criterionforum.org

Cronenfly wrote:Are there any other specific extras that were expected or hoped for? I assumed this would be stacked, but I do not know how much material is out there on this film specifically (as opposed to Tarkovsky more generally). Looking forward to the Dyer piece, been meaning to read Zona for some time now.

I'm surprised Criterion didn't include at least one of Rerberg and Tarkovsky: The Reverse Side of Stalker or Stalker's Dreams.

That Nostalghia list also shows that there are interviews with Tarkovsky around the time of production and on-set footage in existence.

I too expected this to be stacked - or at least add more than a single interview with Geoff Dyer. At least the restoration is guaranteed to make a mockery of Artificial Eye's effort.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Given that there was a fairly popular video game adaptation of this same source, I would have liked to get a feature about the source novel and its relationship to the film, which it doesn't look like they bothered with.

Three games - 2007's Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl was the first, then a prequel, 2008's Stalker: Clear Sky and a sequel, 2009's Stalker: Call of Pripyat. They're probably still the best games for wandering around, exploring an open world full of faction battles, radiation and mysterious monsters.

(Arguably Metro 2033 and Metro: Last Light bear some influence of Stalker too)

Looks so beautiful.

Sign me up, extras or no...

I hope the extras have discussion about the differences between the original version of Stalker (before the prints got destroyed and they had to reshoot) and the final version.

Peter-H wrote:I hope the extras have discussion about the differences between the original version of Stalker (before the prints got destroyed and they had to reshoot) and the final version.

They never got as far as being able to make prints!

Yeah, I don't know how anybody would have enough information about the first version to make any meaningful comparison

The DCP projection at Lincoln Center bleached out the sepia toned sequences. They look terrible compared to the rather worn 35mm that has been around awhile. The color sections, surprisingly, are ok. Can't speak to the blu ray.

The sepia sequences looked very good at the Saturday 1:00 p.m. screening -- but there were one or two shots that did seem rather too bright. A couple of exterior shots, and the long first dialogue in the bar between Writer Professor and Stalker were pretty bleachy. The color sequences looked great. I'm very excited by the prospect of that Blu-Ray.

• New English subtitle translation

Had missed this part. I always thought the VHS subtitles were superior to the Ruscico DVD ones. Hopefully this new translation will be definitive.

I've seen Stalker in 35mm many times and the DCP (and presumably blu-ray) English translation was not significantly different. In fact many translations that seemed a bit "off" to me are identical in the DCP, which may mean they aren't "off".

And agreement with Roscoe that the exterior sepia sequences at the beginning were not good. This is only a few minutes of the film, so no worries.

The statement by Criterion/Janus about meticulous restoration is somewhat of a joke. The rather worn 35mm which has been out there forever looks fine, and there is nothing about the DCP that is an improvement (unless you have an artifact phobia)--it's just a digital replication of the 35mm with some downsides as discussed. Their explicit disowning of the perfectly acceptable existing 35mm print is offensive and, worse, self-serving.

Considering most of your posts include a comment somewhere about your animus towards DCPs what evidence do you have that the scenes in 35mm you claim are different from the DCP were exposed differently for prints and what evidence do you have that the exposure of those scenes in those prints was holy and correct rather than expedient and or a guess?

Given the restoration was sourced in Russia based on first generation elements and native language materials I would imagine it's more accurate to original issuance than the accuracy of a source that probably took a bath in London or Paris a couple decades ago to spit out subtitled dupes that then became the basis for more drift ala a game of telephone.

That is to say the early scenes probably ought to have a different exposure and if for years they were all printed flat (one light ) with the same exposure that could be a lab error rather than holy writ.

I saw a 35mm print a few years ago, billed as "imported from Russia" or something like that, and I was amazed at the richness of the sepia-toned sections. It seemed to be of archival quality to my admittedly amateur eyes. I had only seen the film on the Kino DVD before that and it completely changed how I saw the film. It was one of the top cinema experiences I ever had.

How it compares to the new DCP, I couldn't say. But I certainly don't remember anything looking washed out in the slightest. And if it the restorers weren't able to match what I saw then, it'll be a huge disappointment.

Why is this only an issue now when the remaster's been on Filmstruck for almost a year?

Many people don't have Filmstruck. Further, if it looks poor in theaters, that's a sign the restoration may have some weaknesses. For blu-rays and streaming, weakness could come down to compression/stream/encode.

Mosfilm put it up on youtube briefly too. Looked amazing to me.

solaris72 wrote:Mosfilm put it up on youtube briefly too. Looked amazing to me.

It's still on Youtube, they've even added English subtitles for it.

eerik wrote:

solaris72 wrote:Mosfilm put it up on youtube briefly too. Looked amazing to me.

It's still on Youtube, they've even added English subtitles for it.

Looks like I now have a full afternoon to see one of my favorite films in HD for the first time. Thanks!

movielocke wrote:Considering most of your posts include a comment somewhere about your animus towards DCPs what evidence do you have that the scenes in 35mm you claim are different from the DCP were exposed differently for prints and what evidence do you have that the exposure of those scenes in those prints was holy and correct rather than expedient and or a guess?

Given the restoration was sourced in Russia based on first generation elements and native language materials I would imagine it's more accurate to original issuance than the accuracy of a source that probably took a bath in London or Paris a couple decades ago to spit out subtitled dupes that then became the basis for more drift ala a game of telephone.

That is to say the early scenes probably ought to have a different exposure and if for years they were all printed flat (one light ) with the same exposure that could be a lab error rather than holy writ.

I have to believe that 35mm prints reflect authorial intention. The 35mm Stalker is richly colored, or sepiaed, deeply textured and uniformly gorgeous. Isn't that enough? That said, the flaws in the Stalker DCP are very minor. They mainly take place in an exterior sepia scene in foggy weather and ultimately don't matter.

Elsewhere I have said that the Solaris DCP is unwatchable compared to the 35mm. I could give dozens of examples.

It's most likely isn't a question of media, but a question of workflow. The issue with the DCPs you're talking about probably don't come from their digital aspect (in opposition to the physical aspect of 35mm film), but the workflow they are sourced from.
Regarding Stalker, it's very likely that what you saw in 35mm and what you saw in DCP are sourced from very different elements, and that's it (or at least, what you describe definitely looks like it).

It seems like a mix up between the medium and the restoration work itself. At best, the DCP might have been improperly created (ie HHH's The Assassin) but this would be an isolated case, not a norm.

J Adams wrote:Elsewhere I have said that the Solaris DCP is unwatchable compared to the 35mm. I could give dozens of examples.

I'd love to know which titles you consider concerned, because so far, I'd bet it's a restoration issue, not a medium one.

Bad writing on my part, apologies. The "dozens of examples" refers solely to the Solaris DCP. I could list other examples of bad DCP restorations, but that is going off topic. The main point I am trying to make is that there are good repertory DCPs and bad ones. I am annoyed by the banner "NEW RESTORATION" because that means DCP (almost always), implies some sort of improvement, but doesn't mean the DCP is of high quality. The bad ones are truly very bad as they will presumably replace the 35mm counterpart in repertory exhibition unless/until a better technology is developed. At which point I will likely be dead.

Regarding Stalker, the color scheme etc. of the DCP (including, surprisingly, the subtitles) are essentially identical to the 35mm, with the one minor exception I've noted, but lacking the atmosphere inherent in 35mm. The Stalker DCP is surprisingly good.

Beaver

Tooze wrote:The Criterion is advertised as a 'New 2K digital restoration'. OMG. This is just my first pass through the Blu-ray but... this is sick how much better the Criterion image is than the AE.