[Idea] "Thief" remastered theatrical cut

[Beber]

You mean the DGA that prevented Spielberg from directing Return of the Jedi and Poltergeist (even if he might have co-directed that one in secret)? The DGA Rodriguez had to leave so that Miller can share credit as director for Sin City? That DGA?
I have yet to see an approved-by-director-or-DP video transfer that's actually done right. Cameron, Fincher and Mann are not the only ones. On my blacklist are also Tak Fujimoto (approving a failure of a grading for The Silence of the Lambs), Spielberg (coming back to the original E.T. while digitally tampering with Jaws, Indiana Jones, Poltergeist...), Ridley Scott (Blade Runner Final Cut with digital tampering in a 1982 film that precedes digital), Dean Cundey (approving a blue graded The Thing and a red one in a two-year span), Vittorio Storaro (for so many reasons) and the original tumor of this cancer, of course, George Lucas.

[zoidberg]

I wasn't talking about the DGA as a whole, merely the clause that allows filmmakers approval of home transfers. Even if that clause didn't exist many directors would have it in their contracts. 

Just out of curiosity Beber, what are examples of modern home media releases that are, in your opinion, correct?

[Beber]

I'd say Predator is pretty correct. 2001: A Space Odyssey is pretty much it, too. The Abyss remaster was pretty correct before the AI nonsense came to ruin it all. Apparently, The Terminator on remastered Blu-ray is pretty correct, too, although a bit too green in some places, like when Sarah bandages Reese's wound. Last Action Hero is pretty much correct, too. The Untouchables as well, except for the ending that should have an orangy dusk mood in Ness's office. Unbreakable is pretty much it, too. Patton as well. Lethal Weapon, too, except for the lack of cyan in the final stand off. So there are "correct" ones to be found. Even Thief here, safe for the original cut, is according to testimonies a pretty correct representation of the original grading, but most likely leaning too much towards teal instead of its cyan cousin. Batman Returns is in this case as well. Now for the dead-on ones... that would require a side-by-side viewing of the video transfer and the print projected. Oh, and I just found out, in the definitely non correct section, that Erin Brockovich framing has been ruined by zooming in to fill the 1.78:1 AR instead of 1.85:1 AR, so they didn't even make it open matte, they cropped the sides. We're still dealing with that BS in 2025 just like in the pan & scan era. So if Soderbergh was involved in this, he'll join my list.

[Stamper]

I think most Directors of photography are unprepared to deal with digital color timing, especially if they come from an era where it was all done analog. Usually they are bought up just to add a bullet point to the sales sheet. Someone else do the color timing, they come in, marvel at the HD image, ask for more green or red or blue in a couple of shots and that's it. "Supervised by the DP" when they spent an afternoon at the coloring station at most.

[Beber]

I think most Directors of photography are unprepared to deal with digital color timing, especially if they come from an era where it was all done analog. Usually they are bought up just to add a bullet point to the sales sheet. Someone else do the color timing, they come in, marvel at the HD image, ask for more green or red or blue in a couple of shots and that's it. "Supervised by the DP" when they spent an afternoon at the coloring station at most.

Exactly. I don't care for their extra payday if that's what comes out of it. Everytime I see "restoration supervised by" the director or DP, I dread the result as much as an Atmos remix on a film originally in mono, or a colorized film originally in black & white. Remember those days in the 80s when the studios started to colorize their B&W catalogues? Ironically, one who was very vocal against it, even calling it "barbaric" in the name of preserving cinematic history, was a George Lucas. There was also the marketing BS "The Coppola Restoration" on The Godfather when it was actually Harris who did the job and a better one than the one redone for the 50th anniversary.

[zoidberg]

To be fair it's rarely 'supervised' by DP/Director, normally it's 'approved'. And it has to be said that many filmmakers pretty much check out once a film is released and are intensely relaxed about home media releases.

Also back in the day DPs tended to be in constant contact with the film lab, often had a preferred colour timer who knew their style and the 'look' they were aiming for. They were also lighting their scenes with the 'look' in mind, some DPs like Willis would literally instruct the lab to print at a particular light because they knew how the emulsion would react. The answer print stage would be some tweaks to global density etc. If you wanted to change the look massively you would likely have to re-shoot or do some lab tricks/optical work to acheive this.

Compare this to now where they shoot as flat as possible and all decisions are now made by committee at the grading suite (another reason films went digital).

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think the process should work Beber. You're clearly against the original artists being involved, so then who should be?

As a final note the congress quote you attributed to Lucas was about censorship and creative works being altered without the consent or involvement of the original artists. He has always been in favour of artists revisiting and altering their own work.

[Beber]

It's simple : only competent restoration teams should be involved. The studio provides them with the original negative to scan, the interpositive or an intact print for color reference, or both, and let them do their work. Every single time the "original artist", full of himself, gets involved, he invoques so-called original intent to rewrite history as if only his views mattered. If it wasn't the movie then, it can't be the movie now. That's what happened to a "Twister" now overly green in scenes that a director, former DP on top of that, that knows every trick in the book, could have done green in the first place easily in 1996 and yet didn't. Plus, by doing so, he ruined the line "going green" by making it overly green already. So now it's not GOING green, it IS green. The movie is what was shown on release date to audiences, critics, that was selected in festivals (except when only an unfinished workprint is ready at this point) and in award ceremonies. I don't care about and obviously don't worship those "artists" that think they're entitled to rewrite history and culture, especially for artform such as movies that, philosophically speaking, belong to pop culture hence the audience, ie us. We're the ones that made their success and fortune by liking and buying the product over the years. We want to buy the movie we like. One can't be satisfied shopping for leather and going home with plastic.

[zoidberg]

The only thing studios understand or care about is money, unless people truly boycott releases that are considered revisionist nothing will change. Directors getting approval of home releases will not change any time soon though

[Beber]

Of course they only care about money. That's why I'll never buy the new "Crocodile Dundee" cut that's made for nobody to watch, since those of us who like the movie want the real one, and the supposedly new soft audience it was made for will never care about that movie anyway and won't watch it this way either. So they obviously didn't think this through, 'cause I doubt they'll make money on that one, except for those who will buy it blindly without reading about the changes.

And that's why we're here. That's the reason this site exists in the first place. Amen!

[TPCoop315]

As a former projectionist, I can assure you that you rarely saw precisely 1.85:1 in the glory days of film projection. Cropping to 1.78 isn’t enough to get Soderbergh on the shit list, imo.

You would mess yourself and demand our heads if you saw some of the aperture plates I’ve used and how much picture information they would lop off to get the image to fit the screen from a typical projection angle and lens size:throw ratio for an average theater.

The compression on both the us and uk discs for that film are far more offensive to the source, (again imho).

I’m genuinely curious why the vehement backlash pointed at the creatives who worked on these films? I get it to a point, some of them can be heavy handed with their old work. But you also seem to enjoy open matte versions, knowing full well I’m sure, that was typically never the intended ratio/presentation.

At an attempt at positivity, while I’m no longer a professional film handler, I am a regular at my nearest rep house and universities when they do celluloid screenings.

I would say we are pretty lucky these days. MOST catalogue titles on 4k (especially many of the boutiques) go much further to replicate the theatrical look than the DVD days. And we know that a lot of those cruddy transfers were recycled and then dumped to blu ray.