826 The New World

[whaleallright]

But is there any reason why the original elements would look so washed out?

I assume it's just how they looked out of the camera -- on purpose -- and not the result of any serious degradation. The films we see in theaters (or at home) have almost all undergone quite a bit of (typically digital) color manipulation, and The New World is no exception.

[Newsnayr]

But if they want to do Malick "justice," wouldn't they just release the one cut he prefers? Sorry, I'm not trying to needle you, I'm just preparing for a disappointing announcement because I just don't see Criterion releasing three (or even two) cuts of a two-plus-hour film. I'd be thrilled to have my low expectations shattered.

Understood, I'm really hoping to have all the cuts as well; it hasn't been confirmed anywhere else but that source has turned out some very good information already, so I feel like there's a good chance.

[movielocke]

The word "restoration" comes really cheap these days. What Criterion seem to be describing in their recent web feature is simply color grading, which is a routine part of the post-production process.

Agree - If an 11 year old film coming out of Hollywood needs to be "restored," there's some serious problems. But is there any reason why the original elements would look so washed out?

it doesn't need restoration, that's how the stock was exposed. If you under or overexpose your image mistakenly it is very hard to work with, but if you expose a low contrast image (aka washed out) you can set the correct look at the color timing / color grading stage. What criterion is doing is color grading, they are not restoring the film in the traditional sense that the term film restoration is used.

[MichaelB]

Indeed. There are some very funny reviews of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera from people who bought one insanely cheaply during that half price sale a couple of years ago, and who complained that it was "faulty" or had "a terrible, washed-out picture" because they weren't aware that it was a professional camera and the raw image had a much wider exposure latitude than that produced by consumer cameras - you only get to see the "correct" image after you've graded it, whereupon you discover that you have infinitely more control over colour, contrast and exposure than you ever did with a DSLR or camcorder. Which is why I adore mine, but it's emphatically not a point-and-shoot device.

[djproject]

As far as calling it a "restoration", it's probably better understood as just a remastering with a scan done at 4k. I doubt the initial Sony Blu-ray was sourced from a 4k scanned master, let alone from the original negative.

[whaleallright]

These days any even slightly older film that has been transferred to digital with any kind of image adjustment is billed -- for publicity purposes, typically -- as a "restoration." I suspect this gives Paolo Cherchi Usai fits.

I suppose in this case the term has some marginal validity if Criterion's goal is to make their Blu-Ray better match the appearance of the original 35mm theatrical prints, but it's likely that's not really the case. The other of Malick's films they have released on Blu-ray look quite different than the theatrical prints I've seen. They are more instances of revision rather than restoration, as is usually the case with home-video releases.

The strange thing about the multiple cuts of The New World is that they seem to make very little difference to the overall tone and narrative shape of the film. The best parts—the natives' first sight of the English ships, the visit to England at the end—are, to my memory, virtually unchanged from version to version. The sections of the film that underwent the most radical changes are also those that remain the most diffuse, least purposeful in their editing patterns, etc.

[oh yeah]

I suppose in this case the term has some marginal validity if Criterion's goal is to make their Blu-Ray better match the appearance of the original 35mm theatrical prints, but it's likely that's not really the case. The other of Malick's films they have released on Blu-ray look quite different than the theatrical prints I've seen. They are more instances of revision rather than restoration, as is usually the case with home-video releases.

Interesting. I've only seen Thin Red Line in 35mm, but I remember the Criterion being faithful to how it looked and actually probably one of the best transfers in the collection. I think Days of Heaven and Badlands also look great on Criterion, but can't comment on any revisionism -- how did you think the transfers diverged? I do recall there being some complaints about the Badlands one looking too blue or green? And the Days of Heaven transfer was criticized by a few for not having the right color tone. I think some said that even the old Paramount disc got it more correct on that one.

[Drucker]

Well anyone in the greater metro NYC area can find out for themselves at this Jack Fisk retrospective playing at the Museum of Moving Image in mid-March.

[jedgeco]

If you under or overexpose your image mistakenly it is very hard to work with, but if you expose a low contrast image (aka washed out) you can set the correct look at the color timing / color grading stage.

Thank you - I suspected the answer was something like that, and I appreciate the technical explanation.

[swo17]

Coming in July

[Ribs]

Not just a booklet - a book! Three discs! All out!

[tenia]

Hmm. I'm going to nitpick but the best would have been to use the new 4K restoration to reconstruct the shorter cuts.
But this is looking epic anyway.

[Luke M]

3 different cuts! My God.

[Trees]

Rejoice, rejoice!

[pzadvance]

This looks like an incredible package with a lot of new material and a lot of previously scattered material all packaged together. The first cut has been particularly elusive and was only released almost accidentally as a Digital Download with one of the official releases, if I recall correctly. Can't wait to dig into this!

[denti alligator]

Can someone explain the value of the shorter cuts. I've only seen the extended one.

[Trees]

Can someone explain the value of the shorter cuts. I've only seen the extended one.

For one thing, some extremely beautiful montages that were lost/replaced in different cuts.

[Manny Karp]

This looks like an incredible package with a lot of new material and a lot of previously scattered material all packaged together. The first cut has been particularly elusive and was only released almost accidentally as a Digital Download with one of the official releases, if I recall correctly. Can't wait to dig into this!

Also on an Italian DVD

[Manny Karp]

Can someone explain the value of the shorter cuts. I've only seen the extended one.

Some exploration (in the linked articles) of the differences here:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/arti ... n-epigraph" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've seen all three cuts, about a dozen times each, but honestly would have to watch them simultaneously on three screens to authoritatively address the differences. It seems to me that the significant, most astonishing sequences (opening, ending) are essentially the same. There's quite a bit of difference - some very subtle, I think - going on in the middle, though.

Too bad we're not getting a fourth cut, as rumored.

[palefire]

I will nitpick. I'm rather pissed we still won't have the theatrical cut on blu-ray. The flow of the theatrical cut exceeds the longer cut, and Malick's later films greatly depend on an precise ebb and flow of sight and sound.

I am at least happy to finally see the Italian version. As for the 172 minute version, the only improvement I'm looking forward to is the sound mix. Which I'm sure Criterion fixed.

[movielocke]

I will nitpick. I'm rather pissed we still won't have the theatrical cut on blu-ray. The flow of the theatrical cut exceeds the longer cut, and Malick's later films greatly depend on an precise ebb and flow of sight and sound.

I am at least happy to finally see the Italian version. As for the 172 minute version, the only improvement I'm looking forward to is the sound mix. Which I'm sure Criterion fixed.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem. It is a 3 bluray disc, 4 DVD release with the theatrical cut and the oscar qualifying premiere cut both getting their own discs, and the new director's cut also getting it's own disc.

[Shrew]

I've seen the theatrical cut a few times and the extended cut once, and I'm probably one of the few that prefers the theatrical. I feel like the theatrical cut is more in line with "old" Malick of the 70s and the extended cut leans toward the "new" Malick of this decade. The extended has a lot more on the relationship between Pocahontas and Smith, with a lot more voiceover from both, which to me feels and sounds like the wishy-washy New Age stuff that ends Tree of Life. However, the extended also has more with the relationship between Rolfe and Pocahontas, which is a far more complex and, to me, interesting subject, so it's give and take.

Still, glad that we're getting the 3 different cuts, and I look forward to finally seeing the 150 min version. And as movielocke says above, a 3 cuts will still be in HD on blu, but only the extended will be sourced from a 4K scan.

[jsteffe]

You're not the only one who prefers the theatrical cut, by any means. I think it flows better as a single, coherent viewing experience. It left me in a state of astonishment and rapture when I saw it for the first time on the big screen. The extended cut is simply too long.

Too bad that the other versions weren't restored in 4k, but even just having them in HD will make me happy.

[flyonthewall2983]

Wondering how everything will be presented on the separate formats. My guess is that the first two Blu-rays (and 3 DVDs) will house the various cuts of the film and that the remainder will have the special features.

[palefire]

You're not the only one who prefers the theatrical cut, by any means. I think it flows better as a single, coherent viewing experience. It left me in a state of astonishment and rapture when I saw it for the first time on the big screen. The extended cut is simply too long.

Too bad that the other versions weren't restored in 4k, but even just having them in HD will make me happy.

That's good news. I just quickly saw blu-ray and dvd and assumed wrongly it would seem. I don't mind the length. The editing just feels off. Though the dreadful sound mix could have been at play. Taking the power out of the Wagner piece was an odd choice.