Once a movie has lost it's 35mm original before it is digitally restored, preserved and saved... it's considered ''gone forever'' Even if home video formats exist.
I remember that sepia tone clearly from the original theater release, but it seems much more muted in this new release. In fact I can't recall seeing it last night. Did they remove it?
Restoring this classic took guts. I’d hate to be that one guy who potentially “destroyed 30 feet of the original negative” for a film beloved by pretty much all filmgoers. Gulp...
I was so lucky to see The Godfather when it came out, not first run, but at a 2nd run movie theater. I was 16 years old and I saw it about 6 times. I am so glad they were able to restore it to it's original splendor so that future generations will be able to see it as if it were the first run!
I've seen l and ll more times than any other films-and I've seen a LOT of films-a lot of tims but I've never had the please of seeing l on the big screen. I did see ll recently-what a delight. Good for you Maggylind.
maggylind I saw it the day after it came out, the first show of the day...it was snowing in Cleveland, and there were maybe 6 people besides me and my friend. I’d never even heard if it, he was an actor and eager to see it so I went along. It blew me away! I went back a few days later to see it again and the line was around the block. Still my favorite film tied with Lawrence of Arabia (which was also lovingly restored).
Godfather and Godfather 2 are my favorite movies. I am 100% Sicilian, so I know what is said and the culture. My dad was born in Sciacca, Sicily. He passed away last March at the age of 97. Now he is with my Mother. Rip. Mom and Daddy. Linda.
The way the bright parts come into view it really gets you up in your seat and keeps your attention bright also throughout the film. It's great for photography to contribute that to a picture. The opening scene was dark, and continued to brighten just a little but the bright dark contrasts was fabulous. I noticed it and didn't even realize why I was noticing it.
For a movie that was an immense and very influential hit from the moment it was released, I wouldn't have expected that it would be necessary to track down various elements from all over the place for this restoration. I'm accustomed to that happening to older films which underwent all kinds of editing and other disrespect over the years, but "The Godfather" retained its commercial value the entire time, making it less likely that it would be neglected.
Incredible. I've seen several videos showing the many aspects of this movie's production. I didn't realise what enormous work, skill and cost went into each aspect. Fantastic stuff, thanks.
Yeah, this is some super-delicate work because you can't actually repair the damage to the physical film negative like you can with a painting or a fresco. This kind of work should have a tax application to it.
We are all so tremendously lucky to be living in this time. For the first time in the history of man, images of our lives, our loved ones, our cherished art, can be preserved exactly as they were created, forever. I am talking about the advent of digital media. A 4k picture taken of you today will look exactly as crisp a 1000 years from now. Only in the last 20 years has that become possible. Everyone before us knew that what they created would last a finite period of time, it would age, crack, rot, fade, burn, or just crumble away. On our very tippy toes we can just barely reach back a few decades, and save films like this. Welcome to the beginning of permanently recorded time, your images will last forever and will be the first pages in the history book of man.
Not really. Digital is just the coding. The files are still subject to the ravages of time and decay as with any other media. Digital files will need regular and repeated cloning to preserve them into the future.
I wish they’d fix Secretariat’s races as well. Hard to believe that the greatest racehorse of the past century was filmed in 1973 videotape, which is so grainy and orange-hued you can hardly tell what happened. Meanwhile, Seabiscuit’s great match race in 1938, filmed in black & white, is still perfection.
I remember walking through Times Square in the 90s and I saw a theatre was running an anniversary showing of the Godfather on the big screen! I dropped what I was doing, grabbed a tub of popcorn and had the best time finally seeing it the way it was meant to be shown.
One of the greatest films ever made. One of the greatest box office successes of all time. Probably the most important best-seller AND long-seller Paramount property... and this is the state they had it in. Then Coppola had to ask Spielberg to get the ball rolling. If anybody thinks corporations are efficient, know what they're doing and we're in good hands with them at the helm, you gotta get your head checked for brain damage. Corporate greed is only matched by their laziness and incompetence.
Hi there. I work in the industry and directed for the British Shakespeare Company. Anyway, if you know Francis Ford Coppola please suggest to him that they should release this amazing copy at the cinemas in 2022 for the 50th anniversary follow by Godfather II if Godfather is a success. I recall how successful Star Wars special edition was. So much so that they wished they'd arranged a longer run for the films at the cinema. I genuinely believe these would be massive at the box office with a limited run of high-quality restored versions. Film fans and younger people would want to see these on the big screen and I'd go more than once. Look how popular The Irishman was and The Godfather is far superior. Many of the stars are still alive and could attend a publicity premier in New York. It seems like a slam dunk when you consider the fact the film costs nothing, as it already exists, so it is only the marketing budget. The chance to see it on a big screen as part of a large audience and the press buzz around that would be massive. Especially if the stars went on a few talk shows. Just remember to send me an invite if it happens. hahaha, Maybe they already have something planned. But I really believe this more than any movie could be re-released at the cinema. It's a period piece so there is nothing to date it or crappy special effect etc. It still has a level of cool beyond anything ever made. Either way, I envy your career. Take care.
I was a film/photography student in the 70s and had the art/craft down very well. Then one day Star Wars came out and the industry zoomed into outer space as fast as an Imperial Cruiser going into star drive. These days it's all done by computer and I have very little understanding. This video really helped and went slow enough for me to keep up. I'm so glad I saw this today, guess hat I will be watching tonight in a darkened room!
I remember I once rented a vhs-copy of Pulp Fiction, that was cropped to 4:3. But only after the opening credits, so the first minutes were in glorious wide screen (albeit letterboxed), so the artistic defects of the cropped version were glaringly obvious. I complained about it at the rental store, but they didn't even understand what I was talking about: how could I complain about not seeing the entire movie, when my complete tv screen had been filled with an image. Weird times...
@@niek024 this was a common misconception at the time. When asked whether someone would prefer a widescreen vs full screen version, they’d be like “well don’t you want to see the FULL picture?” Oh how the times have changed
@@mikekasabion I believe I was first confronted with the concept that movies were not 4:3 by watching late night German television, that showed 'old' ultra-wide western movies in letterboxed form. It was a weird sight: only a very narrow strip of the 4:3 tv screen was actually in use for the movie.
@@totallybored5526 I know, I was around back then and we had one of those TVs lol. It's also that back then people weren't as *aware* of this, and many people mistakenly thought that having black bars meant that that were NOT getting the whole picture, when it was actually the OTHER WAY around of course.
I can remember watching The Complete Godfather for Television. All the outtakes were in and it was cut and reassembled in chronological order. I wish they would do the same thing on 4K Blu-ray. 👍😎
Netflix should pay to have that done. Although the version you are talking about toned down the language and violence as it was for TV in the 70s, so it would be best to reverse this part of it. But I agree it could be massive on Netflix to create a series of the Godfather with all the additional footage. This has never been released in full, as I think they edited the video version.
That does happen in reality but isn't noticeable at such a short distance. A bullet from a gun travels faster than the speed of sound. The bullet will hit before the sound of the shot. In this case the sound is a bit off.
They even were able to save and reinsert the scene between Michael and Chooch Ravioli at the Spaghetti Laboratory when he asks Michael if he wants some Spumoni. Riveting stuff.
I saw this film in the first weeks of its release in 72. I was only 12 at the time but I convinced my parents to take me as a birthday present. I was quite taken by its darkness then, compounded by the theater was in complete darkness outside of very dim running lights on the aisles. It had immersed you so deeply in the movie. Going from the Don's office to the wedding scenes was nearly a painful transition to your eyes because of the darkness. I remember us all remarking how dark the movie was, obviously by design. Still it was very daring then to make a picture that dark. I will try and see this in a theater while it's out now, but will not even be close to the same experience. All the theaters here have been cannibalized into megaplexes and the local town theater has been drawn and quatered. Seeing a movie years ago was special on that great big screen. Nowadays, it barely has an advantage over the 4k big screen tv and sound 7.2 sound system. Oh, if we bring back the Zeigfeld theater in NYC. That was legendary.
Barqu3ntine I understand that the consensus is that Godfather III wasn’t very much loved, to put it mildly. And admittedly, there are some cringeworthy moments. I remember rolling my eyes at some scenes when I watched it originally in the theater. However, despite its many flaws, Godfather III retained many of the elements that I loved so much about the previous two masterpieces. One being, the cinematography. It was sumptuously photographed. I distinctly remember the warm rich colors and how it enveloped me like a beloved old blanket.
So... this was completely rescanned on 4k. Lawrence of Arabia was completely rescanned on 8k. And, all we have are "regular" Bluray releases.. We have Aquaman, Robin Hood, Hobbs & Shaw and other complete dross on 4k; but no Godfather and no Lawrence of Arabia. I know that market forces rule, but that's deeply sad to me. The Shining, 2001, Blade Runner, It's a Wonderful Life, Apocalypse Now, The Wizard of Oz; they prove how absolutely unbelievably beautiful old classics shot on film look in 4k when lovingly restored. MORE CLASSICS AND LESS DROSS ON 4k, PLEASE!!
Ironically, any of the new titles being shot on digital aren't really yet achieving a resolution as high as 4K--but anything shot on _analog_ film is about 6K. I wonder if 6K TVs and Blu-Rays will ever be pushed on everybody who already bought the same titles over and over.
I am Such a lover of movies an film it always blows me away when i see these restoration of movies the efforts an the expense it takes to save them also its very educational. I Remember seeing the restored Godfather one a an two at the Now closed art decor theater the Ellington in THX an experience i will forever cherish. As the house lights dimmed i an getting goose bumps as the screen was filled with the incredible beauty an sounds of these masterpieces.
I echo what so many have stated. Thank God they were able to keep the rich blacks and subtle colors that were recorded when originally shot. As a retired advertising photographer of the 80’s I shot everything on film. Kodachrome 25 was the best at the time. Exposure + Lighting was everything as there was no photoshop to save mistakes.
I hope it's just a matter of time before they release the full 4k with Dolby Vision and HDR 10+ on disc!!! the comments about resolution vs sharpness at 9:44 are so right and need to be made as often as possible!
THANK YOU for this! I searched for film restoration, came up with some o.k. videos, then I saw this! This really explains it so well. I just found an obscure 70's film, Bless The Beasts And The Children and was shocked at how good it now looks. Are you Harry Knowles? I remember when you were one of Roger's guest hosts. :-) Have a great weekend!
But I wanted the VHS anyway because I was sure they would ruin it. Then they came out with the chronological of 1 and 2. Thankfully they have re-released 1 and 2 in BLU ray and 4k. Bless
Just because the final output is 4K, why wouldn't the scan it at 5K so they'd have more to work with... Then down covert? What happens when even higher resolutions are avail for consumers... Will they go through all this again... Surely not. What am I missing?
5K isn’t an industry standard resolution. It goes 2K, then 4K, then 8K. To scan it in 8K wasn’t possible when this restoration was done (quite a while a go now). 4K was the cutting edge, and 35mm film doesn’t have much more resolution than 4K. Even if it was possible they still might not have: this Blu-day is also only 1080p, where downsampled 8K wouldn’t look much better than downsampled 4K.
@@spookylemon4947 my camera shoots 6K which is not industry standard.... But it allows me to punch-in and do other things with the final render being at 4k. I still think they should have scanned at a higher resolution if they were going through all this effort in the first place.
doveshouse Like I say, I don’t think it was really possible back in 2007. I don’t think film scanners did more than 4K. Bearing in mind they also had to choose a scanner that was delicate.
@@spookylemon4947 Ahhh my bad... I didn't realize that this was back in 2007. I was just thinking about all the effort they went through and what a shame it would be if they had to do it all over again in the (likely or unlikely) event they needed even higher res one day in the future. Of course... it would be easier the second time around presumably.
doveshouse Nah I totally get your point. I often see the same way, like when you see new Criterion releases scanned in only 2K. Don’t worry about it, it’s good to have someone to talk to
@It Is Me I have yet to find anyone who notices the man in the pancake hat between 21 seconds thru 25 stealing a piece of fruit from the woman carrying the basket while talking to the street vendor.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dT_QMTx60SE.html
I was extremely disappointed in those who created this restoration video because while they accurately described many of the challenges involved, they failed to show any side-by-side or before/after clips. Instead, they showed, as one example, the differences in color timing without then showing what they started with (the original ungraded negative), and then modified the look to achieve the color and density of the final product. They also didn't show how the various earlier transfers (for home video) and for re-release compare to this particular restoration. The old Critereon laserdisc restoration videos were far more informatives.
I agree with you, John. I wanted to see a side by side of the original untouched damaged negative up against the restoration. I am really annoyed by those who say 'scratch removal'. They should instead say 'Dirt removal'. You cannot remove a scratch. You can MASK a scratch, but a scratch on a print is forever. I, myself, have been complimented on my image restorations, and I connect with some of the statements in this video, but it is a case by base basis. What looks satisfactory to one pair of eyes looks shoddy to another, so quality is subjective.
I made no claim that there are Criterion laserdiscs of the Godfather (although I do have the laserdisc "Collector's Edition" of all three movies). I only said that "the old Critereon laserdisc restoration videos were far more informatives." There is nothing in that sentence about "The Godfather" movies. I was simply comparing the restoration videos that often accompanies Criterion's excellent transfers and restorations, such as the one that accompanies "Lawrence of Arabia," with this restoration video and nothing that this video did not include any "before/after" examples and therefore we really can't tell how much work was done, and how much improvement was really made. Don't get me wrong, I am totally impressed with the work, but whoever created this video did a disservice to those who toiled over the details by not showing it off to best advantage.
Quite right: digital scratch removal requires a huge amount of manual labor because the scratch persists from frame to frame and therefore must be tracked. It is more easily removed using a wet gate which, as you say, masks the scratch. Dirt, on the other hand, can pretty easily be removed using digital techniques because it only shows up on one frame, and you can therefore compare that frame to adjacent frames -- after using motion estimation to line up the adjacent frames with the current frame -- and then remove anything below a certain size which doesn't appear on either adjacent frame. I've created and adapted a lot of tools to do film restoration. I always provide "before/after" videos for the client. Here is one of them, queued up near the end to show how much dirt can be removed, when needed. Yes, I DO clean all film prior to transferring it, but this film sat in a garage attic in Wisconsin for 50+ years, and the dirt was baked int and could not be removed with Edwall film cleaner. However, my digital dirt removal worked wonders: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tBAHzO7rJS0.htmlm52s
Maybe they didn't show the dark scenes from the neg and then the dupes because it mightn't have put Gordon Willis exposure decisions in such a good light (no pun intended). The great scanners we have now plus the availability of the all important camera neg means they have been able to just get away it. But at time of shooting they only had photochemical, and Gordon Willis of all people knew that. Just as well that 40 years on, the technology improved. But perhaps more fundamentally, it seems assumed that the underexposed indoor images and overexposed outdoor images made a great contribution to the quality of the movie. But because the film was shot like that, we have no way of checking this. We have no normally exposed camera negs as a basis for comparison. At best it's conjecture.
