World of Wong Kar Wai

[tenia]

The Film Formally podcast a while back interviewed a guy who does mastering for Shout and others, and he sort of scoffed at re-graining and mentioned the [highly acclaimed] Indiana Jones BDs as examples of bad jobs. I was a bit surprised, though he didn't go into details.

I'd have love knowing what he's talking about in particular since except the first one noticeably noisy at times because of the film stocks used in some scenes, I doubt it's be tampered with one way or another.
But it's funny that this would come from someone at Shout, who are probably often tampering with their movies, and have dozens of mediocre encodes on top of that (though that doesn't mean he's wrong).

[andyli]

The crime continues: Chungking Express's end credits replaced with a version with a much more "modern" look...

[Maltic]

The Film Formally podcast a while back interviewed a guy who does mastering for Shout and others, and he sort of scoffed at re-graining and mentioned the [highly acclaimed] Indiana Jones BDs as examples of bad jobs. I was a bit surprised, though he didn't go into details.

I'd have love knowing what he's talking about in particular since except the first one noticeably noisy at times because of the film stocks used in some scenes, I doubt it's be tampered with one way or another.
But it's funny that this would come from someone at Shout, who are probably often tampering with their movies, and have dozens of mediocre encodes on top of that (though that doesn't mean he's wrong).

It's here ca. @16.00

"I do think that some grain management is necessary to mitigate any issues that could happen in compression, but I don't go to the point where I'm smearing the image. I'm never going to do something to the extent of what was done on Predator or on some of the Indiana Jones movies where they removed all the grain and then re-grained it later on." [...] "That's actually a pretty common process, to remove the grain and then add grain back"

Maybe he's talking about the ancient 2008 BD release of Predator (not the waxy 2010 BD or the 2018 4k)? As for the Indy films, who knows.

[tenia]

What he's talking about reminds me of the Lowry process, and that wasn't a common process at all AFAIK.
The whole degrain / regrain process is popping up in a regular manner but honestly, I have yet to see concrete proofs about exactly which and how many restorations are indeed concerned. I doubt they're representing the majority of the restorations performed in the market. It does exist for sure, I'm not denying that, but I'm under the impression the utmost majority of the restorations of the past years (let's say since about 2014 at least) are not done within this kind of process, and certainly not by removing "all the grain" before a regraining.

It is however mechanical/mathematical for grain to be challenging encodes, since that's how encoders are working. However, many authoring houses (David M but not only) have demonstrated time and time again how much grain can be handled without compression issues. I'm quite certain, judging by experience, Shout's encoder just isn't as good as them with such amount of high frequencies, and that the issue thus isn't the amount of HF.

[cdnchris]

Question: what is the AR for Fallen Angels actually supposed to be? Still haven't watched it in the set yet, but I've seen comments/concerns about the "reframing" to 2.39:1 since previous releases had it in a 1.85:1 ratio. I had my memory refreshed rewatching the 1996 Moving Pictures interview featuring Wong and Doyle on the Chungking disc (same one on the old Criterion disc) and there are clips from the film (as I think the program was made as a promo for that film's release) in the wider ratio, and the two talk about using a wide angle lens, working with the wider framing, and incorporating the distortion that created.

The crime continues: Chungking Express's end credits replaced with a version with a much more "modern" look...

Those stuck out, mostly because of the "computer generated" look to them, but the film otherwise got off easy if that's the worst that happened.

[feihong]

The imdb lists Fallen Angels aspect ratio as 1.85:1. For the new version, Wong has stretched the image to 2.39:1. In most cases he has literally stretched the image, warping it horizontally to achieve the new ratio. In some cases he has cropped shots on the top and bottom to get them into that ratio, and in some shots he's done both things.

As far as Chungking Express, there are the gunshots under the opening credits, which are an annoying new addition, these new ending credits, and the David-Fincher-style new color correction. In respect to the other films in the set, it has, I suppose "got off easy." But I think the new color correction distorts the look the picture used to have in pretty damaging ways. The new look is noirish and harsh. The film originally had, I think, a dreamier look which better supported the material.

[cdnchris]

The imdb lists Fallen Angels aspect ratio as 1.85:1. For the new version, Wong has stretched the image to 2.39:1. In most cases he has literally stretched the image, warping it horizontally to achieve the new ratio. In some cases he has cropped shots on the top and bottom to get them into that ratio, and in some shots he's done both things.

As far as Chungking Express, there are the gunshots under the opening credits, which are an annoying new addition, these new ending credits, and the David-Fincher-style new color correction. In respect to the other films in the set, it has, I suppose "got off easy." But I think the new color correction distorts the look the picture used to have in pretty damaging ways. The new look is noirish and harsh. The film originally had, I think, a dreamier look which better supported the material.

Ah, I missed the opening shots and noticed it going back to the old disc. I noticed some greens have been boosted but compared to the old Criterion disc I don't think the color changes are that bad to be honest. Some things were digitally enhanced (not to the level of Days of Being Wild mind you) but they're still close.

As to Fallen Angels, again, Wong and Doyle talk about working with the wider angle and framing and they mention they liked the distortion that came with it in relation to the action (with clips in that ratio), suggesting it's how they intended it to look back in 1996: 2.35:1 with the distortion caused by the lens they used. I know IMDB states that it's 1.85:1, which is what I was basing a lot on, too, but it's possible it's wrong or was based on home video releases that incorrectly framed the film, correcting the distortion, even opening it up at the top and bottom. If it was just Wong in 2020 saying that I'd probably be skeptical, but it's both of them in 1996 saying this.

If I'm misunderstanding what they're saying, cool. It's the same interview on the old Criterion disc.

Edit: should point out there is no mention of the color added to the black and white sequences, so that's definitely new.

[feihong]

I'd suggest checking the previous pages of this thread. Cowboydan and others have done some very thorough accounting of the changes being made from one edition to the other. We've been through this debate on this thread exhaustively over the last couple months.

Of course, it's a personal thing how much the colors matter to you, but to me the difference in the color timing on Chungking Express is pretty vast, and a dealbreaker by itself. What Wong has done to Fallen Angels is depressing to me. Certainly, they had some plan to make the film look that way, but ultimately, the movie was released in 1.85:1 theatrically. That's how it appeared on home video, that's how I saw it at theatrical screenings––that's what I want from the film. But the restoration makes that change and so many more, and there's not a version in the set that preserves the theatrical release of the film. The coloration is to me in excruciating bad taste, and the horizontal stretching as well. I think it's possible that Wong and Doyle shot some of the film planning to stretch it and then some of it intending to meet the 1.85:1 ratio, because, like the coloration and desaturation of select shots in the restoration, Wong is clearly changing his mind long after the fact about some of the things he shot for the movie. It's not a clear-cut case of restoring a movie to its director–intended presentation; there are a bunch of changes made in a contemporary context. For me, those changes meant not buying the set, and I have to say I lost a lot of respect for Wong in terms of his contemporary aesthetic taste.

[cdnchris]

I'd suggest checking the previous pages of this thread. Cowboydan and others have done some very thorough accounting of the changes being made from one edition to the other. We've been through this debate on this thread exhaustively over the last couple months.

I did and it still doesn't help because a lot of it seems more subjective and anecdotal and based on releases well after the fact. To be fair, I could have missed a comment that is a smoking gun because of how things are spread out. I get the passion around it all, but the two are literally talking about it at the time of its release (this episode was aired before it premiered in the UK), the clips are in the ratio with the same (or similar) level of distortion, after clips from their previous films are shown in their expected ratios, and they're talking about framing for the wider ratio and such. If things changed in a few days and it dropped in theaters at 1.85:1 then obviously they had a change of heart or someone messed up, but they seemed pretty clear about their intentions for the framing of the film as it was a whole new thing after their previous work together. I just want to stress I'm not defending this presentation: I just watched it and there's a lot to be pissed about it from an admirer's perspective, and the aforementioned "de-graining" is for real. But if this is the ratio both Wong and Doyle intended in 1996 and something got messed up along the way, and it's been shown wrong for close to 25-years, I think it's worth noting.

Of course, it's a personal thing how much the colors matter to you, but to me the difference in the color timing on Chungking Express is pretty vast, and a deal breaker by itself.

I guess I'm just lost on your use of the word "vast" in this case, which is what I would call what I sampled with the new In the Mood for Love restoration (all I can say on that one is "fuck"). Jumping between this and the old Criterion I really can't say the colours are that different. Again, blues and greens look to have been enhanced, oddly only touched upon in spots in a scene, not in the whole frame, but I didn't see that different looking a film. But maybe, like you said, that's just not a deal breaker for me, especially since the "enhancement" wasn't to a ridiculous degree like what happened with Days of Being Wild. Granted, for Chungking Express, that was jumping between discs on the television, maybe if I do a side-by-side on my computer it will leap out at me.

[hearthesilence]

TBH, I would welcome the existence of a new Fallen Angels that follows what they "originally intended"...but under two conditions:

1) The original theatrical version should be preserved and done right on BD/UHD - no messing with it at all, and it should be readily available and affordable.

2) The new restoration should be done well, and the dodgy prospects of that is a big reason why the original version should be preserved. Rock music is the first thing that comes to mind with revisionist presentations of old work because it's been done so often via remixing, especially during the past 25 years. It's become a cliché for an artist or their fans to say "I wish that had been mixed right" or "I wish that had been mixed the way they REALLY wanted, because it would've been a masterpiece!" Flash forward years or decades later, and they finally get their chance, but so much time has passed that they have to contend with different technology (which will sound different and impact the result) and the fact that they've become different people who don't hear or think the way they did back then, so just dictating the choices they "would" have made will be a challenge. There have been massive disappointments, and there have been decent but underwhelming results, but some do live up to one's hopes. I think Iggy's 1997 mix of Raw Power is a godsend, but even that had to wait until it was properly mastered - the first CD issue and really the only complete mastering available for it for over 10 years was horrendously compressed. The Replacement's Dead Man's Pop (formerly Don't Tell a Soul) is a massive improvement too, but it's telling that the producer used a vintage rough mix he created back then as his guide - it's the main reason why they revisited the album, and had it remained lost, it's possible Dead Man's Pop would never have happened.

So it sucks the original version of Fallen Angels remains out of circulation, and it sucks that they've de-grained the new version like this. If it's possible to present the new version with film grain intact, I hope it gets a release somewhere, and I hope they package it with the original version.

[cdnchris]

That's easily the biggest fuck-up with this set. I don't get why on Earth Wong was okay including an obscure alternate edit for Days of Being Wild (that sounds to have been put together when there was a plan for a sequel to the film) but didn't feel it might be worthwhile to include the original versions/edits for some of the other films in the set, at the very least for Fallen Angels.

[yoloswegmaster]

That's easily the biggest fuck-up with this set. I don't get why on Earth Wong was okay including an obscure alternate edit for Days of Being Wild (that sounds to have been put together when there was a plan for a sequel to the film) but didn't feel it might be worthwhile to include the original versions/edits for some of the other films in the set, at the very least for Fallen Angels.

I honestly think that Criterion chose to not involve Wong for anything involving the first 2 films, from the restoration to supplements. Both titles aren't owned by him, he doesn't appear to have been involved with the restorations for either film, they chose to add an alternate version of 'Days' that no one seems to know about, and the fact that Criterion chose to add the original trailers for both films (something that none of the other titles have), rather than replacing them with the restoration trailers.

[barbarella satyricon]

...

[andyli]

I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.

[Zot!]

I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.

I’m not sure if I would call this complicated, it’s a lazy pillar-boxing filter for showing academy-ish content on widescreens. Compared to this P&S is masterful.

[yoloswegmaster]

30 minutes of new footage was screened at the end of a screening for 'Happy Together' at the HKIFF: https://m.facebook.com/hkiffs/posts/10159788647012526

[EddieLarkin]

Question: what is the AR for Fallen Angels actually supposed to be? Still haven't watched it in the set yet, but I've seen comments/concerns about the "reframing" to 2.39:1 since previous releases had it in a 1.85:1 ratio. I had my memory refreshed rewatching the 1996 Moving Pictures interview featuring Wong and Doyle on the Chungking disc (same one on the old Criterion disc) and there are clips from the film (as I think the program was made as a promo for that film's release) in the wider ratio, and the two talk about using a wide angle lens, working with the wider framing, and incorporating the distortion that created.

This? The clips from Fallen Angels are 1.85:1 there. They maybe seemed wider than this because the clips from Chungking are presented at 1.66:1. It seems clear that Wong and Doyle had wanted to shoot and exhibit the film in Scope, but were unable to, resulting in the film being shot spherical on standard 35mm (not even Super35 according to imdb), and they used wide angle lenses to try and achieve something close to what they'd hoped to by shooting Scope. Wong has now taken the opporunity to bodge the film into the ratio he always wanted to present it in.

The question is, would he have taken the same steps to exhibit the film this way back in 1996 if he could have, even after shooting spherical on standard 35? If so, it does make this version more of a true Directors Cut in my book, rather than some George Lucas style revisionism.

[cdnchris]

Ah, that's shady then: on the disc the ratio is fudged with for the entire feature. That, mixed with what they were talking about, had me thinking that they had released it, or intended to release it in scope at the time, especially since they mention working wider. Which could still be the case, but like you said they had to go a different route for whatever reason.

[andyli]

I've stolen a gif from another social media account to give you an animated comparison of the aspect ratios for Fallen Angels. It's a complicated process of stretching the sides while largely maintaining the central portion.

I’m not sure if I would call this complicated, it’s a lazy pillar-boxing filter for showing academy-ish content on widescreens. Compared to this P&S is masterful.

If it were that simple to achieve, why would Wong have claimed not being able to do it at the time?

[tenia]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a filter existing in the industry for at least a decade.
However, Fallen Angels new framing is a bit more complex than this since the new framing hasn't been applied in the same manner on every shot. Some are cropped, some more than others, while some are compressed and/or distorted.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I honestly think that Criterion chose to not involve Wong for anything involving the first 2 films, from the restoration to supplements. Both titles aren't owned by him, he doesn't appear to have been involved with the restorations for either film, they chose to add an alternate version of 'Days' that no one seems to know about, and the fact that Criterion chose to add the original trailers for both films (something that none of the other titles have), rather than replacing them with the restoration trailers.

I'm pretty sure the alternate version is this one that David Bordwell wrote about back in 2008, though obviously people who actually have the set are better placed to make that determination. As for why Criterion included it but not variant cuts for any of the other films, I don't think they went over Wong's head here—even if they were legally clear to do what they wanted on the first two films without Wong's involvement, the fact that they needed his signoff for the remaining three-quarters of set makes it very unlikely IMO that they wouldn't involve him in their plans for the whole thing. I don't think the presence of the original trailers indicates anything, since AFAICT these films didn't get restoration trailers, presumably because they aren't part of the Jet Tone/Block 2 library.

I speculated way, way back in the thread that the presence of the alternate cut might well be because Wong prefers that version, but it wasn't restored because a) Wong doesn't own control this film and thus wasn't in a place to make that call or b) the surviving elements for the alternate cut were in such a state that it wasn't deemed worthwhile to restore it (and from all indications the alternate cut is in very rough shape, with burnt-in Chinese/English subs to boot). I've never seen anything from Wong stating that he prefers the alternate cut and apparently there's nothing in the box set to that effect either, but then I can't really imagine Wong openly declaring "my preferred version of this film is the one that looks like it was dragged in by the cat."

[cdnchris]

I'm pretty sure the alternate version is this one that David Bordwell wrote about back in 2008,

Just to confirm, the alternate version on the disc is what Bordwell describes.

[Zot!]

I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a filter existing in the industry for at least a decade.
However, Fallen Angels new framing is a bit more complex than this since the new framing hasn't been applied in the same manner on every shot. Some are cropped, some more than others, while some are compressed and/or distorted.

Right, in 1995 this kind of digital manipulation was not available, and might have needed to be achieved with optical methods, but today any you-tuber worth their salt could knock this edit out in short order. Most early widescreen TVs had this “smart-stretch” filter to contend with idiot customer expectations to make the picture “fill up” the screen. It was the “smooth motion” of its time.

[yoloswegmaster]

As for why Criterion included it but not variant cuts for any of the other films, I don't think they went over Wong's head here—even if they were legally clear to do what they wanted on the first two films without Wong's involvement, the fact that they needed his signoff for the remaining three-quarters of set makes it very unlikely IMO that they wouldn't involve him in their plans for the whole thing. I don't think the presence of the original trailers indicates anything, since AFAICT these films didn't get restoration trailers, presumably because they aren't part of the Jet Tone/Block 2 library. I speculated way, way back in the thread that the presence of the alternate cut might well be because Wong prefers that version, but it wasn't restored because a) Wong doesn't own control this film and thus wasn't in a place to make that call or b) the surviving elements for the alternate cut were in such a state that it wasn't deemed worthwhile to restore it (and from all indications the alternate cut is in very rough shape, with burnt-in Chinese/English subs to boot). I've never seen anything from Wong stating that he prefers the alternate cut and apparently there's nothing in the box set to that effect either, but then I can't really imagine Wong openly declaring "my preferred version of this film is the one that looks like it was dragged in by the cat."

They would need Wong to sign-off on the rest of the films, but the fact that he wasn't involved with the restorations, or even approved, of the first 2 films leads me to believe that he really has no say over them. If Wong did have final say for those 2 films, why didn't he simply force Criterion to make brand-new trailers for the restorations that matched with the other newly-created trailers and disregard the original trailers? There could be a small chance that Wong prefers the alternative cut, but I have major doubts that since he makes absolutely no mention of it in his director's notes, or the fact that it's never been available on any of the previous home video releases. I also doubt that these are the reasons why the alternate cut wasn't restored, since AFAIK they scanned a alternate version of Police Story 2 that had burnt-in subtitles and looked to be in bad shape. I believe that Criterion simply added the alternate cut of Days as a way of saying "Look guys, we're open to including alternate versions of the same film," as they knew that people were going to blame them for not including the original versions of the other films.

[Finch]

Who is the Criterion producer for this set? I wonder how Criterion is going to handle questions over this release now that it's been released. Wasn't Kim Hendrickson visibly annoyed when someone once brought up the issues with Madame de... at a Q&A?