James Cameron has said when asked if he was involved in the blu-ray of Aliens as follows 'I just did a complete remaster of Aliens[/I] personally, with the same colourist I worked with on Avatar[/I]. And it's spectacular. We went in and completely de-noised, de-grained it, up-rezzed it, colour corrected it end-to-end, every frame. It looks amazing, better than it looked in theatres originally. Because it was shot on a high-speed negative that was a new negative that didn't pan out too well and got replaced the following year. So it was pretty grainy. We got rid of all the grain. It's sharper and clearer and more beautiful than it ever looked. And we did that to the long version, to the director's cut or the extended play'. Are we worried or pleased folks! http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=68820 interview here hope its ok to post this link?
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
Aliens, digital noise reduction
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
I watched Aliens a few months back for the 1st time in a LONG time, and I couldnt help but think how badly acted it is, pure cheese at some points.For a film I used to love I was really dissapointed
I must be growing up
I cant see them making it look worse personally. Its not like the original blurays that were just upscaled dvds.
That said, it could be it gets cleaned up so well that some of the dodgier effects look pretty poor as they stand out more now?
I must be growing up
I cant see them making it look worse personally. Its not like the original blurays that were just upscaled dvds.
That said, it could be it gets cleaned up so well that some of the dodgier effects look pretty poor as they stand out more now?
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
Some of the scenes on the DVD were really really noisy though. Or at least they are on my tele. But your right...let's hope they don't over do it!
I guess like all fims, they age over time to varying degrees, and may not be so good when we revisit them. For me though both Alien and Aliens are classics.
As for the re-mastering, I'm sure this will be a contentious issue. There will no doubt be purists out there that will argue that film grain is part of the cinematics of the movie; "just as the director intended" is the often used quote.
Personally I hate film grain. For me the detail and clarity offered now by 1080p HD simply adds to the immersive feel of movies, and when directors intentialy add it (think 300) I think it detracts from the presentation, not adds to it.
In the case of Aliens clearly the director didn't intend it, as he is now trying to remove it! I'm all for seeing Ripley again kicking some alien ass in pin sharp, crystal clear HD.
As for the re-mastering, I'm sure this will be a contentious issue. There will no doubt be purists out there that will argue that film grain is part of the cinematics of the movie; "just as the director intended" is the often used quote.
Personally I hate film grain. For me the detail and clarity offered now by 1080p HD simply adds to the immersive feel of movies, and when directors intentialy add it (think 300) I think it detracts from the presentation, not adds to it.
In the case of Aliens clearly the director didn't intend it, as he is now trying to remove it! I'm all for seeing Ripley again kicking some alien ass in pin sharp, crystal clear HD.
I'm delighted to hear this. For me, the issue of film grain is this: was it the Director's intention that film grain be present in the way that it is in any particular movie, or is it simply an issue of the type of film stock used, the shutter speed, the lighting etc? If the latter, then film grain is no more a part of the artist's intended vision than colour smearing on VHS ever was ie it's simply a by-product of the process of film delivery, and not an artistic choice. I have read over and over again people bemoaning the absence of film grain through DNR, as if to suggest that it must simply be wrong, when the truth is that it offers a new level of control over the finished image not previously possible. Now, some people may not like that, and may prefer detail over smoothness which arguably retaining the grain delivers, but there is no one simple correct or incorrect approach to this issue. For myself, my eyes do not see in 'grain', but accept that it may be an artistic choice to generate a sense of heightened reality - provided that it is intended. If it is not, I am 100% in favour of the grain being lost, since to do so must be more true to the Director's vision, which arguably is what we want.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
eremis6:James Cameron has said when asked if he was involved in the blu-ray of Aliens as follows 'I just did a complete remaster of Aliens personally, with the same colourist I worked with on Avatar. And it's spectacular. We went in and completely de-noised, de-grained it, up-rezzed it, colour corrected it end-to-end, every frame. "Up rezzed it". This would cause me some concern. You don't need to "up-rez" it as the film resolution far outstrips what Bluray is capable of.
It looks amazing, better than it looked in theatres originally.Well that's not hard given the quality of hardware being used in cinemas 20 odd years later!
It looks amazing, better than it looked in theatres originally.Well that's not hard given the quality of hardware being used in cinemas 20 odd years later!
kaotician:I'm delighted to hear this. For me, the issue of film grain is this: was it the Director's intention that film grain be present in the way that it is in any particular movie, or is it simply an issue of the type of film stock used, the shutter speed, the lighting etc? If the latter, then film grain is no more a part of the artist's intended vision than colour smearing on VHS ever was ie it's simply a by-product of the process of film delivery, and not an artistic choice.
Unless of course the director chose a particular film stock in order to deliver a particular look to the film.
Your comparison to VHS is a strawman argument as no director shoots on VHS, well apart from stuff like Blair Witch Project and so forth and I suspect not even then.
Unless of course the director chose a particular film stock in order to deliver a particular look to the film.
Your comparison to VHS is a strawman argument as no director shoots on VHS, well apart from stuff like Blair Witch Project and so forth and I suspect not even then.
As I said - unless it be the Director's intention. My point about VHS, or any other video system for that matter, is that they all introduce issues to the process of delivery in one way or another - which is fine if the Director intends that to be so.
I think the question is relatively simple: Does the finished product look noticably better than the DVD? If so, then it's worth the investent if you're a fan of the films; though it would be preferable if we could buy titles individually rather than as a box-set. I have no interest in owning Alien: Ressurection; and while I'm generally a fan of Fincher, Alien 3 hardly represents his best work.
As I've tried to suggest previously on this forum (largely unsuccesfully judging by responses), the notion of "directorial intent" is a huge oversimplification of the filmmaking process tied to marketing aims that seek to foreground the director as "author" of a film. In reality, it's naive to assume the director exercises absolute control over every aspect of the filmmaking process, which involves a huge number of collaborators -- be they writers, actors, cinematographers and other technicians, producers, and so on... These aren't my observations; there's an extensive body of literature on the subject of collaborative film authorship.
As far as I understand, the film stock used for Aliens was relatively cheap (also note that filmmakers are constrained by budgetary concerns), which is likely to have been as important a factor in the decision to use it as any artistic consideration. Not to mention the fact that such decisions may well have been strongly influenced by the Director of Photography.
Films are also often fluid entities that change over time in both form and content as they are released and re-released in different iterations.
Few people complain when a CD is well remastered from a poor source, even though this may remove certain distracting elements present on the original recording.
In short, if the finished product looks and sounds much better than the DVD, it's worth buying; and purists' claims that this may or may not be "what the director intended" are questionable at best.
As I've tried to suggest previously on this forum (largely unsuccesfully judging by responses), the notion of "directorial intent" is a huge oversimplification of the filmmaking process tied to marketing aims that seek to foreground the director as "author" of a film. In reality, it's naive to assume the director exercises absolute control over every aspect of the filmmaking process, which involves a huge number of collaborators -- be they writers, actors, cinematographers and other technicians, producers, and so on... These aren't my observations; there's an extensive body of literature on the subject of collaborative film authorship.
As far as I understand, the film stock used for Aliens was relatively cheap (also note that filmmakers are constrained by budgetary concerns), which is likely to have been as important a factor in the decision to use it as any artistic consideration. Not to mention the fact that such decisions may well have been strongly influenced by the Director of Photography.
Films are also often fluid entities that change over time in both form and content as they are released and re-released in different iterations.
Few people complain when a CD is well remastered from a poor source, even though this may remove certain distracting elements present on the original recording.
In short, if the finished product looks and sounds much better than the DVD, it's worth buying; and purists' claims that this may or may not be "what the director intended" are questionable at best.
kaotician:As I said - unless it be the Director's intention. My point about VHS, or any other video system for that matter, is that they all introduce issues to the process of delivery in one way or another - which is fine if the Director intends that to be so.
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
the_lhc:kaotician:As I said - unless it be the Director's intention. My point about VHS, or any other video system for that matter, is that they all introduce issues to the process of delivery in one way or another - which is fine if the Director intends that to be so.
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
I refer you to my post above...
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
I refer you to my post above...
the_lhc:kaotician:As I said - unless it be the Director's intention. My point about VHS, or any other video system for that matter, is that they all introduce issues to the process of delivery in one way or another - which is fine if the Director intends that to be so.
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
What's this same you're referring to? Also, it's not clear what exactly you're argument is - the director and cinematographer do indeed choose the film stock, and if that necessitates more grain than they wanted, well they've previously had to live with that, but not any more, now that they can go back and change it. What's the problem?
It's not the same at all, the director has no control over what an inferior medium does to his product, but the choice of film stock to use in the first place is entirely down to the director and cinematographer and IS deliberate.
What's this same you're referring to? Also, it's not clear what exactly you're argument is - the director and cinematographer do indeed choose the film stock, and if that necessitates more grain than they wanted, well they've previously had to live with that, but not any more, now that they can go back and change it. What's the problem?
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
Sliced Bread:
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
My point, in as plain language as I can possibly make it, is that the Director makes a conscious decision to use a certain film stock, in part for the "look" that that will give the film, including and sometimes because of, the amount of "grain" that will impart on the image.
When that film is then subsequently transferred to a grotty medium like VHS the director has no control over the detrimental impact that has on the picture quality (other than silently weeping about it I suspect), so comparing THAT to the amount of grain on a film is "not the same at all", which is what you were attempting to do. One is a direct artistic decision, the other is merely the by-product of a weak delivery system.
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
My point, in as plain language as I can possibly make it, is that the Director makes a conscious decision to use a certain film stock, in part for the "look" that that will give the film, including and sometimes because of, the amount of "grain" that will impart on the image.
When that film is then subsequently transferred to a grotty medium like VHS the director has no control over the detrimental impact that has on the picture quality (other than silently weeping about it I suspect), so comparing THAT to the amount of grain on a film is "not the same at all", which is what you were attempting to do. One is a direct artistic decision, the other is merely the by-product of a weak delivery system.
Sliced Bread:
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
Thanks, your words are much appreciated. In the case of Aliens, the film stock used was a new product, made available to the production at a cheap rate, to promote the new stock. At that point, the decision as to what stock will be used will also be in the hands of the Producers, responsible for the costings of the project (amongst many other things), and this factor will have played a part in the selection process too - in other words, by no means is it always the case that a Director or DP will simply be able to have whatever they want to acheive their artistic vision - there are always compromises. I don't think that anyone can argue that the grain on the extra scenes, for instance Ripley looking at her daughter's picture in the hospital, is anything other than terrible, and the colour timing is miles off too. It'll be great to see these scenes integrated into the story in a way that doesn't make them look like they were drafted in from another movie.
For me, the more control an artist has over their work, the more true it becomes to the vision, such that for instance if someone likes the colour tint of a particular film stock but didn't like the grain they had to put up with, it's perfectly legitimate in my way of looking at things for that artist to then go back and remove that grain if they so wish, such that the finished product is closer to their intentions. Surely that's more of a 'Director's Cut' than otherwise?
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
Thanks, your words are much appreciated. In the case of Aliens, the film stock used was a new product, made available to the production at a cheap rate, to promote the new stock. At that point, the decision as to what stock will be used will also be in the hands of the Producers, responsible for the costings of the project (amongst many other things), and this factor will have played a part in the selection process too - in other words, by no means is it always the case that a Director or DP will simply be able to have whatever they want to acheive their artistic vision - there are always compromises. I don't think that anyone can argue that the grain on the extra scenes, for instance Ripley looking at her daughter's picture in the hospital, is anything other than terrible, and the colour timing is miles off too. It'll be great to see these scenes integrated into the story in a way that doesn't make them look like they were drafted in from another movie.
For me, the more control an artist has over their work, the more true it becomes to the vision, such that for instance if someone likes the colour tint of a particular film stock but didn't like the grain they had to put up with, it's perfectly legitimate in my way of looking at things for that artist to then go back and remove that grain if they so wish, such that the finished product is closer to their intentions. Surely that's more of a 'Director's Cut' than otherwise?
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
the_lhc:Sliced Bread:
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
Or maybe your response was clearly rude.
All he is saying is that some times film characteristics are intentional and sometimes they are due to technical / budget restrictions. He was just using VHS as an example. There is no need to nit pick and attack a post. The initial message was indeed clear.
Now I'm going to take my own advice and leave it at that.
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
Or maybe your response was clearly rude.
All he is saying is that some times film characteristics are intentional and sometimes they are due to technical / budget restrictions. He was just using VHS as an example. There is no need to nit pick and attack a post. The initial message was indeed clear.
Now I'm going to take my own advice and leave it at that.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
kaotician:. I don't think that anyone can argue that the grain on the extra scenes, for instance Ripley looking at her daughter's picture in the hospital, is anything other than terrible, and the colour timing is miles off too.
I'm glad you said that. For a long time I wasn't sure if it was the disk or my equipment struggling with the scene. It is indeed terrible and completely out of touch with the rest of the film.
I'm glad you said that. For a long time I wasn't sure if it was the disk or my equipment struggling with the scene. It is indeed terrible and completely out of touch with the rest of the film.
the_lhc:Sliced Bread:
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
My point, in as plain language as I can possibly make it, is that the Director makes a conscious decision to use a certain film stock, in part for the "look" that that will give the film, including and sometimes because of, the amount of "grain" that will impart on the image.
When that film is then subsequently transferred to a grotty medium like VHS the director has no control over the detrimental impact that has on the picture quality (other than silently weeping about it I suspect), so comparing THAT to the amount of grain on a film is "not the same at all", which is what you were attempting to do. One is a direct artistic decision, the other is merely the by-product of a weak delivery system.
No, what I was trying to suggest is that all mediums for delivery introduce their own rendering problems, using VHS as an example because it would be one that most people were familiar with, either via VHS tapes or filming for themselves on home camcorders. To suggest that VHS is/was however simply one solus standard is incorrect, which is why you will find movies in that format of varying rendering quality, depending on the decisions made during the mastering process - Star Wars Widescreen might be a familiar example I can use, as I would imagine we've all seen more than one version - no one can suggest that the picture quality of the first versions to appear on VHS were as good as the last version, and it's because there are authoring choices to be made for VHS too.
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
My point, in as plain language as I can possibly make it, is that the Director makes a conscious decision to use a certain film stock, in part for the "look" that that will give the film, including and sometimes because of, the amount of "grain" that will impart on the image.
When that film is then subsequently transferred to a grotty medium like VHS the director has no control over the detrimental impact that has on the picture quality (other than silently weeping about it I suspect), so comparing THAT to the amount of grain on a film is "not the same at all", which is what you were attempting to do. One is a direct artistic decision, the other is merely the by-product of a weak delivery system.
No, what I was trying to suggest is that all mediums for delivery introduce their own rendering problems, using VHS as an example because it would be one that most people were familiar with, either via VHS tapes or filming for themselves on home camcorders. To suggest that VHS is/was however simply one solus standard is incorrect, which is why you will find movies in that format of varying rendering quality, depending on the decisions made during the mastering process - Star Wars Widescreen might be a familiar example I can use, as I would imagine we've all seen more than one version - no one can suggest that the picture quality of the first versions to appear on VHS were as good as the last version, and it's because there are authoring choices to be made for VHS too.
kaotician:For me, the more control an artist has over their work, the more true it becomes to the vision, such that for instance if someone likes the colour tint of a particular film stock but didn't like the grain they had to put up with, it's perfectly legitimate in my way of looking at things for that artist to then go back and remove that grain if they so wish, such that the finished product is closer to their intentions. Surely that's more of a 'Director's Cut' than otherwise?
I will say in this instance Cameron clearly doesn't want to see any grain in the picture and as it's his film that's his right and I wouldn't argue with that. Equally though there are some directors for whom grain is an integral part of the image and a third party removing that would be wrong.
I'm slightly concerned about his use of the colourist from Avatar though, hopefully we won't end up with Xenosmurphs...
I will say in this instance Cameron clearly doesn't want to see any grain in the picture and as it's his film that's his right and I wouldn't argue with that. Equally though there are some directors for whom grain is an integral part of the image and a third party removing that would be wrong.
I'm slightly concerned about his use of the colourist from Avatar though, hopefully we won't end up with Xenosmurphs...
Sliced Bread:the_lhc:Sliced Bread:
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
Or maybe your response was clearly rude.
My initial response wasn't, it was no different in tone to any of the posts preceding it. I can't help it if you choose to read into it something that wasn't intended.
I know what you were saying Kaotician. Your point was quite clear.
Some people can be a bit pedantic here, just ignore it.
It's not clear at all. Clearly wrong perhaps.
Or maybe your response was clearly rude.
My initial response wasn't, it was no different in tone to any of the posts preceding it. I can't help it if you choose to read into it something that wasn't intended.
Sorry, but this is such a futile debate (by that I mean no offence to particular posters, I'm just talking about general debates of this ilk).
Perhaps an easier way of looking at it is to acknowledge that James Cameron has had a hand in the digital restoration of the film and its transfer to Blu Ray, and expressed preferences about how he would like the film to look on this particular format. Beyond that, hopefully nobody is suggesting Cameron restored each frame of the film himself? This will have been done by digital technicians, thus introducing all sorts of variable factors to do with their respective levels of competence, their own subtle inflections and preferences, the type of hardware and software chosen to undertake the process, and so on...
Furthermore, lighting technicians, set and costume designers, special effects artists, and all involved in the process of photography, have bearing on the aesthetic of a film at its time of original production.
At best, it can be said that the Blu Ray release will come close to what Cameron wants now; which may be different to his preferences with previous iterations of the film (a director's "intentions" are also fluid rather than fixed).
As I stated before, if the finished product looks far better than the DVD, it's worth buying. If not, leave it well alone.
Perhaps an easier way of looking at it is to acknowledge that James Cameron has had a hand in the digital restoration of the film and its transfer to Blu Ray, and expressed preferences about how he would like the film to look on this particular format. Beyond that, hopefully nobody is suggesting Cameron restored each frame of the film himself? This will have been done by digital technicians, thus introducing all sorts of variable factors to do with their respective levels of competence, their own subtle inflections and preferences, the type of hardware and software chosen to undertake the process, and so on...
Furthermore, lighting technicians, set and costume designers, special effects artists, and all involved in the process of photography, have bearing on the aesthetic of a film at its time of original production.
At best, it can be said that the Blu Ray release will come close to what Cameron wants now; which may be different to his preferences with previous iterations of the film (a director's "intentions" are also fluid rather than fixed).
As I stated before, if the finished product looks far better than the DVD, it's worth buying. If not, leave it well alone.
strapped for cash:
Sorry, but this is such a futile debate (by that I mean no offence to particular posters, I'm just talking about general debates of this ilk).
Perhaps an easier way of looking at it is to acknowledge that James Cameron has had a hand in the digital restoration of the film and its transfer to Blu Ray, and expressed preferences about how he would like the film to look on this particular format. Beyond that, hopefully nobody is suggesting Cameron restored each frame of the film himself? This will have been done by digital technicians, thus introducing all sorts of variable factors to do with their respective levels of competence, their own subtle inflections and preferences, the type of hardware and software chosen to undertake the process, and so on...
This is true, however you'd hope he would approve the finished product, although presumably not down to the individual frame.
Furthermore, lighting technicians, set and costume designers, special effects artists, and all involved in the process of photography, have bearing on the aesthetic of a film at its time of original production.
Yes but they should all be working at the behest or dare I say it, the direction of the director, no?
I'm mortally offended no-one's LOL'd at my Xenosmurphs line yet, I was really proud of that, someone should be banned!
Sorry, but this is such a futile debate (by that I mean no offence to particular posters, I'm just talking about general debates of this ilk).
Perhaps an easier way of looking at it is to acknowledge that James Cameron has had a hand in the digital restoration of the film and its transfer to Blu Ray, and expressed preferences about how he would like the film to look on this particular format. Beyond that, hopefully nobody is suggesting Cameron restored each frame of the film himself? This will have been done by digital technicians, thus introducing all sorts of variable factors to do with their respective levels of competence, their own subtle inflections and preferences, the type of hardware and software chosen to undertake the process, and so on...
This is true, however you'd hope he would approve the finished product, although presumably not down to the individual frame.
Furthermore, lighting technicians, set and costume designers, special effects artists, and all involved in the process of photography, have bearing on the aesthetic of a film at its time of original production.
Yes but they should all be working at the behest or dare I say it, the direction of the director, no?
I'm mortally offended no-one's LOL'd at my Xenosmurphs line yet, I was really proud of that, someone should be banned!
"Yes but they should all be working at the behest or dare I say it, the direction of the director, no?"
Surely you have to acknowledge that this is not a constant from film to film? In principal, yes, the director's function is to organise various aspects of production; and as such, s/he usually plays a significant and shaping role in creative decisions. Some filmmakers take on more technical responsibilities than others, but ultimately most are reliant on the skills of different personnel to facilitate their wishes. Again, this introduces all kinds of variables and subtle personal/individual inflections that shape or alter the finished product.
Of course a director will express degrees of approval or disapproval with the finished product, but for budgetary reasons and time constraints (the influence of producers/studio financiers), there are also inevitably elements of compromise involved.
Which brings me back to my original point: The statement "as the director intended" prinicpally serves a marketing function that helps neatly organise viewer perceptions and patterns of consumption. It's a necessary oversimplification that serves a commercial imperative and is not an accurate reflection of the processes involved in filmmaking.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but people continually stressing that a film is "as the director intented" grates on me somewhat. If you look back to the Hollywood studio era (roughly from the 1910s to the 1960s), filmmaking was largely regarded as a producer's medium, with a factory line approach to production where the director (with a few exceptions like Hitchcock) was viewed as another technician and generally overlooked when films were marketed. Instead, the names of producers, stars, and the studios themselves (which had carefully constructed identities) were displayed most prominently on film posters and in newspaper and magazine advertisements, etc...
Oh, and by the way, I'll give you a subtle
on the xenosmurf front...
Surely you have to acknowledge that this is not a constant from film to film? In principal, yes, the director's function is to organise various aspects of production; and as such, s/he usually plays a significant and shaping role in creative decisions. Some filmmakers take on more technical responsibilities than others, but ultimately most are reliant on the skills of different personnel to facilitate their wishes. Again, this introduces all kinds of variables and subtle personal/individual inflections that shape or alter the finished product.
Of course a director will express degrees of approval or disapproval with the finished product, but for budgetary reasons and time constraints (the influence of producers/studio financiers), there are also inevitably elements of compromise involved.
Which brings me back to my original point: The statement "as the director intended" prinicpally serves a marketing function that helps neatly organise viewer perceptions and patterns of consumption. It's a necessary oversimplification that serves a commercial imperative and is not an accurate reflection of the processes involved in filmmaking.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but people continually stressing that a film is "as the director intented" grates on me somewhat. If you look back to the Hollywood studio era (roughly from the 1910s to the 1960s), filmmaking was largely regarded as a producer's medium, with a factory line approach to production where the director (with a few exceptions like Hitchcock) was viewed as another technician and generally overlooked when films were marketed. Instead, the names of producers, stars, and the studios themselves (which had carefully constructed identities) were displayed most prominently on film posters and in newspaper and magazine advertisements, etc...
Oh, and by the way, I'll give you a subtle
strapped for cash:
"Yes but they should all be working at the behest or dare I say it, the direction of the director, no?"
Surely you have to acknowledge that this is not a constant from film to film? In principal, yes, the director's function is to organise various aspects of production; and as such, s/he usually plays a significant and shaping role in creative decisions. Some filmmakers take on more technical responsibilities than others, but ultimately most are reliant on the skills of different personnel to facilitate their wishes. Again, this introduces all kinds of variables and subtle personal/individual inflections that shape or alter the finished product.
Of course a director will express degrees of approval or disapproval with the finished product, but for budgetary reasons and time constraints (the influence of producers/studio financiers), there are also inevitably elements of compromise involved.
I certainly wouldn't deny any of that, and I wasn't attempting to suggest that the director has a physical hand in every aspect of the production, but it is his "vision" that he is attempting to put on screen and whilst he is reliant on the skills of others to deliver that, the film will look the way it does largely because of the decisions that the director has made. Whether the end result is exactly what he had in mind at the outset is another matter, obviously.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but people continually stressing that a film is "as the director intented" grates on me somewhat. If you look back to the Hollywood studio era (roughly from the 1910s to the 1960s), filmmaking was largely regarded as a producer's medium, with a factory line approach to production where the director (with a few exceptions like Hitchcock) was viewed as another technician and generally overlooked when films were marketed. Instead, the names of producers, stars, and the studios themselves (which had carefully constructed identities) were displayed most prominently on film posters and in newspaper and magazine advertisements, etc...
I wouldn't disagree with that either but certainly today the situation isn't quite the same. A certain other filmmaker on a recent thread is getting plenty of stick because of his continual re-releases which, whilst certainly a marketing opportunity are almost certainly due in part because of his ongoing obsession to present his films as he always intended them to look in his head. Granted in that case he's also the producer but I think the point stands. Cameron certainly isn't alone in wanting to re-outfit his products as advances in technology allow.
"Yes but they should all be working at the behest or dare I say it, the direction of the director, no?"
Surely you have to acknowledge that this is not a constant from film to film? In principal, yes, the director's function is to organise various aspects of production; and as such, s/he usually plays a significant and shaping role in creative decisions. Some filmmakers take on more technical responsibilities than others, but ultimately most are reliant on the skills of different personnel to facilitate their wishes. Again, this introduces all kinds of variables and subtle personal/individual inflections that shape or alter the finished product.
Of course a director will express degrees of approval or disapproval with the finished product, but for budgetary reasons and time constraints (the influence of producers/studio financiers), there are also inevitably elements of compromise involved.
I certainly wouldn't deny any of that, and I wasn't attempting to suggest that the director has a physical hand in every aspect of the production, but it is his "vision" that he is attempting to put on screen and whilst he is reliant on the skills of others to deliver that, the film will look the way it does largely because of the decisions that the director has made. Whether the end result is exactly what he had in mind at the outset is another matter, obviously.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but people continually stressing that a film is "as the director intented" grates on me somewhat. If you look back to the Hollywood studio era (roughly from the 1910s to the 1960s), filmmaking was largely regarded as a producer's medium, with a factory line approach to production where the director (with a few exceptions like Hitchcock) was viewed as another technician and generally overlooked when films were marketed. Instead, the names of producers, stars, and the studios themselves (which had carefully constructed identities) were displayed most prominently on film posters and in newspaper and magazine advertisements, etc...
I wouldn't disagree with that either but certainly today the situation isn't quite the same. A certain other filmmaker on a recent thread is getting plenty of stick because of his continual re-releases which, whilst certainly a marketing opportunity are almost certainly due in part because of his ongoing obsession to present his films as he always intended them to look in his head. Granted in that case he's also the producer but I think the point stands. Cameron certainly isn't alone in wanting to re-outfit his products as advances in technology allow.
Sliced Bread
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2010
- 510
- 94
- 18,970
the_lhc: My initial response wasn't, it was no different in tone to any of the posts preceding it. I can't help it if you choose to read into it something that wasn't intended.
Intended or otherwise comments such as referringto peoples opinions as strawman argument is pretty rude. Many of your past posts have been far far ruder (so perhaps this is the straw to break the camels back), hence your reputation on the forum (which you seem to relish):
the_lhc:the_lhc:Clare Newsome:Greg.L:
thanks for the response, well was banned for other reason...my bad
Though of course our registration system sometimes has glitches and says you're banned when you're not - even i get it sometimes.
I don't, which has an amusing irony about it...
With regard to "I can't help it if..." maybe you could try adapting your manner. It would be interesting to meet you in person. As most people who act like this on-line wouldn't dream of doing it face to face. Something about de-humanising people when they are on-line.
Intended or otherwise comments such as referringto peoples opinions as strawman argument is pretty rude. Many of your past posts have been far far ruder (so perhaps this is the straw to break the camels back), hence your reputation on the forum (which you seem to relish):
the_lhc:the_lhc:Clare Newsome:Greg.L:
thanks for the response, well was banned for other reason...my bad
Though of course our registration system sometimes has glitches and says you're banned when you're not - even i get it sometimes.
With regard to "I can't help it if..." maybe you could try adapting your manner. It would be interesting to meet you in person. As most people who act like this on-line wouldn't dream of doing it face to face. Something about de-humanising people when they are on-line.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram