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

[Ben]

I give absolute credence to whatever the director and DP desire. It is their artistic vision and only they can truly speak to their own intentions.

[ThatArtGuy]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

O.K.
Suppose a Director made a film in which he was never happy with the theatrical presentation.

Given the current topic on the forums by *authorities * on DNR, suppose the original negative was just too grainy for his liking but given the reality of the original shoot there wasn’t really much he (the Director) or the DP could do to alleviate the situation back in the day.

Years later, said film then goes to a post/restoration facility to be “restored” or “remastered” with the intention of an eventual Blu-ray home media release.

If the DP was present during the restoration of the D5 master tape, and directly indicated that he desired some digital grain reduction (given the unhappiness over the original theatrical presentation)…………would you consider it *kosher* that the Blu-ray edition not be *true* to the theatrical presentation (or what everyone considers to be the “original version”) ?

I'd like a choice. I could have my theatrical version, and Lucas can have his "selectively" DNR'd version. Seriously though, I'd prefer choice, but I'd doubt that would happen.

[neo_reloaded]

There's no absolute rule that you can follow that will tell you exactly what to do with any given release. Ideally, people who understand and love film are calling the shots, and decisions are made with good intentions in mind.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

There's no absolute rule that you can follow that will tell you exactly what to do with any given release. Ideally, people who understand and love film are calling the shots, and decisions are made with good intentions in mind.

I agree.

As an example, when Lucas decided to make Star Wars "the way he originally visually intended it to look" by the use of recently developed technology, he should have preserved the original artistic work first, keeping it intact for historical accuracy & reproduction too!

Paul

[HeavyHitter]

There is an absolute rule; the filmmaker makes the decision whether you like it or not. I may not like Lucas' decisions, but it's his movies and not mine last time I looked.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

There is an absolute rule; the filmmaker makes the decision whether you like it or not. I may not like Lucas' decisions, but it's his movies and not mine last time I looked.

The context has to do with the question, when is a film finished?

Paul

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

O.K.
Suppose a Director made a film in which he was never happy with the theatrical presentation.

Given the current topic on the forums by *authorities * on DNR, suppose the original negative was just too grainy for his liking but given the reality of the original shoot there wasn’t really much he (the Director) or the DP could do to alleviate the situation back in the day.

Years later, said film then goes to a post/restoration facility to be “restored” or “remastered” with the intention of an eventual Blu-ray home media release.

If the DP was present during the restoration of the D5 master tape, and directly indicated that he desired some digital grain reduction (given the unhappiness over the original theatrical presentation)…………would you consider it *kosher* that the Blu-ray edition not be *true* to the theatrical presentation (or what everyone considers to be the “original version”) ?

..

[Robert Harris]

You've raised a long-standing archival ethical dilemma.

I believe one needs to view it from two different perspectives.

If the film is a summertime blockbuster that garnered no awards, one may be dealing with one situation.

If you're dealing with a major Academy Award winner / Best Picture / Best Cinematography -- a totally different one.

While on one hand, you're dealing with entertainment, on the other you add history, standards and the necessity to keep something looking as closely as possible to what it was for historical perspective.

Can you change it?

Certainly, but one had better have a version as originally seen, available in the vault standing by.

I believe Universal handled it correctly with E.T., making both versions available concurrently for home video.

Want to see a film in a historically and technically proper form?

It's there.

But let's take this a step further, and I'll toss out a question.

A Best Picture is re-cut for general release.

It is reconstructed and restored, but at the last moment the director decides to make some tweaks.

The film arrives on video as a Director's Cut.

Since it is no longer the film with a certain running time, and changes have been made, should it / can it still be marketed as The Best Picture of whatever year?

RAH

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Paul H

The context has to do with the question, when is a film finished?

Paul

Can you elaborate a bit more?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You've raised a long-standing archival ethical dilemma.

I believe one needs to view it from two different perspectives.

If the film is a summertime blockbuster that garnered no awards, one may be dealing with one situation.

If you're dealing with a major Academy Award winner / Best Picture / Best Cinematography -- a totally different one.

While on one hand, you're dealing with entertainment, on the other you add history, standards and the necessity to keep something looking as closely as possible to what it was for historical perspective.

Can you change it?

Certainly, but one had better have a version as originally seen, available in the vault standing by.

I believe Universal handled it correctly with E.T., making both versions available concurrently for home video.

Want to see a film in a historically and technically proper form?

It's there.

But let's take this a step further, and I'll toss out a question.

A Best Picture is re-cut for general release.

It is reconstructed and restored, but at the last moment the director decides to make some tweaks.

The film arrives on video as a Director's Cut.

Since it is no longer the film with a certain running time, and changes have been made, should it / can it still be marketed as The Best Picture of whatever year?

RAH

Just to add: I believe Spielberg insisted on both releases for E.T.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You've raised a long-standing archival ethical dilemma.

I believe one needs to view it from two different perspectives.

If the film is a summertime blockbuster that garnered no awards, one may be dealing with one situation.

If you're dealing with a major Academy Award winner / Best Picture / Best Cinematography -- a totally different one.

While on one hand, you're dealing with entertainment, on the other you add history, standards and the necessity to keep something looking as closely as possible to what it was for historical perspective.

Can you change it?

Certainly, but one had better have a version as originally seen, available in the vault standing by.

I believe Universal handled it correctly with E.T., making both versions available concurrently for home video.

Want to see a film in a historically and technically proper form?

It's there.

But let's take this a step further, and I'll toss out a question.

A Best Picture is re-cut for general release.

It is reconstructed and restored, but at the last moment the director decides to make some tweaks.

The film arrives on video as a Director's Cut.

Since it is no longer the film with a certain running time, and changes have been made, should it / can it still be marketed as The Best Picture of whatever year?

RAH

Some of the greatest films ever made were not recognised by the acadamy awards. I sure hope the studios do not base how a film should be handled simply on how well it did at the awards which are biased in many regards anyway.

[The Big Blue]

Since you brought up ET... while the orig. '82 version was initially available it no longer is. The current dvd on shelves is the mis-guided '02 version only and try as you might you won't see that stated anywhere on the packaging.

I guess it *could* be Spielberg to blame but I'm gonna go with Universal being the culprit.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Some of the greatest films ever made were not recognised by the acadamy awards. I sure hope the studios do not base how a film should be handled simply on how well it did at the awards which are biased in many regards anyway.

..

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Can you elaborate a bit more?

So much a person can talk about!

Basically,
Peton asked:
"would you consider it *kosher* that the Blu-ray edition not be *true* to the theatrical presentation (or what everyone considers to be the “original version”) ?"

Acceptable? That depends. Orthodox? Never!

[Bullseye]

From what i remember The Shawshank Redemption was only nominated for oscars but won non of the major ones yet is considered to be in the top three films of all time. Some might feel that this movie is more important than Patton.

[Bullseye]

Other greats include:
Citizen Cane
Goodfellas
Bonnie and Clyde
The wizard of oz
Psycho
Vertigo
The Third Man
City Lights

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If the DP was present during the restoration of the D5 master tape, and directly indicated that he desired some digital grain reduction (given the unhappiness over the original theatrical presentation)…………would you consider it *kosher* that the Blu-ray edition not be *true* to the theatrical presentation (or what everyone considers to be the “original version”) ?

I may not necessarily agree with the decision, but yes!

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You've raised a long-standing archival ethical dilemma.

I believe one needs to view it from two different perspectives.

If the film is a summertime blockbuster that garnered no awards, one may be dealing with one situation.

If you're dealing with a major Academy Award winner / Best Picture / Best Cinematography -- a totally different one.

I understand your point, but disagree! For starters, look at how mad some people are at George Lucas for changing "Star Wars" (Note that I have no idea what kind, if any recognition SW received). There are multiple "Summertime blockbusters" I can think of that I'd personally be just as upset (possibly moreso) than some Academy winners.

Now if one wanted to change something on "Batman & Robin" or "Witless Protection" (yes, I know that wasn't a Summer blockbuster), I doubt anyone would complain too much...

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

While on one hand, you're dealing with entertainment, on the other you add history, standards and the necessity to keep something looking as closely as possible to what it was for historical perspective.

I view all types of film (minus porn) as art... and all types of film as entertainment. I may not find one film of art to my taste, and I may not find one type of film to be entertainment... and some I find pathetic that they were even made, but I still generally lump them together.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Can you change it?

Depends? Who is doing the changing? How much are you changing it?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Certainly, but one had better have a version as originally seen, available in the vault standing by.

Preferably... or better yet, have both available like below!

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I believe Universal handled it correctly with E.T., making both versions available concurrently for home video.

"Blade Runner" (which BTW, I retract my earlier comments about) and "Close Encounters Of Third Kind" come to mind as well...

"E.T" will be airing on HDNet Movies this Saturday... I believe it's a premiere.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

But let's take this a step further, and I'll toss out a question.

A Best Picture is re-cut for general release.

It is reconstructed and restored, but at the last moment the director decides to make some tweaks.

The film arrives on video as a Director's Cut.

Since it is no longer the film with a certain running time, and changes have been made, should it / can it still be marketed as The Best Picture of whatever year?

Personally? It would again depend on the extent of the changes... but generally, probably not. Put both versions out... then market it as "Best Picture Of The Year"... along with additional "Director's Cut" version of the film.

~Alan

[MerrickG]

Penton, Wicky, Robert or Max,

Bill Hunt mentioned that there is a LOT going on behind the scenes right now.

Any hints? Is it stuff to be excited about?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

If the DP approves it as his desired look at feel, yes. The DP and the director are the authorities over how it should be

Good.
Then suppose you have another case where the DP, not just “approved” but also sat in on the DI coloring sessions with a working colorist, and both of them decided on using some digital processing tool which gives the appearance of DNR or what people *think* is DNR………… with the ultimate “approval” of the Director, before the files were filmed out for the subsequent theatrical presentation.

Since the dreaded DNR was performed by one of perhaps the top 5 colorists in the world, (arguably some would say the current “best”) with the approval of an award winning cinematographer, and some would say the current “best” Director in the business, would such DNR (or what people think is DNR) be “right” or “wrong” ?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

This gets into what we mentioned in Robert's thread about having Director's or DP's actually sign off on the video saying it is what they want directly. That may calm nerves a bit, unless of course the director or DP wanted a cleaner look!

Well, in the 1st case described above, of course he (the DP) wanted a “cleaner” look than the original presentation (theatrical).

I know you don’t like baseball analogies but, how bout basketball ?
Think of the original camera negative being a basketball hoop at the pre-game warm-up prior to an NBA game and a bunch of flying basketballs coming at the hoop.

P.S.
By the way, the scenario I described is not hypothetical but, is actually a real case in which the work has already been done.