Blu-ray releases this fall

[Paul (ral)]

Q3 2008: 'Batman Anthology' (includes 'Batman,' 'Batman Returns,' 'Batman Forever,' 'Batman & Robin,' 'Batman Begins')

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Warner/Warner_Previews_2008/2009_Blu-ray_Slate/1439

no news on features yet.

[Paul (ral)]

I wonder if the whole HD format war has played out yet.

[Batman]

I really wish they put a couple of days of work into restoration.
BATMAN could use a some digital restoration. Erasing the purple stain on Joker's neck, for example.
Batman Returns also has two or three things that should be updated.

[Paul (ral)]

they did restore the print from the previous dvd release.

as for the 'splodge' - i think it is only us fans that notice it, and it's probably not worth $1,000's of dollars to restore.

[Batman]

Actually, I believe never noticed it until it was pointed out to me in the DVD extras.
I refuse to read blooper lists from movies that I like, cause the goofs will keep distracting me.

There are two Batman Returns blooper I just noticed while watching Returns again:

DON'T READ IF BLOOPERS DISTRACT YOU AS MUCH AS THEY DISTRACT ME!

-The gravestone next to the Penguin moves as his coat touches it

-Some of the rockets the penguins fire get stuck after a couple of feet

[Darth Vader]

They need to keep B89/BR as they are without further editing or restoration. I don't want them pulling a George Lucas on us.

[Batman]

They need to keep B89/BR as they are without further editing or restoration. I don't want them pulling a George Lucas on us.

I do. I'm sick of all the GL bashing and film restoration bashing in general.
Most people simply miss the point or don't know what they're talking about. But I don't wanna get off-topic here.

[Darth Vader]

I think you do want to get off topic. Don't worry... we will.

Reread my post and you'll find that NO, I didn't bash film restoration. I singled out one instance of it that went WAY WRONG!

There's nothing to misunderstand about film restoration. Not for me anyway. Original negatives of films dating back decades ago, generations even, start to decay (that's what exposure to dust and tainted oxygen do unfortuntely). I'm not talking Hollywood blockbusters that are only twenty years old. I'm talking about the KING KONG ERA! The 30's!

So, restorations are performed for preservation. Now the versions we do have on DVD of those classic films are probably crisp because of the hard work put into them. Because hell, even when fresh out of the editing room and onto the public theater reels BACK THEN they were grainy. The grain never added to the experience, so with modern tech the experienc is enhanced for us newcomers into the world (and grandpappy and grandma too, who'd go "Now that's a clear picture show!"  )

How old are you? Maybe Batman 1989 is thought of as old to you. But for the timeline of cinema it's not. I pop in my B89 DVD. It has the hazy feel of noir, there's little (IF ANY) grainy crap to distract me from the story, and there's nothing that needs inserted or restored. It's MODERN. It NEVER suffered from the setbacks of what the aforementioned primordial films did.

Now, George Lucas was justified somewhat for CLEANING UP THE QUALITY of the picture in the 1997 VHS and later 2004 DVD releases of the original trilogy. Even before that (in 1995 I believe), there was a VHS edition. That was acceptable. The restoration of the trilogy was acceptable.

Okay, "Batman", can you tell me what wasn't acceptable? I know you can't.

It's when George Lucas gave a bad name to the very PURPOSE of crisp picture quality. He seems to think it's interchangable with inserting NEW PROPS with endless computer generated CRAP!!

He was innovative back in 1977, and he's innovative for this, too. We sick a bunch of dorks on B89, they're likely to follow in Lucas' now PISS POOR shoes and start tweaking what does NOT need to be tweaked.

Hope YOU understand now, and hope YOU "got the point".

[Batman]

My oh my.
It seems like quite a touchy subject.

How old are you? Maybe Batman 1989 is thought of as old to you. But for the timeline of cinema it's not. I pop in my B89 DVD. It has the hazy feel of noir, there's little (IF ANY) grainy crap to distract me from the story, and there's nothing that needs inserted or restored. It's MODERN. It NEVER suffered from the setbacks of what the aforementioned primordial films did.

The problem with special effects movies is that the effects easily look dated. It doesn't really make much difference if a movie is nearly twenty years old or three. Effects date easily.
The intention of the film maker and the effects people is to sell something as real. Classic movies such as 30's King Kong work well for what they are because they have a certain vintage charm going for them.
BATMAN is still a very modern looking film and outdated effects in a film that otherwise looks very new stand out as sore thumbs.

I'm just asking for the following:
Blending the matte-painting better, removing support strings that aren't supposed there, updating the end of the shadow of Batman shot walking off (even Keaton said Burton wasn't happy with it back in 89 in an interview from a couple of years ago).
Think Ridley Scott's Blade Runner: The Final Cut.

[Paul (ral)]

I think a lot of the matte shots are fantastic.  I still think some of their uses stand up again today's cgi.

However, it would be nice for Burton to go back and tweak the things he wasn't happy with.

For the record, i don't have a problem with lucas enhancing his movies.  I do have a problem with him directing his movies though!