The Godfather (Coppola Restoration) [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Godfather (Coppola Restoration)



Smokey
12-24-2011, 07:51 PM
As a big fan of Godfather movies, I bought the DVD copy of Godfather I which the director Francis Ford Coppola remastered couple of years ago.

Let me first say that if viewer expect the "look thru a window" with this new restoration, they will be disappointed. I have seen it many times on previous issue DVDs and cable TV, so familiar with look of the movie. And on the remaster DVD version, things don't look alot better.

I think the main problem with this new single DVD reissue is that the 3 hour movie should have been split into two discs as to increase the bit rate and decrease compression. There are alot of dark lit scenes in this movie, and high bit rate would have gave dark scenes more depth and made it livelier.

I have not seen the new version on Bluray, but reviews seem to be a mix bag also.

http://www.freecodesource.com/movie-poster/41ew-zMJIpL/-The-Godfather---The-Coppola-Restoration.jpg

Woochifer
12-26-2011, 02:42 PM
Who cares about the DVD at this point? This release came out more than three years ago, and it's basically the last word, since Coppola directly supervised the restoration and transfer (his company has a dedicated division for DVD/Blu-ray authoring and mastering, so it's not like they are rank amateurs). If you think it could've been done better, take it up with Coppola or buy the Blu-ray. Yet another new version on DVD ain't comin'.

The work done on that release primarily cleaned up the negative and did some corrections on the colors. I tend to be skeptical of DVD/Blu-ray reviewers, since a lot of them don't know the first thing about the director/cinematographer's intent or even how the home video release compares with original theatrical presentation.

Moral of the story -- YOU HAVE THE HDTV, SO GET THE DAMN BLU-RAY PLAYER! :cool:

Smokey
12-26-2011, 08:36 PM
If you think it could've been done better, take it up with Coppola or buy the Blu-ray.

As I said before, the reviews on bluray version don't seem to fare better than the DVD edition. Crushed blacks, too much yellow/gold tint, loss of detail and grain seem to carry over from DVD to bluray version. As you said, Coppola primarily cleaned up the negative, did some corrections on the colors and brighten the image a bit. But the crushed blacks, golden tint and overall dreary look is still there.

Outdoor scenes are good with good detail and lively color palette. But the indoor or nighttime scenes don't look as good and leave alot to be desired. I have not seen the movie in theaters, but can't imagine crushed blacks which losses alot of detail as the result is how it looked in the theaters.

RGA
12-26-2011, 10:02 PM
Who cares - it was overrated - Godfather II and Goodfellas and City of God (which is Gangsters in another country) are all much better movies.

If you have an HDTV though I agree with Woochifer - get the Blu-Ray - even if it the print has problems it will still look better in all likely hood than the DVD version. Even TV shows look much much better - there isn't that grainy fuzz present and once you do the comparison you won't go back to DVD.

I am very thankful I never bought Star Trek series on DVD - the Blu Ray (just spell it Blue already - geez) is coming soon. I'll have to wait a few years for the prices to go from $170 per season or some ridiculously overpriced crap down to the $30 like the DVDs but I'm patient.

Woochifer
12-27-2011, 01:00 PM
As I said before, the reviews on bluray version don't seem to fare better than the DVD edition. Crushed blacks, too much yellow/gold tint, loss of detail and grain seem to carry over from DVD to bluray version. As you said, Coppola primarily cleaned up the negative, did some corrections on the colors and brighten the image a bit. But the crushed blacks, golden tint and overall dreary look is still there.

Outdoor scenes are good with good detail and lively color palette. But the indoor or nighttime scenes don't look as good and leave alot to be desired. I have not seen the movie in theaters, but can't imagine crushed blacks which losses alot of detail as the result is how it looked in the theaters.

Man, Smokey, your excuses for not getting a Blu-ray player are getting weaker and weaker! :cool:

Where do any of those reviews say that the Blu-ray won't give you a significant improvement in the picture quality over the DVD version? Just because some "reviewer" nitpicks the Blu-ray release does not mean that they're suggesting that you stick with the DVD copy. (If they do, then they're probably one of the anti-Blu-ray techies that only care about streaming)

If you want to stick with DVD because it's cheap, that's one thing. But, the technical complaints you bring up are a false premise, because the Blu-ray version's higher resolution alone dramatically changes the viewing experience. "Loss of detail" -- that's what you get by choosing the DVD.

Like I said, many of the reviewers out there are clueless, especially when it comes to older movies. These are probably the same idiots that complain about film grain, when in actuality the film grain is part of the intended look by the cinematographer. Blu-ray's higher datarate allows for that film grain to be retained without excessive macroblocking and pixelation.

BTW, I have seen The Godfather in theaters, and the look of the movie in general is very dark. The sepia-like colors are also part of the look of the movie.

Woochifer
12-27-2011, 07:20 PM
Who cares - it was overrated - Godfather II and Goodfellas and City of God (which is Gangsters in another country) are all much better movies.

While I agree that the other titles are better than The Godfather, I don't think the original is overrated by any stretch. For one thing, it established much of the context that we take for granted in the modern gangster genre. I can't think of too many movies more influential than The Godfather. Yeah, it's a flawed movie, but it was venturing into uncharted territory and established the blueprint that Martin Scorsese and others have used. Even a newer HBO series like The Sopranos or Boardwalk Empire (which Scorsese also produces) is just loaded with homages and thematic parallels to The Godfather.


I am very thankful I never bought Star Trek series on DVD - the Blu Ray (just spell it Blue already - geez) is coming soon. I'll have to wait a few years for the prices to go from $170 per season or some ridiculously overpriced crap down to the $30 like the DVDs but I'm patient.

Which Star Trek series are you talking about? I bought Season 2 of the original series on the release date for $50 a couple of years ago. Should be plenty of used copies out there if you're looking for a lower price.

Ironically, the Original Series very well might wind up as the best looking of all the Star Trek series on Blu-ray, or at least better than The Next Generation. I read that the release of ST:TNG has been a technical nightmare because much of the original post production was done on videotape. Looks fine at DVD resolution, but nowhere near ready for HD. Paramount has had to recomposite the original film elements for HD transfer, so we'll see if those efforts were worthwhile.

I saw that the Next Generation Blu-ray sampler (with 3 episodes) is coming out in January at MSRP $22, which means the street price will be under $15. And ST:TNG is coming back to broadcast TV in HD this year as well.

Star Trek The Next Generation Blu-rays Launch in 2012 (http://www.startrek.com/article/the-next-generation-blu-rays-launch-in-2012)

Smokey
12-27-2011, 09:23 PM
Who cares - it was overrated - Godfather II and Goodfellas and City of God (which is Gangsters in another country) are all much better movies.

I'm sure alot of poeple would disagree with that statement. Have not seen City of God, but Goodfellas don't have the scope and grandeur of either Godfather I or II. It is an awesome film its own right, but as Wooch mentioned, it was not as influential and ground breaking.


Where do any of those reviews say that the Blu-ray won't give you a significant improvement in the picture quality over the DVD version? Just because some "reviewer" nitpicks the Blu-ray release does not mean that they're suggesting that you stick with the DVD copy.

Now you are putting words in mouth :)

What I said was that shortcomings of this film on DVD are also carried over to the bluray. And definitely not a significant improvemenet over the DVD.

Look at this review of bluray....

Godfather, The: The Coppola Restoration (Blu-ray) (1972) (http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=8519)

As you can see, he complain about same shortcomings on Bluray that I mentioned exist on DVD. He wrote that he was horribly disappointed with the high definition transfer of the restored Godfather films and I quote:

"Despite the lengthy restoration, the source material still appeared aged, with grainy prints still showing the odd film artifact. The picture remains fairly soft, but I understand that this was an artistic choice, and is largely due to the source material and the lenses used in photography. Yes the picture is a dramatic improvement from the VHS version I grew up watching, and a noticeable improvement over the DVD release, but the contrast and black levels are still variable throughout.

There are no problems with the transfer in regards to MPEG or film-to-video artefacts. The vast majority of film artefacts are tiny and not distracting, but their existence is surprising considering the time and cost of the restoration."

He gave 2 stars out of 5 for Shadow Detail (crushed blacks) in his Video Ratings Summary, which was my main complain about the DVD version. And 3 out of 5 for Sharpness.

RGA
12-28-2011, 03:31 AM
Woochifer - sorry I was referring to TNG. $15 for a season of TNG is very very reasonable. $15 for 3 episodes isn't. I am not sure what you meant. Voyager on DVD was on sale for a long time at $39 a season. TNG dropped from $167 a season to $52 a season and sometimes $39. Ditto for DS9.

I am very leery on movie prices - just been burned a few too many times. Unfortunately Blockbuster has filed for bankruptcy in Canada and I was used to buying my movies for under $8 as they sold their rental copies for a fraction of the price.

RGA
12-28-2011, 03:45 AM
Smokey

Don't get me wrong - I am very much in the minority on the Godfather - especially when talking to Americans on the film it is "the" go to film for many and often viewed as one of the five best "American" films of all time. Another "Citizen Kane" I don't much care for and that film is considered the best film ever made - amongst American film critics anyway. Another in that holy grail five is usually Casablanca - another film I find overrated.

From technical standpoints and being "first" on a number of fronts then I have no disagreement. I had the same arguments with Beowulf in Literature - being first or setting the trail that others would later follow seems to get extra special credit that I simply don't award the extra special credit to. I liked Superman II a fair bit better than Superman I. Though I certainly understand that without 1 part II could not exist and that part II had the easier job of delving right into the story without a lot of set-up. Still to me the result is the result and II is more entertaining and doesn't have to get bogged down in the "lore" of the characters. (It should be pointed out though that MANY critics and Godfather lovers liked Godfather II a lot more than the first Godfather movie - and to my mind that opens the door to any film that followed not just one that has the Godfather name badge in it. I am not the only person that thinks Goodfellas is a "better movie" even though it has a smaller scope. To me better execution of a smaller scope is better than weak execution of a larger scope. I feel the same way about audio equipment to some degree as well.

Indeed, I liked Spiderman II much better than 1 and I liked Dark Night better than Batman Begins, Lethal Weapon II over 1 (though this is much closer) largely for the same reasons as Superman movies above.

And in a way Goodfellas has the same easier time of it arguably because the audience knows the genre based on the back of the Godfather films. I agree that Goodfellas is less ambitious in the mob soap opera vastness of Godfather but IMO to tell the Godfather story better - it would need a mini-series/TV Series - while movies are better suited to raw in your face single character driven stories - thus Goodfellas for me is highly re-watchable and has a tight story line while the Godfather for me is so laborious. I hate to say it but I would sooner watch Casino!

Smokey
12-28-2011, 11:25 PM
RGA, looks like we had the same argument over Godfather about 5 months ago. As you can see from the list, you're not the only one that thinks Goodfellas is better than Godfather.

http://forums.audioreview.com/favorite-films/top-20-crime-movies-all-time-37030.html


I agree that Goodfellas is less ambitious in the mob soap opera vastness of Godfather but IMO to tell the Godfather story better - it would need a mini-series/TV Series - while movies are better suited to raw in your face single character driven stories - thus Goodfellas for me is highly re-watchable and has a tight story line while the Godfather for me is so laborious.

You probably have a point there.

If you read the Godfather book by Mario Puzo, the book goes into more detail about the charactors and their background. It also expand on female charactors in the movie and their relation to the family which don't exist in the movie. As matter of fact, there not to many female dialog in the movie. So it probably would have made awesome mini TV series based on the book.

Woochifer
12-29-2011, 03:03 PM
Now you are putting words in mouth :)

Well, you need to be clear about what you're getting at with these "reviewer" citations you keep talking about. You brought up these issues as if they afflict the DVD and Blu-ray versions equally.


What I said was that shortcomings of this film on DVD are also carried over to the bluray. And definitely not a significant improvemenet over the DVD.

So, how come this review says that the Blu-ray is a "noticeable improvement" over the DVD? :cool:


Look at this review of bluray....

Godfather, The: The Coppola Restoration (Blu-ray) (1972) (http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=8519)

As you can see, he complain about same shortcomings on Bluray that I mentioned exist on DVD. He wrote that he was horribly disappointed with the high definition transfer of the restored Godfather films and I quote:

"Despite the lengthy restoration, the source material still appeared aged, with grainy prints still showing the odd film artifact. The picture remains fairly soft, but I understand that this was an artistic choice, and is largely due to the source material and the lenses used in photography. Yes the picture is a dramatic improvement from the VHS version I grew up watching, and a noticeable improvement over the DVD release, but the contrast and black levels are still variable throughout.

There are no problems with the transfer in regards to MPEG or film-to-video artefacts. The vast majority of film artefacts are tiny and not distracting, but their existence is surprising considering the time and cost of the restoration."

He gave 2 stars out of 5 for Shadow Detail (crushed blacks) in his Video Ratings Summary, which was my main complain about the DVD version. And 3 out of 5 for Sharpness.

But, you're citing a Blu-ray review as if it has any relevance to how it compares to the DVD version.

Complaints in Blu-ray reviews are always within the context of what the format is capable of. A 4/5 video quality rating on a DVD is not the same thing as a 4/5 rating for a Blu-ray. And your cited review reads like so many others -- clueless comments about film grain and a whole lot of unconfirmed speculation about the condition of the print, the artistic intent of the director, the technical limitations of the restoration process, etc. Basically, a bunch of second guessing (by someone who hasn't seen the master source) of someone who actually created the master source.

Like I keep saying, get a Blu-ray player and all of your discussions about DVDs go by the wayside. I've yet to see any DVD that's even close to the video quality of a Blu-ray version. In my comparisons, DVD isn't even worth discussing anymore once you go with the Blu-ray version.

The tone of these discussions sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize staying with the DVD format, and not upgrading to Blu-ray because some Blu-ray releases get bad reviews.