MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Should digitally remastered movies fix s...

Should digitally remastered movies fix stunt and stuntmen?

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
15 replies | jump to latest

When you watch things in 4k, what used to be hidden by grainy or blurry images, are now often in crystal clear detail.

Examples, the stuntman who skateboards in place of Michael J Fox in back to the future.

The motorcycle stuntmen in terminator 2.

In the latter, they digitally put Arnie's face on the stuntman but it looks bad. Fans point out that they didn't really fix John Connors stuntman.

But one area I think they should fix is wires that are now visible.

In Cliffhanger, the final fight ontop of a helicopter dangling off of a cliff is now clearly suspended to the cliff with a support wire, crudely camouflaged.

This wasn't noticable to me before, but in 4K, It stands out.

So should they fix "the magic of Hollywood" when 4k means the magican's tricks are laid bare?

reply

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 5 years ago

When George Lucas re-edited (multiple times) the original 1977 Star Wars, there were two basic reactions from fans.

1. Those in favor of it were happy that Lucas was finally able to accomplish what he had wanted from the beginning, but had been unable to produce due to limited SFX technology in the 1970s.
2. The "purist" fans felt that an iconic film should not have been tampered with.

I have mixed feelings about this; I lean somewhat towards reaction number 1. This is because I believe a film should be shown as the producers and directors intended. No unnecessary cutting of scenes. When I purchase a DVD I make sure it's a director's cut if one is available.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Absolutely, yes. If people think that a film should not be tampered with then just watch the original release, not the upscaled 4K HDR 3D 11.1 THX Super Ultra Dolby Digital Renaissance X-SOUND AtXCC MP7 UHS-Type Z remastered version.

If one can tamper with the resolution then tampering anything else is fair game.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I agree, especially when the clarity of 4k reveals stuntmen and special effects like wires or smoke machines (although the smoke machine in Rambo first blood II was always visible.)

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

And pimples.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Except the resolution isn’t being “tampered with”. 35mm film reels as they were originally shown already are equivalent and higher to 4K. The quality in the cinema would be far better than any home system. The only reason people even notice these things are due to the pause/rewind options.

As for removing or fixing goofs, I don’t see a problem with it. Would be nice if Coppola went back and fixed the bad, disconnected punch in the first Godfather using digital technology.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

A remaster means it is tampered with. A rerelease would be not.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Remastered from the original negatives, but it doesn’t mean the resolution has been improved in any way except for home viewing. You’re still not getting the full experience.

My point is you said “just go watch the original version” when that would in fact be far superior.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

A modern remaster is remastered from the master roll of film... which was way cleaner and higher in resolution than the release rolls. And then they still cleaned it up a bit more and color corrected it.

I saw a "behind the scene" of how far they take "remastered" seriously. It is not simply the same as what you would watch in the theatre back then. It is tampered.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Modern digital remasters are not done on film, they are converted to pixels and shipped via some kind of hard drive.

The only reason the original roll would be inferior would be if it was mishandled or dirt got on it somehow. But 35mm film in its original state is going to have a higher resolution than any digital remaster. All they really do is remove some scratches and fading, but that’s only because they stored the original negatives in poor conditions. Basically this “digital remastering” nonsense is just a cover for negligence, and to charge us twice for the same product in a different coat of paint. These reels are supposed to last thousands of years, which is far longer than digital data.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

Yes, but what we saw in theaters were NOT the original rolls. They are cheaply made copies which are way worse in quality.

A digital remaster from the original master roll has higher resolution than the release rolls we saw in theaters.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

They’re only “cheaply made” if printing process was done poorly or they cut corners, or it was copied from an intermediary print for wide releases. Otherwise, a 35mm showprint for a premiere of a film, from the original negatives, is automatically going to be higher resolution than any digital format. Every time. If you saw Star Wars at the Mann’s Chinese Theater in 1977, you would be seeing a higher quality image than any digital release.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

No, I don't attend any premiers. I'm a regular guy watching movies on regular theaters. Do you?

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

My point is that film is still higher resolution than digital.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

But only the unaccesible to us version.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

Maybe

reply