CHUD.com Community › Forums › DVD, HOME THEATER, & GADGETS › DVD General Discussion › Updating special FX for HD releases?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Updating special FX for HD releases?

post #1 of 32
8/19/09 at 9:54am
Thread Starter 
All the 80's and 90's movies I've been netflixing on BD have got me wondering: for Blu Ray/HD releases, should studios put any thought into updating the SFX? I'm not talking a wholesale Lucas-esque revamp and inserting NEW scenes in, but just a general freshification? Or are you a purist who wants the original SFX left alone?
Reply
post #2 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:03am
At the very least, I think there are plenty of badly done green-screens from the 80's that could use a bit of a reworking. On the other hand, I definitely wouldn't insert CG into films that were made in a time when it wasn't possible.
Reply
post #3 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:08am
If it's early CG they could render certain scenes again with better results I suppose. I thought about this the other day when there was talk about a Titanic re-release in 3D. Those effects of the ship in broad daylight (helicopter fly-by etc.) should be easy to make better via new renders. But if they'll do it I don't know.
Reply
post #4 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:17am
I wonder how far Lucas is going to go when updating his now sorely outdated Prequel Trilogy for the BD release. I bet it's going to look a fuck load different.
Reply
post #5 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:18am
I don't think it would hurt to go back and remove the matte boxes from a lot of the spaceship shots in 80s films.
Reply
post #6 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:21am
Didn't BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA get updated effects?
Watched the Blu Ray the other day and the effects looked brand new to me, all re done to match the new transfer. Looked pretty great.
Reply
post #7 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:28am
Hardy-har, Tati.

I was watching my standard def Goldeneye DVD on my folks' Blu-Ray/High def set up and noticed some serious problems with the intial "jumping off the dam/cliff sequence" at the start of the film. I really dig how Bond movies can give me a sense of vertigo even on a TV screen but if it looks like an outtake from a video game, well, no dice. So this would be a thorny issue with me. I guess if they offered the option of both? Like those Harryhausen colorized editions that came out recently. Include the B/W version and I won't complain.

Edit: I'm kinda anal retentive about how my sarcasm can't really be read in posts. I realized that Tati was making a point about BTILC not needing an update. At first I thought he was serious and all...but no. Not serious. But dammit man, you almost gave me a heartattack!
Reply
post #8 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I don't think it would hurt to go back and remove the matte boxes from a lot of the spaceship shots in 80s films.
I wonder how the original FX would stand in HD. Removing the matte boxes is one thing, but I seriously wonder how fhuckey the little models look...
Reply
post #9 of 32
8/19/09 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
If it's early CG they could render certain scenes again with better results I suppose. I thought about this the other day when there was talk about a Titanic re-release in 3D. Those effects of the ship in broad daylight (helicopter fly-by etc.) should be easy to make better via new renders. But if they'll do it I don't know.
I would not be surprised if Cameron re-worked some shots.

I'm kind of worried on how Jurassic Park will look on Blu Ry...Cause of it looks so good and clear that you can easily see the CG.
Reply
post #10 of 32
8/19/09 at 12:07pm
Thread Starter 
I'm all for practical effects being left alone, and have conceded that some stuff is just going to look pretty bad in HD, that said...I think some stuff should be cleaned up. Some of the FX in Ghosbusters and Predator 2 look really bad in HD. I am not for directors indulging whims that they were unable to upon original release, however.
Reply
post #11 of 32
8/19/09 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I don't think it would hurt to go back and remove the matte boxes from a lot of the spaceship shots in 80s films.
I was always a little pissed that Lucas screwed around with BS on the Spec Editions (Han/Greedo, etc), but left some of that matte box stuff in there.
Reply
post #12 of 32
8/19/09 at 12:15pm
If the FX shots were good enough for a movie theater back in its theatrical release (and movie theaters are considered to have higher than HD resolution) why not just leave them as the movie was originally made?
Reply
post #13 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:00pm
I say just leave them as they are. When i watch older movies, the crummy special effects are part of the reason why I love them.

But as an exception, anything that gives away a stunt or effect should be cleaned up. Like maybe some wires are showing or something.
Reply
post #14 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
I was always a little pissed that Lucas screwed around with BS on the Spec Editions (Han/Greedo, etc), but left some of that matte box stuff in there.
He also didn't fix the horrible matte job on the Rancor and that annoying black blob on the Emperor's face.
Reply
post #15 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
If the FX shots were good enough for a movie theater back in its theatrical release (and movie theaters are considered to have higher than HD resolution) why not just leave them as the movie was originally made?
They're stretched over a massive scale, giving less clarity than a HDTV even at distance.

In much the same way SDTV looks better on an ipod screen than it does on a large set.

Saying that, I don't advocate changing anything about a film just because we can start to see the wrinkles.
Reply
post #16 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:47pm
What the hell was the deal with that black blob on the Emperor? Were they trying to cover his Calvin Klein tag? I always told friends that was some of the Dark Side leaking out his ears.

I know Gilliam did some tweaking of the Flying Super-Sam shots from Brazil when the Criterion version was made. But they were minor tweaks to keep the effects as they were meant to look.
Reply
post #17 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:51pm
Anyone have a screencap of the black blob?
Reply
post #18 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:56pm
IMDB says it's there to block out a defect in McDiarmid's make-up they didn't notice during filming, and that at theatrical resolutions it's usually unnoticeable.
Reply
post #19 of 32
8/19/09 at 1:57pm
With Blu-ray there's absolutely no reason that we can't have both the original FX and a polished version with seamless branching.

Then again, it's hard enough to get these idiots running home video companies to even provide original audio mixes - which takes, for all intents and purposes, zero effort and very minimal disc space. That's a rant for a different thread, probably.
Reply
post #20 of 32
8/19/09 at 4:34pm
Did anyone object when Joanna Cassidy's obvious wig-wearing stunt double was replaced recently in BLADERUNNER?
Reply
post #21 of 32
8/19/09 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
I would not be surprised if Cameron re-worked some shots.

I'm kind of worried on how Jurassic Park will look on Blu Ry...Cause of it looks so good and clear that you can easily see the CG.
as someone who watchs JP several times a month on average, i will say this: the cg? most will not hold up well at all


THE ROBOT TREX? that will look as awesome as ever. most of the trex attack scene was filmed with a life sized robot trex. it is one of the most realistic things ive seen in a film. some shots look, even in 2009, utterly real. i feel models and robots, with CGI assists (you could have done a cgi moving tail or something on the robot) are the wave of the future. check out the shot where the trex has a strand of tire in its teeth, and it is crushing the SUV into the mud. AMAZING SHOT

or the shot of the trex yelling at dr grant? still gives me chills. the robot looks better than almost all cgi that has come since JP.

how about the robot looking into the car?

the cgi dino is the worst pard of the trex attack looking back



(there is ONE shot where the cgi rex still looks on at dvd quality... the rex chasing malcome into the bathroom)
Reply
post #22 of 32
8/19/09 at 6:21pm
There is the uncommon problem of some effects being mastered in 480 for a video release. I'm assuming someone, somewhere is trying to fix the added special effects on the Director's Cut of Star Trek the Motion Picture.
Reply
post #23 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:09pm
I'm not sure if I want them to do it, but I'm really worried what some of the composting in Lord of the Rings is going to look like in HD, particularly Fellowship.
Reply
post #24 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:17pm
One thing I've been wondering, would Scorsese digitally alter the color of the blood at the end of Taxi Driver to how it originally was for the Blu-ray.
Reply
post #25 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:35pm
The success of colorizing black-and-white movies comes to mind.

If the director wants to change the effects, sure. But these are still artistic decisions, I don't think studios should monkey with them. Doing away with the matte lines around the Rancor in Return of the Jedi would be fine, but what if they decide to do something about the goofy flash in Rear Window, to pick something at random.

On the other hand, the new effects in the remastered Star Trek worked out very well. But that's different. To not do something would to have the old effects clash with the newly remastered live shots. But generally, no. If the director's happy with a movie, or at least happy leaving a movie alone, then alone it should be left.
Reply
post #26 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
I'm not sure if I want them to do it, but I'm really worried what some of the composting in Lord of the Rings is going to look like in HD, particularly Fellowship.
That godawful Isildur putting on the ring shot in the EE better get a spit shine by next year, more than anything.
Reply
post #27 of 32
8/19/09 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
That godawful Isildur putting on the ring shot in the EE better get a spit shine by next year, more than anything.
That and the "you bow to no one" scene are probably the worst composting jobs in the trilogy.
Reply
post #28 of 32
8/20/09 at 6:44am
I think they could re-do the quick shot of Gollum in Moria from FOTR, I haven't seen it for a while but I remember thinking that really doesn't seem like the same Gollum from TT.

There is some dodgy looking digital stuntman stuff in the Cave Troll fight too, don't think they could do much about that.
Reply
post #29 of 32
8/20/09 at 7:31am
I don't think they should fix up anything for HD, personally. Filmmakers should stick with the film they made. Warts and all. In the cases where the original is still available, there is a big temptation to slowly phase out the original version until you can't find it anymore.

The worst offender for me with LotR is the miniature dam breaking during the Ent battle. Miniatures with water and fire are always tricky unless they're ludicrously large.
Reply
post #30 of 32
8/20/09 at 7:48am
I might get some hate for this but I'll love a re-worked The Last Star Fighter. With new computer effects
Reply
post #31 of 32
8/20/09 at 10:35am
I think there's talk of a remake so they'll hardly bother with that though.
Reply
post #32 of 32
8/20/09 at 4:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
I might get some hate for this but I'll love a re-worked The Last Star Fighter. With new computer effects
It looks SUPER silly on Blu-ray. Just watched it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD General Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › DVD, HOME THEATER, & GADGETS › DVD General Discussion › Updating special FX for HD releases?