"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Michael.Schinke

Speaking as person of color I can tell you that ethnic groups are desperate to see what they consider "themeslves" portrayd on the screen. It's a built in audience, like Christian films. It doesn't have to adhere to the same standards of quality that other films do because it is so targeted. It's sad, but it's true. Personally, I think these films, and those like them (Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins comes immediately to mind) speak to some of the most basic racial stereotypes that would get panned in other, less targeted films. But it's the old, "it's OK for us to make fun of ourselves" argument.

I'll never, ever, understand why an unfunny black man dressing up in drag would make someone drive to a theater and pay money to watch. Never.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I'll never, ever, understand why an unfunny black man dressing up in drag would make someone drive to a theater and pay money to watch. Never.

Something tells me that the folks who do drive to the theater do not share your opinion that the man is unfunny.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Dayum.. they's fine...

Did you catch it? I did.
http://www.tnt.tv/movies/movietitle/?tid=728892

If you missed it, keep an eye out for a re-air as I highly recommend this movie to you and everyone else……. and it’s certainly, much more authentic than the Neurosurg scenes in Grey’s.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Josh

I could go on, and on, but what is the deal with delayed titles?

The "deal" is Josh, we do that specifically just to push your buttons.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Yes but that doesn't solve the problem that there are some releases with no subtitles at all or no subtitles in the language the viewer wants. So that doesn't help if the viewer has bought that release and can't understand it either because they are hearing impaired or don't understand the language.
...

I thought we went through this discussion some time ago.

Wasn't one of the better conclusions to make subtitles downloadable (and even transportable) via BD-Live? Not supplying subtitles for (all) multiple languages frees up room on the disc, room in the bitstream, and makes it possible to stock only one varient of the disc, not several (each with a different selection of subtitle languages).

Cheers!
-Jim

Later edit: Perhaps my question should be for other language dubs, not other language subtitles.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Maybe the real question is "Do I like Angelina Jolie with my Salt?"

Well, my friend that should be a no-brainer if you have a pulse but, perhaps you admire the film look of blonde leading ladies?

If you like grain and you promote the notion of 4k scanning of 35mm film (which is still relatively rare these days for a modern feature film post production), while you’re waiting for Salt, you can always catch this title on Blu-ray, as the transfer is just about as transparent to the orginial 4k source as possible given the current technology………..
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...53&show=review

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

...Studios have no motivation, and often not the legal right to include languages from territories where they don't own the rights. ...

Wait a minute. Are you saying not only must a studio have the right to sell within a particular territory, but the licensing actually specifies the languages for which they are allowed to supply subtitles? Or did I read that wrong?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The "deal" is Josh, we do that specifically just to push your buttons.

That's what I thought; just wanted to confirm. ;p

Didn't mean to rant, just something that always bothered me that was brought up - once again - to me today.

[Jeff Kleist]

Wait a minute. Are you saying not only must a studio have the right to sell within a particular territory, but the licensing actually specifies the languages for which they are allowed to supply subtitles? Or did I read that wrong?

In a nutshell, yes. Hollywood knows how many region free people are out there, and it's another layer to keep people from importing if they don't understand English. They also have no interest in spending money to support people who are not in the base they're allowed to sell to. This helps to protect their international production partners. For example, most New Line discs do not contain French audio or subtitles to protect Alliance in Canada, their production partners for france and because they don't have the rights to sell to a french speaking country.

Warner Bros. now hides their foreign subtitles from the menus and the packaging to discourage, say Japan where the same disc is much more expensive from ordering from the US. They appreciate the value that authoring one disc gives them, but don't want to sacrifice the money for the Japanese division if they don't have to

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Yeah, I've seen enough bad gay film as well. I see your point about how people are willing to lower their standards to see themselves on screen in some form or another

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0478418/

Horrendous films, neither camp nor original in their offensiveness, yet a staple of a certain genre of cinema more enraptured with seeing themselves on screen rather than wanting to see themselves portrayed -well- (or at least amusingly) on screen.

Then again, maybe I'm too straight to be in on the joke...

I've, however, seen enough terrible films at the Toronto Jewish Film festival to know that any ethnicity can make crap and be pleased it's about themselves. Given the history of this industry, a joke I often tell is about the -real- Jewish film festival...You know, with films by some of these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...siness_figures

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Josh

That's what I thought; just wanted to confirm. ;p

Well played.

[Michael.Schinke]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I'll never, ever, understand why an unfunny black man dressing up in drag would make someone drive to a theater and pay money to watch. Never.

A lot of people feel it is a caricature of someone they know or are familiar with. The combination of the, "crazy ghetto black woman" and the, "hyper religious black woman" isn't new, but it's really played up here.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If the Director’s aesthetic approach to his work has evolved over the years and the original film sources are not available because they're lost or destroyed and there are multiple versions of the film floating around all over the world, then I have no problem with the Director ‘refining’ his work as long as the essence of the original work is maintained and marketing folks put a “Redux” at the end of the title like with this, which I suspect most people will enjoy , whenever it appears on Blu-ray………………

http://www.sonyclassics.com/ashesoftimeredux/

In that connection Owen Roizman, A.S.C., has just called the transfer of The French Connection 'atrocious' and 'horrifying' and has explicitly washed his hands off the transfer:

Link

Listen

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Grubert

In that connection Owen Roizman, A.S.C., has just called the transfer of The French Connection 'atrocious' and 'horrifying' and has explicitly washed his hands off the transfer:

Good thing it's not his movie, huh?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Good thing it's not his movie, huh?

Yep. Good thing a director can come decades later and defile the cinematographer's work (which was considered good enough to be nominated for an Academy Award BTW). He can even colorize his own movie!*

Like it's such a good thing a director can remove from existence the hard work of miniature builders and motion-control-camera operators and replace it with nifty CGI.

Good times all around. All hail the revisionist director.

/sarcasm

*At least Harryhausen leaves us the option to watch his movies in black and white.

[Doctorossi]

I think a version as close as possible to the original theatrical release should always be preserved and made available, but ultimately, who are you to put an arbitrary time limit on the director's domain over the film?

Every home video release involves dozens of decisions which alter the film from the way it was seen in theatres (not that there really is a way it was seen in theatres, in the first place). Thus, "tinkering" is really only a matter of degrees. The bottom line is it's Friedkin's picture and Roizman's job was to get Friedkin what he wants for his picture. To the degree that he does that, Roizman's assistance and artistry is useful, but if we're going to remove the decision-making authority from the director, we're going to end up with an entirely different mess on our hands.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think a version as close as possible to the original theatrical release should always be preserved and made available, but ultimately, who are you to put an arbitrary time limit on the director's domain over the film?

Unless there was undue outside interference (from producers, censorship, etc.), the time limit is when the movie is finished. If the director chose freely the look for the movie at the time, why change it now? Because one day, 30 years later, he woke up and decided he liked Moby Dick? Please.

If he likes that look, hey, he can make a new movie and dip it in red paint for all I care. But don't go repainting your old movies.

I have said it before, even if Leonardo Da Vinci himself rose from the dead, we shouldn't let him go to Paris and paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa. I'd be the first to put a bullet through his Renaissance-man (or rather Renaissance-zombie) brain.

Same for filmmakers who suddenly think their movie has un-PC dialog or filmmakers who have an aspect ratio epiphany.

If they like to, they can now make movies according to their new tastes, such as Walkie-Talkie Feds: the Movie or pocalypse No.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by juanell

What jeff said! I saw it last week. Tom Tykwer does not pass up an opportunity to put great architecture on the screen. I was asking about the master if you've seen it. How bout this, at least tell me which scenes were shot in 65mm? Please sir:-)

To add to what Penton-Man said: At the Berlinale the Man himself (Tom Tykwer) was at a 70mm panel discussion and was asked about how much 70mm ended up in the movie and he said it was about 7 minutes worth.

He did explain that he shot architecture and large vistas in 65mm to give an expression of those huge technical structures where humans are supposed to look lost and helpless.

They also went into the reasons for scanning 2k and 4k respectively and not shooting more scenes in 65mm: cost, cost and did I mention cost ?

This is not meant as a knock against Sony and the other backers of the movie as this is the first major studio production for a long time where scenes are shot in classic 65mm and I really hope that this will pave the way for other movies that are completely shot in 65mm.

If this is not a well guarded secret I would really like to know what would be the difference in absolute numbers between shooting a movie like The International in 65mm and doing a 4 or 6k DI vs shooting in Super 35 or anamorphic 35mm and going for a 2 or 4k DI.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Yep. Good thing a director can come decades later and defile the cinematographer's work (which was considered good enough to be nominated for an Academy Award BTW). He can even colorize his own movie!*

Or de-colorize it.

On the flipside you have the cinematographer cropping the carefully composed and framed visions of his directors to force an aspect ratio nobody else wants or uses: Apocalypse Now, The Last Emperor.

Like it's such a good thing a director can remove from existence the hard work of miniature builders and motion-control-camera operators and replace it with nifty CGI.

Unless said director didn't have time or money to produce it properly in the first place: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and, yes, Star Wars. In the case of Star Wars people didn't have a problem with the majority of the replaced FX, but the actual story changes (Greedo, etc).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Unless there was undue outside interference (from producers, censorship, etc.), the time limit is when the movie is finished.

So, I'm assuming that means theatrical release? And what about theatrical re-release? The sound wasn't done when George Lucas premiered Star Wars. The final cut wasn't done when Wong Kar-Wai debuted 2046. Oh, and do you hold the official definition of "undue outside interference"?

Originally Posted by Grubert

If the director chose freely the look for the movie at the time, why change it now? Because one day, 30 years later, he woke up and decided he liked Moby Dick? Please.

Friedkin did explain that he wasn't able to achieve the look he wanted at the time. I suppose it's up to you whether or not you believe him, but the point is moot; it's his movie.

Originally Posted by Grubert

But don't go repainting your old movies.

Can you name me a Blu-ray release that isn't "re-painted"? Like I say, it's a matter of degrees. I don't see much complaint about most BDs on which the film is given a *slightly* closer-to-the-director's-aim look than was achieved theatrically, so why should a *substantially* closer-to-the-director's-aim look be treated any differently?

Originally Posted by Grubert

I have said it before, even if Leonardo Da Vinci himself rose from the dead, we shouldn't let him go to Paris and paint a mustache on the Monla Lisa. I'd be the first to put a bullet through his Renaissance-man (or rather Renaissance-zombie) brain.

Wow. Remind me not to theatrically release a movie in your vicinity!