Movies that are forever visually restricted by the tech used to create them

[levcore]

Apologies for the wordy title but what movies were either really trying to push the envelope by using brand new camera systems or technology in their creation that have now forever restricted the visuals on them? I'm talking about movies like Captain America: The First Avenger being (mostly?) shot at 1080p or Superman Returns being shot on those awful looking digital cameras or Attack of the Clones being digitally softened in post to offset how sharp the digital photography was and now the movie is stuck looking that way?

These movies are stuck looking a certain way and can never really look any better due to it and actually end up looking worse than much older movies due to the tech used. Any good examples of this?

[Aclea]

When we were restoring Giant in 1995 we could get remarkable results for everything but the optical fade ins and fades out which were baked into the negative (you can always tell in a 50s film when a fade in or out is coming because the image becomes grainier because of the limitations of optical printers of the day and the dupe footage required for those sections). Unfortunately, almost every scene in the 201-minute film begins and ends with a fade, while some scenes themselves have several fades. While the rest of the film is in good shape - it was shot in the notoriously crappy WarnerColor but restored in Technicolor - there's nothing that can be done about those sections.

[Martoto]

I guess anything shot in the original Cinerama is restricted to being shown in the true Cinerama exhibition format or you're not really getting the film that was shot. How great it would be to have some gadget that could feasibly recreate that in the home. Or for it to be projected in an ordinary cinema and somehow simulating the peripheral effect with existing 3D glasses.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Aclea

When we were restoring Giant in 1995 we could get remarkable results for everything but the optical fade ins and fades out which were baked into the negative (you can always tell in a 50s film when a fade in or out is coming because the image becomes grainier because of the limitations of optical printers of the day and the dupe footage required for thosesections). Unfortunately, almost every scene in the 201-minute film begins and ends with a fade, while some scenes themselves have several fades. While the rest of the film is in good shape - it was shot in the notoriously crappy WarnerColor but restored in Technicolor - there's nothing that can be done about those sections.

Does that just mean that the actual camera negative was missing?

[JayTL]

I'll go one step back, and say movies in the 1970s (more specifically Dawn of the Dead) being restricted by technology...in the make up department.

While I don't personally mind the zombie effects/gore...there's no way to improve the look.

[xbs2034]

Many early digitally shot movies obviously, also want to bring up South Pacific with those bizarre color filters (from what I understand, wasn’t supposed to be as extreme, but the team didn’t see the results until much later when it was too late to do anything).

[Streamingsux]

Blair Witch Project owns this thread.

That may not count though, as it was intentional..

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Martoto

I guess anything shot in the original Cinerama is restricted to being shown in the true Cinerama exhibition format or you're not really getting the film that was shot. How great it would be to have some gadget that could feasibly recreate that in the home. Or for it to be projected in an ordinary cinema and somehow simulating the peripheral effect with existing 3D glasses.

Do you mean something like How the West Was Won? I love the fake cinerama presentation on one of the discs for that gives you kind if an idea of how it might have looked properly.

[levcore]

How about 28 Days Later, great movie but it looks horrible (apart from the last scene).

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Does that just mean that the actual camera negative was missing?

The negative is still there, but it's a cut negative with the opticals spliced in. The A and B reels and OCN for the optically duped fade footage are long gone and weren't among the trims and outtakes we recovered, so we couldn't recreate them.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by levcore

Do you mean something like How the West Was Won? I love the fake cinerama presentation on one of the discs for that gives you kind if an idea of how it might have looked properly.

Yeah it's a slight improvement on the standard letterbox. But you really need that curved screen, or the effect of it.

[jzbadblood]

Originally Posted by JayTL

I'll go one step back, and say movies in the 1970s (more specifically Dawn of the Dead) being restricted by technology...in the make up department.

While I don't personally mind the zombie effects/gore...there's no way to improve the look.

I thought the make up looked way better than I remembered when watching the UHD.

[Synchg]

superman returns looked great

[JayTL]

Originally Posted by jzbadblood

I thought the make up looked way better than I remembered when watching the UHD.

I agree. It's also restricted by the tech used at the time as well.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by levcore

How about 28 Days Later, great movie but it looks horrible (apart from the last scene).

In this regard, there are a few other films that'll never look great because they were shot on SD formats. The ones I can think of right now are Dancer in the Dark and the entire August Underground trilogy.

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by levcore

How about 28 Days Later, great movie but it looks horrible (apart from the last scene).

It was intentionally rendered to look like an 80's film as a homage to Romero's Dead trilogy, though IIRC.

[CrazyBlu-RayFan]

Inland Empire (2006)

[levcore]

Originally Posted by KManX89

It was intentionally rendered to look like an 80's film as a homage to Romero's Dead trilogy, though IIRC.

It looks absolutely nothing like any 80s film I've ever seen. It also looks nothing like any of the Romero movies due to being shot on crappy DV cameras.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by KManX89

It was intentionally rendered to look like an 80's film as a homage to Romero's Dead trilogy, though IIRC.

It looks nothing like Romero's zombie films or any 80s films. It looks like it was shot on SD camcorder in the early 2000s.

[BluCollector13]

Michael Mann movies starting with "Collateral".