Turning The Bad into the Good?

Film grain. A common problem when it comes to filming something. And something we cannot avoid.

It can happen at almost any time, particularly if you happen to be filming under certain light sources.

But does grain have its advantages despite the flack it gets?

For one thing, grain can create a very dated look when it comes to filmmaking. Not ideal for those who want a clean and modern image, but it could be applicable for those who want to create something a little on the "vintage" side.

I am currently undertaking a project where I am promoting a society at the university that I am part of. The dilemma I am facing is that a lot of the available footage appears grainy and old. However, I am at the moment making the cleaner clips appear "dirty" for the sake of consistency. Simultaneously, I am trying to create a look that suits the video game style that I am doing.

Although I am hoping that audiences will be able to take some meaning from it, it is something I'm risking in doing for the sake of saving time.

Why Am I Doing This?

Allow me to digress, here. I thought I'd put some things forward so that one can understand what I'm doing and why.

First, why use Blogger?

Simply because I find it easy to use for what I intend to do. It worked out well in the past for a previous project I had to do, so why not use it again? I will probably consider using a different format in the future for other work, but when it will happen has yet to be determined.

I am also managing the main website for an organisation known as CyberClip, so I'm having to balance out my time with that as well as writing my own content.

Second, why once a week?

When it came to creating this blog site, I intended it to be a weekend-only site to put my thoughts up in relation to debating about the film industry. Also, formulating what I what takes considerable time plan and take into account how I would go about it.

That is about to change, however; as of now, I'm going to be posting twice a week so that more content can be produced within a seven-day span and allow you, the reader(s), more freedom with some more variety in what is published.

That means I will be posting every Wednesday as well as Saturdays and Sundays.

Third, why not use your name as the site name?

For one thing, as much as I wouldn't using my own name to advertise this site, I don't fully see the need to use one's own name to advertise yourself, let alone your own site. I have nothing against it; I feel that through the style and content of a site such as this, one can pretty much learn about who you are and understand who you are.

Fourth, why are you questioning things related to the film industry?

I, for a while, had been thinking about the recent goings on in the film industry and other parties that would assist in selling the cinematic material. I have been holding on to those thoughts for so long that I have decided to put them all out online as I think they would open up some interesting debates and discussions. Does it matter whether or not we agree on the same terms? Of course not.

Finally, what else should we know about you?

My interests tend to lie mostly in science-fiction, although I'm quite varied with other genres. As you may have noticed, I am incredibly picky about how events from past years are represented, and there are other fictions outside films that I think would make interesting cinematic adaptations.

My dislike towards the horror genre due to the portrayal of certain scares and violence means that almost anything related to it would have slim chances of me talking about it (and I am rather squeamish). I do not mind hybrids, however, so you'll probably see me making posts relating to that.

I hope this clears up some things, here.

Where is remastering going these days?

Here is something that bothers me to bits when it comes to watching films. The way I tend to lay it out is this:

• You are presented with a copy of a film. This copy may be on an older viewing format such as the VHS.
• You are then presented with an updated copy. You notice that there is something different about the image, sound, and effects.

Where am I going with this? The way in which films are remastered, of course.

I understand the need for an improved viewing experience which may include clearer sound quality and tidying up the colour. I am fine with these types of practices. What I do not understand is the way in which some restoration companies do the remastering.

Let's take a look at an extract from On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Peter Hunt, 1969). This comparison video takes a look at the colour palette for the Special and Ultimate Editions of the film. It's amazing how different the image looks within these two versions. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fkDGlngvw4

What did you think of that? I personally dislike the way it looks in the Ultimate Edition. For one thing, the scene was shot during the day (the setting being a late summer's day). The light is still bright and sunny in the scenes after the pre-titles and it's still sunny. The fact that in the Ultimate Edition it appears much "colder" and darker makes the change pretty superfluous since it is still pretty sunny after the said scene. So why go through the pains in altering the image to such a big extent where it is not consistent with the other images?

This is another comparison extract, this time from "The Terminator" (James Cameron, 1984). It focuses on the sound this time round. You needn't watch the entire thing, though; the first few minutes are more than enough to understand it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xykcul_the-terminator-1984-original-mono-audio-track-vs-remixed-audio-track_shortfilms

How strange was it to listen to updated sound effects overlaid on to such an old film? For me, it takes away the original feel of the film. It doesn't feel like I'm looking at something from 1984. The original sounds were perfect, so why update it with a more modern sound palette?

Last but not least is a comparison between the original and updated versions of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (George Lucas, 1977). This time, it's centred around the visual effects. Again, you only need to watch the first few minutes of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faBFPENMbg

Good? Bad? Or in-between? I personally see CGI additions in almost any old film as an anachronism for it once again takes away the original look and feel of the film. Again, it doesn't feel like I am watching something from 1977. 

Giving a film a dodgy colour palette is something that can bother me, but even worse is "updating" the films' own sound effects and visual effects. I think it can confuse viewers as to what is the "original" print of the presented story, which is a shame because one will have barely any insight to what it might have originally looked like when screened at the cinema. And if you are going to update something with objects which have little relation to what is going on in the film's story, then you may as well call it a day and consider how it might affect the viewer. 

No-one has to be force-fed anything they disagree with. So why do filmmakers and restoration companies feel the need to do all this? Is it for the money? Their own self-satisfaction? I wish I knew the answer.