International Studio Canal Basic Instinct Restoration (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Neil S. Bulk]

Restoration??? Please.

"Speaking about the lengthy restoration process, Studiocanal project manager Sophie Boyer said the team at Hiventy Laboratory noticed a problem with the negative that was used at the start. 'We quickly realized that the negatives corresponded to the short version of the film' and that 'some shots from the most erotic scenes were censored in the United States.'

'We went looking for these cuts: their negatives had disappeared, but we found them in the internegative. Thanks to this, we were able to restore the full length version of the film, the only version that Paul Verhoeven wanted to have restored,' explained Boyer."

 

[Will Krupp]

Where would a dupe negative come from?

At the risk of sounding silly, wouldn't it just be the printing negative that was struck from the camera negative and used for European release prints? I mean, they weren't still making direct contact release prints from camera negatives in 1992 were they?

"Speaking about the lengthy restoration process, Studiocanal project manager Sophie Boyer said the team at Hiventy Laboratory noticed a problem with the negative that was used at the start. 'We quickly realized that the negatives corresponded to the short version of the film' and that 'some shots from the most erotic scenes were censored in the United States.'

'We went looking for these cuts: their negatives had disappeared, but we found them in the internegative. Thanks to this, we were able to restore the full length version of the film, the only version that Paul Verhoeven wanted to have restored,' explained Boyer."

Not to speak for Bruce (or anyone else) but what I think he means is that it just seems odd to refer to the remastering of a movie from 1992 as a "restoration" and I have to say that I agree. The longer director's cut is already available and on video so I'm not sure what's been "restored." Just my two cents.

 

[Joseph Goodman]

At the risk of sounding silly, wouldn't it just be the printing negative that was struck from the camera negative and used for European release prints? I mean, they weren't still making direct contact release prints from camera negatives in 1992 were they?

You wouldn't print an internegative from a negative (except during the timeframe CRI was available), you would first have to make an interpositive from your negative, and then print an internegative from that. Not to speak for him, but what RAH is asking is, "If these scenes are in an internegative, what happened to the interpositive they were printed from?".

 

[Will Krupp]

You wouldn't print an internegative from a negative (except during the timeframe CRI was available), you would first have to make an interpositive from your negative, and then print an internegative from that.

I'm sorry, I left that out of the equation when I was speaking but I did know that. Would they have sent an interpositive to foreign distributors as well as dupe negatives?

 

[Joseph Goodman]

I would imagine so?

 

[titch]

Both THE ELEPHANT MAN and DON'T LOOK NOW looked superb in 4k from this studio.

In fact, I would say THE ELEPHANT MAN is the best 4k presentation I have ever seen as far as picture quality is concerned.

Yes - and that was because both 4K UHD masters were done by David Mackenzie at Fidelity In Motion. StudioCanal, as the publisher, only delivers the finished product.

 

[B-ROLL]

I suspect the majority of average buyers will be looking for more of Sharon Stone from a release standpoint. (Especially Canadians EH )

 

[haineshisway]

At the risk of sounding silly, wouldn't it just be the printing negative that was struck from the camera negative and used for European release prints? I mean, they weren't still making direct contact release prints from camera negatives in 1992 were they?



Not to speak for Bruce (or anyone else) but what I think he means is that it just seems odd to refer to the remastering of a movie from 1992 as a "restoration" and I have to say that I agree. The longer director's cut is already available and on video so I'm not sure what's been "restored." Just my two cents.

You speak for me just fine The word "restoration" has lost all meaning and I'm tired of seeing it used improperly by these companies.

 

[Joseph Goodman]

Yes - and that was because both 4K UHD masters were done by David Mackenzie at Fidelity In Motion. StudioCanal, as the publisher, only delivers the finished product.

Fidelity In Motion did not do the restoration for for those two films, they just did the encodes and other disc authoring for the Studiocanal discs, as that is what they do; they are not a restoration house.

 

[Chewbabka]

I'm hopeful this release looks good. This movie has had mediocre transfers over the years.

"Mediocre" is a generous descriptor for the U.S. Blu-Ray. I tried to watch it last summer, and I had to stop. People looked like wax figures with multiple heads as they moved across the screen (only a slight exaggeration...). Fortunately I turned it off before I had an opportunity to see Michael Douglas's aliased ass.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

"Mediocre" is a generous descriptor for the U.S. Blu-Ray. I tried to watch it last summer, and I had to stop. People looked like wax figures with multiple heads as they moved across the screen (only a slight exaggeration...). Fortunately I turned it off before I had an opportunity to see Michael Douglas's aliased ass.

Could make alliterative descriptors here all day... "grainy gluteus", "pixelated posterior", "botched buttocks"....

 

[Chewbabka]

Could make alliterative descriptors here all day... "grainy gluteus", "pixelated posterior", "botched buttocks"....

cheerless cheeks

 

[titch]

Fidelity In Motion did not do the restoration wor for those two films, they just did the encodes and other disc authoring for the Studiocanal discs, as that is what they do; they are not a restoration house.

Never said they did the restorations. But they did the mastering/encoding for the discs. And there is a difference when Fidelity In Motion do the disc mastering for the same video master, compared to someone else. Compare the German 4K UHD Oldboy with the Arrow 4K UHD. Same scanned master delivered to both companies. Two different results.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

What I got from RAH's comment was how is there an inter-negative with extended scenes if there wasn't an OCN (or inter-positive) with them in the first place? My guess is that after a European dupe negative was made, cuts were again made to the OCN to satisfy the MPAA for an R rating.

I presume restoration was also necessary as one particular scene/shot was printed over and over and over and over requiring many, many man-hours of meticulous attention.

 

[Dave H]

"Mediocre" is a generous descriptor for the U.S. Blu-Ray. I tried to watch it last summer, and I had to stop. People looked like wax figures with multiple heads as they moved across the screen (only a slight exaggeration...). Fortunately I turned it off before I had an opportunity to see Michael Douglas's aliased ass.

Agreed. I bought the UK version which uses the same master, but less/no DNR. However, it's still nothing special to be sure and something is off with the audio.

I think this movie, properly remastered (to perhaps use the more correct words), can/should look beautiful given the cinematography of the film given the dark, shadowy, almost ominous look of the night and interior shots. Maybe HDR can even help in the range of these scenes?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The OCN would have been originally conformed to the longer version, and then an IP/IN would have been made. After that was completed, it appears the OCN was then recut to conform to the shorter R-rated versions, and the cut pieces lost to time - ownership of this title has changed so many times that it’s easy to imagine them being misplaced.

 

[Will Krupp]

What I got from RAH's comment was how is there an inter-negative with extended scenes if there wasn't an OCN (or inter-positive) with them in the first place?

I assume there WAS but, once the film was cut and locked for US distribution, it seems the OCN was cut to conform to the US version. One has to also assume that they had already made an IP and dupe negatives of the longer version that were sent to foreign markets prior to the "editing" of the US cut.

 

[Will Krupp]

The OCN would have been originally conformed to the longer version, and then an IP/IN would have been made. After that was completed, it appears the OCN was then recut to conform to the shorter R-rated versions, and the cut pieces lost to time - ownership of this title has changed so many times that it’s easy to imagine them being misplaced.

Jinxies!!!

 

[RCRochester]

I suspect the majority of average buyers will be looking for more of Sharon Stone from a release standpoint. (Especially Canadians EH )

 

[cineMANIAC]

"Mediocre" is a generous descriptor for the U.S. Blu-Ray. I tried to watch it last summer, and I had to stop. People looked like wax figures with multiple heads as they moved across the screen (only a slight exaggeration...). Fortunately I turned it off before I had an opportunity to see Michael Douglas's aliased ass.

It's funny, back before I knew what DNR was I thought Basic Instinct was one of the best-looking discs in my collection. Thanks to these forums over the years I've received a first class education in what film restoration actually should look like

I'm actually a tad bit concerned about this not being up to snuff. Hopefully Studiocanal's love affair with DNR isn't as serious as it was back in the early days of DVD. I don't have a whole lot of Studiocanal discs in my collection but I do know that their restoration work can and has been inconsistent. This one's a biggie so I hope it gets a great scan this time.