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.

[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.

[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..

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

No..
You dont get to tell me what i like or not..

You just became my hero.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

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.

But he's not telling you what you like, he's factually telling you that this is closer to how it looked in 1986 than whatever "revisionist" version you like. In fact, you like the very thing you're blindly wailing against because that "glossy 80s home video look" isn't representative of the original color timing.

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

But he's not telling you what you like, he's factually telling you that this is closer to how it looked in 1986 than whatever "revisionist" version you like. In fact, you like the very thing you're blindly wailing against because that "glossy 80s home video look" isn't representative of the original color timing.

The vibrant version is how it was at my local cinema,and the version i bought on vhs a few years later,and have bought countless times since on different formats.. This is the version i remember and love.. I have watched this SO many times i lost count..

Now, this might be the intended look, and the look it had in more prominent theaters,but definitly not in my local cinema.. I specifically remember this film very well, due to circumstances of the time.. Do i know if my local cinema had oversaturated projector settings,or had a print from a different source than the ocn,no,but it sure is funny ALL subsequent home video releases looked like i remember it,dont you think?

New version the color red if friggin' maroon. In some shots the sky is no longer blue,but greyish yellow,a typical indicator of modern color grading.

Also, like i asked in previous comment. If Scott approved this grading,why isnt this the version used for the 30th anniversary?

People even tried to justify the abomination that is TGTBATU "remaster". It's the same discussion every time they mess with a film people love and remember.

I will not debate this any more.. There is no RIGHT answer there is only which version people prefer. And i prefer the vibrant dark one.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

There is no RIGHT answer there is only which version people prefer. And i prefer the vibrant dark one.

Going to keep this short and sweet. You're wrong.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

RIGHT

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

wrong.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Also, like i asked in previous comment. If Scott approved this grading,why isnt this the version used for the 30th anniversary?

Because that "30 anniversary" edition was NOT a new transfer, it was a repackaging of the awful, noise reduced, smudged and sharpened HD transfer done in the early 2000s for DVD. It looks way more like film now and not video. I'm sorry but the facts are the facts and you are wrong here. Doesn't mean you can't prefer that version and more power to you but don't act like this is revisionist and inaccurate.

[Gacivory]

Has this thread entered the Danger Zone?

[Tsunamijhoe]

Originally Posted by captainjoe

Because that "30 anniversary" edition was NOT a new transfer, it was a repackaging of the awful, noise reduced, smudged and sharpened HD transfer done in the early 2000s for DVD. It looks way more like film now and not video. I'm sorry but the facts are the facts and you are wrong here. Doesn't mean you can't prefer that version and more power to you but don't act like this is revisionist and inaccurate.

Dude, i know it is not a new transfer,i am asking IF the remastered scan was already approved before Scott passed away,WHY didnt they use it for the 30th? Why would they keep that dated master if they had a brand new with re-graded colors which according to you should be the acurate look

Like i also mentioned,i really do like the uptick in detail and lack of EE and DNR on the new master,but it still doesnt look correct to me,so much so, it detracts heavily from my enjoyment of it.. I watched both versions tonight,and i kept going back to the 30th with all its flaws,its still the one that looks correct color/brightness wise to me, and the one i remember.

Also,which version has been archived in library of congress? The vibrant one or the remaster? Or neither? If neither,then which version did get archived?

[wicky_J]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Dude, i know it is not a new transfer,i am asking IF the remastered scan was already approved before Scott passed away,WHY didnt they use it for the 30th? Why would they keep that dated master if they had a brand new with re-graded colors which according to you should be the acurate look

Like i also mentioned,i really do like the uptick in detail and lack of EE and DNR on the new master,but it still doesnt look correct to me,so much so, it detracts heavily from my enjoyment of it.. I watched both versions tonight,and i kept going back to the 30th with all its flaws,its still the one that looks correct color/brightness wise to me, and the one i remember.

Also,which version has been archived in library of congress? The vibrant one or the remaster? Or neither? If neither,then which version did get archived?

I will not debate this any more..

....and yet here you are.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by Tsunamijhoe

Dude, i know it is not a new transfer,i am asking IF the remastered scan was already approved before Scott passed away,WHY didnt they use it for the 30th? Why would they keep that dated master if they had a brand new with re-graded colors which according to you should be the acurate look

Because it’s way easier and cheaper to repackage an existing Blu-ray and sell it as a “30th Anniversary Edition” than to encode a brand new disc with a new transfer. It was an easy way to cash in on an anniversary.
Besides, the 3D transfer from 2013 pre-dates that version and was also yellow. The 2016 release really has no relevancy in this discussion at all.

[sancho]

I am going to double dip on this. It's only $10 for the blu.