New "Animal House" DVD: John Landis Get's It!

Considering all the talk we've had here about DVD transfers of movies sometimes being too good, I found this item quite interesting:

http://www.davisdvd.com/News/daily_news.htm

» A DOUBLE SECRET TRANSFER
 
In what might qualify as a first in the DVD remastering and transferring process, director John Landis did not approve the new high-definition transfer for National Lampoon's Animal House; Double Secret Probation Edition after he screened it. "It just looked too good—the textiles and the skin on the actors look so unbelievably crisp," said Landis. "Animal House shouldn't look beautiful; it should have a funky look to it." The director asked the technical crew to degrade the image, thus giving it the grainier texture that he feels befits the film. "It still looks better than it has a right to look." (thanks to DVD Premieres Magazine)

 

I think Landis has a point, one we've discussed before, about how certain films are supposed to have evident grain, sometimes even I slight fuzziness, to the image. The tendency to excessively sharpen, or to brighten and color-correct--not to mention removing the grain--is analogous to NR, arbitrary Eq'ing and maximization during audio restoration. When you start going against the original spirit of the image/sound, and try to make it 'better' what usually happens is that you've altered it too much, and diminished its authenticity. Certain imperfections are endearing, not irritating; what next, a total cleanup of the newsreel in CITIZEN KANE? A little too much futzing with that one as it was.


ED

 

I dont, I think he is an ******.

DOWNGRADE the image??/? For crying out loud!!!!!

I'm sure the original, virgin negative looked beautiful. Why shouldnt the DVD??

Landis is a *****!!!!!!

[Edited, post was an attack, Sck]

 

People,

You are all entitled to your opinions, but please leave the attacks to large German Shepherds on COPS repeats.

Play on, play nice.

 

Hey, I said that because Animal House is my favorite movie. Nobody should be messing with Animal House.

 

Well, I hope not. I also hope he realizes he watched it on a pro screen.....people home screens wouldnt show that level of detail that he finds so "distracting". THATS whats bothering me. He didnt need to downgrade the image. It would have looked just fine on 99.9 % of the home systems out there.

 

Well, nobody should have 'messed' with CITIZEN KANE or the sound on AHDN, but they did; it happens. John Landis was the film's director, and if the company that owns the neg listens to his input, good for him. I'm not a big Landis fan, but the idea he has no right to dictate what his film should look like is ludicrous.

Although film studios have taken movies out of the hands of directors and re-cut them--among other atrocities--in the past, in the DVD era, studios have gone out of their way to bring directors and producers--and other members of the original film crew, when possible--to advise and even work on some key cinematic works. ANIMAL HOUSE looked pretty good in the theater back in '78, as I recall, and if what Landis wanted is in that general ballpark, that'll be fine with me. Until it's issued, obviously, there's no way to know for sure what he wanted or what it'll look like.

My point in the past about THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL applies here. Somehow, the powers-that-be managed to avoid polishing the image to the point where it looked so perfect it no longer looked like cinema; that is, it didn't lose that 'fairy dust' that made it so special back when it was first released, and keeps it enjoyable today. I'm hoping that is what Landis wants, an honest replication of the image, not something so perfect and modern-looking that it doesn't feel like 1978 anymore--let alone 1962, when the film was allegedly set(never did have that GRAFFITI feel, IMO--Landis wasn't a good enough director to involve himself with a realistic look for an era).

So, we'll just have to wait and see, literally....

Besides, how bad could it be? This is ANIMAL HOUSE, not CITIZEN KANE...not an equal playing field. One is just a funny popcorn movie, the other a classic for the ages. Equal treatment? In the modern world, it's all hit and miss.....


ED

 

You are so right, Ken, and I am contrite....as penance, tonight, CITIZEN KANE it is......


ED

 

But what if the director wants or wanted a grainy, 1978 theatrical feel to it? Nothing wrong with that.

 

Would Steve puts some "scratchy noise" onto a Frank Sinatra song to make it sound like a 1940s 78?

No!!


Same idea here

 

Just saw Animal House this weekend, the DVD collector's edition put out 4 years ago. I know what Landis means about the grainy look, it's part of it's appeal.
Some people thought the Godfather DVD should have looked sharper.
It's exactly how I remember it and think it looks great.
Maybe not as sharp as it could look but still great.

Joe

 

Kenny, I will, but just the thought that the DVD COULD have looked better and was intentionally "degraded' really pisses me off.

How would others here feel if George Martin said "You know, "Cant Buy Me Love" sounds too good...the 45 didnt sound that good...lets use a 3rd generation tape to make the new Cd from, that ought to sound like the 45 did."

Know what I mean, pallie?

 

Ken almost has it right, but it may not be so much about "putting the hiss" back into AB as not taking it out in the first place (which is what we like to call "noise reduction" around here ). Now obviously the original article about Animal House was vague, but it sounds to me like Landis was complaining about them making Animal House *too* clean - that is, using too much "noise reduction." I'm quite frankly surprised that some folks around here seem to want an overprocessed restoration.

 

Yes, it absolutely would have bothered me. I like things as good as possible, and I think most music / video fans do also.

But, yes, I'm willing to wait till it comes out and read the reviews.

 

Exactly! Sometimes with DVD mastering, they use the visual equivalent of noise reduction and it makes for a very boring, too digital-looking image. Everything looks kind of squashed, and it loses some of its dimension. That might be what the article is talking about - edge enhancement and such. Like Ken says, let's wait and see.