FAQ  •  Login

Final Cut Changes Master Thread (Possible Spoilers)

Moderator: dmohrUSC

<<

msgeek

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 416

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:49 pm

Location: Paranoia City, Valley Sector, LA County

Post Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:50 pm

Sure, Nails...let me know what you need.

Michelle
Yes, I really live in Los Angeles. Srsly. And yeah, life really does imitate art here. Especially now we've got those video billboards. No spinners yet. But I suppose that's next.
<<

I. J. Thompson

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 182

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:07 am

Location: Toronto ON, CA

Post Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:38 pm

msgeek wrote:
top buzz wrote:nice one, the shot of the industrial building when the dove fly away bugged me the most in the old versions....


I like how there still is a suggestion of dawn breaking through the clouds. It's still cloudy and miserable but there is light streaming in a little.


I also really like how they kept the general lines of the original frame, and only changed the details. Bravo!

One thing I found odd was the dissolve between the replifishmongers (did I just invent a word?) and Abdul's, on Animoid Row. I've learned well the old adage, 'if you can't solve, dissolve'...

Was the cut just not working otherwise? Seems like it would have.

Charles? :P
"Nobody respects you later, for having been a nice guy and given up." -Ridley Scott
<<

NMMan

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 43

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:01 am

Post Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:49 pm

On a related note, would anyone else besides me have liked the shot of Holden through the other side of the wall with the smoking hole in his back from the WP to have been in the Final Cut? 8)
<<

Charles de Lauzirika

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 92

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:55 am

Location: Los Angeles, 2019

Post Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:32 pm

I. J. Thompson wrote:One thing I found odd was the dissolve between the replifishmongers (did I just invent a word?) and Abdul's, on Animoid Row. I've learned well the old adage, 'if you can't solve, dissolve'...

Was the cut just not working otherwise? Seems like it would have.

Charles? :P


That dissolve is how the transition between those two scenes originally appeared in the Workprint. The simple cut seen in the TC, IC and DC was fine, but Ridley preferred the mood and scope of the crane shot and the dissolve through the neon sign, with its electrical humming sound. Kind of bluesy-detective-noiry. :)
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:17 am

NMMan wrote:On a related note, would anyone else besides me have liked the shot of Holden through the other side of the wall with the smoking hole in his back from the WP to have been in the Final Cut? 8)

Honestly? No. Why? I like the editing with the quick cut better.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

NMMan

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 43

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:01 am

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:25 am

I thought the cut was awkward and jumpy, but just one man's opinion of course. :)
<<

eccentricbeing

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 117

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:14 am

Hey Charles, watching the Final Cut and Blade Runner in general, I find it to be a major benefit for the film to be shot in anamorphic Panavision. However, films today are following the trend of using Super35...which in my opinion, it's a rather simple and cheap way to process and film as oppose to Panavision, but ultimately, framing has no purpose. Even Ridley has been using that medium in his most recent films (except Matchstick Men).

What's your take on Super35 vs. Anamorphic?
<<

Charles de Lauzirika

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 92

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:55 am

Location: Los Angeles, 2019

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:23 am

I much prefer the look of anamorphic. The beautifully shallow depth of field you can get, along with those heavenly lens flares, helps create a look that is uniquely cinematic. In addition to Ridley's films shot in scope, I also love some of that '80s John Carpenter/John McTiernan anamorphic look. I guess the problem is, since the lenses are thicker, with more glass in-between, you need more light to get a proper exposure. That potentially means more lights needed on set and a slower, more labor-intensive process.

I've heard from friends who work on camera crews that anamorphic lenses aren't being made as well as they used to, so flaws and focus problems are also a bigger concern now. And if you watch Blade Runner, especially some of Rachael's close-ups in her first scene at the Tyrell Corporation, or that shot of Tyrell hunched over his chess board later, you can see even they had focus problems back then. Ridley applied a sharpening filter to a few shots, and it helped a bit, but the more you try to sharpen, the more artificial grain is introduced into the shot, which is also not a good thing.

Super 35 is a lower-maintanance format and makes it easier for filmmakers to reposition their frames because of the extra image top and bottom, obviously. But its look just can't beat the natural beauty of anamorphic in my opinion. When I recorded James Cameron's commentary for Aliens, I thought it was interesting that his one regret was not having shot that film in anamorphic 2.35. But he seemed to stick with Super35 pretty regularly after that.

By the way, I'm not exactly a serious cinematography expert, so some of what I said above might not be entirely accurate. But hopefully I'm not too far off. And obviously, a great cinematographer can work wonders in Super 35, whereas an incompetent one can just as easily ruin an anamorphic image.
<<

eccentricbeing

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 117

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:57 pm

Great post, Charles. :)

You win some and lose some on both formats, but you are definitely right in saying that anamorphic truly brings that cinematic feel. With Super 35, I feel that I'm being cheated with what should be in frame. I personally find it annoying when I see more of the frame on television than I did theatrically and I think the film loses its aesthetics that way (though pan & scan isn't any better). Thank God for DVDs where you can display the film in its intended aspect ratio .

As for anamorphic, I like that fact that filmmakers like Christopher Nolan are still making films in Panavision.
<<

martinland

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 148

Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:33 am

Location: Austria

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:10 pm

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:I much prefer the look of anamorphic. The beautifully shallow depth of field you can get, along with those heavenly lens flares, helps create a look that is uniquely cinematic. In addition to Ridley's films shot in scope, I also love some of that '80s John Carpenter/John McTiernan anamorphic look.

I am right with you, Charles. Panavision is movie magic.

Let's not forget the beautiful, out-of-focus ellipsoids in the background of night shots... ;-)

One of the last truly great looking anamorphic movies I had the pleasure to watch in a theater was Identity.
Truly beautiful, despite being an ensemble piece in a claustrophobic setting.

Any other suggestions of recent glorious Panavision movies by anyone?

Ah, yes. Stay was another one, but nothing in comparison to Identity.
Ray Liotta standing in the pouring rain (reminds me of another movie?), those beautiful compositions, etc.

Fortunately, there are people who still manage to pull of beautiful cinematography with Super35.
Just take a look at Terry Gilliam's Tideland and those extremely wide (and wide angle too) compositions he dares to come up with. Gorgeous.

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:I've heard from friends who work on camera crews that anamorphic lenses aren't being made as well as they used to, so flaws and focus problems are also a bigger concern now.

That doesn't sound very reassuring. Damn, if anything, it should be the other way around.
I mean, film resolution also got better continuously as years went by:
70mm->35mm anamorphic->super35->2k, getting better all the time, see? ;-) :shock: :roll:

Have a better one,
Martin
<<

Lightcatcher

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 1

Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:48 pm

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:27 pm

Red Banner Trailer?

I was in Dallas, Texas, recently and was able to view the Final Cut of Blade Runner at the Inwood Theater. It was quite a treat and the revisions were flawless on the big screen.

A few days ago, I got my "Briefcase", so to Charles de Lauzirika and the entire team of people who probably worked like replicants to see this project to its completion, all I can say is a big THANK YOU!

Now for the question....for years I had thought that I'd seen a so-called Red Banner Trailer (warning that the scenes were rated 'R') for Blade Runner just prior to its initial release. It was tacked onto the front of a dreadful Jane Fonda film called ROLLOVER. I seem to recall the scenes in Deckard's apartment, where he forces Rachel to kiss him, were far more explicit than anything seen in the original theatrical run.

Now that I have seen those very torrid shots in the Dangerous Days documentary, I have to wonder, maybe I didn't imagine it.

Charles...anyone...was there a Red Banner trailer?
<<

Charles de Lauzirika

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 92

Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:55 am

Location: Los Angeles, 2019

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:24 pm

Having gone through all the BR trailers in the Warner archive, along with some in private collections, I don't believe there ever was a red-banded trailer created for Blade Runner.

We actually briefly discussed doing one for The Final Cut, but it was abandoned in favor of other types of advertising.
<<

Sam

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 22

Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:56 pm

Post Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:44 pm

**Updated with new additions
<<

elbiolin

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 16

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:47 am

Post Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:03 am

Just to say Happy Holidays to everyone!!!

PS: What about Deckard's license number, 26354, or Deckard's apartment number, 9732, for the briefcases?
<<

martinland

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 148

Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:33 am

Location: Austria

Post Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:59 pm

Wonderful thread!

What about the now corrected black level density of the hand-rotoscoped hold-out matte for Rachael as she walks in front of the sun in Tyrell's office? ;-)
Previous

Return to Special Edition - Final Cut

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron