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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

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.

Then less made it into the final edit, as his preliminary thinking was 10 min. worth, for which he was budgeted.

And speaking of movies with lots of International locations, I see that Quantum of Solace is streeting on Blu-ray in less than a month.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=3709

I checked the tech specs on IMDB for that ^ feature film and they are quite thorough except for the fact that some footage was captured with an Arri D-21 (digital), which is not listed.

Also, in regards to QoS, I want to remind some screenshot *scientists* (and I’m not referring in particular to Oliver) that the DP did not use much filtering at all during the principal photography, so for QoS, a defocus key was done around some actors’ faces during the digital intermediate post production phase to soften up their features a tad.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I checked the tech specs

in particular, the VC-1 bitrates of The Kingdom, which I finally got around to viewing last evening.......and WOW, the differences (at least on intermittent casual glances of the PS3 meter) are quite the polar opposite compared to Amadeus during essentially static scenes.

[Penton-Man]

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:

Link

Listen

Hah!
You’re not going to pull me into that discussion.

All I will say is that it will be interesting to see if the ethical thinking of some home theater enthusiasts is consistent…….. and cuts both ways.

What I mean is, that the same people that are criticizing the reduxed look of The French Connection, will have no ground to stand on at all, if they in turn, criticize the color filter imagery in the upcoming Fox Blu-ray movie, The South Pacific.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

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

Should be, remind me not to tinker with an existing movie in my vicinity.

Anyway, I don't want to pollute this thread with this debate. Just wanted to call Penton's attention towards Roizman's comments.

*wipes sweat from forehead*

"I feel very strongly about this."

Which movie is that?

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

What I mean is, that the same people that are criticizing the reduxed look of The French Connection, will have no ground to stand on at all, if they in turn, criticize the color filter imagery in the upcoming Fox Blu-ray movie, The South Pacific.

Better still, let's wait for next Fall when The Exorcist is out, with new color and improved scary faces on the walls! The Version I'll Never See!

[Jeff Kleist]

Let's not forget the crime of tampering with other people's creations wholesale

http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/02/...rek-Fans.shtml

"We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of (my) Star Trek," Abrams said.

No one should work on a property who doesn't have a long time love and association with it, and who doesn't commit to retaining as much as humanly possible. Why they can't go off and be creative on their own, or do something original in the same universe still escapes me.

[cjamescook]

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?
...

Exactly. When does a film stop being their film and start being our film? Now imagine you are the director or other person with ownership. How would you feel about being told what you can/cannot do with your work? It's an interesting dilemma.

My personal opinion is that a film is representative of its moment in time. Validation: How often does viewing an older film take you back to when you first saw it or the period when it was made? That said, the owners can do what they still want with it.

So, I like your answer best. Do what you want with a film, but please consider making the original version available, assuming time and money permits.

Cheers!

[Doctorossi]

Yes, I think it is in good taste and good form to make prominent previous public versions available, but I don't think it's something we can expect of filmmakers/rights-holders, only something we can ask of them. And we can try to educate them on the good reasons for doing so. I think Ridley Scott sets the example here. Where possible, he makes all notable versions available, tells you his preference and the reasoning behind it and let's you enjoy your own preference.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Let's not forget the crime of tampering with other people's creations wholesale

http://trekweb.com/articles/2009/02/...rek-Fans.shtml

"We made this film not for Trekkies but for future fans of (my) Star Trek," Abrams said.

No one should work on a property who doesn't have a long time love and association with it, and who doesn't commit to retaining as much as humanly possible. Why they can't go off and be creative on their own, or do something original in the same universe still escapes me.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from, Jeff. Abrams' Trek movie is a new work; he's not altering an existing product. You could say he's altering an existing intellectual property, but how do you make a sequel to/prequel to/continuation of an existing intellectual property without altering it? The answer is: you can't.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

When does a film stop being their film and start being our film?

When the viewer's money leaves his wallet.

A filmmaker can do all sorts of revisionism crap to a previous work if he likes. But the customer has no obligation to buy it. The customer has to the right to say, "screw you, buddy. I'm only going to buy the original version." It may the filmmaker's film, but he's wanting the customer's money for it. The customer at least has some say over the situation.

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from, Jeff. Abrams' Trek movie is a new work; he's not altering an existing product. You could say he's altering an existing intellectual property, but how do you make a sequel to/prequel to/continuation of an existing intellectual property without altering it? The answer is: you can't.

By breaking established continuity, character traits and design elements (the Enterprise). He has just openly stated that he wants his version to become Star Trek for the new generation, his version is invalid. If your name is not Gene Roddenberry, then you have no right to change a single piece of continuity, character traits or design elements. While his phaser and communicator are good, the tricorder is way off, and the Enterprise has had all of the flow of the design completely destroyed from elegance to squashed. The bridge has gone from functional into this blown out contrast white monstroscity of an Apple store from a 70s dystopian future movie. The Enterprise was not built in the middle of Iowa, it clearly says right on the plaque on the bridge it was built at San Francisco shipyards. A smart person who realizes that physically the design can never hold up in a gravity well has it built in space at a facility CALLED San Francisco, instead of claiming they squashed it to make it work better with the laws of physics (which it is like saying shooting yourself in the little toe is less crippling than the big toe). That's been a trend with a certain other show. Claim they're going to realism of physics or military procedure and then breaking said rules inside of the first season spectacuarly when it becomes convienient

Basically he changed as much as he thought he could get away with without being lynched. Since his name is NOT Gene Roddenberry, strict adherence to the establshed IP is required.

That goes for anything from Barney to Citizen Kane. If you want to be creative, be creative on your own property. If you want to play in someone else's sandbox, follow the posted rules.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Then less made it into the final edit, as his preliminary thinking was 10 min. worth, for which he was budgeted.

Maybe that was because he wanted to reserve the 65mm for special scenes to go for a consistent look and therefore did not find more scenes that for him made sense in 65mm.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Also, in regards to QoS, I want to remind some screenshot *scientists* (and I’m not referring in particular to Oliver) that the DP did not use much filtering at all during the principal photography, so for QoS, a defocus key was done around some actors’ faces during the digital intermediate post production phase to soften up their features a tad.

Now that was not nice

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

When the viewer's money leaves his wallet.

A filmmaker can do all sorts of revisionism crap to a previous work if he likes. But the customer has no obligation to buy it. The customer has to the right to say, "screw you, buddy. I'm only going to buy the original version." It may the filmmaker's film, but he's wanting the customer's money for it. The customer at least has some say over the situation.

Well, of course. And, unless I am gravely mistaken, I don't think anyone is stopping you from not buying this The French Connection BD.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

By breaking established continuity, character traits and design elements (the Enterprise). He has just openly stated that he wants his version to become Star Trek for the new generation, his version is invalid. If your name is not Gene Roddenberry, then you have no right to change a single piece of continuity, character traits or design elements. While his phaser and communicator are good, the tricorder is way off, and the Enterprise has had all of the flow of the design completely destroyed from elegance to squashed. The bridge has gone from functional into this blown out contrast white monstroscity of an Apple store from a 70s dystopian future movie. The Enterprise was not built in the middle of Iowa, it clearly says right on the plaque on the bridge it was built at San Francisco shipyards. A smart person who realizes that physically the design can never hold up in a gravity well has it built in space at a facility CALLED San Francisco, instead of claiming they squashed it to make it work better with the laws of physics (which it is like saying shooting yourself in the little toe is less crippling than the big toe). That's been a trend with a certain other show. Claim they're going to realism of physics or military procedure and then breaking said rules inside of the first season spectacuarly when it becomes convienient

Basically he changed as much as he thought he could get away with without being lynched. Since his name is NOT Gene Roddenberry, strict adherence to the establshed IP is required.

That goes for anything from Barney to Citizen Kane. If you want to be creative, be creative on your own property. If you want to play in someone else's sandbox, follow the posted rules.

I disagree completely. I don't want to live in a world in which creators are stuffed into such a tight little airless box. If they have to give us *exactly* what we've already been given, what's the point in creating anything "new" at all? Just go watch the existing movies. Did you react this way to the uniforms in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which look nothing like the tv series')? And, lest you forget, that movie was made when Gene Roddenberry was alive. I could understand your disinterest on the grounds that "Star Trek comes only from Roddenberry and Roddenberry is dead", but in terms of creating any new Star Trek at all, what you ask is impossible. If there is no new or different content, there is no new work.

[Jeff Kleist]

I disagree completely. I don't want to live in a world in which creators are stuffed into such a tight little airless box. If they have to give us *exactly* what we've already been given, what's the point in creating anything "new" at all?

On the contrary, it frees them, because only people who really love something will go messing with established properties. It doesn't have to be exact, it just can't contradict anything that came before , or in this case, after. He came up, by his own admission with the time travel gambit, not to even attempt to cover his changes, but as a way to shoehorn Nimoy into the movie.

Did you react this way to the uniforms in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which look nothing like the tv series')? And, lest you forget, that movie was made when Gene Roddenberry was alive

And with his complete cooperation and approval, as was TNG

I could understand your disinterest on the grounds that "Star Trek comes only from Roddenberry and Roddenberry is dead", but in terms of creating any new Star Trek at all, what you ask is impossible. If there is no new or different content, there is no new work.

Sure there can be new work, just don't violate the old, and stick within the established universe. The new Doctor Who does it brilliantly. Everything that happened before happened, and affects what happens now. It isn't restrained by what came before, it embraces it, and judging by the excellent ratings (most popular show in the UK?) modern audiences like it just fine

Penton's thread isn't really the place to debate these things, I just wanted to bring up the point that there are more aspects of the creative process that need to be respected than just how the picture looks, that frequently get left by the wayside in the name of someone who had nothing to do with the original looking to "make it his own", rather than honor the reason he has something to "make his own" in the first place.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Penton's thread isn't really the place to debate these things, I just wanted to bring up the point that there are more aspects of the creative process that need to be respected than just how the picture looks, that frequently get left by the wayside in the name of someone who had nothing to do with the original looking to "make it his own", rather than honor the reason he has something to "make his own" in the first place.

Shameless plug:

I started a thread on movie revisionism the other day on the Movie and TV Discusssion forum:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=87395

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Penton's thread isn't really the place to debate these things, I just wanted to bring up the point that there are more aspects of the creative process that need to be respected than just how the picture looks, that frequently get left by the wayside in the name of someone who had nothing to do with the original looking to "make it his own", rather than honor the reason he has something to "make his own" in the first place.

Jeff, any film debates here are fine with me as long as they remain respectful to other members with differing viewpoints and don’t go on for something like 5 pages or so with nothing really productive being contributed, after the second page – because, then it just gets boring to folks.

If you would like me be personally change or provide an alternative discussion track……..

This is a truly international Blu-ray forum isn’t it?
Don’t we have members here “spanning the globe”?
Isn’t there a thread somewhere on this forum asking everyone where they are from?

On that note, do any James Bond freaks know which Bond flick boasts the greatest number of foreign location shoots of any James Bond movie to date? (I’m counting England as the home base of James Bond and therefore all sets there total 0)

Any guesses?
Hint –
One location is where Penton-Man proposed to the then Miss Penton-Girl in a rather elegant fashion, I must say, on one knee on dem hard bricks.
Another hint-
One location is reportedly the driest place on earth……….and no, I’m not referring to my back yard in SoCal from about April till December.

[Disclaimer- the above calculation is at least according to the production notes]

[Doctorossi]

Sounds to me like you're talkin' about the new one.

That'd likely put your proposal at that gorgeous Italian piazza. Are you that romantic?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If your name is not Gene Roddenberry, then you have no right to change a single piece of continuity, character traits or design elements.

Well, you may not like Star Trek II... Nick Meyer wasn't a Trekker at all when he started either. Paramount regulated Roddenberry to "Executive Consultant" because they didn't trust him with the franchise anymore after ST:TMP underperformed both creatively and financially. Gene also complained about the changes Meyer made..."Too militaristic, too dark, etc."
And continuity: how the hell did Khan recognize Chekov! And they gave Kirk a kid!

Basically he changed as much as he thought he could get away with without being lynched. Since his name is NOT Gene Roddenberry, strict adherence to the establshed IP is required.

I would argue Trek has thrived without him. The films were better, and when Gene went hands off (over to Berman & Piller) in TNG's Season 3 TNG got a lot better. The first 2 seasons are atrocious in comparison.

That goes for anything from Barney to Citizen Kane. If you want to be creative, be creative on your own property. If you want to play in someone else's sandbox, follow the posted rules.

Franchises are different. Bond, Batman, even ALIEN have all been altered radically to the director's visions.

“Somebody had asked me, ‘What’s going to become of ‘Star Trek’ in the future?’ And I said that I hope that some day some bright young thing would come along and do it again, bigger and better than I had ever done it. And I wish them well.”

– Gene Roddenberry

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Any guesses?
Hint –
One location is where Penton-Man proposed to the then Miss Penton-Girl in a rather elegant fashion, I must say, on one knee on dem hard bricks.
Another hint-
One location is reportedly the driest place on earth……….and no, I’m not referring to my back yard in SoCal from about April till December.

[Disclaimer- the above calculation is at least according to the production notes]

Quantum of Solace, no?