Zelig (1983) (Woody Allen) - Twilight Time - July 12, 2016

[Akijama]

Source

Fictional documentary about the life of human chameleon Leonard Zelig, a man who becomes a celebrity in the 1920s due to his ability to look and act like whoever is around him. Clever editing places Zelig in real newsreel footage of Woodrow Wilson, Babe Ruth, and others.

[KCota15]

I've never bought a Twilight Time Blu-Ray before. When do they usually go up for Pre-Order? Is there a way to find out

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by KCota15

I've never bought a Twilight Time Blu-Ray before. When do they usually go up for Pre-Order? Is there a way to find out

2-3 weeks before the release date. TT will announce the exact date on their Facebook page and website as they get closer to the release date.

[oildude]

Pre-orders begin Wednesday, June 29 @ 4 pm EST

Special Features: Isolated Score Track / Original Theatrical Trailer

[DVD Phreak]

Does anyone know if Allen put speckles and scratches on the picture intentionally to obtain that aged look for the film? I just saw the Blu-ray, and while the B&W newsreel-like footage looks unrestored as expected, the color, present-day footage also shows speckles and scratches (but not a lot). I wonder if it is because an unrestored print was used for the Blu-ray, or that the Blu-ray represents the way the film is supposed to look. I'm inclined to believe this is just an unrestored print because the sharpness of the HD picture is also not the highest. I hope to have a second opinion from DVDBeaver and this site.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

Does anyone know if Allen put speckles and scratches on the picture intentionally to obtain that aged look for the film? I just saw the Blu-ray, and while the B&W newsreel-like footage looks unrestored as expected, the color, present-day footage also shows speckles and scratches (but not a lot). I wonder if it is because an unrestored print was used for the Blu-ray, or that the Blu-ray represents the way the film is supposed to look. I'm inclined to believe this is just an unrestored print because the sharpness of the HD picture is also not the highest. I hope to have a second opinion from DVDBeaver and this site.

There was no restoration done. Also, restoration has nothing to do with sharpness.

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

There was no restoration done. Also, restoration has nothing to do with sharpness.

If an old print doesn't have a high enough resolution, then a fresh 2K or 4K print *would* increase sharpness (and detail). From what I see on this Blu-ray, the picture doesn't seem to show all the detail that the original negative is supposed to show.

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

If an old print doesn't have a high enough resolution, then a fresh 2K or 4K print *would* increase sharpness (and detail). From what I see on this Blu-ray, the picture doesn't seem to show all the detail that the original negative is supposed to show.

I haven't opened mine up yet. I do also have the DVD release to compare it to.

Certainly sad if true, for a $35 purchase. And I agree with you that restoration can and should increase sharpness as it relates to detail.

Did you happen to compare it to a DVD?

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

I haven't opened mine up yet. I do also have the DVD release to compare it to.

Certainly sad if true, for a $35 purchase. And I agree with you that restoration can and should increase sharpness as it relates to detail.

Did you happen to compare it to a DVD?

What's more, the film is barely over 75 minutes. It is my misfortune that one of my all-time favorite films is made by a director who doesn't believe in special features, and published by a company that charges the same high prices for bare-bone discs.

The isolated score track is nicely rendered in stereo (seems to be), however. This track is useful because the music is often overlapped by the narration, songs, and other sound.

I saw the DVD a long time ago and don't remember what it looked like, but I imagined it looked similar to this BD. This DVD Talk review says the color scenes are "artificially aged to match the old".

[klauswhereareyou]

One I think I'll pick up at a later date when there is a sale or some free promo I need to get up to a certain price point for.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

If an old print doesn't have a high enough resolution, then a fresh 2K or 4K print *would* increase sharpness (and detail). From what I see on this Blu-ray, the picture doesn't seem to show all the detail that the original negative is supposed to show.

You're mixing up optical (analog) and digital attributes. Prints don't have resolution, they have (perhaps) resolving power. A scan of an original negative at a high resolution would presumably be better than a "bad" print, but bad prints usually happen because the negative no longer exists and it's made from a later generation or the production used an inter-positive process because they knew they'd be making lots of prints.

In Zelig, all but the modern day scenes are meant to look like newsreel footage and the film was intentionally damaged to make it look old through chemical and other processes.

Many films released to the home market are made from prints, not original negatives.

[tsetse27]

Originally Posted by DVD Phreak

Does anyone know if Allen put speckles and scratches on the picture intentionally to obtain that aged look for the film? I just saw the Blu-ray, and while the B&W newsreel-like footage looks unrestored as expected, the color, present-day footage also shows speckles and scratches (but not a lot). I wonder if it is because an unrestored print was used for the Blu-ray, or that the Blu-ray represents the way the film is supposed to look. I'm inclined to believe this is just an unrestored print because the sharpness of the HD picture is also not the highest. I hope to have a second opinion from DVDBeaver and this site.

sorry, while I cannot quote the sources (one of the books about Woody Allen,) definitively I read that he and editor Susan E. Morse intentionally scratched and degraded newly shot footage, in order to match with the newsreel.
I have watched this movie on VHS / LD / DVD, and scratch has always been there. removing it will be against director's original intent.
Zelig is definitely ahead of its time, compare to later movies like Forrest Gump, and Grindhouse / Planet Horror.

[DVD Phreak]

Originally Posted by tsetse27

sorry, while I cannot quote the sources (one of the books about Woody Allen,) definitively I read that he and editor Susan E. Morse intentionally scratched and degraded newly shot footage, in order to match with the newsreel.
I have watched this movie on VHS / LD / DVD, and scratch has always been there. removing it will be against director's original intent.
Zelig is definitely ahead of its time, compare to later movies like Forrest Gump, and Grindhouse / Planet Horror.

I don't quite understand why the contemporary footage needed to be artificially aged. I'm just not a fan of such a practice in any film. A good director should have other means to make something look old. In those made-up film clips of "The Changing Man", there is no artificial aging, and yet, through lighting and photography, Allen is able to show that this is a period piece. I would only artificially age a clip if it is to be combined with existing old footage that has the same speckles and dirt, such as those scenes of Fanny Bryce, Charlie Chaplin, etc. mixed in with shots of Zelig.

Somebody needs to spoof the hell out of this cliched "look" of artificial aging that by making a film that is so replete with damages and scratches that you can't see a darn thing, lol.