Originally Posted by cbcdesign
What makes you think you have the slightest idea what look the director wanted when he made the movie? For all you know, it could be that he wanted less grain but was unable to achieve it for technical, budgetary or other reasons. It's rather presumptuous to assume you have any significant idea of what the
director wanted quite honestly.
Many directors have
stated what they wanted the films to look like. James Cameron has been intimately involved in several of his Blu-ray releases (including Avatar
). Ridley Scott has been quoted about Blu-ray's ability to render grain and colors properly when he's had the chance. And Spielberg is another good example
Producer and friend George Lucas tried at length to convince Spielberg to film the movie digitally but Steven resisted. He joked that he is the last person in Hollywood still cutting the film negatives, and that he learned from the greats and they all worked that way. He says that he has still never used an Avid to edit, and won't do so until Tintin.
Steven gushed about how a film frame is alive with movement and film grain and that digital video is too perfect. Lucas tried to convince Steven that they could add the film grain to the digital image, which Spielberg found totally amusing because doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? And wouldn't it just be easier to shoot the whole thing on film.
And if it's not the director, often times the cinematographer is vocal about the look of the films. For instance, the cinematographer for the Godfather
films was involved in the Blu-ray transfer and gave his approval
of what it was supposed to look like in the theaters and at home. Alternately, as in the case of The French Connection
, they could say it looks off.
I could make the same argument in reverse. If you don't like the look the studio chose for this Blu-ray release of their intellectual property (not yours, not mine, not the directors or any other AVS member), why don't you leave those who do to enjoy this release of the movie to do so whilst you stick with the original release. You don't have to buy it or watch it do you?
On the flip side of this coin (and, BTW the only one that makes sense), why do you feel it necessary to impose your standards on the rest of us?
After all, they can release a version with grain and let individual consumers
remove grain via their displays, it's simple and costs them nothing. Why do people like you and Taffy Lewis
advocate so hard for denying that option in the first place?
Blu-Ray was not invented for people like you or indeed people like me who sits somewhere midway between disliking heavy grain and disliking clean clinical looking releases like this one. It was invented for the sole purpose of making money. If studios think that scrubbing the living daylights out of it will increase their revenue, they will do it and is not a thing a few die hard enthusiasts can do about it frankly.
Quite right. Blu-Ray is a product for the masses and will be tailored to meet their expectations, not those of a small minority on forums such as this.
If it was invented for the sole purpose of making money, they could have just stuck with DVD, since there wouldn't be a need for increased resolution or sound quality or interactivity. And "a few die hard enthusiasts" have already
done a bunch about it. The Fifth Element
, Gangs of New York
all got remasters. So your defeatist and dismissive attitude has little to no basis in reality.