Wizard of Oz in blu ray - Wire Removal ?? (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

Stephen got to it first.
I agree with him.

You can't say anything to convince me that wire removal is reason enough to avoid a movie and I won't get you to see my side.

I think being someone who wants the film to be as close to the original as possible is great but worrying about the wires is picking the wrong battle, not important enough.

 

[Scott-S]

I wish they would stop removing the dust and scratches as well. That is what the audience saw, so we should too. LOL

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Scott-S /img/forum/go_quote.gif">
I wish they would stop removing the dust and scratches as well. That is what the audience saw, so we should too. LOL

Yeah, they're historical dust and scratches and, therefore, need to be preserved for posterity.

 

[mattCR]

Because those wires were part of the film as it was originally shot, and I, for one, enjoy watching films as they were originally created and released, especially films as culturally important as The Wizard of Oz. I could just as easily ask you why you don't feel that you need a reason to preserve historically significant films in their original form.

This to me is ridiculous. It was not the filmmakers intent to have them visible. And, based on what we know, by their projection and distribution technologies then, they worked to remove them so projectors of the day would show them as not visible.

Here, we are battling a problem which isn't true of the original film. The digitization process of the film allows things which were never visible before to be visible, which creates new issues.

I'll give an example not Wizard of Oz.. let's say they decide tomorrow to do a complete re-do of "The Muppet Movie" for bluray. The technology used to hide the wiring and string harnesses would be visible today, because the method used at the time (overlay) isn't on the original print at all...

So, do you scan the original print and just assert "that's how it should be?" The director never, ever intended for that to happen, and the audience viewing at the theaters at the time of release never saw it that way.
Sometimes purity goes too far. The first time I saw "Empire Strikes Back" I watched it in a movietheater that used reel exchanges (common at the time) on a 20' screen. Which meant, at exactly 20 minutes in, there would be a corner of the screen go dead black and it was the trigger to switch reels. Later they did the similar event with a "cigarette burn" and that's how audiences would see it in the theater.

If I watch Empire now, do I want to see it every 20 minutes with a blotch in the right hand top corner? Hell no.

I think there is some idea that we can't "alter" films to a directors intent because of seeming major re-works (see: Star Wars). But returning them to the position as they were "clearly meant to be seen" is only fitting.

I've never complained that in later prints the boom mike was removed from "Speed" so it was not visible in a mirror. I don't think that change ruined the film. The director never intended it. etc.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I've got no problem with them removing wires or other things that were never meant to be part of the viewing experience. I want to believe a monkey can fly!

While I have an issue with replacing effects shots with CGI, using the Star Wars trilogy as an example, I would have no problem with removing matte lines which ruined the theatrical experience for me. Those were only there because they couldn't get rid of them, not because Lucas wanted a box around every ship in the frame.

 

[Rob Gilmore]

I seemed to have created a mini-controversy here.

Like Carl, I would object to a CGI rendering of the flying monkeys; however, I'll side with Mr. Harris on the subject of wire removal.

What interests me is that the folks responsible for the DVD release - just a few years ago - went out of their way in the documentary material to point out that they had "resisted" the temptation to remove the wire supporting Bert Lahr's tail. The fact that they had NOT removed the wire effect was actually a point of pride.

Since the dvd release, however, there has clearly been a change of heart.

I wonder if anyone involved in preparing "Oz" for blu-ray release would care to comment on this subject. I imagine that there must have been some debate inside WB regarding wire removal.

 

[Robert Harris]

While I can't speak for WB, I can tell you that during the early period in which OCNs were being digitally scanned, that there was a "wow factor" regarding the amount of additional information being harvested from the film during the process. Details that had never been seen before in the analogue world, which was the proper means of representing the films as they were designed to be seen, were popping up all around.
This was both good and bad. While one could see freckles on Judy Garland's face, they could also see that armor in The Adventures of Robin Hood was made of painted material. More highly resolved images revealed background cycloramas, hairpiece netting, wires and effects all far past a point that would have been acceptable by the filmmakers.
Those who have now been doing this work for awhile, are far more aware of what is and is not designed to be seen in the final print or video. A huge point of position here is the return to original prints for confirmation.
RAH

Originally Posted by Rob Gilmore /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I seemed to have created a mini-controversy here.
Like Carl, I would object to a CGI rendering of the flying monkeys; however, I'll side with Mr. Harris on the subject of wire removal.
What interests me is that the folks responsible for the DVD release - just a few years ago - went out of their way in the documentary material to point out that they had "resisted" the temptation to remove the wire supporting Bert Lahr's tail. The fact that they had NOT removed the wire effect was actually a point of pride.
Since the dvd release, however, there has clearly been a change of heart.
I wonder if anyone involved in preparing "Oz" for blu-ray release would care to comment on this subject. I imagine that there must have been some debate inside WB regarding wire removal.

 

[Robert Harris]

The rationale behind wire and physical artifact removal has nothing to do with the ability of the filmmaker to remove them in the past. The point is that there was no necessity to remove them. They could not be seen in final prints, and DPs of the time knew this with precision.
RAH

Originally Posted by cafink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Because those wires were part of the film as it was originally shot, and I, for one, enjoy watching films as they were originally created and released, especially films as culturally important as The Wizard of Oz. I could just as easily ask you why you don't feel that you need a reason to preserve historically significant films in their original form.
Robert Harris has characterized this view as "totally incorrect," and claimed that there are a number of reasons why this is so, but didn't actually say what any of those reasons are. I could never hope to know as much about film as the esteemed Mr. Harris, so I hope he's willing to share some of those reasons with us, so we can all have a more informed opinion on the subject.
As you have thus far been unwilling or unable to defend your position that it's okay to change films even decades after their director has died, except to dismiss opinions to the contrary as "ridiculous," I hope you'll listen to what he has to say, as well.

 

[Keith Paynter]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S /forum/thread/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal#post_3640615
Yeah, they're historical dust and scratches and, therefore, need to be preserved for posterity. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif

Charlie Brown: Don't think of it as dust. Think of it as maybe the soil of some great past civilization. Maybe the soil of ancient Babylon. It staggers the imagination. He may be carrying soil that was trod upon by Solomon, or even Nebuchudnezzar.
Pig-Pen: Sort of makes you want to treat me with more respect, doesn't it?
/img/vbsmilies/htf/biggrin.gif

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H /forum/thread/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal#post_3640597

Films with wire effects were always shot in such a way that the wires would not be visible in release prints, if at all possible. The DoP would light from certain angles to make the wires less visible, and filmmakers knew that since the film would typically be several generations away from the OCN, wire work would be obscured by the buildup of film grain from generation to generation.

By the late 1980s, digital effects were in their infancy and one of the earliest forms they took was wire removal, early examples being Die Hard 2 and The Hunt for Red October. One of the concerns at the time was that filmmakers would become lazy and not use established techniques to obscure wires, now that they knew that wire removal was available.

Personally, I put wire removal in the suspension of disbelief category. If I see wires, it takes me out of the movie. If I don't see them, much easier to enjoy the film for what it is. Comparing this with replacement of effects with CG "improvements" is really comparing apples to oranges. A fairer comparison would be the removal of the glass reflection in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

You say that it's an appples-to-oranges comparison, but what is really different about the two examples? Specifically, where do you draw the line between general improvements and those that relate to the suspension of disbelief? Personally, I find that visible wires don't take me out of the film. On the other end of the spectrum, another viewer might be taken out of the film by the makeup and prosthetic effects for the winged monkeys. Would you accept as legitimate his argument that they should be replaced?

Originally Posted by TonyD /forum/thread/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal#post_3640601

You can't say anything to convince me that wire removal is reason enough to avoid a movie and I won't get you to see my side.

How presumptuous of you.

Perhaps you have already made up your mind, and are unwilling to entertain opposing arguments. That is your prerogative. But don't presume that others are equally closed-minded on the subject. I, for one, am perfectly open to arguments supporting opinions in opposition to my own, which is why I asked Mr. Harris if he would be so kind as to share some. I would never claim to be an authority on the subject (certainly not as much so as Mr. Harris!), and so am eager to learn more so that my opinion, whatever it is, might be better informed. I think it's unfortunate that you aren't willing to do the same, since, in spite of the zeal with which you hold onto your opinion, your justification for that opinion doesn't seem to go any further than the simple dismissal of opinions to the contrary as "ridiculous." How fortunate that Stephen finally offered a coherent defense of your position.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal#post_3640737

The rationale behind wire and physical artifact removal has nothing to do with the ability of the filmmaker to remove them in the past. The point is that there was no necessity to remove them. They could not be seen in final prints, and DPs of the time knew this with precision.

RAH

Thanks for the clarification. I find fascinating that digital HD technology allows us to mine from a film details that were invisible during its original release. On its face, this is a good thing, but then it reveals things (like wires) that were obviously not meant to be seen. In the case of the wires, it's surely safe to assume that they were not meant to be seen. But what about other details in the film? How does one know what was and wasn't meant to be seen? It seems like the only way to be sure of getting this right is to simply reduce the overall level of detail to that which would have been seen during the original release, but it seems that nobody wants that. I guess I'll have to defer to your suggestion that "those who have now been doing this work for awhile, are far more aware of what is and is NOT designed to be seen."

Thanks again for sharing.

 

[Robert Harris]

To add a physical example, here is a frame of a 1939 dye transfer print as an example of contemporary resolution:

Originally Posted by cafink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You say that it's an appples-to-oranges comparison, but what is really different about the two examples? Specifically, where do you draw the line between general improvements and those that relate to the suspension of disbelief? Personally, I find that visible wires don't take me out of the film. On the other end of the spectrum, another viewer might be taken out of the film by the makeup and prosthetic effects for the winged monkeys. Would you accept as legitimate his argument that they should be replaced?
How presumptuous of you.
Perhaps you have already made up your mind, and are unwilling to entertain opposing arguments. That is your prerogative. But don't presume that others are equally closed-minded on the subject. I, for one, am perfectly open to arguments supporting opinions in opposition to my own, which is why I asked Mr. Harris if he would be so kind as to share some. I would never claim to be an authority on the subject (certainly not as much so as Mr. Harris!), and so am eager to learn more so that my opinion, whatever it is, might be better informed. I think it's unfortunate that you aren't willing to do the same, since, in spite of the zeal with which you hold onto your opinion, your justification for that opinion doesn't seem to go any further than the simple dismissal of opinions to the contrary as "ridiculous." How fortunate that Stephen finally offered a coherent defense of your position.
Thanks for the clarification. I find fascinating that digital HD technology allows us to mine from a film details that were invisible during its original release. On its face, this is a good thing, but then it reveals things (like wires) that were obviously not meant to be seen. In the case of the wires, it's surely safe to assume that they were not meant to be seen. But what about other details in the film? How does one know what was and wasn't meant to be seen? It seems like the only way to be sure of getting this right is to simply reduce the overall level of detail to that which would have been seen during the original release, but it seems that nobody wants that. I guess I'll have to defer to your suggestion that "those who have now been doing this work for awhile, are far more aware of what is and is NOT designed to be seen."
Thanks again for sharing.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Originally Posted by cafink /forum/thread/296086/wizard-of-oz-in-blu-ray-wire-removal#post_3640751
Thanks for the clarification. I find fascinating that digital HD technology allows us to mine from a film details that were invisible during its original release. On its face, this is a good thing, but then it reveals things (like wires) that were obviously not meant to be seen. In the case of the wires, it's surely safe to assume that they were not meant to be seen. But what about other details in the film? How does one know what was and wasn't meant to be seen? It seems like the only way to be sure of getting this right is to simply reduce the overall level of detail to that which would have been seen during the original release, but it seems that nobody wants that. I guess I'll have to defer to your suggestion that "those who have now been doing this work for awhile, are far more aware of what is and is NOT designed to be seen."

I think you may not be giving enough credit to the artists who worked on these films. As Robert says, these new transfers are pulling out detail that never would have been seen theatrically, because the filmmakers knew that by the time their work was duped these elements would disappear. This is where the mastery of filmmaking lies, not just creating an illusion, but knowing how the medium itself will translate once you get to the presentation point. If modern transfer methods are undoing some of this "magic", is it not up to those creating these new transfers to also understand what would and wouldn't be acceptable to the original creators, and try to compensate for it?

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Jeff Ulmer
I think you may not be giving enough credit to the artists who worked on these films. As Robert says, these new transfers are pulling out detail that never would have been seen theatrically, because the filmmakers knew that by the time their work was duped these elements would disappear. This is where the mastery of filmmaking lies, not just creating an illusion, but knowing how the medium itself will translate once you get to the presentation point. If modern transfer methods are undoing some of this "magic", is it not up to those creating these new transfers to also understand what would and wouldn't be acceptable to the original creators, and try to compensate for it

I understand what everyone is saying, but I played an IB Technicolor print of THE WIZARD OF OZ for the November 1998 release. This was the first time I saw the wires manipulating the Lion's tail. The wires were clearly visible and did not take away anything from the film. Along with the wires there many things I saw in the film for the first time as did many of the guests who saw that release. People were talking about what an experience it was to see it in the theatre and what detail there was in the film. And only a few knew that it was a rare event to see an IB Technicolor print.
So where does this place the wires in history. If they were seen in this print, were they not seen in 1939 and 1949. I truly love the Blu-ray and not seeing the wires does not hurt the film anymore than seeing the wires.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I believe I can safely assume that this was an IB print from the 1998 photochemical restoration, which would answer your question right off the bat. Printing technology from 1998 would be markedly different from that of 1939 or even 1949, even if it is an IB print. Prints struck now from older negatives and other early-generation source material are simply going to show more by virtue of these improvements in technology and different printing methods.

 

That frame looks to have all the resolution of vhs!

 

[Van594]

It's to bad they didn't think to do this with The Day the Earth Stood Still...I'm seeing things I'm not liking for the first time on the Blu version. it . As with most things new technology can be both good and bad. Even Ed Wood would want the wires not seen if he could have helped it(err.. well maybe thats a bad example.lol)

 

[slipofthetongue]

Upon my first viewing of a 35mm print of the Wizard of Oz back in the 1970's (after countless viewings on television) the wires on the winged monkeys and on the Cowardly Lion's tail WERE clearly visible in the print. It was a great disappointment to me actually so I remember the experience well. Lighting is not a perfect science and to say that people who lit the films back then knew when they would show and when they would not is as ridiculous as saying that every film historian (no matter how prestigious) always knows what he is talking about. There was a great deal of human error back then, as there is now. Having said that, of course the director would have removed the wires if he could have, and NO...wire removal would not keep me from buying what otherwise is an excellent restoration (which I have seen projected in 4k - and it holds up really, really well).

Interesting discussion!

 

[Robert Harris]

deleted

 

Didn't WB have an answer print from 1939? I'm sure they could have viewed that and seen that the wires were not visible.

 

[Robert Harris]

deleted