3 ms·

I can empathasize with the argument to keep the film unmolested and not for snobby reasons like that. I watched Peter Jackson's "They Shall not Grow Old" which

by djaque 6y ago

I can empathasize with the argument to keep the film unmolested and not for snobby reasons like that. I watched Peter Jackson's "They Shall not Grow Old" which is a collection of restored WW1 footage. Was super hyped going in, but when I saw the footage itself, it just felt off. Like the colors maybe weren't quite right or the motion was super messed up and the whole thing just felt weird and made watching it unenjoyable. I would have prefered to see it in black and white. My other gripe with the film was that he also loaded it up with sound effects and even added not well mixed VFX like extra explosions and shingles falling off roofs that appear from nowhere (hence why I'm pretty sure they were added in post). Dumping that kind of cheap blockbuster action elements actually felt pretty disrepectful of the soldiers that got filmed. Kind of like they were using them as action figures to tell a story that wasn't quite what happened in reality.

j4nt4b 6y ago
Remember, this footage was created using silent-era film equipment over a hundred years ago. Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used: hand-crank cameras meant wildly variable framerate, volatile & unstable early film stock on the frontlines of a war exposed to smoke, dust, heat, cold and gas attacks, over/under-exposed footage caught in the heat of the moment, the list goes on. What I'm saying is, you'd probably complain a lot more if you saw the original footage, or you'd skip most of it as unwatchable in its original form. Finally, there's an education factor at play. Young people deserve the best possible chance they can get to engage with their history, especially when it offers such a tremendously impactful lesson. And like it or not, I think 90% of people are going to be more engaged, not less, by well-curated, well-produced and respectful recreations of the past. Jackson recorded the SFX using original historical weapons, and colored uniforms using historical examples.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Here's a comparison frame: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/they-shall-not-grow-old-2018-003-facing-lines-of-soldiers-half-colour.jpg?itok=4WPbmKHP https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/p... https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/they-shall-not-grow-old-peter-jackson-imperial-war-museum-world-war-one-archive-footage-revived https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/re... One criticism: "However, it’s a bizarre sight that greets us, and not just because we lose the top and bottom of each frame. The effect is initially impressive, but that soon wanes. Almost every man has a creamy, peachy skin tone, and the grass in each shot is a warm, yellowy green. The sky is blue. If it weren’t for the daubs of bright red blood, and the bomb craters, this would risk being a unnaturally prettified image of war, with remarkably consistent scenery. These are really incredible images – so homogenising them in this way does them a disservice. It’s not easy either to dispel the thought that all these colours (as well as many of the sounds) are simply guesswork: the colour of hair, blankets, signs and wildflowers having been plucked out of the air." (https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-not-grow-old-honours-veterans-but-not-the-archive/ https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-...)
- shard 6y ago
  > Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used That's an interesting commentary on how much technology has advanced, and how we have become so desensitized to it. Consider that when silent films first started, the movie of a train coming right at the camera scared the audience so much that they ran out of the theatre to get out of the way of the train, IIRC. I agree on your point regarding engaging audiences. Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk probably taught more people about WW2 than many classes or books.
  - j4nt4b 6y ago
    And today people cringe if the movie they're streaming isn't in 4k. Times change!

by djaque 6y ago

j4nt4b 6y ago

Remember, this footage was created using silent-era film equipment over a hundred years ago. Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used: hand-crank cameras meant wildly variable framerate, volatile & unstable early film stock on the frontlines of a war exposed to smoke, dust, heat, cold and gas attacks, over/under-exposed footage caught in the heat of the moment, the list goes on. What I'm saying is, you'd probably complain a lot more if you saw the original footage, or you'd skip most of it as unwatchable in its original form. Finally, there's an education factor at play. Young people deserve the best possible chance they can get to engage with their history, especially when it offers such a tremendously impactful lesson. And like it or not, I think 90% of people are going to be more engaged, not less, by well-curated, well-produced and respectful recreations of the past. Jackson recorded the SFX using original historical weapons, and colored uniforms using historical examples.

mcguire 6y ago
Here's a comparison frame: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/they-shall-not-grow-old-2018-003-facing-lines-of-soldiers-half-colour.jpg?itok=4WPbmKHP https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/p... https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/they-shall-not-grow-old-peter-jackson-imperial-war-museum-world-war-one-archive-footage-revived https://www2.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/re... One criticism: "However, it’s a bizarre sight that greets us, and not just because we lose the top and bottom of each frame. The effect is initially impressive, but that soon wanes. Almost every man has a creamy, peachy skin tone, and the grass in each shot is a warm, yellowy green. The sky is blue. If it weren’t for the daubs of bright red blood, and the bomb craters, this would risk being a unnaturally prettified image of war, with remarkably consistent scenery. These are really incredible images – so homogenising them in this way does them a disservice. It’s not easy either to dispel the thought that all these colours (as well as many of the sounds) are simply guesswork: the colour of hair, blankets, signs and wildflowers having been plucked out of the air." (https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-not-grow-old-honours-veterans-but-not-the-archive/ https://silentlondon.co.uk/2018/10/16/lff-review-they-shall-...)
shard 6y ago
> Much of the footage used in the film is borderline unwatchable without the post-processing used That's an interesting commentary on how much technology has advanced, and how we have become so desensitized to it. Consider that when silent films first started, the movie of a train coming right at the camera scared the audience so much that they ran out of the theatre to get out of the way of the train, IIRC. I agree on your point regarding engaging audiences. Saving Private Ryan and Dunkirk probably taught more people about WW2 than many classes or books.
- j4nt4b 6y ago
  And today people cringe if the movie they're streaming isn't in 4k. Times change!