Saw The Godfather in theater today..

Cinemark, 40th anniversary of the original release. Remastered in XD digital by Coppala, original 1.85:1 ratio, big 5.1 sound.

The film itself needs no comment. I've seen it at least a dozen times, as recently as within the last year. This was probably the third time I've seen it in a theater, but I couldn't tell you when the last time was; maybe the late '70s?

The XD theater is pretty big, and it was crowded, but not full; maybe 80% of capacity. The screen is huge. We got good seats, middle with a slight downward look.

Regarding the need for remastering: the treatment of the original film negatives is one of the great travesties of modern cinema. The films have been edited and re-edited, made into a chronological version for TV, had scenes added and deleted, and have generally been treated as throwaways.

The new version is far from perfect. Some scenes fare better than others. Some of the tropes used by Coppola are the movement from light to dark, from outside to inside, from urban to rural. The restorers seemed to work at getting the dynamic range right between those contrasts, and maintaining detail in shadows and in brightness. For many scenes, the range is there at the expense of excess graininess. But much of it is fine that way, too. It depends on the condition of the particular piece of film that was being worked on. I only noticed one bad "splice", and just barely; about 10 minutes from the end, there is a minor sound glitch and a change in the graininess, it went from bad to unnoticeable.

The experience itself was rapturous. There were no previews; at 7:05 the film started. The audience sat silent and spellbound. And when it ended, with Neri shutting the door as Kay turns to the camera to speak... the audience, almost all of whom were younger than the film itself, gave a standing ovation.


If you missed this, you have a second chance to see something similar. The Godfather Part II will be shown at Cinemark theaters, same format, on Thursday April 19th. Highly recommended.

Quote: Mosca

The experience itself was rapturous. There were no previews; at 7:05 the film started. The audience sat silent and spellbound. And when it ended, with Neri shutting the door as Kay turns to the camera to speak... the audience, almost all of whom were younger than the film itself, gave a standing ovation.

I just assumed they would release it in 3D.

I was watching it again the other day and drooling over
all the classic 50's cars, as usual. But when you think
about it, the movie was made in 1972 and most of
those cars weren't even 20 years old yet. In 1972
in Calif, a lot of 50's cars were still on the road as
everyday rides. Heck, I bought a '56 Wolkswagon
bus in 1976 in Santa Barbara and thought nothing
of it.

Quote: pacomartin

I just assumed they would release it in 3D.

Brando in 3D?

Quote: Wavy70

Brando in 3D?

Well, last year Buena Vista Studio went through all that expense to make three new picture, and spending a few million to conver the Lion King was just as profitable. So why not the godfather?

Gnomeo and Juliet BV $99,967,670
The Muppets BV $88,355,068
Real Steel BV $85,468,508

The Lion King (in 3D) BV $94,242,001

Quote: Wavy70

Brando in 3D?

splice in Brando singing "Luck be a Lady" and I'll buy the popcorn!

Quote: pacomartin

Well, last year Buena Vista Studio went through all that expense to make three new picture, and spending a few million to conver the Lion King was just as profitable. So why not the godfather?

The question is why the 3D fad succeeded this time around, after failing on several ocassions in the past.

3-D is a gimmick, a fad, it comes and goes. Its expensive and boring,
it'll be gone again soon.

Quote: pacomartin

Well, last year Buena Vista Studio went through all that expense to make three new picture, and spending a few million to conver the Lion King was just as profitable. So why not the godfather?

Lion King was animation. They probably still had the source docoments and in a format that could be used by 3D software. Or converted it and tweaked it to get it 3D.

Then re-do a few scenes to really exploit the 3D effect, and you're good to go.

Live action needs to be shot in 3D. If they didn't originally do that (and preserve it), then there's no way to make it 3D without a re-shoot.

Quote: EvenBob

3-D is a gimmick, a fad, it comes and goes. Its expensive and boring,
it'll be gone again soon.

I think kind of yes and no. I agree with you, but I also think that someone with more imagination than we have could figure it out.

For television, it is useless, a real distraction. I have a 3D set and I don't even know where the glasses are. But it's the best 2D picture I've ever seen.

For film, I think directors are having a hard time figuring it out. A lot of that has to do with the walls of reality and perception, where 3D vision fits in, stuff like that. We're used to seeing in 3D but with the images at different distances; a 3D projection gives 3D images, but they are all in the same plane, and our mind has to sort out the information. It's a lot of brain power going on in the background, brain power making sense out of something that is confusing. And it is unnerving to see a 3D projection that is limited by a frame.

The most successful 3D movie I've seen is Toy Story 3D, but I'm not sure how 3D added to the story. Avatar was pretty to look at, but the movie itself was pretty average. We missed Hugo, but I heard the use of 3D in that served the point of the film; I might find the 3D glasses to watch that at home, see what I think.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

If they didn't originally do that (and preserve it), then there's no way to make it 3D without a re-shoot.

I hope it's obvious that my original comment was tongue in cheek. The description of the movie was so loving, and the desire to see it restored to it's original state was very evident. It's like suggesting that you watch a colorized version of Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.

I saw The Godfather for the first time in a theatre. (No, not the original release; it was a specialty rerelease). Absolutely awesome. It's hard to watch on regular TV now.

Avatar was awful. I can't watch 3D without getting motion sickness,
so I had to watch it in 2D. The story was so lame I was rooting for
the humans, screw those darned hippies..

Quote: EvenBob

Avatar was awful. I can't watch 3D without getting motion sickness,
so I had to watch it in 2D. The story was so lame I was rooting for
the humans, screw those darned hippies..

Haha, the 3D was the only reason to care about the film. Otherwise it was a mess.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Live action needs to be shot in 3D. If they didn't originally do that (and preserve it), then there's no way to make it 3D without a re-shoot.

I don't think so. From what I understand there are processes these days to turn anything to 3D. I hear Lucas plans to re-re-release all the SW films in 3D. Granted the lesser three may have been shot with 3D in mind or something, but they weren't shot in 3D. And the original 3 were certainly not.

3D is one of the first photo novelties, thousands of
stereo pics were taken in the Civil War and up to
the 1920's. There was a revival of it in the 50's
and dozens of companies made stereo cameras.
The images jump off the screen at you. Whats old
is new again a few generations later. The concept
is very simple. The lenses are set apart the same
distance as an average pair of eyes are. When the
images are projected together, the brain interprets
the picture as having depth.

I've only seen one film use 3D well (not that I've seen many) and that was TinTin. That actually felt like it worked. It's a cartoon, though, and that might be the sweet spot for 3D right now.

I'd be curious to see if 3D sports is ever worth the bother...

Quote: Nareed

I don't think so. From what I understand there are processes these days to turn anything to 3D. I hear Lucas plans to re-re-release all the SW films in 3D. Granted the lesser three may have been shot with 3D in mind or something, but they weren't shot in 3D. And the original 3 were certainly not.

I think it's a analysis of the film based on the work. But it can't be TRUE 3D as there's edges and sides of the object that don't exist on the original film. I saw Titanic 3D trailer, and it felt like a series of planes being presented in depth, not a true 3D object.


Of course, Lucas will keep flogging that Star Wars horse long after it was dead, boiled and turned into glue for someone else projects. His continual reimaging of Star Wars proves he was a lucky rather than good.

I'd rather be lucky than good though.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think so. From what I understand there are processes these days to turn anything to 3D.

First of all let's be clear about the terms, it's 2D images in stereo, not true 3D. Something approximating 3D can be achieved wearing a helmet and using software capable of working with it. True 3D imaging ("holograms", but they are never really holograms) adds information for nearly complete illusion. A better term for stereo is 2D+depth.

We perceive the depth dimension via a number of clues, including:
1) Occlusion.
2) Perspective. Took a while (till Hellenistic period) to begin appearing in art.
3) Shading. What video games are now struggling with, and the invention of SSAO was a massive breakthrough. For the purposes of this post, all other static image effects also fall here.
4) Eye focus. Can be (poorly) hinted at through depth of field effect (in filming or rendering).
5) Parallax. The images are also offset by the distance between the eyes.
6) Stereoscopic information. Different eyes receive different occlusion and perspective effects.
7) Motion information. Relative motion of one's head, regardless of its purpose, is fully accounted for in visual processing.

To see how effect (5) works, alternate between closing one eye and the other, looking straight forward, first at something very close, like a book, then in the distance, and comparing the images. In the first case they are offset a lot, in the second case they don't seem offset at all.
This is one of the two reasons why a 10" screen 2 feet away from your eyes will never be equivalent to a 40" screen 8 feet away (the other is focus distance). Eye separation corresponds to much more of the 10" image than the 40" one.

So, and it might surprise some people, you don't even need two images to produce a stereoscopic "3D" effect for distant landscapes - just one. What's more, the 3D-effect is produced exactly because it's the same image presented to both eyes. On a TV screen, it's technically two images, offset by the interocular distance.
That is what the "3D" button on your typical TV, if present, does. Not every scene is supposed to be seen in the infinity. For a cheaper effect, it can be reversed, artificially increasing parallax for things to "jump out".

When a professional stereoscopic conversion is done, it's exactly what thecesspit said -

Quote: thecesspit

I saw Titanic 3D trailer, and it felt like a series of planes being presented in depth, not a true 3D object.

- a series of planes being presented in depth.

The simplest way is to apply different amounts of parallax correction to entire scenes, corresponding to the focus depth. That preserves the image perfectly, it's all the same frame, just offset.
The most aggressive way is to create a depth-map and offset every pixel its individual distance. This time image quality can degrade substantially, as you are distorting everything, while the eye doesn't quite buy and process it as 3D.
A compromise way is to keep the depth-map down to just background, focus plane, and occasional objects in front of the focus plane.



So, summarizing what levels of 3D-illusion you can get:

* Any reasonable drawing or rendering will have correct (1) and mostly (2).
* Any film or photo will have correct (1), (2) and (3), by the virtue of being the real deal.
* A film "auto-threedized" by the TV adds incorrect (5). It only looks different, not necessarily better.
* Films shot with a 2D camera and professionally converted to stereoscopic add mostly correct (5).

* Rendered images, in video games, VR or cartoons, have correct (1), (2), (5), (6), and limited (3). In older games it's very poor, with SSAO it's so-so, with raytracing in pre-rendered animation it can be passable.
* Real-time rendered images only, in VR systems and video games using head tracking (helmets or TrackIR) have correct (1), (2), (5), (6), (7) and limited (3).
* Films shot with stereoscopic cameras have correct (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6).

* Displaying any of the above on a collimated display will add passable (5) and, uniquely, (4), focused in infinity.
* Practical volumetric displays have correct (2), (5), (6) and (7). Focus sharpness is limited with modern technology, shading is usually nonexistent, occlusion can usually only be simulated.
* Star Trek holodecks of course hit all seven.


That effects (4), (6) and (7) are not commonly achieved doesn't make them less important. Higher-grade pilot training simulators use collimated projection screens, despite the bulk and cost. Fighter aircraft HUD are built as collimated monochrome CRT units (LCD don't cut it) due to the need to ensure focus in infinity. Dassault Rafale even has a collimated unit as its main multifunction display, and one of its selling points.

Volumetric displays are currently nearing mainstream in professional applications. Considerations (6) and (7) are deemed more important when actually working with models than major losses in occlusion, shading, and resolution. This goes to show just how far removed current consumer technology is from achieving practical 3D equivalency, and how little removed it actually is from regular 2D images.

Quote: thecesspit

Of course, Lucas will keep flogging that Star Wars horse long after it was dead.

I can't even watch the SW movies anymore, the 3 originals.
They're corny and dated. The rest of them I've only seen
bits and pieces of, I didn't really get into the franchise.
Computer generated junk puts me to sleep.

Quote: thecesspit

Of course, Lucas will keep flogging that Star Wars horse long after it was dead, boiled and turned into glue for someone else projects. His continual reimaging of Star Wars proves he was a lucky rather than good.

I wouldn't mind seeing a movie or two based on Timothy Zahn's Thrawn books. His ideas about the Jedi made more sense than Lucas'.

As for Lucas, I once read some scripts reputed to be early drafts of Star Wars. If so, he did improve things considerably between those drafts and the final product.

Quote: thecesspit

Of course, Lucas will keep flogging that Star Wars horse long after it was dead, boiled and turned into glue for someone else projects. His continual reimaging of Star Wars proves he was a lucky rather than good.

After the last Indiana Jones movie, I think that Spielberg realizes it too. Here is a funny yet insightful review of That Crystal Skull failure.

Quote: thecesspit

Of course, Lucas will keep flogging that Star Wars horse long after it was dead, boiled and turned into glue for someone else projects. His continual reimaging of Star Wars proves he was a lucky rather than good. I'd rather be lucky than good though.

I think that George Lucas gets too much credit. He directed American Grafitti, and the first Star Wars in 1977. After that his credits were mostly as writer and producer.
The follow up films were directed by other people whose names you almost never hear. Lucas directed the final three Star Wars films, which were some of the most boring pictures I have ever seen.

He should get credit for being a decent writer, and a superb businessman.

Return of the Jedi (1983) Director: Richard Marquand (British director who died very young. Also directed Jagged Edge with Glenn Close and Jeff Bridges)
The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Director: Irvin Kershner (died at 87 in 2010. Also direct Sean Connery's comeback as James Bond in '83)

Quote: pacomartin

The follow up films were directed by other people whose names you almost never hear. Lucas directed the final three Star Wars films, which were some of the most boring pictures I have ever seen

I thought I was the only one. I don't even know what these
movies are about, its just confusing nonsense.

Quote: pacomartin

The follow up films were directed by other people whose names you almost never hear. Lucas directed the final three Star Wars films, which were some of the most boring pictures I have ever seen.

He should get credit for being a decent writer, and a superb businessman.

The director affects the style of the movie, as well as the pacing and how the story is told. But the responsibility with what story is told rests with the writers. As such, Lucas is guilty of making really bad stories for the prequels.

I don't think the films in question were boring, just pointless.

It was on network cable also, TNT or SPIKE, I forget, Sat. nite. 40th Anniversary. 3/3/1972-3/3/2012. Up against The Dark Knight on SPIKE/TNT. DK went to commercials, GF Saga limited, and quite enjoyable again.

Editted for other comments:

SW originally came out what... 1977 after Earthquake (1974) and Superman (1976). In those days great films, great FX, yeah, crappy dialog sometimes.
35 years later... ? I think these three passed the test of time, much like 2001. ST the Movie does not, but the Trilogy does well, and BION, "Generations" also. Speaking of 2001, that horrible adaptation of 2010 needs a re-do BIG-TIME, and overdue. I hope Peter Jackson gets hired, or wants it.

Quote: Nareed

The question is why the 3D fad succeeded this time around, after failing on several ocassions in the past.

Maybe its like the Edsel... too much all at once the first time around.
And this time rastering is all done on Linux server farms and no one needs those dorky paper glasses.

Quote: 98Clubs

SW originally came out what... 1977 after Earthquake (1974) and Superman (1976). In those days great films, great FX, yeah, crappy dialog sometimes.

Oh, the visual effects were revolutionary. Starting, even, with the opening shot where the camera pans across a starfiled. That was new, though few people remark on it. The various laser beams and light sabres look "real," not like cartoons grafted on the screen (see the original Trek eps where the Enterprise fires phasers). Adn the dog fights near the end are realistic, too.

And all that without digital effects. It boggles the mind.

Anyway, you know what else helped sell that film? Costume design, which BTW won an academy award. I'm serious. No one in that movie is dressed in a way that seems "normal." Obi Wan's robes, Luke's tunic-like top, Han Solo's vest, the Stormtroopers' uniforms, Vader's mask, they all combine to give a feel of "other-ness" that's quite effective. Set designa dn even common props like the dinner table utensils at Luke's uncle's farm just add to this feel.

Quote: FleaStiff

Maybe its like the Edsel... too much all at once the first time around.
And this time rastering is all done on Linux server farms and no one needs those dorky paper glasses.

But it hasn't succeeded yet. It was around for years in the 50's and
I give it another year or so now and it'll be gone again. Its novelty
effect always wears off, its way too gimmicky.

Quote: EvenBob

But it hasn't succeeded yet. It was around for years in the 50's and
I give it another year or so now and it'll be gone again. Its novelty
effect always wears off, its way too gimmicky.

When sound came along, silent died. People demanded sound, they expected sound.

When color came along, B&W died (except when used as an artistic statement). People demanded color, they expected color.

When 3D came along, nothing happened. People don't demand 3D , they don't expect 3D.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Quote: Mosca

When sound came along, silent died. People demanded sound, they expected sound.

When color came along, B&W died (except when used as an artistic statement). People demanded color, they expected color.

When 3D came along, nothing happened. People don't demand 3D , they don't expect 3D.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Hm. Sound and color add something to any movie. Sounds makes for more natural acting (see how overacted silent films can be), and a better flow of images and dialogue, not to mention more dialogue. Color makes scenes more lifelike, more vivid and, well, we are used to seeing color all around anyway. Just the same, B&W does work well sometimes for setting mood or ambiance. See "The Elephant Man," for example. And the way color and B&W where handled in "Pleasantville" was just amazing.

3D now, doesn't do much but enhance the visual effects on screen, making the audience more involved in them. A movie like Star Wars would benefit from 3D, but not a movie like Citizen Kane (which had photography tricks and lots of visual effects anyway).

Quote: Nareed

Hm. Sound and color add something to any movie. Sounds makes for more natural acting (see how overacted silent films can be), and a better flow of images and dialogue, not to mention more dialogue. Color makes scenes more lifelike, more vivid and, well, we are used to seeing color all around anyway. Just the same, B&W does work well sometimes for setting mood or ambiance. See "The Elephant Man," for example. And the way color and B&W where handled in "Pleasantville" was just amazing.

3D now, doesn't do much but enhance the visual effects on screen, making the audience more involved in them. A movie like Star Wars would benefit from 3D, but not a movie like Citizen Kane (which had photography tricks and lots of visual effects anyway).

Yes, that's what I mean. There is a possibility that some artist, or some technologist, who will find a way to make it something that audiences demand.