This was posted over at hometheatertforum.com


____
Taken from DavisDVD.com
quote:
In what might qualify as a first in the DVD remastering and transferring process, director John Landis did not approve the new high-definition transfer for National Lampoon's Animal House; Double Secret Probation Edition after he screened it. "It just looked too good—the textiles and the skin on the actors look so unbelievably crisp," said Landis. "Animal House shouldn't look beautiful; it should have a funky look to it." The director asked the technical crew to degrade the image, thus giving it the grainier texture that he feels befits the film. "It still looks better than it has a right to look." (thanks to DVD Premieres Magazine)

________________________

I think this is great news!


Though i will not bother with this new version as i am happy with my 'grainy' original mono-sountrack SE dvd release.

Now if Landis would not approve of the 5.1 mix or demand the original mono be included also. That would be excellent.




Of course some people will be unhappy with this news,just like they bitched about the picture quality of the original SE release. Which looked great as it was originally intended.

Yet are'nt movies meant to look a specific way no matter how much cleaning up of the image enhancing every tiny detail possible?

Grain is good. Now not aton of grain that completely covers the screen into darkness. Yet a natural amount of film grain is important & adds a unique feel to the film itself.

Thats always been my main concern(aside from original soundtracks) over older films being restored. Sometimes they restore them 'too' much cleaning it up. That much of the feel/tone is lost. I used to find The Evil Dead very gruesome & frightening. Yet the dvd releases are so brightened up & clear as day. It makes the FX look phonier,& the dark atmosphere thrown away,since many of the shadows are lost. Even if a rooms only lit with one light on the other wall,the entire room is full of light as if the cabin has hightech lighting installed in every facet of the place.

So to get alittle bit of the shadow & darkness back to the film. I have to turn down the brightness quite abit. Yet even then,it's not 'the' same. Such as the famous shot of Campbell holding the door shut as the demon tries breaking in. The camera frantically zooms in on his face going mad. In the early prints. His face was covered half in shadow..& it just added a whole air of dementia to it. Yet on the dvd,even with the bright level turned down abit. It's still to bright with no shadow at all on his face(despite lack of natural light in the shot!) since again the entire cabin is bright as day despite taking place at night with little to no lights on!

So i guess what i'm saying is. They can remaster the prints. Yet don't take away all the grain & any natural shadow definition by brightening it up to unrealistic lengths ruining the atmosphere.


So more power to Landis for keeping it real as they say

[BURNING TORCH] DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY, DOWN WITH TECHNOLOGY, WE LIKE THE STONE AGE, WE LIKE THE STONE AGE! [/BURNING TORCH]

Landis is probably right. Low budget comedies like Animal House don't need to look like $100 million productions. In fact, cleaning up the image too much would take away a lot of its charm.

So if they can make this 1978 movie look good, then that means they can fix THE GODFATHER dvd movies if they wanted to.
Because I've always read from posters on how that's as good as the dvds can look because the movies were from the 1970's.

What a load of crap, that's just a lame excuse, how does grain affect the story, I'm sorry but I want clean prints not grainy and dirty video.

These movies were shot on film. Film has grain. Grain is not evil.

Wow! Good to hear an intelligent remark once in awhile!

Sometimes they can go to far in cleaning things up, I seem to recall that Citizen Kane had some rain removed from a shot out a window, because the restorers thought it was scratches. Of course, I can't remember where I saw this, and I didn't notice it when I watched.

I've known for a long time that Landis is scum. I didn't realize he was an idiot, too.

Yeah, you'll get that kind of stuff from bboisvert.

I guess this makes sense. It's the director's vision coming into play once again.

Personally I think it sounds weird but I guess I'd want the same thing if they tried to clean up Clerks.

It's called mise-en-scene. If you are at all interested in film, you may wish to look into it.

Yep grain is not evil & in fact is a good thing. It's only when your watching a copy of a copy of a copy that it looks terrible like early Night of the Living Dead releases.

Yet the right amount of natural grain can enhance the film & give it a certain quality that just is not the same if it's taken away & made to look like it were filmed today. In fact many films today appear more bland because of that.

Such as my Evil Dead example. Sure the print looks incredible. Yet was it supposed to? At what cost did it affect the tone & impact of the film by brightening up everything no matter what?

Sure the old VHS editions were terrible looking. Yet if they went back to the original negative,cleaned it up just a tad,but kept the grain intact. It could have had the same impact as usual.

Thats what i love about the Last House on the Left dvd. Others claim it looks ugly. I think it looks beautiful compared to the even worse Vestron transfer. Yet the dvd still has plenty of natural grain & rough quality that enhances the film. If all that were taken away,it would lose much of it's impact & appear artificial.

Remembering that this is set in a time before it was filmed, and a time well before the present. The funky grainy look to the film actually helps set the period and remind you where you are.

I suppose they should fix Shindler's List too, as there's no way they would have made it look so washed out on purpose.

Best thread title ever (Landis Rocks)! Landis is my last name even though I don't think I'm any relation to him.

Vic Morrow did.

Ooooh, that's a low blow.

Or if you're Vic Morrow, it's a high blow to the head.

Maybe they can fix American Graffiti so it not so dark.

Apples and oranges. If you've read many posts about the Godfather movies at all, you would have read that the films look the way they do because cinematographer Gordon Willis (aka The Prince of Darkness) deliberately underlit them and designed them to look very dark. He and Coppola also admit they went to far a few times and that there are numerous scenes that are too dark. The efect had nothing to do with it being the '70s.

No, that's just it, he didn't know.

And those two tiny kids.

He's scum, plain and simple.

But this doesn't make me hate his films, just him.

Can anyone explain to me what the Vic Morrow conversation is about?

...erm... during the shooting of a movie the man died, beheaded by a helicopter blade, or something...

...from his biography:
...Vic Morrow died tragically in the early morning hours of July 23, 1982 while filming a scene for "Twilight Zone: The Movie". As he waded across the Santa Clara River carrying two Vietnamese children, a helicopter crashed beside them. All three actors were killed-- Morrow and one of the children were decapitated...

...google is good...

. . . . . .

Already explanied. Basically it was a freak accident that may have been Landis' fault & since people are pissed over his decision on not releasing a pristine uber-crystal clear like it were today Animal House. They have to use a tragedy that happened a few years AFTER AH,that has nothing to do with this film,besides a segment directed by Landis in order to belittle him.

Thats almost like saying you now hate The Towering Inferno since O.J. Simpson is in it based on what happened a couple decades later!

Not exactly. Landis faced felony charges as a result of that accident. He was aquitted, but it certainly appeared that he made major mistakes in shooting that scene (he wasn't the only one, though). A lot of people hold a gurudge against him after that. Using your analogy, it's kinda like why OJ isn't real popular now.