MovieChat Forums > Legend (1986) Discussion > My thoughts on the Blu-ray

My thoughts on the Blu-ray

posted 14 years ago by AntoNEO
11 replies | jump to latest

I've been disappointed to find a notable lack of critical reviews of the new Legend Blu-ray, as I usually use them as a barometer when deciding whether or not to upgrade from DVD. Ultimately, I decided to blind buy the Blu and hope for the best. Having now watched the film, I decided to write an Amazon review to help out fellow fans of the film who are trying to decide whether or not to buy the Blu-ray. If anyone is interested, here are my thoughts (pasted directly from that review):

--------------------------------------------------------------

A beautiful HD presentation for a visually sumptuous fantasy

By this point in time, most of you probably already know whether you are fans of Legend or not, so I won't spend much time detailing the various pros and cons of the film. Suffice it to say, in my humble opinion, the film is a beautifully rendered unapologetic classical fantasy, and for that, I think it succeeds admirably. While it certainly isn't one of Ridley Scott's best films, it is undoubtedly one of his most beautiful. The world he creates is stunning to behold - full of ravishing color, sumptuous detail, and an overall sense of storybook wonder that has rarely been matched.

It is because of the film's visual splendor that I have eagerly awaited its release on Blu-ray. Even when I happily purchased the Ultimate Edition DVD a few years back, I remember thinking that it felt like there was simply too much detail for the standard definition frame to handle. The DVD certainly gave a wonderful impression of the film's beauty, but many of the details seemed to get lost in the mix. As such, it was with a sense of great anticipation that I finally procured a copy of Legend on Blu-ray.

The first thing you'll find when playing either version of the film is a written introduction from Ridley Scott about the source elements used in the transfer process. In short, the Theatrical Cut is transferred from a 2006 HD master, and the Director's Cut is newly transferred in HD from the only remaining "answer print" of the film. Scott discusses the limitations of answer prints, and he seems to feel that the Theatrical Cut has the overall better transfer due to the sources used. Having read this, I prepared myself accordingly and proceeded to do some back-and-forth comparisons of the two versions.

Interestingly enough, I disagree with Scott's sentiments on the two transfers. The Director's Cut is my preferred version of the film, so I decided to sample it first. The opening scenes in the forest provided exactly the type of presentation I was hoping for: richly detailed, awash in vibrant colors, and organically film-like. A big smile swam across my face as I watched, for I felt like I was finally seeing Legend in all of its detailed glory. To be sure, the presentation isn't perfect, and there are times when the print shows its age and limitations: certain shots appear softer than others, and there's the occasional shot that looks downright murky, but on the whole, the film looks just as good as I'd hoped it would. Having given the Director's Cut a decent sampling, I then decided to check out the Theatrical Cut for comparison. If the Director's Cut looked this good, I couldn't imagine how great the Theatrical Cut would look.

To my surprise, despite the supposedly higher quality elements, I found the Theatrical Cut transfer to be less desirable than the Director's Cut, and I can point to one primary reason why: edge enhancement. Depending on the individual viewer and one's sensitivity to edge enhancement, the severity of this issue could vary quite a bit. As for me, I'm pretty sensitive to it, so I immediately noticed it when comparing the opening forest scenes to those found in the Director's Cut. The various leaves and blades of grass all have artificial sharpening halos that make the image appear less three-dimensional and film-like. It's certainly not the most egregious use of edge-enhancement out there, but it's definitely noticeable. To be fair, the image still looks miles better than its standard-definition counterpart, and there are certain shots in the film that look better than they do in the Director's Cut, but in my opinion, the Theatrical Cut just doesn't look as organic as the Director's Cut does. My guess is that this disparity in quality between the two transfers has mostly to do with their relative age - the Theatrical Cut transfer being a few years old and the Director's Cut transfer being brand new.

The other notable difference between the two transfers is the color timing. On the whole, the Theatrical Cut appears a bit more saturated than the Director's Cut. The greens tend to pop a little more (partially aided by the aforementioned edge-enhancement, no doubt), and Darkness' red complexion feels a bit more prominent. Don't get me wrong, the Director's Cut is still full of color and vibrancy too, but it appears to be a shade more muted than the Theatrical Cut. To be honest, I think the quality of the color will mostly boil down to personal preference; they both look good, they're just a little different.

As far as the audio is concerned, I have to once again give the edge to the Director's Cut. The overall audio clarity is more pronounced in the Director's Cut, whereas the Theatrical Cut mix tends to sound a bit murkier. Furthermore, Jerry Goldsmith's orchestral score sounds full and rich, whereas Tangerine Dream's score sounds a bit flat by comparison. This is not to say that the Theatrical Cut sounds bad, rather it simply doesn't have the same richness as the Director's Cut. Admittedly, I'm not nearly as attuned to audio transfers as I am video transfers, so I apologize for any lack of detail in this regard.

Aside from that, we're treated to the same extras as were found on the Ultimate Edition DVD, so you won't be getting anything new in the supplemental department. I know the reason most people will be interested in picking up the Blu-ray is for the high definition transfer, so I hope that my thoughts on the matter have been helpful in some way. To summarize: in my opinion, the Theatrical Cut looks good (despite a dated transfer with some notable edge-enhancement), and the Director's Cut looks great (despite the supposedly lesser source material). However, depending on one's preferred version of the film, as well as what one looks for in an HD transfer, the pros and cons of this Blu-ray may vary from viewer to viewer.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

I've been disappointed to find a notable lack of critical reviews of the new Legend Blu-ray, as I usually use them as a barometer when deciding whether or not to upgrade from DVD. Ultimately, I decided to blind buy the Blu and hope for the best. Having now watched the film, I decided to write an Amazon review to help out fellow fans of the film who are trying to decide whether or not to buy the Blu-ray. If anyone is interested, here are my thoughts (pasted directly from that review):

Hey, AntoNEO! I'd noticed the lack of reviews--someone mentioned Universal didn't send out review copies?--which led me here in hopes another poster had given the Blu-ray a look. Pleasantly surprised to find your input.

I haven't even made the jump to HD, but I'm always curious to see how some of my favorite films are faring on Blu-ray. Really pleased the alleged deficits of "Answer Print" mastering aren't showing much (if at all) with the DC. I don't know much about transfer tech...and it makes me a little nervous that that lone print is the only source of the Director's Cut. But at least it's been digitized...and we can only hope that the next, next generation video formats--and transfer techniques--will be able to wring even better quality out of an already great looking print.

What was your impression of the Director's Cut? What almost seemed an apologetic fairy tale in the US theatrical version was shown to be an earnest, organic, art film rendering of those archetypes. I think a lot of the criticisms of the domestic version of LEGEND stemmed from the whittled down running time, the attempt at a hipper sound via Tangerine Dream; probably what prompted a few of those dismissals of its being nothing but a sleek looking "shampoo commercial." The DC, though... Man, it can breathe, and it feels alive.

Glad it's made a successful jump to Blu!

[–] AntoNEO 14 years ago

Fancy meeting you here, jack! I hope you've been doing well.

I'm glad to have filled a little bit of the review void for you. I hate it when there are no reviews to turn to. Thankfully I found one review of the blu-ray before buying, and it was good, so given the reasonable asking price, I figured I'd just go ahead and buy it, but I still prefer to be more well-informed before making my purchases. As such, I'm glad it worked out in this case.

To be honest, I'm embarrassed to say that my first exposure to Legend was when I bought the Director's Cut DVD a few years back. I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan, but somehow this one slipped under my radar up until that time. As such, the first version I saw was the Director's Cut, which I loved on my first viewing. When I watched the Theatrical Cut for comparison, I couldn't believe how much had been altered - both in terms of narrative and tone. I'm sure if I'd grown up with that version I'd have a soft spot for it, but having seen the Director's Cut first, the Theatrical Cut really only exists as a curiosity piece for me. Still, I do enjoy watching it from time to time, if only to see how much difference a change in edit and musical score can make for a film.

I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings that the Director's Cut feels like a full blown fantasy art film. When I first saw it, it immediately called to mind the surreal artistic wonders of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, a film that I'm a huge fan of. Upon listening to the commentary, I was even more pleased to find out that Beauty and the Beast was one of Scott's primary influences in making the film. It definitely shows! Suffice it to say that I find the Director's Cut rather stunning - from Jerry Goldsmith's operatic orchestral score, to Ridley Scott's achingly painterly visuals, to the amazing production and creature design, the film conjures some of the purest cinematic fantasy iconography that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. And as I've hopefully already made clear, the experience is amplified exponentially by seeing the film in high-definition.

All this is to say that I would definitely recommend picking up the Legend Blu-ray once you officially take the HD plunge.

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

To be honest, I'm embarrassed to say that my first exposure to Legend was when I bought the Director's Cut DVD a few years back. I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan, but somehow this one slipped under my radar up until that time. As such, the first version I saw was the Director's Cut, which I loved on my first viewing. When I watched the Theatrical Cut for comparison, I couldn't believe how much had been altered - both in terms of narrative and tone. I'm sure if I'd grown up with that version I'd have a soft spot for it, but having seen the Director's Cut first, the Theatrical Cut really only exists as a curiosity piece for me. Still, I do enjoy watching it from time to time, if only to see how much difference a change in edit and musical score can make for a film.

Doing fine, Anto. Hope you are too.

I can recollect seeing the first trailers in theater for LEGEND which, I think, still featured Jerry Goldsmith's music credit. And as if to remind of his previous collaboration with Scott, it was tracked with music from ALIEN. That music working in tandem with a few, tantalizing snippets of footage suggested another exotic, otherwordly trip from Scott...and I was pretty psyched.

Before the age of the Internet, the next hint that there'd been some drastic rethinking of the film by Universal came in the form of seeing the lobby poster listing Tangerine Dream for music. Disappointing, to say the least...and it was some time before there was any writing about what had happened; poor test screenings, the re-edit, dumping the original score...and the retention of it by Fox for the European market (in a slightly longer cut of the film). So it was the awareness that something had apparently gone awry that had biased me against the domestic release, even if I was still thoroughly impressed with the visuals and texture of it... I lived in a perpetual state of envy for those who'd seen the European version, as I never managed to import any laser release.

So from that time of the original stint in theaters in '85 or '86 on through multiple viewings of the 'Dream scored theatrical version on video, I was still massively jonesing to see anything approaching Scott's original vision for the film when Universal put out The Ultimate Edition, which--as you can probably imagine--made for a revelatory series of viewings exhibiting just how different the original sensibility had been. Goldsmith's amazing score, which I'd found on a foreign import alluded to what LEGEND had been, but seeing is believing.

I thought that set was among the more remarkable things to happen on video: The finding and release, alongside the theatrical cut, of what was basically Scott's original sense of what LEGEND should be before test screenings and studio politics began to contort it into something else.

I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings that the Director's Cut feels like a full blown fantasy art film. When I first saw it, it immediately called to mind the surreal artistic wonders of Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast, a film that I'm a huge fan of. Upon listening to the commentary, I was even more pleased to find out that Beauty and the Beast was one of Scott's primary influences in making the film. It definitely shows! Suffice it to say that I find the Director's Cut rather stunning - from Jerry Goldsmith's operatic orchestral score, to Ridley Scott's achingly painterly visuals, to the amazing production and creature design, the film conjures some of the purest cinematic fantasy iconography that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. And as I've hopefully already made clear, the experience is amplified exponentially by seeing the film in high-definition.

All this is to say that I would definitely recommend picking up the Legend Blu-ray once you officially take the HD plunge.

I think Scott's simple, yet ambitious objective was to give these forms their most lavish and textured depictions to date. To make the mythic feel real, warts and all (especially on the Goblins), without taking away its larger than life majesty. I thought he pulled it off like gangbusters, and I never got hung up on the idea that LEGEND was probably never meant to be all that emotionally engaging. It was completely transporting--especially The Director's Cut--and that was enough for me.

As soon as I get the opportunity to drink in those mythic visuals in HD, I'll let you know what I think. For now, that 'Ultimate' DVD will get another spin!

[–] AntoNEO 14 years ago

Wow, that's quite the journey you've had with the film! I can't imagine what a fulfilling experience it must have been to finally see the Director's Cut. I'm 24 years old, so I've had the pleasure of enjoying DVD-related goodies for the majority of my film-watching life. As such, I almost take for granted the fact that a Director's Cut of a given film will eventually make it's way to DVD and Blu-ray, even if it gets cut to smithereens during its initial theatrical release (Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind - yet another Scott film that ended up with a horribly compromised theatrical cut). All this is to say that I can't imagine how frustrating it must've been knowing that there was a wholly different version of the film out there that you would never get to see. Following that, I also can't imagine how wonderful it must've been when the Ultimate DVD edition was first announced, knowing you'd finally get to see that version. 20+ years of anticipation - officially fulfilled!

I actually just got done watching the Theatrical Cut again (on Blu-ray). I'd watched the HD Director's Cut in full, but only snippets of the Theatrical Cut for reviewing purposes. Having now watched the TC in full, I altered my review a little bit, mostly with regard to the sound, which is actually noticeably better in the Director's Cut. Also, having now seen the whole TC in HD, I can honestly say that it's a dated transfer. HD transfers have come a long way in the last couple years, and if the TC had gotten a new one along with the DC, it probably would've ended up being the superior looking version, if only marginally so. As it stands, what we have now is a dated (but reasonably solid) transfer of a great print (in the TC) and a great transfer of a slightly lesser print (in the DC). Having done a ton of comparing now, the only "limitation" I can see in the answer print would arguably be the color. As I mentioned in my review, there are certain colors that don't have quite as much pop to them as they do in the TC, but they still look really good taken on their own terms. There are also a couple instances where the print appears a bit darker in the DC, but that seems more like an aesthetic difference than a downright flaw. When all is said and done, I'd personally much rather have slightly muted colors than a subpar transfer, and it sounds like this is as good as the DC is going to look given the current technology, so I'm completely happy with the Director's Cut transfer (especially since it's my version of choice). Fans of the Theatrical Cut might be slightly disappointed that they didn't get a new HD transfer too, but as I've said before, it's still a nice upgrade from the DVD.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there for completion's sake. Sorry if I'm getting too detailed and nerdy here. As you know, sometimes I just can't help myself.

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

Wow, that's quite the journey you've had with the film! I can't imagine what a fulfilling experience it must have been to finally see the Director's Cut. I'm 24 years old, so I've had the pleasure of enjoying DVD-related goodies for the majority of my film-watching life. As such, I almost take for granted the fact that a Director's Cut of a given film will eventually make it's way to DVD and Blu-ray, even if it gets cut to smithereens during its initial theatrical release (Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind - yet another Scott film that ended up with a horribly compromised theatrical cut). All this is to say that I can't imagine how frustrating it must've been knowing that there was a wholly different version of the film out there that you would never get to see. Following that, I also can't imagine how wonderful it must've been when the Ultimate DVD edition was first announced, knowing you'd finally get to see that version. 20+ years of anticipation - officially fulfilled!

Oh, plenty gratifying! So sweet to finally see it--to quote a goblin--I could eat its brains like jam! It didn't hurt that the mythical Answer Print offered the longest, finished version of LEGEND known to exist... Not being familiar with the European Cut, I have to leave it to others to judge whether the additional twenty minutes is always an enhancement. But it sounds like it really helps the narrative flow of the film--just gives the audience more time to inhabit that world--and doesn't feature some of the choppy music edits to Goldsmith's score the European does...

What's your feeling on this?

I actually just got done watching the Theatrical Cut again (on Blu-ray). I'd watched the HD Director's Cut in full, but only snippets of the Theatrical Cut for reviewing purposes. Having now watched the TC in full, I altered my review a little bit, mostly with regard to the sound, which is actually noticeably better in the Director's Cut. Also, having now seen the whole TC in HD, I can honestly say that it's a dated transfer. HD transfers have come a long way in the last couple years, and if the TC had gotten a new one along with the DC, it probably would've ended up being the superior looking version, if only marginally so. As it stands, what we have now is a dated (but reasonably solid) transfer of a great print (in the TC) and a great transfer of a slightly lesser print (in the DC). Having done a ton of comparing now, the only "limitation" I can see in the answer print would arguably be the color. As I mentioned in my review, there are certain colors that don't have quite as much pop to them as they do in the TC, but they still look really good taken on their own terms. There are also a couple instances where the print appears a bit darker in the DC, but that seems more like an aesthetic difference than a downright flaw. When all is said and done, I'd personally much rather have slightly muted colors than a subpar transfer, and it sounds like this is as good as the DC is going to look given the current technology, so I'm completely happy with the Director's Cut transfer (especially since it's my version of choice). Fans of the Theatrical Cut might be slightly disappointed that they didn't get a new HD transfer too, but as I've said before, it's still a nice upgrade from the DVD.

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there for completion's sake. Sorry if I'm getting too detailed and nerdy here. As you know, sometimes I just can't help myself.

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

Sounds great. I certainly don't mind if the DC outshines the theatrical a bit, especially considering the limitations of the source. And maybe they deliberately used the existing theatrical transfer so the two versions wouldn't present too jolting a discrepancy in quality?

Beyond that, if Universal put a little extra elbow grease into their polish of the DC, almost feels like they're atoning for past misdeeds! As though, were they to do it all over again, they'd take it all back with a wave of a Unicorn horn and release the DC to theaters for the North American markets... ;)

You know, not that I hate the theatrical version, but it always leaves me with a feeling like they should've called it "LEGEND: Undermined Edition."

[–] AntoNEO 14 years ago

But it sounds like it really helps the narrative flow of the film--just gives the audience more time to inhabit that world--and doesn't feature some of the choppy music edits to Goldsmith's score the European does...

What's your feeling on this?

My first feeling is that you've officially clarified a small confusion I've had. I always thought that the European Cut and the Director's Cut were the same thing, but then I was confused by the fact that Scott refers to a cut that's ten minutes longer on the special features (whereas the Director's Cut is closer to twenty-five minutes longer). He must've been referring to the European Cut when he said that. Thanks for the clarification!

Having just checked the IMDb "alternate versions" page, it looks like there's a pretty detailed breakdown of the different versions for you there. Whether they're entirely accurate is another matter, but at least it gives you an idea. Whatever the case may be, I'm entirely happy with the length of the Director's Cut. I love spending time in the world of Legend with all of its colorful characters. As you say, the longer cut allows the world to breathe a lot more comfortably. Furthermore, it feels a lot less like a fantasy music video and a lot more like a fantasy experience (almost like a living painting at times). Not to mention the fact that everything just makes more sense to me in the Director's Cut. When I watched the Theatrical Cut again yesterday, I found my mind wandering, and I simply didn't feel nearly as involved as I do during the Director's Cut. Furthermore, I still can't say enough about Goldsmith's score, which to my mind, is an astounding piece of composition that complements that theatrical and operatic fantasy elements beautifully. The Tangerine Dream score pales by comparison, in my opinion. It provides a nice time capsule I suppose (as it feels very 80s), but the film doesn't feel nearly as timeless or memorable to me without the Goldsmith score. But I digress. I'd be interested to see the European Cut some day for curiosity's sake, but I love the Director's Cut and honestly wouldn't want it to be any shorter.

Sounds great. I certainly don't mind if the DC outshines the theatrical a bit, especially considering the limitations of the source. And maybe they deliberately used the existing theatrical transfer so the two versions wouldn't present too jolting a discrepancy in quality?

While that certainly gives them the benefit of the doubt, I would think that it's more likely that they didn't want to go through the trouble and money of doing another HD transfer for the theatrical cut. However, I don't want to be too harsh on them, as I'm elated that they decided to do a brand new transfer for the Director's Cut.

Beyond that, if Universal put a little extra elbow grease into their polish of the DC, almost feels like they're atoning for past misdeeds! As though, were they to do it all over again, they'd take it all back with a wave of a Unicorn horn and release the DC to theaters for the North American markets... ;)

To be fair, according to the special features, it sounds like the changes made to the film were as much Scott's as anyone else's. He certainly takes full responsibility for them on the documentary. In fact, he says there were others who were even trying to reel him in from making so many changes. Scott tells a story about a preview screening where there was apparently a group of "snickerers" who were making him extremely paranoid about the film and whether or not it was working. Apparently he got too caught up in that frame of mind and ended up losing faith in the film, resulting in tons of changes to the film. Honestly, I understand his point of view. Whenever I had a film of mine screen for an audience in film school, I was always hyper-sensitive to the sounds the audience made. Even just a slight shuffle in the seats could make me think my film was terrible. It sounds like a similar thing happened to Scott. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw it out there for what it's worth. I know it's usually the studio stepping in and changing things, and I'm sure there was some of that as well (you may know more than I do in this regard), but Scott seems pretty up front about why he made the changes that he did.

Just one more thing about the Blu-ray transfer. Someone commented on my Amazon review with some interesting thoughts, so I thought I'd post that comment here (as well as my response) for completion's sake:

COMMENT:
"I saw the theatrical cut opening Day on the big scren back in 1986. The theatrical cut color timing represents how the film looked exactly from my recollection of it. The greens were there as Alex Thompson was Director of Photography on this, and he also shot 1980's Excalibur, which used a lot of green too, and he used the greens in this too though not as much. The other thing to remember too is that this is, which exception of First Blood and Michael Mann's The Keep, the only American film shot on Fuji stock. First blood was printed to Kodak stock for theatrical release, but Legend was kept all on Fuji stocks. Since Fuji is much more color saturated than Eastman (Kodak)stocks, and it reads more into the pastels, it is always far more vibrant than anything that would be shot or released on Eastman stocks. It was also far visibly sharper, and did not have as much grain as Eastman stocks. So what you are looking at in the theatrical version is how the film looked at the theater. In fact, I still remember not seeing that much grain in the blacks on the opening scrawl and thinking "hey how come this movie looks like that?". It was also extremely sharp too. Many Hollywood DP's argued with studios to let them shoot on Fuji stocks for years, but the studios had major bulk contracts (and discounts) with Eastman, so they were always turned down. Hiro Narita begged to shoot Star Trek 6 on Fuji but Paramount told him he had to use Eastman. I am not sure how Legend First Blood and Legend were able to use it other than they were pretty much negative pick up films. The Directors cut is taken from an answer print, and they tend to be grainy due to the stocks they printed them on. They also didn't really do too much color correction tot hem as they were for approval."

MY RESPONSE:
"Thanks for the insight! It's great to hear from someone who saw the film in theaters. Unfortunately, I wasn't even alive to see it at that time, which is why I'm so happy to have the Blu-ray. I watched the Theatrical Cut in full last night, and the colors are beautiful and indeed preferable (in my opinion) to those found in the Director's Cut. Your discussion about the film stocks used was very interesting, and it better illuminates why Scott likes the Theatrical print more. Admittedly, aside from the slightly muted colors, I still prefer the overall look of the Director's Cut for its more filmic aesthetic, as it provides more texture and depth in my opinion (how funny that this very look may be the result of the grainier answer print). Also, as sharp as the Theatrical Cut may have been in theaters, I'm sure it didn't have any edge enhancement when it played theatrically, and I'm not a fan of the artificial sharpening that is evident on the Blu-ray transfer. Edge enhancement aside though, it's good to know that the Theatrical Cut is indeed representative of the way it originally looked in theaters. Thanks again for your insight on that!"

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

Furthermore, I still can't say enough about Goldsmith's score, which to my mind, is an astounding piece of composition that complements that theatrical and operatic fantasy elements beautifully. The Tangerine Dream score pales by comparison, in my opinion. It provides a nice time capsule I suppose (as it feels very 80s), but the film doesn't feel nearly as timeless or memorable to me without the Goldsmith score.

There were a few, fleeting moments when I didn't mind so much what Tangerine Dream did. But as one example of where their take is near disastrous, I'd point to the revelation of the Unicorns. Goldsmith managed to create a sound that was both lyrical, ethereal, and conveyed a sense of genuine awe. That's tough to do with, well Unicorns...and 'Dream kind of lapsed back into what would be the norm; a cloying, cheesy approach that either invited mockery or was, itself, mocking of the material (never could put my finger on it).

Another: Lili's transformation. Goldsmith goes grandly operatic, as though Fates were Dueling (they were), and Tangerine Dream seems to be scoring a young girl hosting a tea party for her Teddy Bear; strikingly underwhelming. A message was being transmitted, a meek plea to the audience: Let's pretend, shall we? When the right approach, the original approach was to just declare This is Real, and You're There...

I don't know... I understand TD's approach was informed by a desire for a different sound...and they can't really be faulted if the one requested--and which they delivered--was the wrong one for the film.

To be fair, according to the special features, it sounds like the changes made to the film were as much Scott's as anyone else's. He certainly takes full responsibility for them on the documentary. In fact, he says there were others who were even trying to reel him in from making so many changes. Scott tells a story about a preview screening where there was apparently a group of "snickerers" who were making him extremely paranoid about the film and whether or not it was working. Apparently he got too caught up in that frame of mind and ended up losing faith in the film, resulting in tons of changes to the film. Honestly, I understand his point of view. Whenever I had a film of mine screen for an audience in film school, I was always hyper-sensitive to the sounds the audience made. Even just a slight shuffle in the seats could make me think my film was terrible. It sounds like a similar thing happened to Scott. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw it out there for what it's worth. I know it's usually the studio stepping in and changing things, and I'm sure there was some of that as well (you may know more than I do in this regard), but Scott seems pretty up front about why he made the changes that he did.

Ha! I guess you caught me making Universal the great, horned villain in this story! I do remember reading about Scott's cutting room panic where he almost needed to be restrained from trimming LEGEND into oblivion...and I'm just sorry there had to be a climate of audience testing, pre-release, that led to that kind of crisis of confidence. I wouldn't do it (test), but then I'm not footing the bill for an expensive fantasy film, either.

I guess it's true that LEGEND would be just as confounding a film to market in its original form today, with its charming unselfconsciousness with regard to crooning princesses, Unicorns and fairies...paired with the much more adult-themed trip into Darkness' lair and semi-eroticized seductions, etc. How to sell it, and to whom? Just another way of appreciating the art first, business later conditions that led to its making, even if commerce eventually won out (in the US theatrical).

I'll add a bit more in a while; gotta step away from the keys for a minute...

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

Your discussion about the film stocks used was very interesting, and it better illuminates why Scott likes the Theatrical print more. Admittedly, aside from the slightly muted colors, I still prefer the overall look of the Director's Cut for its more filmic aesthetic, as it provides more texture and depth in my opinion (how funny that this very look may be the result of the grainier answer print).

Wanted to jump in here again to mention that Blu-ray.com's got their review of LEGEND: Ultimate Edition up. Most of the--downscaled--screen caps seem to be from the theatrical version, but they also post side-by-side stills of one of the grainier shots from each cut for comparison. Totally respectable transfers each, from the look of it. Those greens really do pop in the theatrical, don't they?

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Legend-Blu-ray/21801/#Review

And I wondered if you'd detected a diminished enthusiasm from Scott with regard to the Director's Cut this time around... When it debuted on DVD, he practically gushed over the story of its discovery and being able to present it for the first time on home video. For High Def, though, he seems to be offering it up--almost meekly--as an "archival curiosity."

As he put it: "...However, given its one-and-only source element, the Director's Cut looks as good as it possibly can and I am pleased to include it on this Blu-ray release as both an archival curiosity for fans and a digital preservation of my original vision for the film."

I don't know, maybe after Scott sampled some of the scorn heaped on the DC when it first hit DVD, he realized he wasn't going to win over many devotees of the theatrical cut? Pity some didn't want to give it more of a chance, see if it gelled for them with a few extra viewings. Because in the case of LEGEND, 'original vision' is definitive.

[–] james_oblivion 14 years ago

Agreed on your assessment of the two transfers. I also prefer the Director's Cut transfer. Being scanned and transferred directly from an original answer print, what we see here is essentially an un-tinkered-with presentation of the film, with the precise grading that Ridley Scott and Alex Thomson desired. The colors and black levels, therefore, are exactly as they should be. Yes, the image loses a bit of detail due to the limitations of the only existing source, but it is undeniably one of the most convincingly filmlike transfers I have seen.

The Theatrical Cut has been given more of an "eye candy" treatment. Yes, there is more fine detail inherent in the image, due to better available sources...but Universal have also employed edge enhancement, as you point out, and also considerable brightness boosting. While neither is particularly desirable, the brightness may actually be more detrimental, as it reveals too much of the sets and FX at times. What seems "magical" in the Director's Cut transfer often comes across as merely artificial in the brighter Theatrical Cut transfer. But getting back to the artificial sharpening, one immediately noticeable side effect is that it's given the grain a harsher, more digitized appearance. Now, I'm glad that the grain was left intact, of course, but the sharpening has unfortunately made it appear noisier.

And when it comes down to color, the Director's Cut wins, hands down. Both in terms of the hues and the saturation levels, we can trust that the answer print, approved by Scott and Thomson in 1985 as the guideline for how all theatrical prints should have looked, is dead-on. The Theatrical Cut's color timing is generally quite different, and sometimes remarkably so. Not only are the colors far more vivid in the Theatrical presentation, they also appear less artistically stylized. Skintones are more natural, though sometimes with a bit of a red push...while in the Director's Cut, they tend to carry a bronzier hue. Likewise, the blues of the wintery landscape are much deeper in the Director's Cut...and of course, much darker. This is more appropriate, I think, to the fairy-tale nature of the film, than the more natural palette and boosted saturation of the Theatrical Cut's transfer. And as far as which is correct, I'll trust an answer print over anyone's memory of sitting in a theater 25 years ago. Sad truth is, most theatrical prints don't match the answer prints, anyway.

Overall, though, I think that either transfer will please a certain demographic, and that the demographic who will prefer the Director's Cut transfer will largely be those who prefer the Director's Cut as a film, as well. Namely, film buffs and viewers who place a high value on the director's original vision. For these viewers, fidelity to the source will be of paramount importance, and the Director's Cut transfer will no doubt delight. For those who value eye candy over a filmlike image, the Theatrical Cut transfer will also delight...and those who don't particularly care if it looks less like film, or that the colors and black levels are not as the director wished, will probably not much care if the content reflects his original vision, either. The "eye candy" demographic will most likely prefer the Theatrical Cut as a shorter, faster-paced version of the film.

So in the end, I think everyone should be happy with this release. I certainly am.

[–] jack181078 14 years ago

And when it comes down to color, the Director's Cut wins, hands down. Both in terms of the hues and the saturation levels, we can trust that the answer print, approved by Scott and Thomson in 1985 as the guideline for how all theatrical prints should have looked, is dead-on. The Theatrical Cut's color timing is generally quite different, and sometimes remarkably so. Not only are the colors far more vivid in the Theatrical presentation, they also appear less artistically stylized. Skintones are more natural, though sometimes with a bit of a red push...while in the Director's Cut, they tend to carry a bronzier hue. Likewise, the blues of the wintery landscape are much deeper in the Director's Cut...and of course, much darker. This is more appropriate, I think, to the fairy-tale nature of the film, than the more natural palette and boosted saturation of the Theatrical Cut's transfer. And as far as which is correct, I'll trust an answer print over anyone's memory of sitting in a theater 25 years ago. Sad truth is, most theatrical prints don't match the answer prints, anyway.

It'd be interesting to know if the more stylized push in the color scheme was another way of rethinking the film, along with Tangerine Dream's more modern, synth aesthetic. On all counts, I prefer the Director's Cut, which I've only seen on DVD. I'm glad it impresses on Blu, too.

I read other descriptions of Answer Prints--from people who may not be at all in the know about these things--as only tentative, first stabs at setting the look of the film, so it'd be interesting to know what Scott's own level of satisfaction with the DC was at the time, whether he considered LEGEND pretty much locked and ready for the print making process should it have performed well in test screenings and been given Universal's approval.

I once read--can't locate the source--that some minor effects tweaks needed to be applied before the DC was ready for DVD back in 2002 (or whenever it came out), which suggests more work would have been planned for it should it have become the release version. Some discrepancies remain in the different versions, as with the luminous flash present in the US theatrical cut to mark Lily's transformation (absent in the DC). Was that in the European version? I haven't checked for other missing VFX, but it may have been standard that Anwswer Prints were seldom final in this department.

[–] nicolawicz-1 12 years ago

I'd say he didn't even see the Theatrical Cut transfer and just assumed it looked better because it's less generations away from the negative. He can't possibly think that over processed crap looks better.