Jaws - Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Cinescott]

Digital tinkering is a debate with no real right answer. Directors have every moral right to do it, but the preservationists have a right as well to see the movie they remember. With the exception of extremes ala Star Wars, I don't have much of an issue with it. If a director wants to remove wires because of the high resolution of Blu-ray, that's fine. If the director takes a hard line and says he won't do it, that's fine with me too. Wires and matte lines don't bother me, nor do I agree with what Richard Donner was implying recently that Blu-ray creates problems with visible lines, etc. If the transfer is a true representation of the master, then it's fine in my book. No problem.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It's been 9 years since the E.T. revisions. People's views do not remain static; they change as one's knowledge base increases. Spielberg's informed opinion now, some 10 years after 9/11, is that digital tinkering should not be done. It is no less valid or relevant than his opinion at the time changes were made to E.T.; those changes were made in response to the political climate at the time. If he considers them no longer necessary, that should be the end of the discussion.

 

[RobertR]

It would be nice if George Lucas acknowledged that he's changed his mind about some things over the years, instead of giving us all this "my original vision" nonsense.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by cafink

I am positively elated to hear such a prominent director speaking out so strongly against digital tinkering, even of the kind sometimes considered innocuous, like wire removal. I have no problem with a "special edition" being released, but I always want the original alongside it. It sounds like that's not something I have to worry about with Speilberg films, and I'm very pleased to hear it.

Talking about wire removal. Back in 1998 Warner's re-released THE WIZARD OF OZ and had a handful of IB Technicolor prints produced for theatres that would commit to play the film in it's OAR. We played one of the prints and that was the first time I saw the wires manipulating the Lion's tail. Of course none of the TV broadcasts were clear enough to see it nor were the theatrical re-releases that clear. The blu-ray was and I find the wires in view to be a product of the time and not obtrusive. Nor would I find the wires on the airplanes in 1941

 

[Kevin EK]

While you're at it with Wizard of Oz, the Blu-ray makes an obvious issue just pop off the screen - that being the backdrop behind the set, which is easily visible in almost every shot. On the other hand, that's part of the movie's charm.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I'll have to look for the wires on the Lion's tail. Never

caught that one before.


But, as Kevin mentioned -- and something I have brought

up previously -- the first time I watched THE WIZARD OF

OZ on Blu-ray, particularly when Dorothy first steps into

Munchkinland, was "Oh My God! It's a soundstage."


I mean, naturally the movie was filmed on a soundstage

but up until seeing it in High-Def you never really were

taken out of the magic of the Oz landscape.


Visit our

DVD,

BLU-RAY and

3D REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

[ahollis]

The wires on the lion's tail are charming and the IB Tech print also gave you that soundstage feeling. I understand that what I saw in the 1998 release was just about equal to what audiences saw in 1939. And the Blu-ray captures that, while the DVD did not.

Funny story about the wires for the Lion's tail. When we screened the Oz print in 1998, the wires were so noticeable that the projectionist spent 20 minutes trying to find out what was causing the scratch on the print. big laugh was had when someone said the scratch is moving the lions tail.

 

[Rick Thompson]

I have no problem with, for example, wire removal. You can see them in the George Pal/Byron Haskins War of the Worlds (as the Martian ships rise from the landscape in their first appearance) and they're a distraction. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have removed them had the technology been there to do so. I can see the absolute purists who want to see wires and all, but only if they convince me that, in this case, Pal and Haskins wanted to show everyone the seams in their special effects.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Picked up LICENCE TO KILL on Blu and for the first time noticed the wire holding the truck aloft when Bond does his "wheelie" toward the end. I'd love not to see that, or any wire for that matter. The 53 WAR OF THE WORLDS is a catastrophe in that regard.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think when considering wire removal, one of the things that needs to be thought about by whoever is doing the digital work is how the film was originally released. By that, I mean, years ago, film stocks were not as fine-grained and sensitive as they are now. A director or cinematographer could shoot something knowing that while the wire might be visible on the negative, by the time they went through the various dupe stages to get to final release print, the combination of being several generations removed from the negative and the printing stock would hide the wires completely. The filmmakers in those cases never imagined that the original negative would one day be scanned and that those wires would be visible to an audience. In those instances, I have no problem with doing a digital wire removal. In that case, you're using a digital tool to accomplish what the film printing processes of the time accomplished then - in other words, staying true to the intent of the filmmakers.


On the other hand, if it's a film where the wires had always been visible, dating back to the theatrical release prints, then the decision to do it becomes a little more iffy. If the filmmakers sign off on it, I generally don't have a problem with the decision. If the filmmakers have since passed away, I think it becomes a little bit harder to decide, but in the end, if the decision is being made by someone familiar with the film and its history, as opposed to a technician making the change without consulting with the studio or restoration person supervising the work, I'm probably fine with it. In the end, you want to preserve the integrity of the original theatrical experience - on the other hand, if it's an imperfection that's made the director cringe for thirty years and he just didn't have the tools to do anything about it at the time of the release, it's understandable.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Excellent reading here guys. Really loving this. Thanks.



Visit our

DVD,

BLU-RAY and

3D REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

The wires WERE removed from The Wizard of Oz blu-ray.

 

[robbbb1138]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg

I think when considering wire removal, one of the things that needs to be thought about by whoever is doing the digital work is how the film was originally released. By that, I mean, years ago, film stocks were not as fine-grained and sensitive as they are now. A director or cinematographer could shoot something knowing that while the wire might be visible on the negative, by the time they went through the various dupe stages to get to final release print, the combination of being several generations removed from the negative and the printing stock would hide the wires completely. The filmmakers in those cases never imagined that the original negative would one day be scanned and that those wires would be visible to an audience. In those instances, I have no problem with doing a digital wire removal. In that case, you're using a digital tool to accomplish what the film printing processes of the time accomplished then - in other words, staying true to the intent of the filmmakers.


On the other hand, if it's a film where the wires had always been visible, dating back to the theatrical release prints, then the decision to do it becomes a little more iffy. If the filmmakers sign off on it, I generally don't have a problem with the decision. If the filmmakers have since passed away, I think it becomes a little bit harder to decide, but in the end, if the decision is being made by someone familiar with the film and its history, as opposed to a technician making the change without consulting with the studio or restoration person supervising the work, I'm probably fine with it. In the end, you want to preserve the integrity of the original theatrical experience - on the other hand, if it's an imperfection that's made the director cringe for thirty years and he just didn't have the tools to do anything about it at the time of the release, it's understandable.

I agree with this distinction 100%. An HD conversion that reveals previously-unseen wires or FX trickery is equally as unrepresentative of a director's original intentions as making CGI changes to a classic.

 

[TravisR]

Anyone who says that they want the original theatrical version preserved on video should want the original version warts and all. While there's certainly a difference between wire removal and Greedo shooting first, a change is still a change.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by eric scott richard

The wires WERE removed from The Wizard of Oz blu-ray.

You are right, I guess it was the DVD I was remembering. Looking at it tonight, I kind of miss those wires.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by TravisR

Anyone who says that they want the original theatrical version preserved on video should want the original version warts and all. While there's certainly a difference between wire removal and Greedo shooting first, a change is still a change.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. As I mentioned above, due to changes in film technology and what sources were used, sometimes removing the wires is staying true to the original theatrical version. Afterall - if a director or DP does a shot with wires, knowing full well that the release print will be four or five generations removed, and that the wires will have been removed from the image as a result of generational loss and film stocks, and chose to do the shot in that particular way counting on those things being a factor - is it true to the original theatrical version to then present an HD transfer that shows things the director intentionally used the technology of the time to have been made invisible in the release print? If we're going to stick to a literal definition of "original theatrical version," by that standard, Blu-rays should only be made from release prints and not from original negatives or interpositives. And yet, studios often choose to use negatives or interpositives either because a release print is no longer available, or because it's been scratched/dirtied/otherwise ruined over the years.

The thing to take into account is that not everything on the original negative is necessarily meant to be seen by the audience. For me, when I see a Blu-ray, I want to see everything that the filmmakers originally wanted me to see if I sat down in a theater on opening to see the film. I think to a degree, especially at places like HTF, we understand that not everything on the negative is meant to be seen - afterall, 1.85:1 films are shot on a negative that captures a 1.33:1 image, and yet, we understand that we're not supposed to see the top and bottom of the frame that's been matted out by the filmmakers. We may have once seen an unmatted version on a fullscreen VHS from back in the day, but we also understand that more is not always more, that we weren't meant to see those parts of the frame. For things like wire removal, I think it's a very similar thing: if the wires were never visible in the release prints, we weren't meant to see them. Today's technology allows us to make an HD transfer directly from the negative, whereas people seeing the film on its original theatrical release would not have been watching the actual camera negative. Artistic and technical choices were and are made by fimmakers after the shooting and editing stops; the choice of which release stock to use, for example, isn't taken lightly. Since a Blu-ray is most likely made from something before the release print, I think it's important for the people making the Blu-ray to understand the choices that went into the original exhibition, whether it be how the frame was meant to be matted or what release stock the print was made on - and to have the Blu-ray reflect those choices.


In other words, I would make the argument that the change in some -- but not all -- films would be presenting things on Blu-ray that were never part of the original theatrical experience. If the wires were never visible in any release print ever, in my opinion it would be a change to have a Blu-ray that showed something that had never been present in the release at any time in that film's history. Preserving the original theatrical experience in my opinion would therefore involve using digital wire removal tools the way that the filmmakers used dupes and release stocks to remove those wires from the picture back in the days before digital. Now, if we're talking a film where on its original release in theaters, the wires were clearly visible to theatergoers, then I think you have to leave them in. But if the new HD transfer reveals things that the filmmakers intentionally used the technology of their time to have erased from the theatrical screening (by hiding wires behind grain structure and generation loss), I think using a newer technology (digital) to keep the look of the HD master consistent with the original theatrical experience is fine.


Just as there's such a thing as seeing too much picture by having the tops and bottoms of a 1.85:1 film unmatted for a fullscreen video that was never the filmmaker's intention, there's such a thing as seeing too much detail, that was never meant to be seen. It's a very fine balancing act and that's why I think it's so important that the people making these decisions are people who are familiar not only with the element that was used for the transfer but also with how the film actually looked upon its release. A film's negative is only the beginning of the experience, not the end - and while it often makes sense to go back to the negative to get the best possible HD scan, it's also important to take note of the artistic and technical decisions that were made by the filmmakers in going from that negative to the final release print.


Personally, I don't want to see wires that I wouldn't have seen if I had went to the film on opening night. But if those wires were visible in those original prints, then I would agree that they've always been part of the experience of seeing that film, and should be preserved in any and all future formats the film is released in. I want the film warts-and-all as it was originally presented, but I don't want any extra warts that are new to the HD version of the film. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there can't be one rule to govern all of these decisions; these things really do need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

If you still have friends that aren't convinced about widescreen yet,make them watch the Robert Shaw indianapolis speech

but keep your eyes on Dreyfuss listening,


i love how the clip starts with Dreyfuss making a gag about the tattoo,but Shaw doesnt really laugh like Scheider and then goes into his speech






From the digitalbits website


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents


which includes the Aintitcool interview and a long list of catalog titles which should get you a better way to salivate instead

of that trick about creating saliva by eating rocks in the desert.


And Bill Hunt finishes that article by stating this,and i agree.


We think that's a pretty damn serious list of great films ! And we also think it firsmly crushes and puts the lie to these silly reports

that have appeared in the "mainstream" media in recent months that the Blu-ray format either hasn't hit its stride yet,

has failed to go mainstream,or is soon to be relegated to the great format graveyard.We'd bet the titles listed above are going to sell a LOT

of discs and a LOT of players over the next 12 to 24 months.Niche format,my ass. ; )


lastly this little gem

 

[Brisby]

Originally Posted by montrealfilmguy A decade ago, most people still had 1:33.1 sets, but I'd hazard the majority of eople these days have some form of widescreen television set. Hell, most TV shows are shot in 1:85.1 now. You probably have to worry more about 1:33.1 TV shows and movie being cropped into a fake "widescreen" image these days

 

[montrealfilmguy]

I do know a few folks who do have widescreen tv's but STILL think they're missing out on something with the black bars,and somehow feel cheated.


this all depends on the ratio.1.85 is usually ok,but if i make the parents and the aunts watch The sound of music or How the west was won in 2.35,bingo!


i get out the rulers and start explaining the shapes of squares and rectangles.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

When I was in college working at a video store and DVD really took over, a whole audience of people not used to widescreen VHS tapes were suddenly flooded with widescreen DVDs. I remember taking a still from - I don't remember what, but it was something similar to the above scene. I did a crop to 4:3 and made that picture smaller than the 2.35:1 image, and I'd use that to show customers. Of course, some people still were adamantly opposed to any dead space on their TVs, but most suddenly "got it". What I found more shocking to begin with is the mindset of "getting less" because of the black bars, and they seemed surprised that there was more picture because of the black bars. Like, did these people think that studios were just putting black bars on the image for the sake of annoying them and taking away part of the picture arbitrarily?