› ›

How has consumer technology impacted movie making - or hasn't it?

dogrowup007dogrowup007
in General Movies & TV Posts: 108
The idea for this discussion actually came to me when, in another thread, moderator Benny said that Broccoli and Salzman never foresaw with the earliest Bond-movies that they would be revised again and again in minute detail through DVD, Blue Ray etc. (paraphrasing, not quoting). Which made me wonder: Would they have done anything differently if they would have been aware of future technology?

So my question is: do you believe moviemakers take into account that we can sit through their movies in infinite reviewing sessions through DVDs or Blue Rays? Is the production of movies now approached differently due to the existence of DVD, BlueRay, streaming ...? If so, in what aspect? And did it first occur with DVDs, or did the VCR also do its bit? I'm not talking about DVD commentaries and special features; that's all post-production. I'm not talking about trailers, diary entries during production either; that's marketing.

For starters, I can imagine they pay more attention to CGI and special effects than before, as the audience now can freeze the image to scrutinize any scene frame by frame.

I'm keen to hear your insights and ideas.

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I do wonder if film makers would leave in those little "easter eggs" that you can hardly notice if you blink in the old days. Never heard of it.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Movies as old as 90 years can be mastered in 2K for Blu-ray releases. Thanks to the ingenious moviemakers of the distant past. It's astonishing what equipment was invented and used early on.
    Many of those movies can be restored, remastered and/or repaired to the very best results.
    Nowadays old movies get remastered in 4K even, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for example.
    In a few years (if that long) we will be able to watch movies of the 40's in real 4K resolution for example, and I don't mean upconverted but real 4K.

    High Definition never was in the mind of moviemakers up to the nineties I think.
    Especially on television. Many TV-Shows were taped which is the most horrible crime ever committed.
    Such shows will never be seen in HD. Not without most expensive and harrowing restoring processes.
    Star Trek TNG was painstakingly re-made really. They used the original film roles, had to search for the right takes and put all of them together again, edit it correctly etc.
    But that's an exception, because it is Trek, enough people will buy it and make it profitable.

    I think what might have been done differently in the past might be CGI in the nineties. Many moviemakers didn't use models anymore, but CGI. That's the reason why nineties movies that used CGI look horrible in High Definition as CGI can't be shown in a higher resolution than it has been made back then. They would have to re-do it all.
    If you look at Sci-Fi movies of the past, all those using models can be remastered in 4K without losing any quality.

    One of the main reasons that the cult show Babylon 5 hasn't been released in HD is the problem of CGI not possible to master in 4K. It would have to be upconverted and that doesn't look good at all.

    Nowadays movies get made with 3D in mind. You can see if a director chooses a scene only for a 3D effect, something that I find troubling.
    Luckily some directors refuse to do 3D.
  • dogrowup007dogrowup007
    Posts: 108
    @BondJasonBond006 I haven't jumped on the 2K or 4K train yet, so that possibility had eluded me, but I may indeed have quite an impact. In what degree do those remastered versions alter your appreciation?

    And do you think some movies had better been left untouched? I'm thinking of the rage (luckily long gone) of coloring B&W movies, with hideous results. Another technology, but your mention of nineties CGI in HD made me think of that.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Personally I like it when old movies get remastered in High Definition. I never felt it would take away something from them, in fact I think I can appreciate such movies much more.
    For example the Hitchcock classics, how can I ever watch them again in Standard Resolution on DVD? I can't, once I've seen them on Blu-ray, there was no turning back :)

    As for colouring B+W movies, that was a crime, really. I do own a coloured season of I Dream Of Jeannie, absolutely horrible.

    Altering CGI can be something that helps a movie or puts another perspective to it.
    For example Star Trek The Motion Picture was re-done by its director. A bit of Nip and Tuck, some added scenes, some altered special effects. The result is imho great.
    The same to a much larger extend happened to the original Star Wars movies.
    Personally I couldn't watch the untouched versions anymore, but I guess for people that have seen them originally at the cinema that's a different story.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    I doubt they would have done anything differently, After all they probably believed they had done everything as well as they could, and what they did would stand up to scrutiny for ever and a day.

    Aside from Bond in 1978 when Superman came out everyone raved about the special effects (you'll believe a man can fly). It was amazing to watch.
    Now? Not so impressive.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    The same to a much larger extend happened to the original Star Wars movies.
    Personally I couldn't watch the untouched versions anymore, but I guess for people that have seen them originally at the cinema that's a different story.

    I was too young to see them at the cinema, but I always watch the originals.

    Are you seriously saying this...



    Is better than this...



    I despair.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Movies as old as 90 years can be mastered in 2K for Blu-ray releases. Thanks to the ingenious moviemakers of the distant past. It's astonishing what equipment was invented and used early on.
    Many of those movies can be restored, remastered and/or repaired to the very best results.
    Nowadays old movies get remastered in 4K even, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang for example.
    In a few years (if that long) we will be able to watch movies of the 40's in real 4K resolution for example, and I don't mean upconverted but real 4K.

    High Definition never was in the mind of moviemakers up to the nineties I think.
    Especially on television. Many TV-Shows were taped which is the most horrible crime ever committed.
    Such shows will never be seen in HD. Not without most expensive and harrowing restoring processes.
    Star Trek TNG was painstakingly re-made really. They used the original film roles, had to search for the right takes and put all of them together again, edit it correctly etc.
    But that's an exception, because it is Trek, enough people will buy it and make it profitable.

    I think what might have been done differently in the past might be CGI in the nineties. Many moviemakers didn't use models anymore, but CGI. That's the reason why nineties movies that used CGI look horrible in High Definition as CGI can't be shown in a higher resolution than it has been made back then. They would have to re-do it all.
    If you look at Sci-Fi movies of the past, all those using models can be remastered in 4K without losing any quality.

    One of the main reasons that the cult show Babylon 5 hasn't been released in HD is the problem of CGI not possible to master in 4K. It would have to be upconverted and that doesn't look good at all.

    Nowadays movies get made with 3D in mind. You can see if a director chooses a scene only for a 3D effect, something that I find troubling.
    Luckily some directors refuse to do 3D.

    @BondJasonBond006 you do realise that 35mm film is a higher resolution that 1080p? CGI used in 1990s films on Blu Ray is actually presented in a lower resolution than originally in cinemas.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @RC7

    Both scenes are horrible. That's no argument for the untouched versions.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    NicNac wrote: »
    I doubt they would have done anything differently, After all they probably believed they had done everything as well as they could, and what they did would stand up to scrutiny for ever and a day.

    Aside from Bond in 1978 when Superman came out everyone raved about the special effects (you'll believe a man can fly). It was amazing to watch.
    Now? Not so impressive.


    The way they filmed that was actually quite impressive.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2016 Posts: 10,512
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    @RC7

    Both scenes are horrible. That's no argument for the untouched versions.

    That's not the point, besides I don't believe the original is horrible. Far from it. It's completely bizarre, which is part of its charm.

    And do not tell me this...

    FgeHikI.png

    Is better than this...

    eHQdzma.png

    Pissing about with such a historically important film is like building a Barratt Homes extension on a listed building.
Sign In or Register to comment.