterized much more as an "art" than an emperical science.

 

[GregK]

..Have you? It appears some are still advocating removing the wires instead of fixing the primary problem.