[Idea] "Thief" remastered theatrical cut

[Beber]

Hey, guys.

I see on movie-censorship (https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=597171) that the latest DC available from Criterion and Arrow simply has one extra scene circa 10 minutes in for about 82 seconds and the rest is the same as the theatrical cut. So recreating the theatrical cut based on the remastered DC would be pretty straight forward. Only one shot has to be taken and color matched from the theatrical Blu-ray because it's longer while it fades into the extra scene in the DC. We can just use the theatrical Blu-ray as timeline and adjust the colors a bit on the remaster so that the teal turns into a prettier cyan shade and that's it. I'll probably do that in a not too distant future. Some audio analyst will just have to determine the pitch issue @titanic mentionned to me and fix it if needed so that I include a proper track. What do you think?

[dvdmike]

There are three cuts from memory and it's more than one single scene, but no way the teal can be fully removed I bet

[Beber]

There are three cuts from memory and it's more than one single scene, but no way the teal can be fully removed I bet

You're talking about the 1st DC from 1995 and that's not in HD anywhere. Just like the 1st DC of Ali, Mann changes everything more than once, he's the worst.
The current and most up to date DC really is just the theatrical cut with that extra scene with the fisherman. I already played them both side by side to check. There might be some shots that last a couple of frames longer or shorter, but the cut is mainly the exact same. Which is infuriating as they could have simply offered both remastered cuts in seemless branching since it's only one additional scene. As for the teal, it doesn't have to be fully removed. Some can stay and, other times, a switch to a prettier cyan shade will do it, with maybe a bit of extra work on skin tones to revive them.

[dvdmike]

There are three cuts from memory and it's more than one single scene, but no way the teal can be fully removed I bet

You're talking about the 1st DC from 1995 and that's not in HD anywhere. Just like the 1st DC of Ali, Mann changes everything more than once, he's the worst.
The current and most up to date DC really is just the theatrical cut with that extra scene with the fisherman. I already played them both side by side to check. There might be some shots that last a couple of frames longer or shorter, but the cut is mainly the exact same. Which is infuriating as they could have simply offered both remastered cuts in seemless branching since it's only one additional scene. As for the teal, it doesn't have to be fully removed. Some can stay and, other times, a switch to a prettier cyan shade will do it, with maybe a bit of extra work on skin tones to revive them.

I am yes, it's my favourite film of all time and I own as many copies as they have made!
They really were lazy not doing the TC

[zoidberg]

I think they can only offer the TC in it's existing form, as at the time it was mastered it was Director Approved. A new master would have to be approved by Mann

[dvdmike]

I think they can only offer the TC in it's existing form, as at the time it was mastered it was Director Approved. A new master would have to be approved by Mann

And he isn't doing that!

[Beber]

Again with that DGA nonsensical "rule" that would have you believe movies belong to the directors? That DGA thing has to be dismantled.

[zoidberg]

The DGA rule isn't just for directors, it covers DPs, producers etc. Basically if someone from the production can approve the master they should be consulted, although I would imagine only a director can make changes/edits.

I would say the problem is more that grading software is too heavy handed to recreate the distinctive colour timings that film did 'for free'.

[Beber]

And that's BS. How come they become "their" movies for the video market when they never were for theatrical release? Forget about the BS marketing posters and credits that claim "A film by whoever". If you're not Spielberg, basically, you don't release the movie you want, you release the movie the studio wants. Hence all those director's cuts in so many director's careers that appear after the fact. Even the Canadian senile ex-filmmaker turned into a digital videomaker once known as James Cameron has to get the approval from Disney to release an Avatar so it can be a family movie for Christmas time, so not too long, not too violent, watch the language, etc. At 87 years old, a Ridley Scott still doesn't have the final cut either. This whole DGA is pure nonsense. Suddenly, on home video, it's theirs to do whatever they want and ruin it all while still having the studio logos opening them? How the hell did they manage to pull this stunt? I much prefer the McTiernan approach. He knows his place. He knows he's a hired gun accomplishing a contract he was hired to do and never goes back to it afterwards.

[zoidberg]

A lot of directors have final cut approval written into their contracts. Some will willingly allow a theatrical release to be cut down on the understanding that the full version will be available on home media, but as with so many aspects of film, 'it depends'.

I don't know where the hatred for the DGA clause comes from, in most cases it allows the director (or DP) to come in, check the new grade and get a little payday. People like Cameron, Fincher and Mann are always going to be the outliers. Even before the DGA clause these guys had control over home releases as it is written into their contracts.