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

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hear Ye….Hear Ye….
I’m told one review is in-
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/gladiator/blu-ray/8291/2

^ According to this reviewer, there has indeed been a significantly different color grading change between the original Blu-ray and the remastered version.

Ergo – faithfulness to the original theatrical presentation gets kicked out the door and 'creative contemporary color grading' is now acceptable….as long as modern day audiences like it. Hmm, I wonder if a little grain reduction and a little sharpening will be acceptable on future Blu-ray titles, along with some *modernization* of colors…as long as modern day audiences like it? LOL, that begs the question, what "modern day audience" do you belong to... and do you consider your personal wishes and desires superior to those of film purists....in the true sense of the word(s).

Oliver, it seems that in this case, Taffy wins the debate this time around…..
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3515214

Historical accuracy to the original theatrical presentation be damned.
I still don’t know if those posted screenshots were accurate though, because it sure looked to me like there was a lot of red push in that screenshot of the 2010 Blu-ray which you linked.

Despite you seemingly insunuating that I am hiding my true recollections of the color balance of the theatrical viewing I can tell you there really was not much of a recollection other than the color changes but upon reflecting a bit more I do remember that I thought that this movie just did not look very good, so I will say this:

The color balance of all 3 HD and SD versions before the first Blu-Ray was very similar and they all had that rather drab look to many scenes. It was already the first Blu-Ray that had kind of amplified colors and looked a bit glossed over, but now it seems we are in Predator territory with regard to the color palette.

If indeed this is not faithful to the original theatrical presentation I find this both sad and unnecessary and I will go one step further and say that even if approved by the director and the DOP I would very much prefer for the colors to come as close as possible to the way they were when the movie was first released as I generally do not even like revisionism on the part of directors or DOP's when it means that we cannot have something that closely resembles the original product. I am aware that this is a stance not everybody takes but I think that many who saw the new version of The French Connection will share my stance and it is that as you say "Historical accuracy to the original theatrical presentation" that is the way to go imo. You might also remember that ironically the DOP of The French Connection went on record saying that he does not approve of the way the new Blu-Ray version looks, so we clearly have a conflict of interest there, too.

One other indication by the way that the colors on Gladiator are not right: I remembered that Roger Ebert in his review of Gladiator specifically mentioned that the movie looked drab and dull and this is certainly something that cannot be said for the current Blu-Ray judging by the screencaps. So I looked it up again and what follows is what Roger Ebert had to say after watching what I am sure was a rather good print of Gladiator:

The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game), and the characters bring no cheer: They're bitter, vengeful, depressed. By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies.

Certainly some food for thought.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

As per American Cinematographer, only a few shots in one sequence of SHUTTER ISLAND were originated on 65mm (during the nighttime dream sequence where Teddy is at Dachua in his civilian clothes). Scorsese and Richardson originally intended to shoot ALL of Teddy's dream states in 65mm, but on that first cold night of shooting the Dachua scene, both of the 65mm cameras they had broke down.

Vincent

Is it only me or does it seem more like a fad to shoot less than 10% of a movie in 65mm 5perf? I would agree that it is great if we get a substantial amount of footage but these sniplets that cover only very little time are not really enncouraging.

I stand by my prior assertion that filmmakers like Scorsese, Spielberg, Scott and a few others definitely would have the cloud to shoot the majority of a movie in 65mm and today the special effects are up to the task, too and do not look silly anymore next to 65mm origination so clearly nobody really wants to do it for other reasons, too bad

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ Perhaps, I should color the font to red, just to give the post a little more ‘rich and vivid’ color.

You like bold; I like red.

Anyway... guess I came swingin' in and shot the reporter, huh? I see what you were trying to say and apologize for the misread.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by hanser

It is shared by me. After watching this ugly mess in the cinema, I had to throw in the DVD of Spartacus as an antidote. Seldom I was that disappointed by a movie.

Heh, I did the very same (and Spartacus certainly has its issues, but it's not a shaky-cam vomitous love fest with an idiotic incestuous subplot and turgid performances).

But, yeah, to each their own.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by madshi

Of course that doesn't take anything away from the fact that we *do* want colors to match the director's intent as well as technically possible.

What if the Director changes their mind? What if the DOP thinks it should be graded one way, and the Director another?

Auteur Fight Club! (The first rule of Auteur Fight Club is "GET ME A COFFEE , NOW, OR I'LL HAVE YOU KILLED!!". I don't even drink the stuff, but it's what you're supposed to do in the club.)

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game), and the characters bring no cheer: They're bitter, vengeful, depressed. By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies.

Yup... I normally wouldn't have remembered such things as grading, except in specific circumstances where it seemed like that was the whole look of the film. Oh Brother, Godfather, SPR, WofOz, these are films where the specific palate is a pretty memorable part of the presentation.

I remember it as a murky mess, with the opening scene in particular (GIVE ME A GODDAMN WIDE SHOT!) a rainy, murky, grainy, shaky cam extravaganza. It'd be interesting if it's indeed "warmed" to seem more inviting.

Next I guess we'll be worried that Cameron films will lose their blue hue!

Still haven't heard about how the choice would break down - all being equal, is "waxy" worse than "retimed colours"?

[madshi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

What if the Director changes their mind? What if the DOP thinks it should be graded one way, and the Director another?

Then we need 2 Blu-Rays...

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Still haven't heard about how the choice would break down - all being equal, is "waxy" worse than "retimed colours"?

Both is bad. If we have to choose between the 2 evils, I guess it comes down to personal preference. Personally, give me a high detail non-processed transfer and I can live with slightly altered colors. If the colors are spot on, but the transfer trash, then I can as well watch DVD.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Yup... I normally wouldn't have remembered such things as grading, except in specific circumstances where it seemed like that was the whole look of the film. Oh Brother, Godfather, SPR, WofOz, these are films where the specific palate is a pretty memorable part of the presentation.

I remember it as a murky mess, with the opening scene in particular (GIVE ME A GODDAMN WIDE SHOT!) a rainy, murky, grainy, shaky cam extravaganza. It'd be interesting if it's indeed "warmed" to seem more inviting.

Next I guess we'll be worried that Cameron films will lose their blue hue!

Yes, Gladiator looked kind of drab for the kind of film I was expecting but subsequent video releases already looked a bit better which is mostly due to better black levels in my home theater which helps a lot against the murkiness. and maybe the colors and contrast were already tweaked a bit for the home video releases.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Still haven't heard about how the choice would break down - all being equal, is "waxy" worse than "retimed colours"?

Waxy is worse to me as it looks bad on its own and even without comparison to something else. It is different with the colors - unless you know how a movie has been made you might as well never know if the look you are being presented is correct or not. Of course with experience comes a feeling that certain things are probably off even for movies that we have not watched before.

But to be honest I do not see why we shouldn't demand faithfullness to the original theatrical presentation in textures AND in colors. Within the limits of the medium it is not that hard to give us both!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

And Penton, I thought we were going to talk more about our appreciation of the films themselves. You've talked a lot about Inception, what did you think of it as a film (as opposed to a technical exercise)?

Well, I admit that I got started on it as a “technical exercise” due to Wally P.’s pretentious insistence on the avoidance of the digital intermediate process and I was wondering if in the real world (at your guys’ local cinemas) if his product is bearing any superior PQ fruit compared to other motion pictures which are derived completely from a DI workflow.

Anyway, to answer your question directly.

I accepted the *dream rule system* so I found the motion picture to be quite entertaining as a summer popcorn movie. As a hopeless romantic though, I felt that that the love story at the center just didn’t work for me, which was one of the flaws of the film.

I think that it should do well at the box office because it is a complex movie which will encourage patrons to visit their local Multiplex to catch it a second or even a third time to fully understand it which should also move it from a rental to a purchase status for some Blu-ray aficionados. People may find this article interesting…
http://chud.com/articles/articles/24...ION/Page1.html

P.S. To answer one of your previous questions, yes, I was referring to the rolling credits appearing soft even in a theater with a film projector or 2k digital projector showing the motion picture.

[Taffy]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Yes, Gladiator looked kind of drab for the kind of film I was expecting but subsequent video releases already looked a bit better which is mostly due to better black levels in my home theater which helps a lot against the murkiness. and maybe the colors and contrast were already tweaked a bit for the home video releases.





Waxy is worse to me as it looks bad on its own and even without comparison to something else. It is different with the colors - unless you know how a movie has been made you might as well never know if the look you are being presented is correct or not. Of course with experience comes a feeling that certain things are probably off even for movies that we have not watched before.

But to be honest I do not see why we shouldn't demand faithfullness to the original theatrical presentation in textures AND in colors. Within the limits of the medium it is not that hard to give us both!

Awwwwww...Oliver, it's not so bad. The obvious fix is a lot easier than adjusting your television DNR controls as some would mandate for casual movie fans.

When watching the new Gladiator...Just smear mud on the screen.

Sorry...I just couldn't resist.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mark antony

From my hazy 10 year old recollection of the theatrical release of Gladiator and it's subsequent dvd release(s) I can definately remember a grey-blue cast to many sections of the film.

Given that Mr Scott has apparantly approved this transfer, maybe he's decided to revise the colour palette...

Mark, I think that’s wishful thinking. I’m beginning to see a pattern here where studio spokespersons speak fast and loose with the phrase….”Director approved” for their Blu-ray products and the implications of that *stamp of approval*.

I think, for some content providers, it is now quite different than when for instance Martin Campbell viewed the preliminary Blu-ray product of Casino Royale before it went out to consumers.

At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if some studio spokesperson pulls the* interim change of intent by Director card* or the different film source spin as an excuse for the noted differences between the remastered Blu-ray version and the theatrical presentation.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

(1) Blu-Ray has a smaller gamut than 35mm film. So there is no way to get a 100% match.

Come on. You can get pretty damn close. The significant color discrepancy between the 2009 Gladiator Blu-ray and the 2010 Gladiator Blu-ray (as per the review, which I have no reason at all to doubt) can not be explained away by a comparatively restrictive color gamat for Blu-ray as compared to film.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

(2) Many older movies were shot with equipment inferior to today's equipment. I've read about directors redoing old film with new equipment and taking the chance to "update" the color balance. So theatrical presentation doesn't always have to be the ultimate reference.

Not applicable in the case of this relatively young 10 year old film.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

I would go for a day for night pic. that is a nice coyote you have there!

Yup , primarily due to not caring to deal with the real possibility of potentially stepping on some rattlesnake in the dark, I gave you guys a day-for-night pic.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Despite you seemingly insunuating that I am hiding my true recollections of the color balance of the theatrical viewing...

I wasn’t referring to you Oliver. You’re one fair guy with no ego to protect.

I was referring more to the general lack of discussion on this board in regards to the color discrepancy in the Movie section of our forum which I had quickly skimmed and monitored since the News of the remastered release.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The significant color discrepancy between the 2009 Gladiator Blu-ray and the 2010 Gladiator Blu-ray (as per the review, which I have no reason at all to doubt) can not be explained away by a comparatively restrictive color gamat for Blu-ray as compared to film.

Agreed. I was just saying that colors are harder to judge than some other things.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

One other indication by the way that the colors on Gladiator are not right: I remembered that Roger Ebert in his review of Gladiator specifically mentioned that the movie looked drab and dull and this is certainly something that cannot be said for the current Blu-Ray judging by the screencaps. So I looked it up again and what follows is what Roger Ebert had to say after watching what I am sure was a rather good print of Gladiator:

The film looks muddy, fuzzy and indistinct. Its colors are mud tones at the drab end of the palette, and it seems to have been filmed on grim and overcast days. This darkness and a lack of detail in the long shots helps obscure shabby special effects (the Colosseum in Rome looks like a model from a computer game), and the characters bring no cheer: They're bitter, vengeful, depressed. By the end of this long film, I would have traded any given gladiatorial victory for just one shot of blue skies.

Certainly some food for thought.

Indeed.
Plus, if Roger wants blue skies, he can now look at that screenshot which madshi posted here a couple pages back for me to look at and examine.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You like bold; I like red.

Anyway... guess I came swingin' in and shot the reporter, huh? I see what you were trying to say and apologize for the misread.

Don't worry about it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Still haven't heard about how the choice would break down - all being equal, is "waxy" worse than "retimed colours"?

If future reviews corroborate the first review out (which I presume they will, unless some agenda games are played), I would say that if you are a resolution freak and clarity is of the highest priority to you (probably esp. for those with a background in video), then the remastered version would be your choice.

If you are like some people who I know (this includes film school students at USC and UCLA) that primarily watch movies on the BIG screen and I would characterize as cinephiles or film purists, then I think that the first Gladiator Blu-ray would be of highest priority and their choice as that seems to be the more color correct version. Esp. since they are normally seeing soft resolution time and time again, esp. at venues with film projectors and the lack of crisp detail doesn’t bother them too much once they ‘get into’ the movie.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Taffy

Awwwwww...Oliver, it's not so bad. The obvious fix is a lot easier than adjusting your television DNR controls as some would mandate for casual movie fans.

When watching the new Gladiator...Just smear mud on the screen.

Sorry...I just couldn't resist.

Don’t gloat, it’s unbecoming. Plus, to begin with, OliverK isn’t one of the internet nutters out there.

Take the fight to them ....along with reminding them of their sometimes conveniently compromised principles of film purism.