pixie_twinkle 44 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I watched my DVD of this again the other day. Once again I was disappointed by the sound and picture quality. It seems to me that the film would be a whole lot more fun to watch if they would remaster this. The picture: It's all washed out! This is evident throughout the film, but particularly any shot where there is direct sunlight in the background. The sunlight just bleeds over the entire picture washing everything out. This is especially obvious during the scene where the general is riding in the car at the airforce base, (near the beginning, the scene that introduces Nancy Allen). The shots inside the car are ruined by the washout effect from the sun.The sound: I've rarely seen a film so recent that has such awful sound quality! There is no mid or low range, it's all tinny treble. It really grates on the ears after a while, and I often start developing a headache about 20 minutes into the film! Not only that, but it keeps clipping! Whenever a character speaks the "s"s tend to clip. It's cheap and nasty sounding.So, I really think there's a very enjoyable film in there somewhere. I always find fun in 1941, and in many places it's really quite spectacular. If only someone would fix all the horrible flaws in the film's pic and sound quality! I still feel as though I have never seen this film properly. Does anyone know why this film is in such poor shape compared to all Spielberg's other films? I watched Duel and The Sugarland Express again recently, and they are a hundred times better pic/sound quality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 There is a better print of 1941.Universal HD has been showing 1941 every now and then and the transfer I saw was anamorphic, in it's correct aspect ratio, and looked much better than the DVD print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I saw this on Universal HD. It was not the correct aspect ratio, but instead 1.78:1 and it was the theatrical cut. I would like to see Universal release an HD-DVD with seamless branching to allow both versions in the proper aspect ratio.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 There's more than one version of 1941? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Yes. The theatrical cut is about 118 minutes while the longer cut is near 2 1/2 hours.Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 What is this longer cut, then?Is it merely a padded version for TV, or one made/approved by the director? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 It's a Spielberg-approved re-edit (don't know if the man editted it himself or of that was just marketing semantics) which I saw mentioned first with the DVD, but I think it dates back to the LaserDisc version. It's quite more enjoyable and even that the original cut, I thought.-Tom, who has not been of any help. At all. Whatosever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I saw this on Universal HD. It was not the correct aspect ratio, but instead 1.78:1 and it was the theatrical cut. I would like to see Universal release an HD-DVD with seamless branching to allow both versions in the proper aspect ratio.NeilThe version I saw looked like it was 2.35:1, the black bars were visable. I know a non anamorphic print with 1.78:1 would show the bars but they wouldn't be as visible as 2.35:1.Next time I see it playing I'll take a closer look. I didn't watch the whole thing, just a few minutes of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 1.78:1 = 16 x 9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 and 12 x 3 = 36? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Yes.I prefer the extended cut although there are few scenes that I would still trim down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeshopk 8 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I watched my DVD of this again the other day. Once again I was disappointed by the sound and picture quality. It seems to me that the film would be a whole lot more fun to watch if they would remaster this. The picture: It's all washed out! This is evident throughout the film, but particularly any shot where there is direct sunlight in the background. The sunlight just bleeds over the entire picture washing everything out. This is especially obvious during the scene where the general is riding in the car at the airforce base, (near the beginning, the scene that introduces Nancy Allen). The shots inside the car are ruined by the washout effect from the sun.That is just the way it was shot, through gauze or vaseline on the lense. It was once a common technique before everything started looking exactly the same. I wonder if people will people wonder why 300 is so grainy someday. It is obvious now that it is deliberate, but will they know that in 30 years? I like the look of 1941. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrScratch 292 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I get the impression Spielberg is indifferent to this movie. He's not embarrassed like Lucas is to the Star Wars Holiday Special, can look back on it and have a laugh, but content if it is forgotten altogether. I watch this every few years and I enjoy it every time, some of it is really funny. I've also only ever seen the longer version. Oh, and the music ain't bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckM 1 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I haven't watched it in on DVD, but I don't notice any sound quality issues on the VHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 859 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 While 1941 was shot a certain way that gives it a "hazy" look at times, the DVD transfer is crappy. The print I saw on Universal HD looks much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I haven't watched it in on DVD, but I don't notice any sound quality issues on the VHS.What's VHS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymenard 35 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 William Fraker likes to shot in a sorta gelatinous soft. And he was Spielberg's #1 effects DP after Close Encounters (having worked as the effects shot DP for the movie). Or rent the Exorcist II to understand his style, it's beautiful. 1941 is beautiful cinematography, you just dislike the look. I guess it's not the Transformers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixie_twinkle 44 Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 William Fraker likes to shot in a sorta gelatinous soft. And he was Spielberg's #1 effects DP after Close Encounters (having worked as the effects shot DP for the movie). Or rent the Exorcist II to understand his style, it's beautiful. 1941 is beautiful cinematography, you just dislike the look. I guess it's not the Transformers?I'll ignore that last remark! I can understand someone wanting to film something with a soft-focus lens (usually soft porn). My complaint is that the picture quality is very poor. The soft-look images don't look beautiful on my DVD, they look like a poor quality transfer. I am convinced that this film, given the right clean-up job and sound remastering, could look a hundred times better. As it is, the DVD looks and sounds like a 5th generation copy. William Fraker worked on Close Encounters, and that film looks beautiful on DVD. In fact, Close Encounters looked great on the VHS releases too. 1941 has looked bad on every format I've seen it. I'd love to see this Universal HD version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,765 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Many of those early Universal DVDs had that weird grainy washed out look about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal_Ozzel 32 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Yeah, this film and Always could definitely use new releases with new anamorphic transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,765 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Same with The Abyss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 317 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Same with The Abyss.Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 126 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 At least R1 has got a DVD release, we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrScratch 292 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 William Fraker worked on Close Encounters, and that film looks beautiful on DVD.Superman The Movie was also shot with soft focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I don't like that look that much, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 It depends, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 480 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I guess. It can work very well within context. Doesn't mean I have to immediately find it the most aesthetically pleasing thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I like it on the original Star Trek, were they use it for every close up of any female in the show. Moonlighting also used ot as an act of kindness towards Cybill Shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now