Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

Electronico6 posted:

It'd be like having a Michael Mann box set that cut everything after The Insider, it sort of just works. Sure, I like Collateral just fine but it has less in common with the other films.

lol this line of thinking is bad, especially in the context of Wong Kar Wai, who if he could, would probably delete every film he made before 2046.

Those films have very much in common with the others, I would even argue that The Grandmaster is probably Wong's most important film to understand his overall work. We're not talking about disposable content, we're talking about film history and the work of an artist that came from a very unique and particular place and point in world history.


Fair enough, dude. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. The Michael Mann clapback doesn't hold water. I don't really try to put myself in WKW's head and care about what he thinks in his advancing years, I just enjoy the films I enjoy, and to be honest he was already getting a bit stuffy in 2046. As far as The Grandmaster is concerned all three cuts of that film that I've seen are complete and total slogs, and I don't feel like it gels at all with the crunchy, trashy vibes of his 90s HK embedded work, and I definitely don't give a rat's rear end about My Blueberry Nights. It's unfortunate that Ashes of Time wasn't included, but I'm very happy with what's here and I just can't be arsed to care about an aspect change or the odd shot that's color-corrected differently from what I remember from 15 years ago. The films themselves almost defy being obsessed over like that, they actively scoff at a viewer's attempt to hold on to them too tightly. But you do you. There are always other versions out there for sale.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

oneforthevine
Sep 25, 2015




BeanpolePeckerwood posted:

There are always other versions out there for sale.

But...for a lot of these films, there arenít. Chungking Express, Fallen Angels, Happy Together are all long out of print, and these new versions are now the only way to see them without searching out discs that run $100 a pop on eBay.

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

oneforthevine posted:

But...for a lot of these films, there arenít. Chungking Express, Fallen Angels, Happy Together are all long out of print, and these new versions are now the only way to see them without searching out discs that run $100 a pop on eBay.

Don't worry, these will prolly be out of print soon, too lol

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004




Grimey Drawer

Itís also not just ďthe odd shotĒ colour-corrected in a lot of cases

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

I watched Fallen Angels tonight and it looked fuckin great. It was a treat.

DetoxP
Jan 27, 2011

California Dreamin'



The idea that the other versions will continue to remain available is pretty easily challenged by what Wong did with Ashes of Time. The real frustration isn't that we don't like some of the edits, it's that these will basically become the only available versions until someone decides to do this again which I imagine will be decades from now. Swing and a miss!

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

It's true; you are the gatekeeper of your own experience. For the 90% of people who now have access to this catalogue of films at what is less than $30 each, who would probably never bother to notice some minor changes had been made here and there, good tidings. For those individuals who seek the absolute purity of expression, happiness dependent on strict adherence to the original vision in their memory, who must now trudge through the grey market of $50-100 versions in order to feel at ease, good tidings as well.

Vince MechMahon
Jan 1, 2008





BeanpolePeckerwood posted:

It's true; you are the gatekeeper of your own experience. For the 90% of people who now have access to this catalogue of films at what is less than $30 each, who would probably never bother to notice some minor changes had been made here and there, good tidings. For those individuals who seek the absolute purity of expression, happiness dependent on strict adherence to the original vision in their memory, who must now trudge through the grey market of $50-100 versions in order to feel at ease, good tidings as well.

Why are you being such a weirdo about this? We all get it, you prefer the Star Wars Special Editions and don't give a poo poo about film history or preservation. You can shut up now.

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

Vince MechMahon posted:

Why are you being such a weirdo about this? We all get it, you prefer the Star Wars Special Editions and don't give a poo poo about film history or preservation. You can shut up now.

It's funny that you can post such glaring hyperbole and call me weird. Actually, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the right to run me out of the thread. Maybe calm down.

Vince MechMahon
Jan 1, 2008





BeanpolePeckerwood posted:

It's funny that you can post such glaring hyperbole and call me weird. Actually, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the right to run me out of the thread. Maybe calm down.

We understand you like the current versions. No one has ever said you can't. No one is even saying they're objectively bad. You on the other hand keep posting about it like the idea of multiple cuts of a film being included in a $200 box set, or at the very least making those other versions officially and easily available, is unreasonable and a crazy idea. No one is trying to drive you out of the thread. Just shut up about this one thing that no one is ever going to change your opinion on, and you've made your position on clear multiple times.

pospysyl
Nov 10, 2012

SO EMBARRASSING



The upcoming Criterion release of Flowers of Shanghai is similarly messed with, with richer colors (i.e. more yellow). I guess I'm not a hardliner on this, though. Obviously, if there was a disc with a new restored version and an "original" version (like the first home release or something) on it, I'd prefer that, but when I compare the new version of Flowers and my library's crappy DVD copy of The Puppetmaster, I'd prefer a restoration that actually works on modern devices, even if it isn't accurate to previous versions. The only way I see to pressure Criterion and other companies to more stringently preserve film would be to boycott these kinds of releases, but on balance I wouldn't want to discourage making these movies available to a wider audience.

DetoxP
Jan 27, 2011

California Dreamin'



BeanpolePeckerwood posted:

It's true; you are the gatekeeper of your own experience. For the 90% of people who now have access to this catalogue of films at what is less than $30 each, who would probably never bother to notice some minor changes had been made here and there, good tidings. For those individuals who seek the absolute purity of expression, happiness dependent on strict adherence to the original vision in their memory, who must now trudge through the grey market of $50-100 versions in order to feel at ease, good tidings as well.

Is it really that out of place in a thread for Criterion - which is some nerdy poo poo - to promote film preservation? I've said nothing to imply that your enjoyment of the set isn't valid, so why don't you let people talk about the importance of preservation and archival work without chiming in constantly with "Well personally, I don't care ."

On another Wong note, I just watched the original Ashes of Time and was kind of shocked at how clear it is that this is a WKW film, since I always got the idea that this was a movie where his whole style got subsumed by studio direction and the huge budget. It's actually really good, and I'm surprised it's dismissed so often since it really is quite similar to Days of Being Wild and Chungking Express in terms of tone. I haven't seen Redux yet which I'm interested to see mostly because it's available in much better quality than the original cut is, but I heard they cut the electronic score in Redux which sounds like a huge bummer.

DeimosRising
Oct 17, 2005

°Hola SEA!




I donít really care about versions of a movie per se because you can go down that rabbit hole forever and not determine what the original is (see in this case the stuff about when the Faye Wong song plays) let alone whatís the best version of a film but the green filter on in the mood for love just looks like poo poo. If thatís what the movie looked like originally or what Wong wants it to look like, it looked bad and he wants it to look bad

Chungking and fallen angels look good in the new versions so itís w/e

FancyMike
May 7, 2007



pospysyl posted:

The upcoming Criterion release of Flowers of Shanghai is similarly messed with, with richer colors (i.e. more yellow). I guess I'm not a hardliner on this, though.

Thatís just a Ritrovata thing. Iím still excited for it and glad Criterion picked it up for release; itís probably the worst looking dvd in my collection. I will knock them a bit for that cover though, Iím not into it at all.

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

Vince MechMahon posted:

We understand you like the current versions. No one has ever said you can't. No one is even saying they're objectively bad. You on the other hand keep posting about it like the idea of multiple cuts of a film being included in a $200 box set, or at the very least making those other versions officially and easily available, is unreasonable and a crazy idea. No one is trying to drive you out of the thread. Just shut up about this one thing that no one is ever going to change your opinion on, and you've made your position on clear multiple times.

I'd actually love multiple versions of each film, but I don't see it as a dealbreaker. Once it became apparent what WKW's intentions were here I kinda decided to lay those cares to rest. He's an idiosyncratic dude who made a bunch of films that are equally idiosyncratic and I guess I'm just enjoying revisiting them from a fresh perspective. Maybe I'll pony up for the previous criterion of Chungking Express in order to round out the collection.

DetoxP
Jan 27, 2011

California Dreamin'



DeimosRising posted:

I donít really care about versions of a movie per se because you can go down that rabbit hole forever and not determine what the original is (see in this case the stuff about when the Faye Wong song plays)

Yeah, I'm willing to admit there are shades of grey here when it comes to movies that have been released with lots of alternative versions and weirdness like that. Hell, I'm willing to retract that criticism since it's apparently not some new change, even though on the personal side I really dislike it. But that might just be my bias.

I still don't understand why everything got pushed green. I wonder if it's WKW trying to present these movies like they've always been part of some holistic and aesthetically consistent set?

BeanpolePeckerwood
May 4, 2004

BUT SATAN'S BOY
I COULD NEVER BE!




Pork Pro

DetoxP posted:

Yeah, I'm willing to admit there are shades of grey here when it comes to movies that have been released with lots of alternative versions and weirdness like that. Hell, I'm willing to retract that criticism since it's apparently not some new change, even though on the personal side I really dislike it. But that might just be my bias.

I still don't understand why everything got pushed green. I wonder if it's WKW trying to present these movies like they've always been part of some holistic and aesthetically consistent set?

I think he's definitely doing that, which I don't fully agree with since it's several timelines and numerous thematic intersections all bunched up. However, the work on whole contains so many in-jokes that it's not unreasonable to see why he's run with that idea in the past and is doubling down now, you know, the trilogy of Days/Mood/2046 which was commonly held as a blanket association, but it always felt a bit loose to me. So if Mood was originally supposed to relate to Days more directly, not only from a thematic standpoint but a visual one as well, then going a bit greener would probably make sense. The scenery in all of these movies is so much of a collage that it never feels like one palette dominates for too long from scene to scene, but I suppose I'll have to see how that affects Mood on this set. Tonight is Happy Together though.

Electronico6
Feb 25, 2011



DetoxP posted:


On another Wong note, I just watched the original Ashes of Time and was kind of shocked at how clear it is that this is a WKW film, since I always got the idea that this was a movie where his whole style got subsumed by studio direction and the huge budget. It's actually really good, and I'm surprised it's dismissed so often since it really is quite similar to Days of Being Wild and Chungking Express in terms of tone. I haven't seen Redux yet which I'm interested to see mostly because it's available in much better quality than the original cut is, but I heard they cut the electronic score in Redux which sounds like a huge bummer.

His only real mandate by the financiers was that the film needed Big Stars, and it does have them all, and also to feature a lot of martial arts scenes, and they are there, and choreographed by the Greatest to ever do them.

The real story is that Wong spent two years slowly losing his mind in the deserts of China, because he didn't really know what he was doing, and almost bankrupted his brand new production company that he set up with Jeffrey Lau. This when Lau jumped in and shot Eagles Shooting Heroes in two months to get it ready for Chinese New Year, make money back to keep production running, and avoid a repeat of Days of Being Wild. He always felt that the film was unfinished which resulted in Redux 14 years later.

Despite what some say, the film actually made money. It's based on some of the more popular Wuxia characters ever, that has countless media adaptations, so no matter how odd it was always going to make some money.

The difference between the two versions are also an interesting examination of two different modes of film production. The original is a WKW film and is still very part of the 90's Wuxia HK deconstructions that Tsui Hark started doing with Once Upon a Time in China, while the Redux with it's new phantasmagorical color grading becomes a product of 2046 Wong.

There's also this very funny line in the movie's wiki "Critics found it so elliptical that it was almost impossible to make out any semblance of a plot, something very rare in a wuxia film.[citation needed]" lol

DetoxP posted:

I still don't understand why everything got pushed green. I wonder if it's WKW trying to present these movies like they've always been part of some holistic and aesthetically consistent set?

This is from 2010 restoration of Fallen Angels

quote:

Colors are a bit different, most notable in the final scene, which is more greenish now. The image also seems less grainy and softer now, which makes me wonder if there was some DNR applied. I don't know for sure though.

https://wong-kar-wais-love-odysseys.blogspot.com/2010/04/fallen-angels-1996.html

Funny enough the scenes that he is saying that have become greener in 2010, in the Wong Box are now not green at all. It's too bad that the image links are dead.

But you are correct about the aesthetics. Wong wants to push his films to become inline with 2046. Look how he talks about his new project, Blossoms, when he calls it the final part of a trilogy with In The Mood For Love and 2046. It used to be that there was already a trilogy, but with Days of Being Wild.

FancyMike posted:

That’s just a Ritrovata thing. I’m still excited for it and glad Criterion picked it up for release; it’s probably the worst looking dvd in my collection. I will knock them a bit for that cover though, I’m not into it at all.

Is there any word on the subtitles? When the restoration premiered in Bologna people noted that the subtitles were still credited to Tony Rayns, but it was actually a whole different, and worse, translation.

FancyMike
May 7, 2007



Electronico6 posted:

Is there any word on the subtitles? When the restoration premiered in Bologna people noted that the subtitles were still credited to Tony Rayns, but it was actually a whole different, and worse, translation.

I have no idea, and last I looked I didnít find a clear answer for which subs ended up on the Taiwan blu-ray, which is why I didnít import it right away. Pretty sure I remember Rayns being aware of and very upset about the issue, and this is one area Iíd definitely expect Criterion to get right, so hereís hoping they do. It would be so disappointing for them to finally put out a Hou film and gently caress it up like that.

FancyMike fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Apr 17, 2021

Kart Barfunkel
Nov 10, 2009



What was the last movie you watched on The CC and thought Ďdrat that was really fuckin goodí.

Kart Barfunkel fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Apr 18, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Roth
Jul 9, 2016


Kart Barfunkel posted:

What was the last movie you watched on The CC and thought Ďdrat that was really fuckin goodí.

I watched both Lady Snowblood movies earlier this week.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply