Heat (Michael Mann, 1995)

[tehthomas]

Miles Teller would be excellent in DeNiro's role imho.

[Quote Perf Unquote]

Yeah, and Oscar Isaac, blah blah blah it's going to be so predictable. Why not just do a Scorsese and use the OG actors with de-aging tech and call the Project "Lukewarm" instead

[flyonthewall2983]

For the action necessary to replicate the book their old age would be far more of a hindrance, then in a period drama where it could be used more stationary. Not to mention the fact that the lead character’s actor has basically no voice anymore. For a few pages I thought he was going to somehow work this in and make Chris Shiherlis a mute for the book (as his character suffered a major clavicle issue in the shootout).

[Quote Perf Unquote]

Duh, I was joking about the de-aging business. Too bad about Kilmer. God help us if we get Hemsworth again.

[black&huge]

I'm in favor of casting the same actors and using deageing if every action scene in Heat 2 will look as great as this:

https://imgur.com/l4BtCYb

[flyonthewall2983]

Chris Pine would be a good candidate for Shiherlis. Isaac as Vincent Hanna would be perfect and I like the idea of Teller as Neil, he could strike the right notes of sensitivity and menace somehow.

[Jack Kubrick]

Generic choice of actor for the part but Jon Bernthal as Neil would work. Also could see Ryan Gosling in the role, though he lacks the physical resemblance to De Niro.

Any takers for the supporting roles? We need somebody to step in as young Waingro.

[flyonthewall2983]

Bernthal as the Waingro successor Otis Wardell would be better casting

[flyonthewall2983]

The consensus on the new 4K transfer seems that it’s pretty abysmal and the one on the recent UHD release supports that.

I’m going to make a bold prediction, based on recent news, that a release hopefully featuring a more bold and vibrant Dolby Vision transfer will be put out by 2025, the film’s 30th anniversary.

By someone other then Disney. Not Criterion necessarily, but it seems less impossible then it did say 10 years ago when WB still had it. Hell I think even if they still had it now, again given recent news, the chance of it getting a spine feels more likely now.

[MichaelB]

"Pretty abysmal" is an incredibly strong dismissal, and it's certainly not the impression that I've been getting, either from the reviews that persuaded me to buy it, or the couple of scenes that I've had time to sample.

So on what grounds are you claiming that it's a consensus?

[bad future]

Also Mann was involved in the production of this 4k master and the new color grade seems very much deliberate, so I can't imagine a Criterion release would be any different, with their deference to directors.

[EddieLarkin]

There's been A LOT of teeth gnashing over this disc from people who don't really know much about disc evaluation beyond "it looks pretty" or "it looks dull", and some more balanced praise by those more informed.

Also, there's nothing inherently "bold and vibrant" about Dolby Vision over HDR10. This same master in Dolby Vision would look no different to how the disc does (outside of any differences between the HDR10 and DV modes on your TV). To assume a difference misunderstands what Dolby Vision is and what purpose it serves.

[RIP Film]

From the caps everyone looks slightly jaundiced to me. In this specific era of digital media I’ve come to question director’s approval, because it seems less about preservation now and something more akin to remastering… reconfiguring the elements to better serve current technology (or just the whims of the director).

Edit: From the interview posted above… “The ambition here was: If I was shooting the film two or three years ago, what would it look like? That was really it. So we went into every shot.”

[flyonthewall2983]

I’ll admit some basic ignorance on the mechanics of it all but the movie has looked way darker in the versions of it in 4K streaming then it did on regular Blu-ray for me. I’ve heard some good notices on the iTunes version but that’s changed since the new release.

[therewillbeblus]

EddieLarkin posted this in-depth review of the disc, which I found very informative. I haven't watched my copy yet, but I haven't been wow'd by the look of any prior release of the film, so I'm sure I'll be happier with it, at the very least

[oh yeah]

I can't really speak to the quality of the 4K, but based on screencaps it looks perhaps a little darker, and there's definitely more of a yellow cast to it which I don't recall there being on the 2017 Blu for example. But it doesn't look radically different from what I can tell.

Still, the Criterion transfer of Thief proved that Mann is willing to completely alter the fundamental look of the film decades later - in that case, the film looked as if it had a blue filter over the whole thing. Whereas MGM's previous DVD transfer had a natural use of color, more warm yellows and whites than cool blues permeating the frame. And from what I've heard the film absolutely did not have that blue look in the theater. Which is a whole other subject, but as much as I love Mann's films I do find these decisions frustrating, and it does not surprise me if he's done something similar here. It's one thing to cut or add a few scenes for the DVD/Blu/etc release as Mann has done many times (e.g. theatrical cut of Mohicans isn't even available on HD or perhaps DVD either?) But it's I think much more irritating to change the color grading of the entire film like Mann did with Thief, where literally every frame looks radically different due to this change.

At least Arrow did later put out an excellent release of Thief on Blu with what looked more like the "correct"/original theatrical color grading. Perhaps we'll get something similar with Heat if this 4K really has noticeably different color grading. To be clear, I'm not saying these very unusual transfers by Mann look "bad", in the technical sense, just different w/r/t/ color palette from the previous transfers or theatrical prints.

Edit: As twbb said, all previous home-video releases of Heat have been fine but not especially remarkable, could certainly be improved both visually and especially aurally - the dialogue in the DVD and Blu for example is very quiet and muffled while the gunfire and explosions are quite loud (making it one of those films you almost have to watch with remote firmly in hand...)

[tenia]

The TC version of Thief as included in the Arrow BD release is a vastly dated master with an awfully magenta-pushed color-grading that solely looks like this because that's how US studios were routinely grading their HD masters for home video. As such, it certainly shouldn't be considered as anything reference or faithful enough, but just is incorrect but in a different manner.

[yoloswegmaster]

It's absolutely strange that the colour-timing for the Thief restoration keeps being called "altered" or "revisionist" by a few users on here. Not only has Lee Kline had to defend it on a podcast (unprompted I may add), but there was a person who saw a 35mm print in Sweden and had said colour-timing on the print was way closer to the 4K restoration than to the old HD transfer. A user over at the BR forum who has considerable knowledge on 35mm prints also had this to say:

Fortunately more people are more educated and accepting of stylish lighting, filters and grading compared to when the Criterion Blu-ray came out, so we're not seeing as much absurd outrage when a film doesn't look "Natural" or like a home video transfer from the '90s.

I can attest that the 35mm prints of Thief contained a lot of cyan (aka nightmare-inducing revisionist teal). I believe another user saw a 35mm print projected a year or so ago and also stated that it looked very much like the Blu-ray.

Even the 35mm trailer of Thief I owned had the characteristics of the Blu-ray, most likely because the "Teal" was introduced even before the grading stage via uncorrected lighting and the like. Mann would also shoot tungsten without the use of 85 filters which would create such an appearance.

Needless to say, the theatrical cut of the film which was released on Blu-ray in the UK and perhaps Germany which was from an older MGM master, looks nothing like how the original prints looked despite the people trying to convince others that it has the "Original" colors. Virtually all MGM's HD masters from that time were graded to look the same with a strong magenta push, clipped highlights, etc. A lot of those masters were done without consultation from the filmmakers, although the DP of The Long Goodbye wasn't happy with what MGM did by trying to naturalize a very stylistic film and got them to do it properly.

[tenia]

It's clear, as I wrote above and as JohnCarpenterFan stated too on your quoted post, that the old MGM HD master were graded with a structurally systemic target that has more to do with video practices than artistic fidelity. It's also clear that because most of these discussions are done with an underlying A/B comparison logic, the older master is so skewed towards magenta that the new one will look extremely tealed in comparison.
I can perfectly understand that the old master is further from the truth than the new one. I still however think that there is something more digital-related to the new grading that something solely related to a newly salvaged original look. It might be a lesser part of the final result that I think it is, but I still do believe it's here.
I still had less of an issue with it that with Ritrovata'd or Eclair'd stuff, though.

[yoloswegmaster]

It's clear, as I wrote above and as JohnCarpenterFan stated too on your quoted post, that the old MGM HD master were graded with a structurally systemic target that has more to do with video practices than artistic fidelity. It's also clear that because most of these discussions are done with an underlying A/B comparison logic, the older master is so skewed towards magenta that the new one will look extremely tealed in comparison.
I can perfectly understand that the old master is further from the truth than the new one. I still however think that there is something more digital-related to the new grading that something solely related to a newly salvaged original look. It might be a lesser part of the final result that I think it is, but I still do believe it's here.
I still had less of an issue with it that with Ritrovata'd or Eclair'd stuff, though.

My post wasn't target towards you, just to make that clear. I actually didn't see your post until after I had posted mine. I was more responding to the point that the old MGM master is more "accurate" to the original look, and I know that this has been parroted by a few users on here repeatedly throughout the years.

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is that a digital restoration isn't going to achieve that 1:1 ratio of matching the look from a film print, so there might very well be some characteristics of revisionism that appear in the 4K resto. I guess it also should be said that a print isn't always going to accurately portray the director's intention, though it is a bit difficult to find the director's intention when said director is Michael Mann. Regardless, there is a lot of proof out there that points to the 4K resto being way closer to the original look and that there really shouldn't be any reason for people to keep claiming the old HD magenta'd master as being more "true".

[therewillbeblus]

So I watched my Heat UHD last night, and while it's definitely 'darker' than previous releases, I didn't notice anything overly yellow (or "jaundiced") about the tones- actually, if anything, tones seemed paler and muted in comparison to other releases. I'm by no means a PQ expert and my TV is bare-minimum HDR-compatible, so take all that with a grain of salt. It's not the best UHD I've seen, but I don't know why anyone would pass on this in favor of a previous physical release of the film, unless there's any hidden gem I'm unaware of. I will say: I wasn't always pleased with how dark the picture was, but I imagine if I was more tech-savvy I could adjust the brightness levels in a certain way that would resolve that issue without compromising the HDR/Dolby/whatever make UHD good

[tenia]

No problem yoloswegmaster, I didn't take it personally, but was merely expanding my previous post in response to yours.

[oh yeah]

It's clear, as I wrote above and as JohnCarpenterFan stated too on your quoted post, that the old MGM HD master were graded with a structurally systemic target that has more to do with video practices than artistic fidelity. It's also clear that because most of these discussions are done with an underlying A/B comparison logic, the older master is so skewed towards magenta that the new one will look extremely tealed in comparison.
I can perfectly understand that the old master is further from the truth than the new one. I still however think that there is something more digital-related to the new grading that something solely related to a newly salvaged original look. It might be a lesser part of the final result that I think it is, but I still do believe it's here.
I still had less of an issue with it that with Ritrovata'd or Eclair'd stuff, though.

My post wasn't target towards you, just to make that clear. I actually didn't see your post until after I had posted mine. I was more responding to the point that the old MGM master is more "accurate" to the original look, and I know that this has been parroted by a few users on here repeatedly throughout the years.

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is that a digital restoration isn't going to achieve that 1:1 ratio of matching the look from a film print, so there might very well be some characteristics of revisionism that appear in the 4K resto. I guess it also should be said that a print isn't always going to accurately portray the director's intention, though it is a bit difficult to find the director's intention when said director is Michael Mann. Regardless, there is a lot of proof out there that points to the 4K resto being way closer to the original look and that there really shouldn't be any reason for people to keep claiming the old HD magenta'd master as being more "true".

Fair enough. I'm talking outta my ass here, really, I just always thought that the Criterion Thief transfer looked a little too teal to be totally true to the theatrical. But you're probably right that the MGM HD-TV / Arrow transfer with the warmer/magenta-inflected look isn't on the mark either. I want to take a look at that disc again to see how it looks, but I'm currently looking at the Criterion Blu and I'd have to say, in action the teal isn't nearly as noticeable as it is in many of the screencaps that were passed around at the time of its release. There's certainly a teal cast to the film, where whites (shirts, teeth, hospital sheets, paper, whatever) have a teal glow to them, albeit one subtler than I had remembered. One scene that seems a little TOO teal is the upside-down shot of Leo from Frank's POV on the floor. But who knows. All in all, it looks great technically speaking, but I gotta say I have to imagine the film looked somewhere in the middle - not the MGM transfer but not the Criterion either. For one thing, the teal filter look wasn't really a thing in 1981 was it? I could be totally wrong here, it's just a guess. You probably know way more than me about the technical aspects of this. I do think it's likely Mann tinkered with the look of the film to some extent, but I can't prove that. Thief seems to be the only Mann film where there's such debate about the actual look of the film being altered as opposed to scenes being cut or added as Mann often does. I've seen people say Heat's "definitive director's" Blu from 2017 or so had a more teal/blue look to it compared to all the other HV releases. But I didn't notice that myself when watching the Blu recently. OTOH, Thief's Criterion Blu is extremely different from the warmer (probably overly-so) MGM/Arrow transfers, and I guess part of the criticism of that comes from just how different the two are after many had gotten used to the prior magenta/red-pushed look of previous transfers. Once you watch the film though it's easy to get absorbed in it, I find, even if I have my misgivings about the color in many scenes. It's certainly a cohesive look, putting aside whether it's what the film looked like theatrically - if I just assume I'm watching 2014 Mann sort of re-imagining his 1981 work then, well, fair enough. Like I said, the Criterion certainly looks beautiful in and of itself. Obviously far richer and more detail than the previous transfers that were available.

[flyonthewall2983]

TIL about the real Guy McElwaine

[flyonthewall2983]

Michael Mann in negotiations with Warner Brothers for Heat 2, with Adam Driver in deep consideration to play Neil McCauley