Animal House transfer looks too good

[Mikey2Dope]

http://www.davisdvd.com/News/daily_news.htm

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)

[MasterCXtreme]

Ooooo boy...
This DVD is turning out pretty lame, as opposed to what it could be. IMO

[rtatick]

If the director says the picture is wrong, I want it changed. The point of DVDs are to let us see the film the way the director intended. A movie like Animal House is very much enjoyable on VHS because of some qualities that can get lost in the transfer to DVD. I will be happy with whatever Landis approves. And as long as there are some decent extras (like a commentary track and such), I'll be more than happy.

[William_Shatner]

I Second that.

[Neesh]

Originally posted by rtatick
If the director says the picture is wrong, I want it changed. The point of DVDs are to let us see the film the way the director intended. A movie like Animal House is very much enjoyable on VHS because of some qualities that can get lost in the transfer to DVD.

What qualities are you referring to? There are no qualities 'lost' on a DVD transfer as opposed to a VHS transfer, only qualities 'gained'. (This is usually the case, but not always... the only time a DVD copy looks worse than a VHS is when a bad source was used.... or something was done wrong in the DVD transfer process)

Obviously John Landis doesnt know how to make a movie look the way he wants it too. He was complaining that the DVD looked too crisp? In other words, it was too accurate a representation of what he shot? If he wanted a grainy picture, he should have shot it on 16mm...
Adding grain to a DVD transfer is a HORRIBLE thing.
Apparently Steven Speilberg did this on A.I., also. He wanted a "grainy" look, so he added it in. And it looks appalling. Its an embarrassment to even be seen on my 37" monitor. It doesnt look anything like real film grain, it looks like digitally added grain... which is what it is, anyway....
Too each his own I guess.....

[rtatick]

I couldn't disagree more. He's the director, it's his call plain and simple.. The original print found on VHS may be the quality he feels it should be at. Digital remastering can make a movie look very, very good and that is obviously not what he wants. The qualties to which I was referring were those grainy qualities. And, yes, it's obvious Landis DOES know what he wants... It says so right in the story. There is nothing wrong with the A.I. transfer. It's the way Speilberg wanted it and I think it looks just fine. We can't pretend that we know more than the directors do or we'd be the directors, not them. Let them make their decisions and if you don't like it, you don't have buy and you don't have to support them.

[Neesh]

Originally posted by rtatick
I couldn't disagree more. He's the director, it's his call plain and simple.. The original print found on VHS may be the quality he feels it should be at. Digital remastering can make a movie look very, very good and that is obviously not what he wants. The qualties to which I was referring were those grainy qualities. And, yes, it's obvious Landis DOES know what he wants... It says so right in the story. There is nothing wrong with the A.I. transfer. It's the way Speilberg wanted it and I think it looks just fine. We can't pretend that we know more than the directors do or we'd be the directors, not them. Let them make their decisions and if you don't like it, you don't have buy and you don't have to support them.

What is it youre disagreeing with?
I never said it wasnt his call, or that he didnt have the right to make his movie look like shit... as I said, to each his own. ;)

Speilberg: I couldnt make a movie 1,000,000,000,000th as good as Speilberg, and trust me mate, nobody here is pretending otherwise. It still looks like shit on DVD though. See, what I have just done, is called stating an opinion... not pretending I know more than a master like Steve. ;) And I wonder what youve seen A.I. on? Anybody with 20/20 vision that has watched it on a large reference quality monitor will know what I'm talking about.
cheers

[rtatick]

Originally posted by Neesh
Obviously John Landis doesnt know how to make a movie look the way he wants it too.

I was disagreeing with this line, mostly. It's a bold statement that is wrong. I don't think I know anything about video transfering above and beyond the obvious. I'm not arguing that things can't be done, that the movie can't be made to look AWESOME. I'm just saying, Landis knows what he wants- and that is fact.

My opinion: Animal House will look good. A.I already does look good. And to respond to your condescending statement: I have 20/20 vision and it looks just fine. Better than some, worse than some. It's all good.

[rtatick]

Double post.

[KcMsterpce]

Well, to try and throw off the blows and try to come back on track...

IMHO John Landis has a right to keep the movie in any shape he wants it. Landis is probably saying that Animal House should maintain an 'amateurish feel' to it, and if the digital picture transfer is perfected too much, it can ruin some of the nostalgiac appearence that he wants to keep intact; it wouldn't feel so 1978 anymore.

With Spielberg thinking AI looked too good on DVD, I don't understand that. If he wanted it to look grainy on video, why didn't he keep that same grainy quality in the theater? I don't understand the reasoning behind that. He has all the money he needs to do anything he wants with ILM backing him up. Why should he resort to making alterations from the original theatrical release without giving a choice to the customer? I didn't like the movie, so I never saw it on video and don't know how it looks, but if I WAS to buy the movie, it would be for the visuals. I wouldn't be happy if the transfer was grainy.

[rtatick]

Originally posted by KcMsterpce
IMHO John Landis has a right to keep the movie in any shape he wants it. Landis is probably saying that Animal House should maintain an 'amateurish feel' to it, and if the digital picture transfer is perfected too much, it can ruin some of the nostalgiac appearence that he wants to keep intact; it wouldn't feel so 1978 anymore.

Agreed 100%. Those are quite close to the words I was looking for, but didn't use. That's all I was trying to say. Thanks. :D