Top Gun (1986) (4K Remastered)

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

The grading is faithful to the look Tony Scott intended

Yeah,because he is alive to tell them how it should look? No,this is someone who THINK they know what Tony would have had it look like.. If Scott wanted it to look like this,he would have graded it like this,simple as that.

It should have been the version submitted to National Film Registry in 2015 IE,the 30th anniversay master.

And i dont care for 30 years after revisionist tinkering,it is NOT how the film looked,and it shouldnt be changed.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Yeah,because he is alive to tell them how it should look? No,this is someone who THINK they know what Tony would have had it look like.. If Scott wanted it to look like this,he would have shot it like this,simple as that.

It should have been the version submitted to National Film Registry in 2015 IE,the 30th anniversay master.

And i dont care for 30 years after revisionist tinkering,it is NOT how the film looked,and it shouldnt be changed.

One of the last things Scott did before he died was approve an older 4K master that this new transfer used as a reference for the colour correction. So yes, he was in fact alive to tell them how it should look.

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

One of the last things Scott did before he died was approve an older 4K master that this new transfer used as a reference for the colour correction. So yes, he was in fact alive to tell them how it should look.

Referrence,meaning they could do what they wanted ultimately,he just gave his opinions.. So if that old 4k master was used for this new release,then same master was used for the 30th Anniversary, so why the changes now? Why didnt the 30th look like "Scott approved" according to you?

I dont buy it,and dont care for it.. Top Gun i saw 3 times in the cinema,i have owned it on every format since beta, this is NOT how the film should look.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The 1986 35mm prints had a strong yellow cast along with some cyan, typical look of Scott's films from the period and a staple of Jerry Bruckheimer-produced films, which Top Gun was. I've handled an original print and even posted scans of it on here years ago specifically to show the look when the 3D remaster was receiving flak for being "revisionist" despite the fact that it looked pretty close to the original prints, Tony Scott was involved in the look of the remaster which reinstated this aesthetic which was absent in previous home video masters.

"If Scott wanted it to look like this,he would have shot it like this,simple as that."

Well, it was a film that was graded photochemically. There's plenty of reasons why he wouldn't have "shot" it this way, just like how virtually every other film wouldn't look how it would when it was shot. Shooting is part of the filmmaking process, the footage still needs to be graded. It's like asking a filmmaker why they would shoot a scene during the day when it's supposed to be at night, even though they'd know during shooting that the footage would be graded later on in a way to give the appearance of night.

I am very familiar with Scotts style and color palette,but even the 3D version looks better than this.. All the cockpit scenes here look like the actors have jaundice.. The Reds are toned down, the brightness increased significantly.. It should NOT look like this,period..
And i dont give a hootenanny about after the fact changes.. Any releases should stay as close to theatrical release as possible regardles of "intentions" as this is the version we fell in love with,and the version we remember.. If they want to release altered version,fine with me,but have the guts to come out and tell us "changed significantly from theatrical" instead of selling it "this is what it was supposed to look like", bullcrap..
If you cant tell, i am sick of these revisionist tinkerings, even if it is the filmmaker making them 30 years after,even Scott would have been influenced by that stupid teal/orange fad that was so prevalent for a decade a few years back. If this is how he wanted the picture to look in 1986 he would have graded it like that then,not now.

The original colors are representative of the time period the films were made and should NOT be changed after the fact.

Top Gun should NOT look like friggin' Transformers..

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Referrence,meaning they could do what they wanted ultimately,he just gave his opinions.. So if that old 4k master was used for this new release,then same master was used for the 30th Anniversary, so why the changes now? Why didnt the 30th look like "Scott approved" according to you?

I dont buy it,and dont care for it.. Top Gun i saw 3 times in the cinema,i have owned it on every format since beta, this is NOT how the film should look.



I am very familiar with Scotts style and color palette,but even the 3D version looks better than this.. All the cockpit scenes here look like the actors have jaundice.. The Reds are toned down, the brightness increased significantly.. It should NOT look like this,period..
And i dont give a hootenanny about after the fact changes.. Any releases should stay as close to theatrical release as possible regardles of "intentions" as this is the version we fell in love with,and the version we remember.. If they want to release altered version,fine with me,but have the guts to come out and tell us "changed significantly from theatrical" instead of selling it "this is what it was supposed to look like", bullcrap..
If you cant tell, i am sick of these revisionist tinkerings, even if it is the filmmaker making them 30 years after,even Scott would have been influenced by that stupid teal/orange fad that was so prevalent for a decade a few years back. If this is how he wanted the picture to look in 1986 he would have graded it like that then,not now.

The original colors are representative of the time period the films were made and should NOT be changed after the fact.

Top Gun should NOT look like friggin' Transformers..

I can tell that in your blind rage you really didn't read a thing he wrote...

~Matt

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by Matt89

LOL you really didn't understand a thing he wrote...

~Matt

Ofcourse i did,i just dont buy it nor care for it.. I like my Top Gun like i have since 1986,and that is the end of it..

Godspeed if people like this,i am selling my copy and gonna go re-watch 30th anniversary for the umpteenth time.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Ofcourse i did,i just dont buy it nor care for it.. I like my Top Gun like i have since 1986,and that is the end of it..

Godspeed if people like this,i am selling my copy and gonna go re-watch 30th anniversary for the umpteenth time.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet. You're wrong.

[4Dblu]

Watching this now.
PQ - Good may be about a notch above the Blu. Little more sharpness.
AQ - Strong, Louder. I turn it down to -32 which i like to do, rather then to turn it Up.
There is various Lip Sync problems. But very small, like half second lag. But u rarely notice it if u only watching their lips.

But i tell that beginning of the soundtrack just gets me everytime....

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I'm going to keep this short and sweet. You're wrong.

No..
You dont get to tell me what i like or not.. New transfer is drab and boring,i like the glossy 80s look of the previous releases. Not this sun burned abomination.

Originally Posted by 4Dblu

Watching this now.
PQ - Good may be about a notch above the Blu. Little more sharpness.
AQ - Strong, Louder. I turn it down to -32 which i like to do, rather then to turn it Up.
There is various Lip Sync problems. But very small, like half second lag. But u rarely notice it if u only watching their lips.

But i tell that beginning of the soundtrack just gets me everytime....

I must be going deaf then,because i had to crank this baby up to reference level to be somewhat satisfied..

[BluRay1977]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Referrence,meaning they could do what they wanted ultimately,he just gave his opinions.. So if that old 4k master was used for this new release,then same master was used for the 30th Anniversary, so why the changes now? Why didnt the 30th look like "Scott approved" according to you?

I dont buy it,and dont care for it.. Top Gun i saw 3 times in the cinema,i have owned it on every format since beta, this is NOT how the film should look.



I am very familiar with Scotts style and color palette,but even the 3D version looks better than this.. All the cockpit scenes here look like the actors have jaundice.. The Reds are toned down, the brightness increased significantly.. It should NOT look like this,period..
And i dont give a hootenanny about after the fact changes.. Any releases should stay as close to theatrical release as possible regardles of "intentions" as this is the version we fell in love with,and the version we remember.. If they want to release altered version,fine with me,but have the guts to come out and tell us "changed significantly from theatrical" instead of selling it "this is what it was supposed to look like", bullcrap..
If you cant tell, i am sick of these revisionist tinkerings, even if it is the filmmaker making them 30 years after,even Scott would have been influenced by that stupid teal/orange fad that was so prevalent for a decade a few years back. If this is how he wanted the picture to look in 1986 he would have graded it like that then,not now.

The original colors are representative of the time period the films were made and should NOT be changed after the fact.

Top Gun should NOT look like friggin' Transformers..

I love how you act so objective about how the film is supposed to look, and yet you judge things entirely based off of memory from 35 years ago. JohnCarpenterFan explicitly stated he showed shots of a actual original print that he held in his hand, what's your argument? All i see is a 'Oh that's just the way i like it' attitude without anything to back up that the color timing on previous releases was authentic.

Fun fact, we can all forget really easily what a film looked like in the theaters, when it comes out on video, nobody is going to think about what the theatrical colors were, they're just bloody happy to have it in their hands! It's part of human nature. Second fun fact, that so called "jaundice" look is how the majority of films looked like back in the day. I have went to screenings to see really really sharp prints of quite a few classic films, and at least nearly all had it. Not because they were faded to 'yellow', since technically movies can only fade to red or pink, but because that's how the films looked! Kabish?

[AmishParadise]

Watched this the other night at 150" diagonal. Well, at 2.39:1 it was actually 142" diagonal. One of the best double dips in recent memory. Exceptional transfer. Exceptional audio. Color me extremely satisfied. If you haven't upgraded your original Blu-ray yet don't hesitate. And for just under $10 no less.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Yeah,because he is alive to tell them how it should look? No,this is someone who THINK they know what Tony would have had it look like.. If Scott wanted it to look like this,he would have shot it like this,simple as that.

It should have been the version submitted to National Film Registry in 2015 IE,the 30th anniversay master.

And i dont care for 30 years after revisionist tinkering,it is NOT how the film looked,and it shouldnt be changed.

The 1986 35mm prints had a strong yellow cast along with some cyan, typical look of Scott's films from the period and a staple of Jerry Bruckheimer-produced films, which Top Gun was. I've handled an original print and even posted scans of it on here years ago specifically to show the look when the 3D remaster was receiving flak for being "revisionist" despite the fact that it looked pretty close to the original prints, Tony Scott was involved in the look of the remaster which reinstated this aesthetic which was absent in previous home video masters.

"If Scott wanted it to look like this,he would have shot it like this,simple as that."

Well, it was a film that was graded photochemically. There's plenty of reasons why he wouldn't have "shot" it this way, just like how virtually every other film wouldn't look how it would when it was shot. Shooting is part of the filmmaking process, the footage still needs to be graded. It's like asking a filmmaker why they would shoot a scene during the day when it's supposed to be at night, even though they'd know during shooting that the footage would be graded later on in a way to give the appearance of night.