Aliens, digital noise reduction

[strapped for cash]

"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."

But doesn't the fact that Lucas is still tinkering with his films contradict any claim that the film, as originally constructed, was as the director intended?

"but it is his "vision" that he is attempting to put on screen"

Is this the case? Where does the screenwriter feature in all this? Even if the director also wrote the screenplay, he is generally heavily influenced by other works and standardised production practices, established conventions of constructing narratives, etc... Simply look at how consciously referential most films are these days, they clearly owe a considerable debt to previous films and filmmakers (Tarantino being an obvious example). To suggest a film is singularly a "director's vision" is also problematic.

 

[idc]

I thought that Director's Cut meant a new version to increase the director's income from the film.

Anyway, this thread is not funny, as is suggested elsewhere and Aliens is one of the greatest films ever made, no matter its grain content.

 

[Anonymous]

Having watch the interview with Cameron it implys he has only changed the extended version, not the original release which if im not mistaken you get both versions when you buy the quadrilogy does this not mean all are catered for those who like it as it was and those who wish to see it as a shiny new penny that is full of colour, sharp edges and no grain.

 

[Chewy]

Blimey, this threads got a bit heated and high-brow since I last looked at it! Time to chuck in a molotov or two...

It always amazes me how directors are viewed as demi-gods and held in high esteem as 'artists'. Sure a certain amount of 'vision' is required for the direction of a movie, without doubt, but they are simply one cog in the machine that completes the final finished movie.

As for grain, as I have said before I don't like it. I don't care whether a director feels like it makes him more of an artist or not, he is producing a movie which is a commercial product that he wants me to lay my hard earned cash out for. As the customer I don't want him to degenerate the image by putting grain in it.

I can't think of a single film where film grain has added to the viewing experience. Sure, choosing a film stock for its colouration (think green tones of the Matrix, or sepia tones of Book of Eli) can add loads to the atmosphere of a film, as can lighting, camera placement and everything else in the directors tool kit, but grain adds nothing and only takes away resolution and immersion in my humble opinion!

For that reason I can understand why Cameron is so keen to get rid of the bloody stuff!

Personally I look forward for to revisiting Alien and Aliens when they eventually get released on blu-ray; they'll be right up there on my Lovefilm list!

 

[Anonymous]

eremis6:Having watch the interview with Cameron it implys he has only changed the extended version, not the original release which if im not mistaken you get both versions when you buy the quadrilogy does this not mean all are catered for those who like it as it was and those who wish to see it as a shiny new penny that is full of colour, sharp edges and no grain.

I think what we're to take as his meaning is that all the footage has been restored in its' entirety, meaning that should you choose to watch the Theatrical cut, (the footage of which comprises the bulk of the Director's cut) will be as he would like it to be seen too, because it's the same material, only without the extra scenes. I think we're meant to understand it as saying the film has been remastered including the extra scenes for the Director's cut.

 

[The_Lhc]

strapped for cash:
"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."

But doesn't the fact that Lucas is still tinkering with his films contradict any claim that the film, as originally constructed, was as the director intended?

That's why I said "in his head". It was the best he could do with the technology available at the time. Other directors are presumably happy with what they've created, or don't make films that rely quite so much on technology to achieve what they want. Or aren't nuts.

"but it is his "vision" that he is attempting to put on screen"[/b]

Is this the case? Where does the screenwriter feature in all this? Even if the director also wrote the screenplay, he is generally heavily influenced by other works and standardised production practices, established conventions of constructing narratives, etc... Simply look at how consciously referential most films are these days, they clearly owe a considerable debt to previous films and filmmakers (Tarantino being an obvious example). To suggest a film is singularly a "director's vision" is also problematic.

I can't help thinking you're being a little pedantic here and splitting hairs unnecessarily, would "the director's interpretation of the source material" be more to your liking? The screenwriter provides the words (but not necessarily the plot) but he doesn't lay down what the film should look like, which, as cinema is primarily a visual medium (and don't argue with that one, cinema existed prior to sound being a part of it, it didn't exist prior to video being part of it), is mostly down to the director.

And negating the role of the director simply because they use established Western conventions and techniques is somewhat unfair, by your logic you could almost argue there's no point to a director at all.

 

[strapped for cash]

Darn it. I was just defending you on another thread as well...

The short version is that I was never suggesting there is no point in the director at all, more that perceptions of him/her as ominpotent creator of films overstates things and that this common perception is exploited for marketing purposes. In each of my threads I was merely pointing out aspects of peoples' arguments that oversimplify more complex processes.

 

[The_Lhc]

strapped for cash:Darn it. I was just defending you on another thread as well...

It's fine, I'm still being impassioned...

The short version is that I was never suggesting there is no point in the director at all, more that perceptions of him/her as ominpotent creator of films overstates things and that this common perception is exploited for marketing purposes. In each of my threads I was merely pointing out aspects of peoples' arguments that oversimplify more complex processes.

And I accept what you're saying, up to a point, I just think you're at the opposite end of the spectrum from me, in that you downplay the influence of the director too much. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[strapped for cash]

This has been the subject of academic debate for roughly sixty years.

Given that some of the greatest philosophical minds of the last century have wrestled back and forth with this same subject, we're not going to resolve the issue on this thread, but hopefully it can be acknowledged that it is never as simple as attributing absolute autonomy and authority to the director, with regard to any aspect of filmmaking.

 

[Anonymous]

kaotician:

eremis6:Having watch the interview with Cameron it implys he has only changed the extended version, not the original release which if im not mistaken you get both versions when you buy the quadrilogy does this not mean all are catered for those who like it as it was and those who wish to see it as a shiny new penny that is full of colour, sharp edges and no grain.

I think what we're to take as his meaning is that all the footage has been restored in its' entirety, meaning that should you choose to watch the Theatrical cut, (the footage of which comprises the bulk of the Director's cut) will be as he would like it to be seen too, because it's the same material, only without the extra scenes. I think we're meant to understand it as saying the film has been remastered including the extra scenes for the Director's cut.

I dont think so if you listen to the interview right at the end he says "we did all this to the longer cut or the extended version.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I won't argue with you, but it's how he says it that tells me so - but we'll see, eh?

 

[Anonymous]

If it turns out i prefer it cleaned up then i will be hoping your right, but as you say we will see!