Sure for this film's fans it's all good stuff, but for an unprepared first time viewer this completetely ruins the experience.
It doesn't even look like a film anymore, more like a reconstruction of the film, it's something that you put as a "special bonus features" on dvd, but not as a final cut version of the film.
I coudn't watch it after an hour. Going to try again from the beginning next week.
It doesn't even look like a film anymore, more like a reconstruction of the film.....Well, that's because it IS a reconstruction. You did know that, right?
Mike, this person is not alone in their insipid complaints. Ever since
the Blu-Ray version was announced and, particularly since its release,
non-fans - and even fans - have suddenly turned on this necessary section
of the picture. Too many people are so caught up in this Blu-Ray
craze, that they weep and moan because the stills are there. What
EXACTLY do these viewers WANT?? Since the film footage is gone, there
has to be something there to visually narrate the restored dialogue.
In 1983, Ron Haver was celebrated for restoring this film. How soon
people forget. Without Haver, we wouldn't have all the restored scenes,
dialogue, "Lose that Long Face", "Here's What I'm Here For." Now, it's
all about the stills "taking people out of the picture." I don't get it.
I'm not knocking Blu-Ray. How great that we can continually improve
the image of film, especially the classics. But let's not forget that it's
not just how much better "Here's What I'm Here For" looks like; it's about
the fact that Haver found the footage to start with. Without the
dedication of this man, there wouldn't have been lost footage to RESTORE.
I agree with your sentiments, GB. If not for Haver's efforts and whoever financially backed the project, these missing pieces would have never come to light.
The gamut of opinion on this runs from "love it," to "hate it." I even read one person's comments who didn't realize the stills were a reconstruction and liked it -- thinking it was some arty innovation, original to the film!
Obviously, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
What bothers me is how narrow-minded and un-accepting people are, unable to see the forest for the trees, or the big picture. Are they stupid enough to believe that because something is released in "Blu-Ray" that the missing parts (in this case) are going to miraculously reappear?
As I said above, it should be accepted for what it is. It's not pretending to be anything else.
This generation is too demanding (spoiled, actually). I think many of them would be thrilled if the missing parts were filled-in with CGI recreations.
In my opinion, that would be a travesty, a sacrilege, and a joke.
I agree. Everything has become way too tech-savvy. 3D, HD, the whole
thing. And all this stuff applies far more to newer releases. It's
very hard to make Blu-Ray and old films match UNLESS the film has been
meticulously restored, like "Oz" and "Star." Otherwise Blu-Ray brings
up the blemishes and scratches. I've heard from countless fans that
the standard DVD of the "That's Entertainment" trilogy looks far better
than the Blu-Ray version. Why? Because the TE films aren't from one
negative, but hundreds of them. Apparently, the Blu-Ray TE films look
lined, blemished and heavily dusty because in order to have the look
required, Warner's would have to restore the negatives to hundreds
of film clips. Well, they didn't put forth the moola and the results
speak for themselves.
I'm happy with my new standard DVD of "Star" and have no doubt the Blu-Ray
looks notably better. But fans need to understand how profound Haver's
contribution to "Star" was. Let's put it this way: I would rather have
Haver's version from 1983, than the cut, 154 min verision of "Star"
in Blu-Ray. The greatest thing - to date - to happen to this film was
Haver, not Blu-Ray.
I agree with both of you. If I were Ron, I might have gotten discouraged and given up.
I've gotten very sensitive about "missing pieces" of films. When you check a movie out on IMDB in the "alternate versions" sections, there are at times tales of woe about "shortening the film for general release, and this is the version that has been seen ever since" (SOUTH PACIFIC falls into this category) ... "the studio shortened the film to squeeze in more showings" (STAR IS BORN) .... "worried that the film was failing, the studio recut it to boost business" (Julie Andrews's STAR) ... and "trimmed for foreign release".
I want to see the movie the way the director conceived it!!!!
"Everytime I want to have a little fun-SHE turns out!" (Baron Bomburst)
I even read one person's comments who didn't realize the stills were a reconstruction and liked it -- thinking it was some arty innovation, original to the film!
What I wonder is, how did the cut version explain Norman's rediscovery of Esther?It's been a while since I watched the "cut version," so someone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong:
wow had no idea that was the reason for the stills, just thought it was the director's choice. i liked them. for some reason, they seemed more alive than the regular film.
shareHey guys, don't ruin my topic.
What I'm talking about is that if you have lost footage - restore and put it into the cut, but if you don't - don't put fckn stills instead. It's good thing they didn't ask some cartoonist to recreate missing Metropolis footage with accordance to script.
Nobody "ruined" your topic, moron. If you can't apprecite what Haver did
to restore this classic, go watch "Twilght" and stay off classic film
boards. You must have ADD.
Thank you, Gary, for handling that one.
I had a response prepared last night, but I become weary from casting pearls before swine.
Some people simply don't get it..... And, will NEVER get it!
Why bother?
I don't know what was the last time I saw such a pompous a-hole as you two idiots. Talk about elists, "pearls before swine", "Gubbio". Oh let all us great unwashed listen to the brilliance of you two, you'll explain things in a dimension way beyond our comprehension, I am sure.
The individual (OP) is entitled to her opinion, as its an opinion board. I never saw this movie before, and sorry, I am not the supposed expert on this title as you are you swish. The inserts took me out of this film as well. I thought they looked awful and were distracting. I would rather have the elements on there are all...and I am watching it on TCM so you go forget the blathering on about Blue Ray.
I never understand the freakish mentality of someone expressing an opinion, and frothing losers like you act as if someone just kicked your mother. Who the he** do you think you are about who should be on what board and expressing what opinion?
Go watch a color wheel and stay off this board, you freaking loser.
I don't know what was the last time I saw such a pompous a-hole as you two idiots. Talk about elists, "pearls before swine", "Gubbio". Oh let all us great unwashed listen to the brilliance of you two, you'll explain things in a dimension way beyond our comprehension, I am sure.
I disagree.
If you can't find the footage, find stills that are of the scene. If you can't find them, then make them up as they obviously did. Some shots where Garland and Mason hug show her wearing a different outfit than she was in the live footage.
However, it doesn't matter. We MUST see the film in the way George Cukor intended. So, in the end, I totally disagree with you Starcraft rules.
If the "slideshows" ruined the movie experience for you, you gotta blame Jack Warner and his minions. They were the morons who decided to trim down the original length of the movie. 30 min more or less. Worse? they didn't preserve the original cut! As a result of that stupid decision, some footage was lost forever (unless a complete copy of ASIB could be found --somewhere-- in the future).
Yes, it's an odd experience to watch those scenes featuring only stills and audio, but that's what's left. Take it or leave it.
The last of the "Slide show" moments are gone a little after an hour. If you read the book on the restortion of the film THE SLIDE SHOW moments were a last ditch effort. Ron Haver did everything that he could but the footage is gone. To me it works fine. It only about 5 minutes and its not all at once. The stills are over after the first hour. Besides there is camera movement with the stills to keep it interesting
shareI so agree completely. Jack Warner had a contract for a script less than 125 pages long and to edit unneeded parts from the final print, also to throw them away "as junk." The long premiere version might have been better, but we only have photos from the missing parts. The restored stills are altering history in an Orwellian way. Will the 154 minute film be released on video to give viewers a choice, or has it been?
shareJack Warner had a contract for a script less than 125 pages long and to edit unneeded parts, throw them away "as junk." The restored stills are altering history in an Orwellian way.You make it sound like Jack ripped pages from the script and gave instructions not to film them.
Thank you for explaining, Gubbio!
Outside of the beginning and end of the Barbara version, I've never seen 'A Star is Born' before today.
I saw the original 1937 version this morning and, am watching the 1954 version right now. I just assumed that the scrapbook montage with audio was meant to be stylish, as the red/black/white scenes look like they came right out of a vintage copy of Vogue.
Thanks, again!
Thank you for explaining, Gubbio!Wow, this is an old thread. But, I'm happy if my comments helped put things in place for you.....
.....as the red/black/white scenes look like they came right out of a vintage copy of Vogue.Interesting you should mention that..... This was veteran director George Cukor's first film in color as well as in CinemaScope. He did a lot of experimentation with the colors and the lenses.
There is a collector who is rumored to have the complete print. Unless he and Warner Brothers work out something this will be the version of record. That is not saying that this version can not be "Updated". I agree things that have been found since 1983 could be edited back into the still sequences. (More still have been found). Also they could re-do the still sequence into a 3-d type effect!
I would have to agree that it does mess up the movie for a bit, they did the same to Lost Horizon.
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=186977
The Truth is out there.
I personally don't mind it.
shareThe slideshow´s one of the best things about the film, even if this original touch was forced onto the director and not a spontaneous artistic choice as I thought when watching. It works beautifully.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan