8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » General Yak   » Digital Film Re-issues (Page 1)

- UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Digital Film Re-issues
Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

- posted September 26, 2011 05:29 AM      Profile for Lee Mannering     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Apparently Hollywood according to last week’s newspapers is struggling to bring us new films/stories for the Cinema and we are now due for a flood of digitally restored previously released movies such as Jurassic Park. Like many of us I am sure we have been to see some of the re-issued material touched up films but I wondered what people make of it all?

We hope to go see Jurassic Park shortly once again having see it in 1993 on screen 1 which was an amazing experience at that time so it will be interesting to see what they have done to it.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

- posted September 26, 2011 05:54 AM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Digitally restored?
I guess it's nothing that hasn't been happening with classic films for years on DVD.
Now that going to "the movies" is only a step above going to watch a DVD, I suppose the capability is there for the studios to use as they will.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

- posted September 26, 2011 09:04 AM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jurassic Park...Restored?

What on earth happened to it since 1993 that it needs restoration?

When I hear people talk about restoring things that were made when I was already middle aged it makes me feel...old!

You want to restore a film that was made when my parents were in their 30s...OK, I can deal with that!

Seeing films I know very well at the Theater is a really different experience than seeing something for the first time. We went to see "The Wizard of Oz" when it was re-issued and it was great, yet still kind of odd. Every time before that we'd seen it on televsion and it almost seemed out of place at the movies.

(Theater was packed regardless...)

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged
Adrian Winchester
Film God

Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004

- posted September 26, 2011 09:40 AM      Profile for Adrian Winchester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm no expert on such mattters but I suspect that the word 'restored' is sometimes used in a casual and misleading way, to imply that the release represents some sort of expensive and skilled project that will be a great privilege for the paying customers to witness. I've (e.g.) heard claims that the BFI's 2007 restoration of Hammer's 'Dracula' basically involved no restoration, other than replacing the USA title of 'Horror of Dracula' with the UK one (because the US version has a brief shot that was cut from the initial British reelease.

However, re-releases are nothing new - it used to be customary for Disney classics to be re-issued in cinemas now and again - so I would not object to them becoming more frequent again. Sadly, the day may be coming, if it hasn't already, that any such re-release will not involve any new 35mm prints.

Considering that the flood of remakes is now involving films first made as recently as the 1980s, I suppose studios were bound to eventually think: "If we re-release a film, we can save all the money we would spend on remaking it!" At least this might make it less likely that we will see crazy situations such as a remake of 'Halloween' only 5 years after the final sequel to 'Halloween'!

--------------------
Adrian Winchester

 |  IP: Logged
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006

- posted September 26, 2011 11:02 AM      Profile for Claus Harding   Email Claus Harding   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
With "Jurassic Park" it sounds like it could be the "Star Wars" syndrome: digitally improve the effects, at the expense of the film no longer looking like it did when it came out.

I recall seeing the film on a huge screen and I was impressed at the dinos.

It feels like desperation: either make fake 3-D out of a film, or 'improve' the effects. At that rate, why even make new films any more.... [Roll Eyes]

Claus.

--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)

 |  IP: Logged
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010

- posted September 26, 2011 11:09 AM      Profile for Allan Broadfield   Author's Homepage   Email Allan Broadfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I recall in the late fifties that the Hammer remakes of the classic Universal horror pics were about 25 years after the original event, so the recent remakes from the eighties are pretty much of a tradition. The Maltese Falcon was a remake from 10 years previous.
What does annoy me is where every film of 'an age' is labelled as a 'classic' even if some are far from classic, and best forgotten, and of course everything is now 'digitally remastered' even when it isn't.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

- posted September 26, 2011 12:06 PM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I could be worse:

Sherwood Schwartz was working on a Feature Length "Gilligan's Island" just before he passed away.

I don't think Western Culture could survive that...

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged
Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

- posted September 26, 2011 12:55 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What does annoy me is where every film of 'an age' is labelled as a 'classic' even if some are far from classic...
A "classic" mentioned by movie buffs can refer to a film from the classic Hollywood era - silents, 30's and 40's.
The term doesn't always denote merit.

 |  IP: Logged
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010

- posted September 26, 2011 02:47 PM      Profile for Allan Broadfield   Author's Homepage   Email Allan Broadfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Anything pre 1970's according to Sky Classic channel, though admittedly they usually pick more well known titles.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

- posted September 26, 2011 03:07 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sky's definition of Classic will be anything they want to show on that channel.

 |  IP: Logged
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010

- posted September 26, 2011 04:26 PM      Profile for Allan Broadfield   Author's Homepage   Email Allan Broadfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You're not wrong. Actually I would like to see more obscure films shown on telly, whether they are classics or not. All channels tend to show the same movies ad nauseum. Carry On and James Bond movies are constantly repeated and are just the tip of the iceberg. I have voiced my complaints but you may as well talk to the cat.

 |  IP: Logged
Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

- posted September 27, 2011 06:20 AM      Profile for Lee Mannering     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yep I’m with you Allan on that, there are so many films that could be either issued or shown on the box which never see the light of day locked up in a vault. This last 12 months thankfully for me I have seen some nice DVD issues which have kept me occupied when not behind my Eumig in play time. Films such as the Falcon and Saint series with George Sanders, old black and whites from Renown Pictures which are always of interest here so all is not lost for me thank goodness if you like the oldies.

 |  IP: Logged
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010

- posted September 27, 2011 02:38 PM      Profile for Allan Broadfield   Author's Homepage   Email Allan Broadfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The oldies are the best, but I'm prejudiced, I'm pretty ancient myself.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael O'Regan
Film God

Posts: 3085
From: Essex, UK
Registered: Oct 2007

- posted September 27, 2011 02:49 PM      Profile for Michael O'Regan   Email Michael O'Regan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
there are so many films that could be either issued or shown on the box which never see the light of day locked up in a vault.
It's not that simple though. There are rights issues with many titles as well as costs in releasing the work.
There are a ton of titles I'd love to see released.

 |  IP: Logged
Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

- posted September 27, 2011 09:01 PM      Profile for Osi Osgood   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I really don't have a problem with re-issues, restored or otherwise ...

... as long as they are on celluloid.

I mean, I have a massive projection TV if I want to watch a digital movie. I won't go to a movie theater if it's merely a digital projection. I really don't see the point of it.

Yeah, you hqave "audience participation" and reaction, but most of the time, that just gets in the way of me enjoying a good film.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

 |  IP: Logged
Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted September 27, 2011 09:25 PM      Profile for Graham Ritchie   Email Graham Ritchie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sadly, film projection as we know it at the cinema will soon be gone, a couple more years at the most. Cinemas that can afford the digital projection will be the only ones in business. The only film projection left will be your Super8, 16mm etc ie. home movies.

Regarding restoration, I can understand such films as Buster Keaton "The General" or "Metropolis"....but "Jurassic Park" [Roll Eyes] why bother its been out for years on DVD with 5:1 Dolby Digital track. I remember when "ET" 2002 did the rounds at the cinemas a few years ago. It was a flop out here...the reason, everyone had seen it either when it first came out at the cinema or the later video/dvd. I wish them luck with "Jurassic Park"...they will need it.

Graham. [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged
Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

- posted September 28, 2011 04:26 AM      Profile for Lee Mannering     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, we went to see Jurassic Park on the big digital screen with the intro programme nice, sharp and bright. Next up was the main feature which as mentioned I went to see in ’93 projected on 35mm film which was amazing but now to the digital screening.

With a grand total of six ready to watch the presentation the first thing noted was that the film had been cropped and looked lacklustre throughout. Around the edges of the titles there was very noticeable loss of definition and even some sort of fringe effect going on. For anyone who had seen a poor conversion of NTSC to PAL it looked a bit like that and not quite what was expected. Thankfully quite a bit of the film is set at night or in dark sets so they just about got away with it after a time, but it was quite a disappointment. Thankfully the sound did not disappoint and the floor shaking was just as it should have been as when viewed in years past.

When first seen on the screen in 1993 at Warners the cinema was packed to capacity and I went along with a group of amateur film makers to watch it. Sadly everyone else that was with me in ’93 has since passed on so it seemed strange sat there looking around at the empty seats. When the movie ended I glanced up to the projection window to watch the projector switch itself off and I guess that just about says what the future holds for Cinema..

The digital conversion was not a good one and I left pleased to know I had seen the film projected on 35mm film in 1993 as it was produced to be shown, sharp, excellent color and feeling we had seen something just a bit special.

 |  IP: Logged
Ricky Daniels
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 587
From: London & Kent UK
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted September 28, 2011 08:07 AM      Profile for Ricky Daniels     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If it was that different to the 35mm experience I'd have asked for a refund. It's also not unknown for a cinema to run a DVD!

I saw this debut DTS film the first time around at the Empire Leicester Square. I was sat with a group of friends in the middle of the stalls. The cinema was full to capacity and the audience was buzzing with excitement and anticipation for what was about to unfold on the screen.

Unfortunately once the film started I noticed the focus was a tad out so after putting up with it for 5mins I clambered out of the auditorium and had a word with the manager. Shortly after that the picture became remarkably sharp and I didn't need to ask for a refund on this occasion!

My advice, if it ain't good enough let the Cinema Management know about it. [Wink]

[ September 30, 2011, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Ricky Daniels ]

 |  IP: Logged
Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

- posted September 28, 2011 09:35 AM      Profile for Lee Mannering     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My guess is that the new Blu-Ray issue on the 24th Oct 2011 is going to be just as bad..

 |  IP: Logged
Allan Broadfield
Master Film Handler

Posts: 452
From: Bromley, Kent
Registered: Nov 2010

- posted September 28, 2011 01:55 PM      Profile for Allan Broadfield   Author's Homepage   Email Allan Broadfield   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've always worked in the film industry, and several times in recent years have seen mates made redundant , myself included, and I dislike the idea of digital projection in cinemas as much as any film lover, if not more as I have relied on film for a living. However, 35mm has had an astonishing run for cinema presentation, and the only thing that has saved it in the past is that there hasn't been a viable system that would give comparable results on a big screen. Now, whether we like it or not the film producers are happy to use this system because in the long run it's cheaper. Happily many film makers still like to originate on film, but as soon as it's processed it's digitised at the editing stage with some copies printed on film stock from digitally produced negs. Your 35mm film presentation will most likely have gone through the dreaded digital process anyway.

[ September 30, 2011, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Allan Broadfield ]

 |  IP: Logged
Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted September 28, 2011 02:04 PM      Profile for Graham Ritchie   Email Graham Ritchie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ricky
There is one other cinema apart from us doing a "David Lean" thing at the moment, they ran "Lawrence of Arabia" on DVD. To be honest I cant think of anything worse, at least we made the effort to run a 35mm print and although not in perfect condition it still looked good. I might be a bit one eyed, but I still believe a good film presentation can knock the socks of any video. Last week we got a call from a film distributor regarding films from the latest film festival run. He asked did we have a hard drive and video projector. I said we can only run 35mm film. So much for the term they used... "Film Festival" [Roll Eyes] as it aint on film. I did hear from someone that they are thinking of inducing some sort of movement into the video image to make it look more like film projection, how stuped is that? what next? [Roll Eyes]

Graham.

 |  IP: Logged
Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

- posted October 03, 2011 04:52 AM      Profile for Lee Mannering     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So we went to see another digital presentation and Phantom of the Opera in the Cinema with a live link to the Albert Hall…

The Cinema was full to capacity in another multi screen and we were very excited along with a group of friends from Church and so it started. Unbelievably the live link was screened with matching bold subtitles in German which must have covered at least 1/8th of the vertical screen diameter at times. At the interval we asked if they could be switched off with the answer being that is was being distributed with German subtitles everywhere. Another problem was that the picture was being stretched out so much all the cast looked like they had been squashed by a falling 35mm projector. We mentioned this to the manager as she told the technical team who promptly switched off the projector and only just reinstating power up as the second half started but still with squashed vision mode engaged. If this is the state of things to come from digital projection in the Cinema my visits will be numbered.

Putting all the above to one side the content was amazing with startling performances from the cast with the music and audio quality being absolutely superb. We will be going to another digital presentation before long at third Cinema so lets see what this one is like.

Show 10/10
Digital projection 2/10
Audio 10/10

 |  IP: Logged
Adrian Winchester
Film God

Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004

- posted October 04, 2011 10:33 PM      Profile for Adrian Winchester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Whilst we are clearly heading towards a time when film projection will be rare outside certain specialised cinemas, I have to disagree with Graham that 35mm will be gone within two years. This would represent a staggering speeding up of a process that has been happening for many years. The most recent figure I could find for the proportion of digital installations in European cinema screens was for December 2010, when 29% were digital. Even if that jumped to 40% by the end of this year, there's a long way to go. I recently checked the situation at my local Empire cinema, where they currently have one digital screen and three 35mm. I was told that another will become digital next year but they had no idea when the other two would. Amazingly, I discovered that 75% of the screenings during the London film Festival last October were 35mm!

--------------------
Adrian Winchester

 |  IP: Logged
David Michael Leugers
Master Film Handler

Posts: 264
From: Fairfield, OH, USA
Registered: Feb 2004

- posted October 05, 2011 12:10 AM      Profile for David Michael Leugers   Email David Michael Leugers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I personally dislike remakes, unless the purpose of the remake is to make a much better film due to better actors, budget, effects etc. and then the film has to win me over. So few do. The Maltese Falcon is one of the few films where the remake surpasses the original. During my lifetime, the only film remake that I have seen in a theater that I thought was better than the original is "The Thing" by John Carpenter. One gem among lots of turds. I am in my 52nd year of going to the movies and it may be my last...

--------------------
Live Free or Die

 |  IP: Logged
Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

- posted October 05, 2011 01:22 PM      Profile for Osi Osgood   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's just my opinion, but I think that the reason why ET didn't do well was for two reasons upon re-issue ...

1. Sadly, audiences are more jaded today and a lovely simplistic story like ET just doesn't play well. Now, give ET a laser cannon blasting everything on the planet and it would have done well.

2. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the ET we grew up withy. Spielberg, in order to make his film more "family friendly" took out such "horrifying elements" (that is sarcasm there) as the police forces guns and such out of this and that shot. Other subtle changes were made as well.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2