[noizejoy]

>> Painting out these movie mistakes as part of a restoration is wrong.

> It's really not the equivalent though. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a license plate or removing a reflection or a modern-day wristwatch.

I think it depends on the primary objective of the restoration. If I’m trying to preserve history, I shouldn’t fix errors. If I’m trying to make a (by implication derivative) work that maximizes enjoyability for (new) audiences, then it’s ok to fix.

e.g. a long time ago, I once transferred vinyl recordings of an extremely amateur community musical group to CD.

After thinking long and hard, I decided to fix recording technology flaws (a bad hum) and vinyl degradation flaws (crackles, dust, etc). But I didn’t fix any of the musical performance flaws.

Bottom line: I decided to respect the history of the performance, and disrespect the history of the recording and playback technology/medium.

[WorldMaker]

I think the book analogy is maybe useful here too. Spelling errors and even grammar and continuity errors get corrected all the time in books. Books have the concept of an Edition, a basic version number referencing each batch of production ("printing" in the case of books). For the archeologists and the very curious, you can try to find earlier Editions and compare/contrast, they don't vanish from shelves but often live side-by-side, especially in libraries with endowments or other charges to collect the full edition history of certain books.

The book community and some publishing laws have built some required transparency here. Printings and Edition numbers are generally included as key front matter in the average book by all major publishers. Library catalogs understand that as key metadata.

Today film publishing doesn't include such metadata. It could. It probably should. Arguably Lucas himself experimented with trying to include such metadata when buliding the "Special Editions". "Special" isn't a great version number, sure, but it did make it explicit the idea that movies could have multiple editions intentionally, not just accidentally or by way of the implicit chance of change during processes like digitization and media transfers.

Relatedly, there's a lot of consternation in digital media that the side-by-side "sanctity" of editions isn't preserved. If you buy a book for Amazon's kindle at First Edition, it will silently deliver every updated Edition. Covers will change from the original art to "Motion Picture Inspired By This Book" art (or TV show, etc). There's a lot of questions about how much should Amazon disclose every time this happens and how much should Amazon be required to give you a copy of the edition you originally paid for on request?

(Maybe ideally every bit of media is collected in some form of "source control"? I wonder what it would take to make some form of source control the "required" or at least "most desired" form of digital distribution?)

[echelon]

In 100 years (probably sooner), the vast majority of people won't be watching our films anymore. Those deep catalogs of IP have lower value with each passing year.

Films are becoming less and less popular with new forms of entertainment that are more immediate, more democratized or individualistic. Our dopamine is being juiced and our attention getting sucked into games, social media, and all other kinds of long tail attractors. Influencers are bigger than Hollywood stars. They simply cater to more interests. Distribution and production are no longer hard problems, so you don't need to build up a Hollywood star.

Film is becoming what radio used to be. It may never become as niche as the radio drama is today, but it certainly won't have the same limitless trajectory we thought it would have pre-pandemic.

Whatever we do today to "fix" films or make them more accessible is accomplishing one thing: extending their lifespan for as long as most (average, non-film connoisseur) people might still be interested in watching.

[gerdesj]

"In 100 years (probably sooner), the vast majority of people won't be watching our films anymore."

I quite strongly disagree with you. I lived through the latter stages of the transition from monochrome to full colour and various other things that were hailed as game changers that would render the previous status quo as somehow defunct.

I defy you to watch something like a Harold Lloyd movie involving a clock and not have sweaty palms or at least a mildly elevated ... emotional response of some sort.

We call them films or movies or whatever but those are long form stories. A book might be one too or a pdf. The novella is a short story. A matinee was an extended session at the cinema with multiple "value adds" to the main production. Theatre ... cartoons ... you know how this goes!

Might I remind you that you have only two eyes, which means that a radio drama in your car is the only safe media for a "drama" in a car, for the driver. You do get aural distraction but it is mostly manageable. One day you will have FSD (Mr Musk says so) and you will be able to watch telly with your feet on the dash but that is not today.

Media and formats change but the purpose is largely the same: telling a story. We are, after all, the story telling ape.

[toast0]

> Whatever we do today to "fix" films or make them more accessible is accomplishing one thing: extending their lifespan for as long as most (average, non-film connoisseur) people might still be interested in watching.

OTOH, it's fun to watch for goofs in movies, and if they're fixed up, then there's less reason to watch some of these movies.

[anal_reactor]

> In 100 years (probably sooner), the vast majority of people won't be watching our films anymore. Those deep catalogs of IP have lower value with each passing year.

The fact that when I die nobody will care about my porn collection is deeply unsettling. I'm saying this seriously, because it's something I enjoy so much, yet nobody else cares.

[glenngillen]

Another form of this observation is what initiated the flood of private equity into music back catalogs - people will go back and listen to music many many more times than they will a lot of other content. And the longevity of it is much longer, especially when you consider remixes, covers, and samples.

Every so often I’ll throw on some old jazz standards I’ve never heard of. Some classical music. Some early soul and R&B.

Old movies though? Only the iconic ones through a sense of obligation (eg, school/study) or someone convincing me I absolutely have to. Metropolis, Citizen Kane, interesting movies for their time and contribution. I just don’t feel the need to go back to this stuff the same way I actually enjoy going back to old music or other art.

[seanmcdirmid]

I don’t really think that’s true with AI in the mix. Yes, they won’t be watching those specific movies, but AI will be trained on them and even use them as context. You could generate a new updated movie set between ANH and ESB with AI versions of the original actors when they were young and alive. Cinema could start to get really interesting, and anything new is just a remix of the old anyways (we just build on what we have done much faster and more cheaply).

[Spooky23]

I disagree. IMO the film is more like a novel. The styles will vary, but most feature films are the modern embodiment of a play, a medium that has existed for thousands of years.

Styles change and not every movie will “survive” long term. But stories endure.