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

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Re-compositing existing elements I find to be my favorite fix of all. Everything is original, it just takes out alll the optical warts and generational loss.

This comes with its own set of philosophical caveats and conundrums, too, of course, being that the original photography inevitably will have involved many decisions in consideration of the (optical) compositing systems of the respective day. I agree with you that fresh digital comps are an excellent solution and one of the least philosophically controversial/problematic, but we need to remain aware that it's not a "perfect" and unimpeachable/unquestionable process, either.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I really wish that Disney would do this with Tron.

I'd love to see that, too, but man... expensive! Not that it wouldn't be worth it, IMO.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

(that is, assuming that the theaters get a clue and unjack their prices, How to Train Your Dragon got hurt bad by it)

Isn't it a little early for such conclusions?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by captveg

But this master was also used for the new 4x3 DVD.

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks, captveg (and Jeff!).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

It's amazing that the 70mm print used for that transfer- which aside from being literally one-of-a-kind was supposed to be in virtually pristine condition back in the early 1990s- was treated so carelessly and allowed to fall apart.

I'm sad to say, if that amazes you, you haven't been spending enough time in RAH's realm. I used to tell myself, "Surely, they'll learn this time!" every couple of years for the last 20, but eventually figured out that no, they won't.

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I thought How to Train Your Dragon was fantastic. Dreamworks best so far. IMO, its in Pixars league. It seemed under promoted to me.

I'm glad to here that. My daughter and I enjoy CGI movies, but the trailers and TV spots have left us less than enthused. I need to put it back on my "see in the theatre list".

[Hoosier205]

Originally Posted by wallendo

I'm glad to here that. My daughter and I enjoy CGI movies, but the trailers and TV spots have left us less than enthused. I need to put it back on my "see in the theatre list".

Craig Ferguson is in it. That's all I need to know to be enthused.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm sad to say, if that amazes you, you haven't been spending enough time in RAH's realm. I used to tell myself, "Surely, they'll learn this time!" every couple of years for the last 20, but eventually figured out that no, they won't.

Maybe "amazes me" wasn't the right wording- more like disgusts me because as you point out, it's not out of the ordinary. I'm reminded of what John Kirk discovered when he restored HEAVEN'S GATE on film back in 2004- that in the early 1990s, to save a few thousand dollars in storage costs, MGM junked ALL of their trim negatives. Not just for HEAVEN'S GATE (which included all the negative trims from when the film was recut from 219-minutes to 148-minutes, so Kirk had to use various dupes of the cut scenes to put back together a printable 219-minute length version), but EVERYTHING- all the classic UA films, trims from films like TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, the PINK PANTHERS, etc. As Robert Harris can attest, sometimes going into the trims to aid in the restoration of a badly damaged film is necessary to replace shots with nearly-identical ones from the trims. Obviously, should this be needed on any restoration of any number of UA/MGM films, it simply can't be done because all that material was thrown away. It really is just disgusting.

Vincent

[micks_address]

Wow guess they miss selling so cause my order from axel music says 'The Natural - Directors Cut' what gives Penton?

Originally Posted by captveg

That's old art work released in 2007-ish. The actual release coming next week has been confirmed as the Theatrical Version.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by wallendo

I'm glad to here that. My daughter and I enjoy CGI movies, but the trailers and TV spots have left us less than enthused. I need to put it back on my "see in the theatre list".

The good thing about that is, they didnt ruin the movie by putting the best parts in the trailers. The bad part is, the trailers didnt make the movie look appealing.

The animation is mindboggling good, and the story is a good old fashioned one with a solid wholesome message. Plenty of comraderie, danger, action, and a touch of innocent romance. Not a second tier animated film by any stretch IMO.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Hoosier205

Craig Ferguson is in it. That's all I need to know to be enthused.

His and Butlers voice work are wonderful.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by micks_address

Wow guess they miss selling so cause my order from axel music says 'The Natural - Directors Cut' what gives Penton?

Sorry, I’ve been busy prepping for the upcoming Digital Cinema Summit at NAB.
Re – The Natural, the Blu-ray is the theatrical version. If memory serves, the Director’s Cut is only 6 min. longer.
I see nobody posted the pdf or Power Point presentation Re- LOTR which I alluded to yesterday. Was it yesterday?
I mean after the first 20min. of the Arsenal–Barca game, I’m completely disoriented as to time.

Anyway, give me a moment and I’ll see if I can dig it out of the internet for you guys.

[Penton-Man]

^ Here you go…….
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global.../2004_lotr.pdf
(but I found it on “Topeka” rather than “Google” – don’t get that).

Vincent, seems to me if memory serves, American Cinematographer also did a piece on LOTR where Peter (Doyle) mentions the sharpening software which was first employed on TTT as that was the first film of the three with a complete D.I.
Maybe it’s still online.

Gotta run.

P.S.
Kubrick, did you decide on whether you’re attending Film Biennale 2010: Amsterdam?

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sorry, I’ve been busy prepping for the upcoming Digital Cinema Summit at NAB.
Re – The Natural, the Blu-ray is the theatrical version. If memory serves, the Director’s Cut is only 6 min. longer.
I see nobody posted the pdf or Power Point presentation Re- LOTR which I alluded to yesterday. Was it yesterday?
I mean after the first 20min. of the Arsenal–Barca game, I’m completely disoriented as to time.

Anyway, give me a moment and I’ll see if I can dig it out of the internet for you guys.

There's actually about 15-20 minutes of new footage that was put in the film, mostly the first act, which has been re-edited and other scenes removed. The first act plays much better in the director's cut, imo. It provides a better setup for some of the characters and offers up a bit more background on Roy Hobbs. I'm guessing we won't see this cut for awhile.

[micks_address]

i just finished watching the Fellowship blu-ray... somethings badly wrong here cause i thought it was awesome...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ Here you go…….
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global.../2004_lotr.pdf
(but I found it on “Topeka” rather than “Google” – don’t get that).

Vincent, seems to me if memory serves, American Cinematographer also did a piece on LOTR where Peter (Doyle) mentions the sharpening software which was first employed on TTT as that was the first film of the three with a complete D.I.
Maybe it’s still online.

Gotta run.

P.S.
Kubrick, did you decide on whether you’re attending Film Biennale 2010: Amsterdam?

[Y3k Bug]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...
(but I found it on “Topeka” rather than “Google” – don’t get that)...

It's due to the fact that Topeka Kansas recently, "unofficially", changed their name to "Google" in a bid to win favor as one of the test cities for Google's High Speed Internet Service.

So as an April Fool's gag, Google changed their name to Topeka.

[Stacey Spears]

Well, it’s good to at least know (based on *screenshots*) that ‘New Line’ got the “extant” masters right for TTT and ROTR and only dropped the ball on FOTR.

While I have not read any of the threads on LOTR, I do recall the events that took place the first time they were encoded by OneK a couple of years ago. NL sent almost every title to Lowry for processing. Jay had rejected FOTR so many times that John paid them a visit to understand what they were complaining about.

Penton, I will be at the Cut on the 13th at 7 PM, in Vegas, if you want to stop by and say hello.

[Stacey Spears]

Penton,

Have you read Poyonton's proposal? http://www.poynton.com/notes/PU-PR-IS/index.html There will be an update coming shortly. I am curious to hear your thoughts.

It might interest many of you. The bottom line is that 709 is broken. It is sort of half a standard. It fails to define the display gamma. The pdf in the link above was done based off of a lot of research.

With any luck, this will replace 709 in the future.

[Jeff Kleist]

Are you sure HtTYD didn't get hurt by Dreamwork's consistant mediocrity in comparison to Pixar? I saw the ho-hum MvA last year in theater, but save the original Shrek, I tend to wait for home video for most Dreamworks product, and most Dreamworks product tends to reinforce my decision in this regard.

One would think, but no, the 3D take was signifigantly off expectations, unsuprising when 3D rates just jacked $3-5 or even more. I know that if I was planning to see that Greek movie coming out this week that I wouldn't go see the 3D even if it was shot native at those prices. Tron or Toy Story, yeah, I'm a tool.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Tron or Toy Story, yeah, I'm a tool.

Yeah, but you're a tool for the cool.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

...yeah, I'm a tool.

You are not a "tool". A tool is an idiot. It is never cool to be a tool- tools suck (and not in that good way).

What you are, rather, is a geek (also known as a dork). A geek AKA dork is somebody who loves stuff that isn't traditionally thought of as being "cool". The upshot is, it often turns out that said "uncool" stuff really is cool, and thus the geek/dork turns out to have in fact been cool all along, and all is good with the world.

But tools are always idiots and they always suck (again, not in that good way). See Kram Sacul at the AVS Forums for proof. He is the definition of a tool.

Vincent

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I know that if I was planning to see that Greek movie coming out this week that I wouldn't go see the 3D even if it was shot native at those prices.

I was willing to pay a couple bucks more to see a 2D movie converted to 3D for the novelty of it with A Nightmare Before Christmas. That's pretty much where the novelty began and ended.

Superman Returns convinced me the 2D-3D conversion process has too many technical hurdles to work really well. Even if the computer artists, engineers and custom software could manage to accurately isolate objects difficult to extract from backgrounds (hair, grass, smoke, fire, water, glass, etc.) the end result often just looks like flat objects floating over the top of each other. And that's just talking about a film frame where everything is in good to tack-sharp focus. Lots of live action film/video imagery has narrow depth of field with many items out of focus. Good luck extracting that sort of thing into 3D!

Superman Returns also convinced me to never pay the IMAX premium to see a movie shot electronically in HDTV resolution. I felt like calling the viewing experience "Blur-O-Vision."

Above all the technical considerations the movie must show strong odds of being good in order for me to spend $9-$12 or more (and 2+ hours of my time) to watch it.

Lots of people scoff, "I don't let a movie critic make up my mind for me." One lone critic's positive or negative view isn't enough to sway me either. However, when you see a broad consensus develop that changes things quite a bit. When you consider how much it costs to see a movie in the theater, especially in 3D, as well as more price hikes starting to go into effect that consensus of critical opinion becomes a little more important. I don't think very many people want to blow $50-$100 taking the family to the movie if the movie turns out to be a pile of crap.

That Greek mythology movie remake currently has a fairly bad 34% score on the Rotten Tomatoes' Tomato Meter (with 94 reviews counted so far). If I'm going to watch something in 3D this weekend I think I'd rather see the CGI, yet still native 3D dragon movie. It has a very impressive 98% reading on the Tomato Meter based on 120 reviews.