Old films and alterations/enhancements poll

[filmmusic 1,823]

Influenced by a brief discussion with Wojo in another thread, I thought to start this thread here.

So, do you think that studios which own the (older and/or classic) films should enhance or alter them in any way (alter colors, make to 3D, substitute "bad" traditional effects with new CGI etc.) for the new generations?

Well, I guess some of you may suggest that I should add another option too, but as I see it it's black or white.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Films should be restored, not altered.

I know it's not always that clear cut though, especially with older films.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Depends. If its the director wishing to revise his work (for better or for worse) a few years down the line, that is his right to do so.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well, I guess some of you may suggest that I should add another option too, but as I see it it's black or white.

I suggest we enhance this thread with multicolor.

[Jilal 569]

I have absolutely no problem with directors changing their films, but the original should be made available in the exact same format as the revised.

[Faleel 5,341]

I have absolutely no problem with directors changing their films, but the original should be made available in the exact same format as the revised.

QFT

[Quintus 5,399]

I actually wouldn't mind updates to absolutely terrible sfx like the face rip-off in the mirror in Poltergeist IF they did it using the same techniques ie not cgi.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But it isn't really feasible to do it the old fashioned way and integrate it into the existing footage without it looking weird.

I never understood why Spielberg put a CGI E.T. in the previously unreleased scenes in 2002. Was there something wrong with the puppet in those scenes?

[filmmusic 1,823]

I have absolutely no problem with directors changing their films, but the original should be made available in the exact same format as the revised.

QFT

What does that mean?

I never understood why Spielberg put a CGI E.T. in the previously unreleased scenes in 2002. Was there something wrong with the puppet in those scenes?

Well, it's supposed to look more natural, but we loved the film with its faults.

(although I don't consider the puppet as a fault. The CGI looks more fake to me)

[Faleel 5,341]

I have absolutely no problem with directors changing their films, but the original should be made available in the exact same format as the revised.

QFT

What does that mean?

It means "Quoted for Truth"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, it's supposed to look more natural, but we loved the film with its faults.

(although I don't consider the puppet as a fault. The CGI looks more fake to me)

I've seen the film a lot of times. I never had a single scene where the puppet feels fake, of lifeless to me.

The CGI calls attention to itself in E.T. because it looks so obviously different to the puppet.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I believe in final cut.

[Brónach 1,301]

I don't see why a director can't revise their work if there are good reasons to do so.

On the other hand, other people supposedly restoring a film and changing things around doesn't sit as well with me. They should leave it the way it was, or if the way it was wasn't the way it was supposed to be (because of studio interference or whatever) then follow the appropiate instructions.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Final cut includes that though. Ridley Scott wasn't granted full creative freedom with Blade Runner. The definitive version wasn't available until a few years ago. He was never granted final cut until the restoration.

I'm perfectly fine with going back and making new editing decisions, inserting deleted or extended scenes, rearranging, etc. as long as it is a part of the original production. Changing visual or sound effects, or refilming or dubbing scenes is not.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

As long as the original cut is included in the same quality.

This is why the new cuts of Blade Runner or Alien never had the negative backlash that the SW films had.

[Brónach 1,301]

Final cut includes that though. Ridley Scott wasn't granted full creative freedom with Blade Runner. The definitive version wasn't available until a few years ago. He was never granted final cut until the restoration.

I'm perfectly fine with going back and making new editing decisions, inserting deleted or extended scenes, rearranging, etc. as long as it is a part of the original production. Changing visual or sound effects, or refilming or dubbing scenes is not.

I would actually be ok with that but in my case I'm influenced by my comic booky background where you reedit the shit out of everything all the time.

For example, let's widly imagine that after The Curse of the Black Pearl was a success, Verbinski would have reedited something a bit, maybe included some snippets from the deleted scenes, and picked Zimmer and Co. again and they rescored it better, maybe more like At World's End ended up being scored. I don't think people would complain. It'd be the final step in the film's production.

There's a thing though. Creating something means having to make a lot of decisions and at some point you have to move on. Great painters know where to stop painting something. And people can have wildly differing ideas of when something is "done".

For example, I've argued that the script of The Matrix might be a pair of rewrites away from being great, but on the other hand that film, even with its clear share of references, already felt revolutionary and I might be asking too much from what's essentially just a movie.

[Faleel 5,341]

and picked Zimmer and Co. again and they rescored it better, maybe more like At World's End ended up being scored.

Atleast record it better.

[Brónach 1,301]

Yeah. I mention ATW because I'm a big fan of the three part melancholic theme and the piratey song/theme, and after that the score of the first one just takes me out of the film because it sounds really thin.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That's your problem, not the filmmaker's.

[Faleel 5,341]

Well, it has been stated that the score was rushed, resulting in the over synthy sound (it sounds much more synthy than say, DMC, which atleast manages to hide any synth orchestral instruments somewhat), obviously, if they were to revisit it, it would sound mostly the same compositionally, though with updated samples and a bit more balanced juxtaposition of instruments and samples.

[Brónach 1,301]

That's your problem, not the filmmaker's.

It's my problem that a score is mostly shitty?

I don't get it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The score is actually quite popular. Both with many film score fans, and the "regular" folk.

It would be wrong to mess with it.

[Brónach 1,301]

I've been through that. Now it seems to me like one of the most obvious weak points of the film. I can't call the film "great".

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well that's the problem you see.

You consider that a weakness, and you can't call the film great. But there are other people with their own opinions. They might think the score is fine, but want the colours to match the darker tone of the sequels. That would make the film great in their eyes.

And they would not be any more or less right then you are.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I despise all kinds of alterations that go beyond the reversal of film stock deterioration, and that includes the non-theatrical versions of The Magnificent Ambersons, A Touch of Evil and Blade Runner.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Of course you do.

[Brónach 1,301]

and Blade Runner.

Even with the narration explaining the film for dummies?

[Quintus 5,399]

Chaac, Promo is an aspirational Luddite!

And therefore cannot be engaged on such fickle matters.

I'm only trying to save you time.

[chuck 154]

Hey, if it works for George Lucas...

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

and Blade Runner.

Even with the narration explaining the film for dummies?

Warts and all, it's better than the pretentious, revisionist, airbrushed-to-buggery POS we got in '92.

Of course you do.

Stop ripping off Daniel Craig's Bond, Steef! Jheeze.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Hey, if it works for George Lucas...

Didnt he say that with regards to studios colorizing b&w films? On yhe other hand Star Wars was Lucas' baby...it was his right to mess them up.

[chuck 154]

And clearly people love him for it.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

[Brónach 1,301]

and Blade Runner.

Even with the narration explaining the film for dummies?

Warts and all, it's better than the pretentious, revisionist, airbrushed-to-buggery POS we got in '92.

I try to imagine myself having to release an unfinished work and people like you going OH THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

I'll now stop as per Quint's comment on the matter.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

and Blade Runner.

Even with the narration explaining the film for dummies?

Warts and all, it's better than the pretentious, revisionist, airbrushed-to-buggery POS we got in '92.

I try to imagine myself having to release an unfinished work and people like you going OH THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

Don't imagine it. Do it!

[Wojo 2,453]

On yhe other hand Star Wars was Lucas' baby...it was his right to mess them up.

Wasn't that Susan Smith's defense?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

That's your problem, not the filmmaker's.

It's my problem that a score is mostly shitty?

I don't get it.

Yes. As Steef said, your criticisms of the film are purely opinionated, they're your own. But you're going even further to say that since the sequels improved upon the original (something sequels should aspire to do), the first film should be altered to try and match the subsequent quality? It doesn't really make any artistic sense. It'd be like an author going back to rewrite a lesser novel because he got better down the road.

Film is a balance between business and art. Sometimes the two fall in line, and sometimes they don't. In circumstances where business prevails, I think the art should be given a fair shot in some capacity, as originally intended by the filmmaker.

[Brónach 1,301]

Yes. As Steef said, your criticisms of the film are purely opinionated, they're your own. But you're going even further to say that since the sequels improved upon the original (something sequels should aspire to do), the first film should be altered to try and match the subsequent quality? It doesn't really make any artistic sense. It'd be like an author going back to rewrite a lesser novel because he got better down the road.

I only used the sequel score as an example because I just happened to be listening to that. It worked as an example because it shows what the particular team is able to produce under the right stimulus, something that the score of the original doesn't exactly show. I almost used other non-POTC scores as an example, which I didn't because you like Zimmer and Co and I didn't want to be confrontational. Besides, my imaginary example That Never Happened was set after the release of the first film, not after the release of the third one.

Geez.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

sorry but this poll was not worth wasting the time to answer, it's got two answers, black and white, when the reality is the issue is full of grays.

[filmmusic 1,823]

sorry but this poll was not worth wasting the time to answer, it's got two answers, black and white, when the reality is the issue is full of grays.

So, what is your take on this?

You accept changes in films if ........ (or as long as....)

by the way, when I made the poll, I didn't mean so much about different cuts of the film with scenes that were shot at that time.

I meant the things I said:

1) different colors that change radically the aesthetics of the film

2) CGI enhancements or subsitution of traditional effects

3) 3D conversion

4) de-graining techniques

[Brónach 1,301]

1) different colors that change radically the aesthetics of the film

This reminds me, I'm annyoed by the green tint they put on The Matrix.

[filmmusic 1,823]

1) different colors that change radically the aesthetics of the film

This reminds me, I'm annyoed by the green tint they put on The Matrix.

Oh, they did? In the Bluray you mean? I didn't know..

Something like this?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=52&position=2

i don't remember it so green either.

But i'd like to see a comparison with the DVD.

OMG, i see what you mean:

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/the-matrix-visual-comparison.html

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

they did that to make it fit better with the other two

[Naïve Old Fart 9,507]

But it isn't really feasible to do it the old fashioned way and integrate it into the existing footage without it looking weird.

I never understood why Spielberg put a CGI E.T. in the previously unreleased scenes in 2002. Was there something wrong with the puppet in those scenes?

Personally, I would have liked to have seen Harrison Ford in "E.T:20".

James Cameron (in his liner notes for the video release of "The Abyss" in 1993) has quite rightly pointed out that there is no purity in cinema, and there really is no such thing as a final cut. Films get edited, cut, mangled, and torn apart according to which country they are shown in, and what time of day they are shown at.

Who wouldn't want to see the full 6-hour version of "Cleopatra"?

Personally, it's hit or miss: "B.R:TFC" is brillant, and is the most complete version of the film (do we really care if Joanna Cassidy is wearing high-heels, or flats?).

I will happliy watch any version of "CE3K", but the stuff added to the original "SW" trilogy in 1997 simply leaves me cold.

Alexander is right: alter a film as much as you like, but leave the original so we can compare and contrast.

[filmmusic 1,823]

they did that to make it fit better with the other two

well, they should have included the original too in the bluray and let people decide what version they want to watch.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Shouldn't they have made the other two to fit better with the first one?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

they did that to make it fit better with the other two

Wasn't that one of Lucas's excuses for his alterations to the OT?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes.

[filmmusic 1,823]

Bottomline:

Beethoven should have revised his 8 symphonies and add some choral passages here and there, so that they match his 9th, which kind of stands out now..

[Wojo 2,453]

He didn't have enough time. He kinda died.