You make several good points and we are essentially in agreement. The one point where we differ is the notion that we shouldn't criticize alterations to films because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is not: Don't criticize directors because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is: Don't make controversial alterations to your films if you don't want controversy. Sometimes I wonder if certain directors do want that controversy since it draws more attention to a film that has already been purchased ad infinitum by viewers throughout its home video iterations. But that's a different discussion.
It's not the fault of physical media that certain 4K releases have had controversial changes made. And, while it's true that uninformed people could misinterpret these criticisms as a statement about 4K as a whole, I like to believe that the majority of those who purchase physical media are more informed than the average consumer. In fact, the average consumer of film content does not collect physical discs at all.
Also, I feel it necessary to remind you of your own position which is that physical media is not in danger of extinction. You have stated in the past that people who fear monger the likelihood of physical media's extinction are merely click baiting for views.
I tend to believe that physical media is unfortunately closer to extinction than you believe but I'd be ecstatic to be wrong about that. I am a huge proponent for physical media, have more than 1,000 vinyl records, and several hundred steelbooks in my collection. I would like physical media to persist throughout eternity and perhaps it will with nuts like you and me who place extreme value on art and a sense of ownership.
When it comes to nuts like us, we tend to become preoccupied with the minutiae which can cause us to miss the forest for the trees as you say. But this is evidence of the intellect of the collector. All this is to say that the people investing in physical media understand that directors making controversial alterations are responsible for backlash as opposed to the 4K format.
As far as Se7en goes, I purchased the 4K steelbook despite the alterations made. I still have the Blu-ray so this allows me to have the original film as well as the altered film.
Believe it or not, the use of AI to clean up certain shots bothers me less than the use of CGI to add and remove visual elements like the fixing of a lightbulb in one scene or the opening of a door in another.
I agree that this is not George Lucas levels of revisionism but it is revisionism nonetheless.
Thanks for continuing to make great content and I expect to remain a viewer despite any disagreements I may have with some of your philosophies. Although this email might sound like those disagreements are many, we are actually more in agreement than not. And I appreciate your propensity for posing thought-provoking discussions that are not always in line with the status quo.
"The answer is not: Don't criticize directors because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is: Don't make controversial alterations to your films if you don't want controversy. Sometimes I wonder if certain directors do want that controversy since it draws more attention to a film that has already been purchased ad infinitum by viewers throughout its home video iterations. But that's a different discussion."
You could be right. It could be just some smart marketing. Controversy sells. I still do not think that this one is a very big deal compared to some other stuff like Jaws 3 or True Lies where the changes and AI-usage become borderline offensive, even if I still enjoyed the discs overall.
Se7en was a film that put that “art” of filmmaking on the map for me way back when it was released. It’s an incredible film, beginning to end that I’d go so far as to say it’s perfect; and Fincher’s best film. Objectively, of course.
I’m a purest in every sense of the word, and I can get a little turned off when studios or producers or publishers make these types of nonsensical decisions. But in this case, we’re talking about one of the most underrated filmmakers of our time. We have to allow for some leeway for Fincher to achieve his vision, whatever that might look. And as you stated, it’s not like there’s a massive change to “what’s in the box” ;)
Reading this article, I was reminded recently of a little film called “Once Upon a Time in America”, where legendary director Sergio Leone was forced to cut a major portion of the film by studios due to length, and the film failed financially and critically as a result. Leone never got to make another film and died without seeing his vision being realized. Fast forward decades later, where the vision of Leone is restored and you can now watch the near 4-hour cut of the film; and it’s a damn masterpiece. Maybe one of the greatest films of all time... All that to say (and maybe an extreme example), let’s trust the filmmakers!
I'm totally on board with this. David Fincher loves to use the latest and greatest tech to do innovative stuff. I think he has good taste so any changes that are made using AI will just enhance the movie and support the film. The problem with the original Star Wars movies is the new changes made the movie worse and then Lucas destroyed every copy (almost all) of the film from the face of the earth like he's CCP censoring Tiananmen square.
Jeff,
You make several good points and we are essentially in agreement. The one point where we differ is the notion that we shouldn't criticize alterations to films because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is not: Don't criticize directors because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is: Don't make controversial alterations to your films if you don't want controversy. Sometimes I wonder if certain directors do want that controversy since it draws more attention to a film that has already been purchased ad infinitum by viewers throughout its home video iterations. But that's a different discussion.
It's not the fault of physical media that certain 4K releases have had controversial changes made. And, while it's true that uninformed people could misinterpret these criticisms as a statement about 4K as a whole, I like to believe that the majority of those who purchase physical media are more informed than the average consumer. In fact, the average consumer of film content does not collect physical discs at all.
Also, I feel it necessary to remind you of your own position which is that physical media is not in danger of extinction. You have stated in the past that people who fear monger the likelihood of physical media's extinction are merely click baiting for views.
I tend to believe that physical media is unfortunately closer to extinction than you believe but I'd be ecstatic to be wrong about that. I am a huge proponent for physical media, have more than 1,000 vinyl records, and several hundred steelbooks in my collection. I would like physical media to persist throughout eternity and perhaps it will with nuts like you and me who place extreme value on art and a sense of ownership.
When it comes to nuts like us, we tend to become preoccupied with the minutiae which can cause us to miss the forest for the trees as you say. But this is evidence of the intellect of the collector. All this is to say that the people investing in physical media understand that directors making controversial alterations are responsible for backlash as opposed to the 4K format.
As far as Se7en goes, I purchased the 4K steelbook despite the alterations made. I still have the Blu-ray so this allows me to have the original film as well as the altered film.
Believe it or not, the use of AI to clean up certain shots bothers me less than the use of CGI to add and remove visual elements like the fixing of a lightbulb in one scene or the opening of a door in another.
I agree that this is not George Lucas levels of revisionism but it is revisionism nonetheless.
Thanks for continuing to make great content and I expect to remain a viewer despite any disagreements I may have with some of your philosophies. Although this email might sound like those disagreements are many, we are actually more in agreement than not. And I appreciate your propensity for posing thought-provoking discussions that are not always in line with the status quo.
Wade Taylor
I think this is a great point -
"The answer is not: Don't criticize directors because it could hurt physical media.
The answer is: Don't make controversial alterations to your films if you don't want controversy. Sometimes I wonder if certain directors do want that controversy since it draws more attention to a film that has already been purchased ad infinitum by viewers throughout its home video iterations. But that's a different discussion."
You could be right. It could be just some smart marketing. Controversy sells. I still do not think that this one is a very big deal compared to some other stuff like Jaws 3 or True Lies where the changes and AI-usage become borderline offensive, even if I still enjoyed the discs overall.
Se7en on 4K looks great. Fincher didn't scrub any film grain; he only "fixed" a few scenes.
They should’ve given it to Criterion for 4K
Great article!
And yeah it’s not like Fincher is adding a cgi Kevin Spacey (shudders) into earlier scenes of the movie.
Se7en was a film that put that “art” of filmmaking on the map for me way back when it was released. It’s an incredible film, beginning to end that I’d go so far as to say it’s perfect; and Fincher’s best film. Objectively, of course.
I’m a purest in every sense of the word, and I can get a little turned off when studios or producers or publishers make these types of nonsensical decisions. But in this case, we’re talking about one of the most underrated filmmakers of our time. We have to allow for some leeway for Fincher to achieve his vision, whatever that might look. And as you stated, it’s not like there’s a massive change to “what’s in the box” ;)
Reading this article, I was reminded recently of a little film called “Once Upon a Time in America”, where legendary director Sergio Leone was forced to cut a major portion of the film by studios due to length, and the film failed financially and critically as a result. Leone never got to make another film and died without seeing his vision being realized. Fast forward decades later, where the vision of Leone is restored and you can now watch the near 4-hour cut of the film; and it’s a damn masterpiece. Maybe one of the greatest films of all time... All that to say (and maybe an extreme example), let’s trust the filmmakers!
I'm totally on board with this. David Fincher loves to use the latest and greatest tech to do innovative stuff. I think he has good taste so any changes that are made using AI will just enhance the movie and support the film. The problem with the original Star Wars movies is the new changes made the movie worse and then Lucas destroyed every copy (almost all) of the film from the face of the earth like he's CCP censoring Tiananmen square.