A Little Bit of Black Keys and Breaking Bad

They have not confirmed details yet. Universal announced a bunch of newly remastered titles, but they have been a bit cagey as to which ones will be available on Blu and which ones will be DVD only. Speaking of Universal, did you see that they officially announced Jaws, and it will include the full two-hour "making of" documentary that was on the old laserdisc special edition (the version released on DVD was truncated) and the new documentary "The Shark is Still Working"?

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=7943

I did. Can't wait for that movie on Blu, even if the shark isn't convincing.

Actually, I am glad that the shark is still not convincing. God forbid Spielberg gets his buddy to add a digital shark!

What a horrible thought. Then it really would be a horror, and not in a good way.

Spielberg was at an event recently where he made it clear to fans that he did not intend to have the "Director's Cut" of E.T. on Blu-Ray, just the original theatrical cut. He got cheers for that one. We shall see if Universal says otherwise.

Jaws is an interesting case in that there was a slight alteration from the theatrical version that has affected every home video version, including the VHS in the Eighties. There were rights issues to a song heard in the movie and it had to be changed. I am not 100% sure where, but a friend who owned a laserdisc store years ago told me that he was pretty sure that it was the music playing in the arcade that the camera pans by. The old video versions used to have a "This version has been altered from the theatrica release" disclaimer, but I think they stopped bothering with that. Nothing major or even really noticeable, of course, but it shows you how much alteration has gone on for video releases that no one is even aware of.

The other thing that will definitely be an alteration with the Blu-Ray is that they went back to the original untimed camera negative, so they had to do significant color timing work along with restoring the damage. Most movies have variances in the original photography that are altered during the timing process when they are preparing an internegative to make prints, but Jaws was even worse than most due to the difficult shooting conditions. The lighting and color from shot to shot on the camera negative varied widely. So they will be retiming things shot-by-shot, and even with Spielberg involved he is going by decades-old memory. I have no doubt that the final results will look good, probably even better than the theatrical prints like Spielberg is claiming, but it will definitely not look like it did in the theatres.

I recall reading about the difficult shooting conditions, but had forgotten all about that. But wasn't the colour palatte altered even for the theatrical release? Because the film was shot during fall (or winter months), I thought they upped the warmth and saturation to make it look more like a hot summer.

It has been decades since I've seen E.T.. Looking forward to that one. When is it being released?

No date on E.T. yet, but it is supposed to be this year.


Any movie has its color timing changed from its originally photographed negatives. Nowadays, of course, with digital intermediates they do not just do it shot-by-shot or even frame-by-frame, but portion-of-frame-by-portion-of-frame. But they still did it shot by shot photochemically. In the case of Jaws it was not simply the overall look that was adjusted, but since a shot and a reverse shot may have been filmed months apart over the delayed shooting schedule (not to mention reshoots) so there is very little consistency present in the original photography. The thing with transferring it now from the original camera negatives is that they will be going through that processes over again, but may make different choices. They WILL make different choices. Which is fine, I suppose, as long as they do not make any drastic changes like some recent films have.

Fair one. I was just surmising that the original intent was always to find a warmer pallate and that that choice might drive the decisions this time as well. I guess we will see.

That is really the question with any transfer of an older title, even if the original filmmakers are still alive: what was the original colour timing? Memory is an elusive little bugger. Can anyone really say what a movie looked like theatrically years ago? Can a director or cinematographer really remember what their original intent was? And have their perspectives been coloured (pardon) by seein decades of other films in the meantime? In a way, it is no different than the whole Lucas silliness of saying that the new special editions are closer to his original intent. Of course they are not; they are closer to what he thinks his original intent was, but clouded by the influence of decades of other science fictions films?

Worst case, you get a bizzaro recolouring like Billy Friedkin did with The French Connection Blu-Ray. He claims it was closer to how he originally intended it, but it looks nothing like any other print in existence. (By the way, if you gave it a miss, Fox quietly remastered the film under the supervision of cinematographer Owen Roizman and released it exclusively at Best Buy. The interesting thing is that whbile it is a vast improvement, it still alters the original colour scheme. But it is worth picking up.)

Thanks on the French Connection tip.

I'm okay with some divergence from the theatrical release, especially if it is an improvement. For example, I like what was done to the Halloween colour scheme, which I think is now much more natural looking. The original looked too blue for my liking.

Boy, there was a lot of controversy about that one. That transfer was done without any input from Carpenter or cinematographer Dean Cundy, and there is no question that the blue tinted night scenes were their original intent. A lot of reviewers and bloggers went ape over the change and the fact that it was done without the approval of the filmmakers. I am sympathetic, but on the other hand I agree with you that I prefer the more natural colour timing.

The whole French Connection deal started a feud between Friedkin and Roizman; Friedkin made those changes without even telling Roizman. Hence the latter's involvement on this quietly released alternate version. Fortunately wiser heads prevailed with the transfer for The Exorcist. My fear is that if Friedkin ever succeeds in getting Sorcerer released on Blu, will he monkey with it?

Monkeying seems to be the in thing to do these days, so probably a safe bet that Friedkin will go to town.

Incidentally, what did you think of the colour grading shifts in the Lord of the Rings release on Blu?

That bothered me far less than it did others, but my memories of the "correct" timing is vague at best. However, there is a trend right now to do these teal-tinted recolourings, and I am not the biggest fan of it. They did the same thing with Aliens. Now that Fox has announced that they are definitely working on a Blu-Ray for The Abyss, I hope to hell that they do not retime the frequently bluish tinted photography to teal for that one!

I'll put in a special request on your behalf.

I am sure that your pull with Cameron and Fox will work wonders.

You never know.

I never bothered to pick up The Abyss on DVD since it just recycled the laserdisc transfer. I still have my laserdisc for it, but I have not watched it in many years. I am looking forward to the Blu-Ray. Warts and all, it is my favorite Jim Cameron movie. (Not necessarily the best, just my favorite.)

What? You're passing up on gems like True Lies and Avatar?!

I actually love True Lies. I will certainly pick up a Blu-Ray of that. I have a hard time screwing up the courage to see Avatar again, however.

I watched the new French Connection disc last night. It is a definite improvement, though even Roizman has tweaked some things compared to all older versions. The only real odd thing is that there are a few shots scattered throughout the film that look like they came from the previous Friedkin-approved transfer. They have the same silvery-toned look that is slightly "glowing," which is an after-effect of how they did that transer. (They took a B&W version of the movie and then overlayed an over-saturated colour version, which essentially created the equivalent of a colourized version. The colours bleed around the borders, which is where the glowing halos come from.) But there are only a few of them. Definitely worth a trip to Best Buy.

I'm planning on heading there this evening, so your post is timely. Thank you.

Maybe I'll have to give True Lies a second viewing, but I'm done with Avatar. It was hard enough sitting through it the first time.

True Lies was fun. Much less pretentious than most of Cameron's other films.

I saw director Christopher Smith's follow-up to Triangle the other day as well: Black Death, with Sean Bean. It is essentially about Christianity vs. Paganism during the plague years of the Dark Ages, with obvious nods to The Wicker Man, though it somehow manages an even more bleak ending. Uneven but otherwise impressive film. Good period detail despite the low budget.

Speaking of Bean, did you finish Game of Thrones?

Six episodes into Game of Thrones. Quite enjoying it and I'm toying with the idea of reading the book to gain a better appreciation of the universe and story.

I saw Black Death on a store shelf several weeks ago and had wondered about picking it up. I may need to make a return visit.

Well, it is obviously a very different movie than Triangle, but very good. By the way, Ti West's follow up to House of the Devil came out last week: The Innkeepers. I plan to pick that up at Best Buy this weekend (none of the local stores got it on Blu-Ray.)

Speaking of holdouts, did you ever get to Warrior? Curious what you thought about that one.

Are they keeping with the late 70s, early 80s theme and packaging?

You know, I wish I had more time to watch movies. Sadly, I still haven't gotten to Warrior. At least I bought it!

I have not seen The Innkeepers, but I do not think that it uses an Eighties setting. But I have high hopes regardless!