'Godfather' Restoration Now That Much Harder to Refuse
Filed under: Drama, Paramount, Exhibition, Remakes and Sequels, Images
Cinematical has been passed along these images which are making the rounds and demonstrate how Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather looks following a print restoration before its run at the New York Film Forum beginning tomorrow (the second one has been included after the jump).
Christopher Campbell made the initial mention of the plans for showing that film and Part II over the next few weeks, leading up to their Blu-Ray release on September 23rd (fans of Part III will just have to tough it out). Mind you, these comparsion shots are indicative of only the print, and not necessarily what those discs will look like.
What more can be said? The films themselves are great, and now they should look (and sound) just as great for the first time in a long time, and if I had the chance, I'd probably make a point of catching the restoration myself. Any of our NYC readers planning to make the most of this opportunity?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-11-2008 @ 5:59PM
Matt said...
i am there. just moved to nyc and this will be my first movie-going experience in the city. couldn't be more appropriate.
Reply
9-11-2008 @ 5:59PM
MCW said...
I certainly don't think these images are the best example of the improvements. After it comes out, you should visit blu-ray.com for a big picture example.
I think I'll pick up GF1 on Blu-ray. Didn't really care for the sequels, but may be worth trying them again.
Reply
9-14-2008 @ 11:29AM
Jayhoosafat said...
What on earth are you babbling about?
9-14-2008 @ 12:00PM
MCW said...
I made it perfectly clear what I was talking about dork.
9-11-2008 @ 5:59PM
puddy77 said...
It looks like these images came from a great article in American Cinematographer magazine a few months ago detailing the restoration.
http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/May2008/PostFocus/page1.php
There is a 3rd shot there.
Reply
9-11-2008 @ 8:37PM
Scott Weinberg said...
Photos actually came from a publicist yesterday. Appreciate the accusation though! ;)
9-11-2008 @ 5:59PM
Adam P said...
I saw the first picture and laughed -- I thought it was a mockup by cinematical staff. How could I have ever enjoyed a movie that was had such poor image quality?? But there you have it -- the restoration is needed.... like when you was off your headlights in the winter and find you can drive at night again safely.
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 11:39PM
chris ackerman said...
well that's what the original film stock looks like today, it's aged a lot
Star Wars was the same way before it was restored
9-11-2008 @ 5:59PM
keyser2007 said...
What is this hyped up bullshit? I've never seen Godfather look as bad as they're making the "before" shots look. That looks worse than broadcast television. This reminds me of people pigging out to pack on some pounds right before they go on a diet so they can make it look like they're losing more weight.
There's gotta be a better way to pimp your product than bogus before/after images. F you, blu-ray. VHS til I die!
Reply
9-11-2008 @ 7:54PM
mike said...
I will be at both screenings and I can't wait.
But the ASC mag article is really good. The prints where really that bad even the restored print will look better on DVD than the original DVD. But of course the Blu will look the best.
Reply
9-11-2008 @ 11:18PM
PMAC3522 said...
Didn't really care for the sequels? I can see not liking the third one (which is not as bad as most people would have you believe), but Godfather II is one of if not the best sequel ever made. Definitely getting these Blu-rays when they come out.
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 9:23AM
zarvos said...
How many times can a film be remastered or restored? If I remember correctly, the Godfather films were remastered for Laser Disc in the late 90's, then remastered again when they came to DVD, and now re-re-remastered/restored for BD/DVD. I've never seen any of the Godfather films look as bad as the examples. (Star Wars, yes) I've seen the originals when they came to theaters in the early 70's, and to be honest, I haven't seen any real difference or degradation since then. So what's all the hubbub? It's all marketing to sell more copies to the public, because the emperor has no clothes. Someday, even Lucas will miraculously find some immaculate prints of the original Star Wars films and release them on BD/DVD in anamorphic widescreen.
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 9:48AM
Moore_Roger said...
Learn to read: They restored the FILM PRINT. They went and did a high def retransfered the actual print of film that over time, can fade or have other defects. This isn't any video version you have seen before.
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 10:48AM
John said...
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't know they remastered/transferred from old video versions. I thought when they state being transferred and remastered from the original negatives or master prints, they generally mean the FILM PRINT.
Regardless of the bickering & nitpicking - I've never seen that bad of a print (film or video) of GF I & II, and I've seen it quite a few times in theaters and on video. That includes generational prints and age artifacts. Hopefully, they won't soften or eliminate the film grain when it gets transferred to BD.
9-12-2008 @ 12:04PM
cine phil said...
The 'before' pictures are a bit ridiculous. Where did they come from? 35mm prints of the original release still exist-they were made in old Technicolor and do not fade-and they still have all their original color and sharpness. If the negatives have been ruined by overuse or neglect it shouldn't be all that difficult to generate new ones out of the camera negative.
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 3:55PM
Jerry Z said...
Will the only flaw in either film -- James Caan's famous phantom punch -- be gone?
Reply
9-12-2008 @ 11:01PM
damian begley said...
I could care less about photos from a magazine or Web site. I'm interested in seeing the movies. I'll be there for the first show on the next two Tuesdays.
P.S. Goodfellas was the real Godfather III.
Reply
9-13-2008 @ 1:08AM
babs said...
Technicolor doesn't fade? Actually, it does--almost all color film does eventually. Technicolor prints have more longevity when it comes to being fade-resistant, but as it was stated in the American Cinematographer article, the restoration was the original film negative, and Technicolor negatives don't last nearly as long, color-wise.
However, I do have a problem with the first picture, which shows the film faded to blue. The cyan layer is the first to go, so faded film almost always looks pink, not blue. Something's definitely weird about that.
Reply
9-14-2008 @ 12:13AM
fairportfan said...
"the restoration was the original film negative, and Technicolor negatives don't last nearly as long, color-wise."
Wrong.
Since *true* Technicolor negatives are, in fact, ordinary b&w film, they pretty much can't fade.
True Technicolor exposes three b&w negatives, one each for blue, yellow and red light. And the printing is not an optical process.
According to the Wikipedia article, the last actual *true* Technicolor USmade film is "Foxfire" (1955).
These days films are shot on single-strip negative film and - sometimes, not always - printed by the Technicolor dye-imbibation process after three master b&w negs are derived from the original neg.
As Wikipedia says: "In the case of post-1953 Technicolor movies, the dye transfer release prints never faded, whereas the color negatives from which they were derived, the cyan record faded in as little as five years."
9-13-2008 @ 2:00AM
Lyle said...
Is it just me, or does it seem like the "before" half of these images look a lot worse than what you actually see if you have the Godfather trilogy DVD boxed set? It looks as if they tried to make them look worse, almost like a fuzzy black and white. I realize the photography intentionally used muted colors, lots of browns, golds, yellows, etc., but it sure doesn't look THAT bad! Methinks someone's trying to sell us something.
Reply