comment #1

moorish says ...

"The best print that has ever been made..." Friedkin used the exact same phrase at the Q&A screening of the blu-ray print I went to in London. Which was a bit surprising to us in the audience, who had just sat through the movie and been surprised by how grainy and shitty it looked. Friedkin also boasted that the print was "80% black and white", with just a bit of colour put back in.

comment #2

Gnome de Guerre says ...

Shouldn't the question to Friedkin be whether this was his 1971-self's idea, and if not, when he came up with the idea to do this? Would his 1971-self approve? And if not, why is it not relevant to him today?

If this was his original intent in 1971 (and I'm aware he had the ability back then to make the film look this way, which argues against this, but still, IF...) then does that make it ok?

comment #3

Krazy Eyes says ...

Clearly there are some disagreements on the quality of this transfer. I haven't seen the Blur-ay yet but David Poland reviewed the release last week and couldn't stop raving about how fantastic he thought the transfer looked.

comment #4

actionman says ...

I just wish someone could answer when Sorcerer is going to come out in proper widescreen format on DVD.

comment #5

Jack South P.I. says ...

Poor William Freidkin. Like Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now Redux and George Lucas with the original Star Wars triliogy, he has gone back and fiddled with a masterpiece and diminished it by injecting it with bad ideas his younger self never would have allowed to see the light of day. With very few exceptions, artists lose their mojo with age. Their ideas get worse or less inspired or relevent. The smart ones retreat and allow their best work to carry them into history. Others make the mistake to trying to prove they are still as great an artist now as they were in their heyday. But it is a mirage. Freidkin's tinkering is yet another classic example of an artist well past his prime not being able to recognize that their current talent is a pale comparison to their peak artistic years.

comment #6

Jack South P.I. says ...

Perhaps it is a bit strong to say the entire Star Wars trilogy is a masterpiece. 'Beloved' would have been a better choice of words.

comment #7

jesse says ...

I'm actually a little puzzled by this debate. Not in theory -- it is kind of sketchy that Friedkin essentially made a new version of his movie and isn't providing the original -- but in the negative terms that the new transfer is being described. Granted, I had never seen French Connection all the way through before I watched my review copy of the Blu-Ray, but I thought the picture, independent of whether it faithfully reproduces the original version, looked terrific. Bleached-out, yes. "Bleachy" or "blotchy," no. Gritty, yes. Grainy, I dunno, I thought it looked, if not slick, certainly crisp and eye-filling.

Maybe it's because I don't have a high-def TV? I'm just running a basic Sony Blu-Ray player on a 24-inch (I think? 20something) non-flat, regular-def ol' tube TV. Maybe in high def, the intentional grittiness of the print is more clear (and therefore even more imperfect looking). But on my TV, the movie looked pretty damn terrific.

I wonder about high-def TVs in general, though. I saw a Blu-Ray demo reel at Best Buy and the movies looked frighteningly real. Not just bright and vivid and clear, but like a high-def sports broadcast -- it looked like Ben Stiller or Will Smith or whoever had been filmed live on location. I guess people like this because it looks more "real," but to me it didn't look much like a movie with its own texture and feel. Granted, these were just FX-heavy snippets from mainstrea titles but they still didn't look right.

comment #8

York "Budd" Durden says ...

>Maybe it's because I don't have a high-def TV? I'm just running a basic Sony Blu-Ray player on a 24-inch (I think? 20something) non-flat, regular-def ol' tube TV.

Nothing personal, but your opinion is meaningless.

comment #9

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

">Maybe it's because I don't have a high-def TV? I'm just running a basic Sony Blu-Ray player on a 24-inch (I think? 20something) non-flat, regular-def ol' tube TV."

Why would you buy a blu ray player if that's your TV? A plain old DVD played on an HD TV will look better than a blu-ray on an old standard definition set like yours.

And Durden is right, it does render your opinion on this matter meaningless.

comment #10

raygo says ...

jesse says ... "I saw a Blu-Ray demo reel at Best Buy and the movies looked frighteningly real. "

I saw the same demo at my local Best Buy. I didn't like it. You are correct to compare it to an HD sports cast. HD is more unnecessary consumerism that is hyped by people who wouldn't know an HD turd from a tootsie roll.

I'll pass.

comment #11

storymark says ...

Saying someone's opinion is invalid bacause they didn't watch in HD is the dumbest think I've read here in a while. (and let's remember DZ posts here). If we were only discussing the sharpness of the transfer, that might be one thing, but since the point of contention here is the change to the color, which would be just as noticible in SD, it's just a stupid position to take.

comment #12

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Bullshi, story. Has more to do with the grain reproduction, which is a crucial part of this controversy.

comment #13

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

Durden is right. The effect of the "washout" is highly dependent on resolution, and I'd suspect an old standard defintiion tv set will be far more forgiving of the extreme measures Friedkin took here.

comment #14

jesse says ...

I guess my larger point is that maybe high-def is so powerful that it's going to mess with a lot of movies, intentionally or not. On my non-high-def TV, I saw a gorgeous transfer with some subtle color alteration (there's a feature on the disc doing some side-by-sides; I don't entirely trust it as it's just a few short bits shown briefly, but it gives an idea, at least). On high-def, you're getting (supposedly) crazy grain, blotchiness, and newer movies looking like football games.

NotImpressed, I received a Blu-Ray player as a gift, and I assumed I'd get a nice TV at some point... but now I'm not so sure that's a priority. I do find that even regular DVDs look crisper and clearer on the Blu-Ray machine.

Also, I'm a part-time critic (for a not particularly techie film/video/etc site), so the ability to watch Blu-Ray screener copies is a major advantage.

comment #15

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

jessie what you're telling me is that you could buy an hd set and arguably write it off as a business expense!

but you are right that hd is messing with films in a way - it demands better source material, which in turn requires better restoration of the old film. when done right, it can be magnificant.

comment #16

kneelbeforezod says ...

Sounds to me like a couple of people don't really understand HD? "High def is so powerful it's going to mess with movies"?! Er, no... Done right, it's a much more faithful version of the film you saw in the cinema than if it was on an old tv or a dvd. If you didn't like some hi def demo in a store, then it probably wasn't calibrated right (they tend to set their tvs up with maximum colour, contrast and brightness, which is not how films are meant to be watched).

comment #17

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"If you didn't like some hi def demo in a store, then it probably wasn't calibrated right (they tend to set their tvs up with maximum colour, contrast and brightness, which is not how films are meant to be watched)."

I've heard this argument before, and while there is some truth to it (surely these Best Buys demos crank up the brightness/contrast levels to nearly intolerable levels), there is nothing wrong with being skeptical about the ability of HD to, as you say, "replicate a more faithful version of the film you saw in the cinema." That's a valid opinion to hold. As of now, I have to side with the people who instinctually feel it just doesn't look right, no matter how much tinkering with the settings one does.

Now getting back on topic, Friedkin had a great run in the 70s, directed some real overlooked gems in the 80s (TL&D in LA, Rampage), and, hell, I even enjoyed Blue Chips and Rules of Engagement.

But with Bug, wow...that is truly jumping the shark in only the way a former master filmmaker can.

comment #18

HarryMoseby says ...

No one who's watched a well-mastered Blu-Ray disc on a properly calibrated HD TV (at least choose the "Cinema" setting if nothing else) would doubt the major leap it makes toward replicating the theatrical viewing experience; whether that means investing in the format when Apple TV and the like herald the eventual end of DVD's in general, I don't know. But don't go by what you see in Best Buy -- some loop of special effects scenes from King Kong and The Mummy movies that come off looking like CGI product reels. They give you no indication of the format's potential.

comment #19

h.krinkle says ...

I'm not quite as disappointed in this as some, but I do agree the grain is over the top in darker scenes. It's definitely distracting and takes you out of the movie. And the color bleed makes it feel like you're looking at something shot in an alternate reality. That's a big blow that has been dealt to a film that was ALL about reality.

The bonus feature shots of the unaltered scenes look great. Friedkin should have included that along with his revised version, all would be forgiven. The REALLY bad news is Friedkin mentions this process is being applied to 4 of his other films. It's a virtual certainty The Exorcist and To Live and in L.A. are among those.

comment #20

BurmaShave says ...

BUG was Friedkin's best film in 20 years. Very misunderstood movie and very underrated.

comment #21

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

I recently watched Chungking Express on blu ray and think it might be the most film like viewing experience I've ever had on my TV.

Also, I haven't yet watched it, but this review of the new Kramer v Kramer blu ray does a good job of explaining how blu ray can make an older movie shine:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1991/kramervskramer.html