Willow (1988) - 20th Century Fox & Buena Vista/Disney releases

[mjcavinder]

Originally Posted by bluballer

I can appreciate your frustration but unless you have an eidetic memory, how can you compare your 1988 theatrical experience?

I mean, there are some movies that have sentimental attachments to me because of the people I went to see them with, but honestly, I have no way of comparing the audio and video experience from 20 years ago to the bluray counterparts screened on my home theater today.

EDIT: This was meant for kdo

his real name is Brad Williams...just go look him up...the fairies color is completely different and with almost no detail. but I still love the bluray, I give The Video Quality 4.2/5.0....Kdo don't watch "Dead man"1995 on bluray.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Saw 2 copies at Best Buy yesterday and just HAD to pick it up. Guess when my copy comes in the mail Monday I'll just turn around and return that one and pick up Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

The audio on the Blu is excellent. I've never heard Willow sound this good. I swear I picked up little sounds I'd never noticed before, good stuff!

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

I also saw this theatrically in 1988, and like everyone who saw it back then, and has since watched the movie a million times on VHS and DVD, I honestly have no idea what it looked like 25 years ago. haha And I don't believe anyone who says they do. Sorry.

Fair enough, I'm not asking you to believe me. As I stated, it's my opinion ...All I can tell you is that the theatrical presentation I recall did have a much more "muted" appearance and did not have the blown-out contrast. Nor did it have the seemingly over-saturated colors of the BD (mainly affecting fleshtones, but which in some instances, even affect the eye-colors of the characters...you can barely make them out!). And as for the final battle taking place at Nockmaar castle (my favorite part of the film), my theatrical recollection is that it actually looked like it was taking place in a dark & dreary thunderstorm (much like it did on the DVD), and not during some contrast-boosted sunshower ...

Considering the integrity of the blue skies on this transfer, I find the standard "teal" argument (which seems to get thrown at every transfer these days by anyone who dislikes it) to be pretty spurious in this case.

I recommend you put your DVD in and do a long, hard comparison to the Blu-ray like I did. After about a couple hours of comparing, I think you'll find that the "integrity of blue skies" on the BD, is not as strong as you think it is. In some instances, yes. But more often than not, you're going to see that the gray, overcast skies of the DVD (in which you could clearly make out clouds and color), has been replaced by nothing but "blooming white." Again, it's not universally affecting the entire disc. But it happens far more than it should've, and in a nutshell, the overall color-balance of the Blu-ray just seems to be all over the place...I didn't buy "Indiana Jones," but I can now honestly say that some of the controversy surrounding the transfer of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" seems to fall right in line with what has happened to "Willow."

I did rewatch the old DVD again, with the Warwick Davis commentary, and the black levels are horribly washed-out. All I can say is that I hope the contrast didn't look so utterly limp in theaters.

I didn't say the DVD was perfect...it's not at all. It's just more representative of the theatrical experience I recall, which, as I already stated, was much more "muted" in its presentation than the Blu-ray appears.

Also, kdo, didn't you once say that you preferred the incredibly boosted, thoroughly incorrect grading of the Legend Theatrical Cut over the grading of the struck-directly-from-an-original-answer-print transfer of the Legend Director's Cut?

I still prefer both the look and cut of the US theatrical release, and I'm not going to derail the "Willow" thread by getting into a "Legend" discussion here, but people need to realize that "Legend" was released in a couple of different versions, and the U.S. version, which was cut and edited quickly, along with the "Tangerine Dream" score thrown together at the last second (in order to make the film more marketable to US teenagers), likely looked entirely different from the European release (which much more closely resembles the look of the DC) to begin with. From what I've seen in screenshots, I think the European Cut has the strongest overall appearance of the film currently available (at least on HD), but regardless, I still prefer many aspects of the look of the US Cut.

I get the feeling that you're very into defending what you're used to, regardless of whether or not it matches the original theatrical grading.

I'm not so much into defending what I'm used to, as I am in defending the look of a film as I recall having seen it theatrically. And I think I need to state that you will find, far more often than not, that I praise the job that is done on Blu-ray releases. But if something feels "off" to me, well, then I admit it ...

I don't want to deter people from buying this new Blu if it's going to make them happy. I've grown weary of all this film revisionism going on these days, to the point I don't have the energy (or interest) to argue these points on the forum boards (frankly, I have a lot of better things to do), which is why I just drop my opinons now, and leave it at that. To each their own...and again, as I stated in my previous post, the Blu does have its positive points, which I'm sure most people will be pleased with...and I'll leave it at that .

[Adam_WM]

Easily my favorite thing of this forum is people remembering exact shades of colors from movies they saw in the theaters.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Adam_WM

Easily my favorite thing of this forum is people remembering exact shades of colors from movies they saw in the theaters.

LOL! Exactly!
In some cases, decades removed from the initial viewing.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by kdo

Fair enough, I'm not asking you to believe me. As I stated, it's my opinion ...All I can tell you is that the theatrical presentation I recall did have a much more "muted" appearance and did not have the blown-out contrast. Nor did it have the seemingly over-saturated colors of the BD (mainly affecting fleshtones, but which in some instances, even affect the eye-colors of the characters...you can barely make them out!). And as for the final battle taking place at Nockmaar castle (my favorite part of the film), my theatrical recollection is that it actually looked like it was taking place in a dark & dreary thunderstorm (much like it did on the DVD), and not during some contrast-boosted sunshower ...

I've already expressed my displeasure with the blown-out highlights, but the black levels are a clear improvement over the DVD presentation, which was incredibly washed-out, with very little true black.

I recommend you put your DVD in and do a long, hard comparison to the Blu-ray like I did. After about a couple hours of comparing, I think you'll find that the "integrity of blue skies" on the BD, is not as strong as you think it is. In some instances, yes. But more often than not, you're going to see that the gray, overcast skies of the DVD (in which you could clearly make out clouds and color), has been replaced by nothing but "blooming white." Again, it's not universally affecting the entire disc. But it happens far more than it should've, and in a nutshell, the overall color-balance of the Blu-ray just seems to be all over the place...I didn't buy "Indiana Jones," but I can now honestly say that some of the controversy surrounding the transfer of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" seems to fall right in line with what has happened to "Willow."

Again, already expressed my displeasure with the blown-out highlights. Not sure how many times I have to do so. And where did I say anything about the integrity of the "gray, overcast skies?" I specifically said, and you specifically quoted, "the integrity of the BLUE skies." The blue skies are blue...not teal. Willow's shirt is blue, not teal. Blues in this transfer are BLUE...they do not lean to teal across the board. My point being, your "orange and teal strikes again" comment is bollocks.

I still prefer both the look and cut of the US theatrical release, and I'm not going to derail the "Willow" thread by getting into a "Legend" discussion here, but people need to realize that "Legend" was released in a couple of different versions, and the U.S. version, which was cut and edited quickly, along with the "Tangerine Dream" score thrown together at the last second (in order to make the film more marketable to US teenagers), likely looked entirely different from the European release (which much more closely resembles the look of the DC) to begin with. From what I've seen in screenshots, I think the European Cut has the strongest overall appearance of the film currently available (at least on HD), but regardless, I still prefer many aspects of the look of the US Cut.

Currently, there is no basis for the idea that any theatrical presentation of Legend ever looked like the US Theatrical Cut BD transfer...especially considering all the artificial sharpening that was done to the image. The only cut that is guaranteed to have director- and cinematographer-approved grading is the one you like least. In other words, your opinions are based on your subjective tastes and what you're used to...and there's nothing wrong with that. Except when you try to present it as a purist stance of "how the film SHOULD look."

I'm not so much into defending what I'm used to, as I am in defending the look of a film as I recall having seen it theatrically. And I think I need to state that you will find, far more often than not, that I praise the job that is done on Blu-ray releases. But if something feels "off" to me, well, then I admit it ...

I can understand thinking that something feels "off," but not based on remembering what you saw in the theater 25 years ago. There's no way, after 25 years of presumably seeing the film on different home media, that you could actually remember what the film looked like theatrically in 1988. Sorry...not possible. Do I think that it looked just like the new BD? No. No I don't. But I don't think it looked like the DVD either. And I have no valid standard for comparison on hand, only my own subjective taste. Same as you.

[unsung122212]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

I can understand thinking that something feels "off," but not based on remembering what you saw in the theater 25 years ago. There's no way, after 25 years of presumably seeing the film on different home media, that you could actually remember what the film looked like theatrically in 1988. Sorry...not possible. Do I think that it looked just like the new BD? No. No I don't. But I don't think it looked like the DVD either. And I have no valid standard for comparison on hand, only my own subjective taste. Same as you.

I just wanna say that it is possible for one to remember exact and perfect deal even after 25 years has past. The brain will keep memories that the individual holds very dear to their hearts. When the brain processes things, the most important memories are protected more then the ones that aren't important. Which is why something as strong as a birth of ones child, or a sports game that a child had went to with their parent or some other strong emotional feeling from ones childhood still remains as strong even after 20-30 years has past. It just depends on how dear something is to someone. Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this particular aspect of the conversation and that is all.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by unsung122212

I just wanna say that it is possible for one to remember exact and perfect deal even after 25 years has past. The brain will keep memories that the individual holds very dear to their hearts. When the brain processes things, the most important memories are protected more then the ones that aren't important. Which is why something as strong as a birth of ones child, or a sports game that a child had went to with their parent or some other strong emotional feeling from ones childhood still remains as strong even after 20-30 years has past. It just depends on how dear something is to someone. Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this particular aspect of the conversation and that is all.

And emotion skews memory. These are not perfect memories. People rarely remember anything exactly as it happened (especially when there is an emotional response involved), let alone recalling specific visual details like exact hues and intensities, etc. I'm not saying he can't remember going to see Willow and having a wonderful, magical time. Hell, I can recall that from my own experience after 25 years. But do I remember exact skintones and black levels? No. And neither does anyone else. Especially after one's memory of that theatrical viewing has had decades of subsequent non-theatrical viewings heaped on top of it, the idea that any memories of color grading from 1988 are to be trusted is simply not realistic.

[lcummins]

Scientists have proven that memory is faulty, even right after an event has occurred. People mis-remember things even when they know they will be tested. Memory cannot be trusted 100%, especially after a long period of time as almost everyone tends to embellish memories through the years (unintentionally) and those memories become stronger each time.

[Oblivion138]

Exactly. In fact, each time you subconsciously embellish or alter a memory (which is unavoidable), the next time you remember it, what you recall is actually the flawed memory...not the original event. And even that is altered ever-so-slightly with each subsequent recall. Over time, this becomes like a game of Telephone that you play with yourself. A memory will be at least marginally altered each and every time you recall it. You will never play back precisely the same memory as you did the last time, let alone an exact reproduction of the actual event. Memory is vastly overrated and really quite flawed. And when it comes to things like color, memory is downright awful.

[42041]

Originally Posted by unsung122212

I just wanna say that it is possible for one to remember exact and perfect deal even after 25 years has past. The brain will keep memories that the individual holds very dear to their hearts. When the brain processes things, the most important memories are protected more then the ones that aren't important. Which is why something as strong as a birth of ones child, or a sports game that a child had went to with their parent or some other strong emotional feeling from ones childhood still remains as strong even after 20-30 years has past. It just depends on how dear something is to someone. Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this particular aspect of the conversation and that is all.

Not all types of memories are the same. Visual memory is quite short-term. A discerning viewer (that's already setting the bar pretty high, since when I was a kid/teenager, the specific cinematographic choices were pretty much the last thing I was consciously paying attention to) might remember certain attributes of a film's look, but anything close to precise recollection after 25 years, or even 10? I'm extremely dubious. I usually struggle to remember how 35mm prints I saw just a year or two ago look in anything except the broadest terms, or maybe a handful of images that stuck with me (and this is always stuff I very consciously registered when watching the film).

[mjcavinder]

Thanks Leonard Shelby the 2nd

[Havenbull]

I recently ran into an old girlfriend from 25 years ago...

She didn't look the same, and that's not how I remembered her

[kdo]

Originally Posted by mjcavinder

Thanks Leonard Shelby the 2nd

Oh man, no offense to 42041 (he's a smart guy), but that response just struck a nerve with me ...

Yeah, I think it's safe to say, like with anything else, there's varying degrees of memory from person to person. I'm not going to start laying claim to having some sort of otherworldly ability, but I have found that my memory has generally served me quite well...

I do believe there are people who have unbelievable memory ability (though I wouldn't necessarily consider myself one them per se), and one of them was a guy I played chess with a couple of times who was a certified master at the game (He'd won several regional & state tournaments & championships), and just playing him was an amazing treat, because he could replay an entire game (move for move) of both players! And after he would beat me (which was everytime we played), he'd tell me that if I really wanted to be a top-notch chess player, that I needed to start buying all the chess books I could, and start memorizing all the different types of movements in the game (something that I personally didn't have any interest in doing, as it would take away from other passions I had, like my movie watching time ). But I swear, there are some people (like Bobby Fischer for instance), who just have an incredible God-given (almost supernatural) ability to memorize (whether it be chess, or numbers, or pictures, or whatever)...and to say that no one is capable of clearly remembering exactly what they saw, heard, or experienced in general, just because it was decades ago, is a bit of a stretch for me.

Originally Posted by Havenbull

I recently ran into an old girlfriend from 25 years ago...

She didn't look the same, and that's not how I remembered her

I'll bet

[mjcavinder]

"Yeah, I think it's safe to say, like with anything else, there's varying degrees of memory from person to person. I'm not going to start laying claim to having some sort of otherworldly ability, but I have found that my memory has generally served me quite well..."

"I do believe there are people who have unbelievable memory ability (though I wouldn't necessarily consider myself one them per se), and one of them was a guy I played chess with a couple of times who was a certified master at the game (He'd won several regional & state tournaments & championships), and just playing him was an amazing treat, because he could replay an entire game (move for move) of both players! And after he would beat me (which was everytime we played), he'd tell me that if I really wanted to be a top-notch chess player, that I needed to start buying all the chess books I could, and start memorizing all the different types of movements in the game (something that I personally didn't have any interest in doing, as it would take away from other passions I had, like my movie watching time ). But I swear, there are some people (like Bobby Fischer for instance), who just have an incredible God-given (almost supernatural) ability to memorize (whether it be chess, or numbers, or pictures, or whatever)...and to say that no one is capable of clearly remembering exactly what they saw, heard, or experienced in general, just because it was decades ago, is a bit of a stretch for me."

I like to joke a little, I have a good memory...blueberries are a good source nutrients that help fuel overall brain health... I seriously watched Willow as a kid in the theater and all I can say is that is the movie was bury.
look up a guy named Brad Williams was on History channel's "Stan Lee's Superhumans"

"I recently ran into an old girlfriend from 25 years ago...
She didn't look the same, and that's not how I remembered her."-Havenbull
Just ask her to take a DNR bath with you(she might look waxy, but younger)

[42041]

Originally Posted by mjcavinder

Thanks Leonard Shelby the 2nd

This isn't just me speaking for myself though, there's quite a bit of published research on the matter. Color is something (normal) humans neither perceive (as in, there's a lot of psychovisual processing the brain does on the color balance of what it sees) nor encode into memory very precisely. Even in the short term, people can remember something is, say, red, but recollection of the specific shade of red is pretty sketchy.

To qualify my comment about not remembering how theatrical screenings look: for example, I saw a gorgeous print of Magnolia and compared it to my blu-ray after I got back from the screening. It was closer than many transfers of pre-digital films tend to be, but I remember a very distinct difference. Now, a handful of months later? I can still confidently say that the BD is in the ballpark, and I would certainly be able to tell what's closer to the screening if there was another disc with a comparably large difference as this Willow one, but I couldn't possibly tell you what that difference actually was. That's usually how it goes: I remember the broad details (ie, it was saturated, high-contrast, razor sharp) but not the specific hues and tones.

(I've got absolutely no idea about Willow, mind you)

[retablo]

It's still humorous to me, people watching the blu then comparing it to a 12 year old DVD that's less likely to be accurate than the new blu-ray is, then declaring the new version incorrect. Makes for great comedy.

[mjcavinder]

Sadly one of the few youtubers that I watch is ending his almost 2 year run on Bluray roundup/reviews...FlimFanPete ends with Willow and a few others...checkout his videos.

The Final Episode - YouTube

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by lcummins

Scientists have proven that memory is faulty, even right after an event has occurred. People mis-remember things even when they know they will be tested. Memory cannot be trusted 100%, especially after a long period of time as almost everyone tends to embellish memories through the years (unintentionally) and those memories become stronger each time.

I read that study, but that's not how I remember it.

[mjcavinder]