What's new

Last Emperor uncropped (1 Viewer)

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben


I understand you want to address this in a practical manner, but what is the reality of the situation here though?

 

Was the decision to license TLE to Criterion really Bertolucci's and Storaro's to make? And would they (Bertolucci in particular) have realistically pushed to have it released by some other lessor distributor if Criterion objected? And w/ TLE probably being not much of a $$$ maker, which is probably at least partially why it was licensed to Criterion at all, would B&S really hold that much influence over release decisions if the licensing rights did go to some other distributor? They are pretty much bound to lose a few sales over such controversy for such a film given the limited target market, so any distributor may need to consider that -- and Storaro's 2:1 controversy should not have been new news to anyone of significance in the context of Criterion's release of TLE.

 

_Man_
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
True, but I highly doubt Criterion simply released it this way without a back-and-forth discussion. They publicly stated that Bertolucci specifically told them to heed to Storaro, so by that we can infer the topic came up for debate/discussion when preparing the release. Criterion also publicly stated they were stuck in an undesirable position due to this request. It is what it is, and I see little point in laying the blame on the middle man (Criterion) between the decision makers (Bertoluccu & Storaro) and the consumers.
 

Jarod M

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 2000
Messages
180
 

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway



Â
There's a vast - VAST - difference between a studio releasing a product they OWN outright, and a company LICENSING a film for distribution that I can GUARANTEE stipulates in the contractual agreement that the filmmakers have final approval of the released product. The situations are night and day.

Â
But, you know, breaching a contract should be something Criterion doesn't give two seconds thought about...
Â
Who puts the gun to their head and makes Criterion sign the contract? I'm sure Criterion has their own fill-in-the-blank contracts, and they know exactly what rights they do and don't have before they enter into the agreement. And it's not like this controversy is anything new. Criterion knew exactly what they were getting into when they agreed to release the product. So, the answer is easy-don't enter into an agreement that allows Storaro to implement his changes. If this isn't alright with the distribution company, then just don't sign the contract. It's not like The Last Emperor is Armageddon, where the financial well being of the company depends on releasing this one movie.
 
 

John Hodson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
4,627
Location
Bolton, Lancashire
Real Name
John
EDIT; comment deleted in favour of something more suitable -

 

Mr. Vibrating: Come in.
Man: Um, is this the right room for an argument?
Mr. Vibrating: I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't.
Mr. Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?
Mr. Vibrating: Just now.
Man: No you didn't.
Mr. Vibrating: I did.
Man: Didn't.
Mr. Vibrating: Did.
Man: Didn't.
Mr. Vibrating: I'm telling you I did.
Man: You did not.
Mr. Vibrating: Oh I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Man: Oh, just the five minutes.
Mr. Vibrating: Ah, thank you. Anyway I did.
Man: You most certainly did not.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, let's get this thing quite clear. I most definitely told you
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
 

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/303017/last-emperor-uncropped#post_3719558
 There's a vast - VAST - difference between a studio releasing a product they OWN outright, and a company LICENSING a film for distribution that I can GUARANTEE stipulates in the contractual agreement that the filmmakers have final approval of the released product. The situations are night and day.

 

Let me ask this then. Have you *actually* seen the wording in such a licensing agreement that Criterion typically makes (or specific to this case perhaps)? OR is this at least backed by people in the know?

 

It just seems odd that many of those same production companies don't really seem to care that much about the filmmakers' wishes but would then turn around and negotiate a distribution agreement that forces the distributors' hands for titles that are intended for limited target audiences/markets. And in this case, the distributor is not exactly some unprincipled, two-bit, fly-by-night operation that wouldn't care to do the right thing afterall. If they would ever not require such a thing in writing, it'd be w/ Criterion me thinks. Of course, they really wanted it, I certainly wouldn't doubt they'd get it in writing anyway -- that just the way the bizz works -- but it just doesn't seem all that likely to me that someone other than B&S would care enough to stipulate this unless it were B&S themselves who got this written into the agreements (at some level or other).

 

_Man_
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
FWIW, I'm not suggesting let's get out the pitch forks, etc. and lynch Criterion or anything remotely like that.

 

My original comment was simply to the effect that Criterion didn't get the TLE release right (regardless of what other surrounding issues may be involved to partially displace any blame). To me, it was mainly a mistake on Criterion's part to either get themselves cornered into a bad position or to "blindly follow" a given policy (or possibly both). Yes, the primary blame should of course still go to Storaro given what has been known all along.

 

_Man_
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben


What backpedaling is that? Criterion *still* deserves some blame for not getting it right.

 

If there's a legal problem there, they got themselves in it in the first place -- and quite likely due to their stance on their policy to always submit to the filmmaker's wishes.

 

If they believe they needed to make such compromises (including entering certain legal obligations) for the greater good, so be it, but that's still their decision -- and they will deserve *both* the (admittedly much greater) credit and the (likely rare) blame for such consequences. Just because they do what they do (and usually w/ great results) doesn't mean we need to become their fanboys or the like though...

 

_Man_
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
I'm wondering what the point of this thread is.
The title could offer more info.

Also isn't there already a long discussion about the cropping? Everyone already knows this is cropped, isn't exactly recent news.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Now, I think we should blame it all on Peter Neski for restarting this whole thing -- never-you-mind that I let myself get sucked into it in the first place.

 

_Man_
 

Peter Neski

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,191
Me?? First of All ,Theres a couple fine Pal DVD's in 2.35:1So Unlike AN(well till Now) its just not NTSC,The Criteron is worth

getting for longer version and extras,I am sorry but I haven't figured out new sony software so I couldn't do any better

with the captures,The dvds are very nice and I just hope if they do Euro BR its region free

 

The Idea that Bertollucci is being blamed for the cropping because somehow he OKed having Storaro do the transfer

I would like to have more facts about that before we start blaming him,I am sure he had little to do with the transfer

 

When this mess was brought up the first time,I felt I and most were upset ,but I saw a lot of emails saying they

were happy with the BR and it was just a little cropping,same with AN! at least you can see from my poor

captures ,some wonderful shots that should never been cropped

 
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
At this point, there's just not much we can do about it. All we can do is let the powers-that-be know we're unhappy w/ the 2:1 crop -- and inform any potential buyers who doesn't know that the Criterion version is substantially MARed -- and then just hope for an eventual proper release on BD.

 

Criterion probably won't own the rights to TLE for quite that long, so maybe the next licensee (or the property owner itself) will override Storaro's hack-job and give us a proper OAR release. Hopefully, if/when that happens, something else doesn't go wrong w/ the transfer...

 

_Man_
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Originally Posted by Peter Neski
The Idea that Bertollucci is being blamed for the cropping because somehow he OKed having Storaro do the transfer I would like to have more facts about that before we start blaming him,I am sure he had little to do with the transfer

 
 

I'll post it here since it lays out the facts:

 

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/713-emperor-2-0

 

"We’re getting a huge amount of mail about our edition of The Last Emperor, specifically about the aspect ratio, which is 2:1. Some people seem to believe that we’ve lost our minds, forsaken our mission, and taken it upon ourselves to crop the sides off the picture. Others assume we just got careless. Either way, a rising chorus is asking how we could do this to Vittorio Storaro’s Academy Award–winning compositions. And to Bernardo Bertolucci’s framing. The answer is, we couldn’t, and we wouldn’t, and we didn’t do anything to violate the filmmakers’ wishes. This is the way the filmmakers want the film to be seen.


From the start of this project, Bertolucci has insisted that Storaro have ultimate approval of the mastering of the feature. This master was made in Rome under Storaro’s direct supervision, with Bertolucci’s approval. When we asked Storaro about the framing of the film, he unhesitatingly told us that the correct aspect ratio for The Last Emperor was 2:1, even though the film was commonly projected at 2.35:1. He told us that The Last Emperor was the first film he shot specifically for 2.0 framing, and Bertolucci backs him up. Our mission is to present each film as its makers would want it to be seen, and in this case the director and cinematographer asked that we release their film in the format they say they had always envisioned. We had quite a lot of discussion over this, and we certainly knew it would be controversial, but in the end the decision was not made by us. It was made, as it should be, by the filmmakers.

I can understand how people might be upset about this. The general rule of thumb where widescreen films is concerned is that wider is better, but in this case it’s not so obvious. I recently had the pleasure of joining producer Jeremy Thomas at a screening of The Last Emperor, and I asked him about this issue. Was it really true that they had envisioned the film less wide than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in which it was commonly screened? Thomas said that they had originally hoped that all of the original release prints would be in 70 mm, framed at 2.2:1 or 2:1, but not 2.35:1 or 2.33:1. Thomas said Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release.

So, in short, while some viewers may prefer the wider framing, the filmmakers must have the final say. This is not a case of our losing track of our mission, but rather one of being true to it."
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
None taken. Aside from heeding Bertolucci and Storaro's (not Criterion's) spin that "it was always meant for 2.00:1", I don't really see why Criterion should be criticized. It's all there in black and white - they felt bound to follow the wishes of the filmmakers, which 99.99999999999% of the time is the correct move. This just happens to be the case of that 0.00000000000001%.
 

Peter Neski

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,191
"I can understand how people might be upset about this. The general rule of thumb where widescreen films is concerned is that wider is better, but in this case it’s not so obvious. I recently had the pleasure of joining producer Jeremy Thomas at a screening of The Last Emperor, and I asked him about this issue. Was it really true that they had envisioned the film less wide than the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in which it was commonly screened? Thomas said that they had originally hoped that all of the original release prints would be in 70 mm, framed at 2.2:1 or 2:1, but not 2.35:1 or 2.33:1. Thomas said Storaro and Bertolucci filled the wider frame knowing that there would be 2.35:1 prints in circulation as well, but that they always knew they were shooting a format wider than what they hoped to release."

 

Thats why I posted those screen caps! BULL and 2.2 isn't what Storaro gave us either
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,816
Messages
5,123,861
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top