Quote:
Originally Posted by raygendreau
I think an early statement, such as "We have seen the concerns and we are looking into it" would have fanned the flames and fed the fire more than the silence. I would surmise that they took the time to thoroughly examine the issues raised prior to releasing the definitive statement that "nothing is amiss". Given PJ's current project, it is conceivable that it took a while for him to get around to responding to the issues raised. I would imagine that they went through a checkdisk of FOTR again, very carefully before WHV issued their statement.
I have no doubt that you will eventually get some direct comment from the filmakers in some venue; however, sufficient insight into the methodology and reasons for the changes can be garnered from the regrading documentary you previously referred to which is posted in this thread.
Corporate protocol at WB probably differs signifcantly from the way things were at Wingnuts and Newline. Some would probably view it as ponderous. You were exposed to this in your quest for the WHV PR release. Policies and procedures must be followed and they take time.
|
I assume that is the case as well. Unfortunately, the color re-grading documentary actually contradicts what is being seen and measured. The digital color grading Jackson employed is a region-by-region regrade. Alter this face, leave this face untouched; increase the greens in the field, deepen the blues in the skies, desaturated this patch of reds over here. A blanket tint, over the whole film, not matter how slight or imperceptible, is a different technique than he is touting in that documentary. It's also important to note it isn't a new documentary. It was released in 2001, well before the new color grade.
But that's just me. I know he's busy on 'The Hobbit,' and I don't need a lengthy explanation. My point is simply that three sentences from him would go a long, long way and take him all of half a minute. I'm sure he'll get around to it, though. Otherwise every Q&A session he ever holds will be haunted by questions about tints
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmasciola
One cannot simply get a crazy thread back on topic. Not with a thousand members could you do this. It is folly!
|
Best post ever. Thanks for starting my morning with a laugh
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrick97
Well Ken upon sleeping on it for the night I have decided that I will NOT do any sort of comparison screenshots because its just not that important to me and I don't want it in my head when I am watching the film. I am perfectly happy in keeping my perception the way it is and I fully believe PJ was aware of how our eyes would adjust to it. But I am no longer going to watch these films with a mentality of "trying to find whats wrong" because I see that as a hindrance to enjoying the film.
|
That's wise. If you don't see it, count yourself lucky. Honestly, there's little reason to go hunting for it now. WHV has confirmed the transfers are accurate to the filmmakers intentions, so you'll only find potential pain and heartache if you pursue it. Like I said, once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister
Ken, doesn't it fly in the face of logic that after ten years of home video releases, this is the first time Fellowship looks as it was intended?
See, I hear that, and I immediately think one word: Lucasfilm. Not for revisionism, but for lying to the public, telling them that mistakes in the Star Wars DVDs like reversed surround tracks were "intentional". I'll never trust LucasFilm again. When I see ten years of LOTR DVDs - including the recent Blu-ray - and suddenly a new version is presented with some distinct changes to the color timing, and I'm then told this has always been the intended look of the film...well, forgive me for being skeptical. It's my nature to be intellectually curious. I had my "Where have you gone, Joe Dimaggio?" moment when Lucasfilm lied to the world regarding the SW DVDs. If a company that famous for quality control could screw up so badly on such a high profile title, and then lie about it, then anything's possible.
My question remains...if this is the intended look of the film, than what the hell happened with all the other home video incarnations of the same film?
|
I wouldn't say it flies in the face of logic, although I do see your point. However, Jackson's new color grade is just that: new. The previous versions are approved as well; just versions approved in years past.
I think the mistake is when people discount those previous approvals. This is what Jackson intends now, but that doesn't render what he intended for the last ten years irrelevant.
Again, this is a very worthwhile debate, and the one that should be dominating this thread. Film revisionism is a tricky topic and deserves consideration, analysis and passion
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavyHitter
Actually, Bill Hunt had reported well before yesterday that it was intentional based on his communications with people in the studio.
Ken, for some reason, and please correct me if I am wrong, I get the sense you are still not 100% convinced that all of the green tint is 100% intentional. I cannot help but interpret from some of your posts there is still part of you questioning that something went wrong somewhere in the chain.
|
Mr. Hunt's early reports weren't official statements or verifiable reports. He'd be the first to admit that. He was simply trying to be helpful to the community at large; to let people know something was in motion. But without an official statement or a quote from the filmmakers, his reports, while certainly helpful, were not official studio or filmmaker responses to the controversy. If so, there would have been a lot more quotation marks in the posts he made. (And remember, even he went silent on the matter for almost a week and a half as Warner and Wingnut evaluated the situation. No, that isn't shady on his part. He was just being responsible. I would have done the exact same thing.) Even he said it took two weeks to verify things. Besides, if it took two weeks to verify no problem existed, then it only serves to say no one behind the scenes had a final answer to offer for two weeks
It would be a lie to say I'm 100% convinced, I'll admit. Deep down, things don't quite add up as neatly as I'd like, leaving my certainty dangling just above 90%. (Ironically, the same thing has been happening with you, just in regards to my posts.) To be very clear: I would be shocked if it was suddenly revealed to be an error; not because it looks undeniably intentional, but because Warner's statement would put everyone in an even more precarious PR situation were they to suddenly change direction. In other words, I'm quite, quite certain the official statement is fact and the this is exactly what the filmmakers intended. The only responsible course of action at this point is to take what the studio and filmmakers say at face value. Until something suggests otherwise, their only fault IMO is in avoiding complete transparency and settling the controversy in a way that would settle all doubts, small as they might be.
However, I don't think it's a bad thing to raise questions about vague PR statements and filmmaker silence -- after all, no one has mentioned the word "tint" yet, which leaves room for reasonable doubt, and Jackson and Lesnie have yet to directly comment on the matter in a public fashion, which also leaves room for reasonable doubt. Nor do I think raising those questions calls Bill Hunt, Peter Jackson or Warner's integrity into question. It's just good journalistic form.
I also don't think it's bad to ask that Jackson explain an intentional tint, especially when he has revealed in the past that he loves using color to subtly affect the viewer. I accept that the tint is intentional; I'd just like to know what effect he wanted to achieve artistically. A simple "to bring it in line with the Hobbit" or "to make the tone of the whole film a bit darker, a little less vibrant" would make me ecstatic. Not because it verifies the tint is intentional, I already believe that. But because it would allow me to understand the change that has been confirmed as intentional.
Keep in mind, this is the guy who put more than twelve hours of documentaries and 62 hours of commentaries on his trilogy. He's all about revealing the reasoning behind every decision he makes. (This is also the guy who addresses tricky questions on his Facebook page almost every week.) He's also shown that he isn't shy when it comes to shrugging off criticism and detailing why a change works in his mind. He does this in every books vs. films debate that pops up in the Appendices
Ultimately, I am convinced the tint is intentional. And the further we get from the release date, the more that small 9% window of doubt I have will close. It will never entirely close; not until Jackson addresses the tint and explains, even briefly, what mood he wanted to evoke by adding it in. That said, I don't think anyone should criticize those with nagging doubts, as those doubts aren't illogical, unreasonable or the ravings of crazed purists. Even those with little attachment to the LOTR films, analyzing the situation as it has developed, would raise questions some seem so bound and determined to dismiss as reactionary and meritless. Again, transparency is the key, and the only official statement in the wild isn't what I'd call transparent. Broad? Sweeping? Assuring? An acceptable confirmation of intent? Sure.
The tint is intentional. That's easy to accept. If you look back at my posts from Saturday to Tuesday, I turned on a dime. Not with 100% certainty, mind you, but close. It would just be nice to know what that exact intention was, that's all. "Why some extra green, Mr. J?" "Cause it makes it all Hobbit-y, my friend." "Awesome, thanks." (Yes, I'd probably ask a few more questions, but you get the point.) If nothing else, it would provide context to what should be a very informed discussion at this point. After all, in the last three weeks, the public has only been offered two official sentences, and those came two days ago
Whew. I hope that all makes sense. To recap: I truthfully don't have a hidden agenda here, I'm just trying to proceed as responsibly and professionally as I can.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
