The only people I would trust to use it are the people that are already painstakingly and forensically restoring movies who would use it as a last resort to patch up otherwise impossible to patch up elements. I know it’d be widely adopted and abused by lazy people though.
1
m_busuttilMar 28, 2026
+1
No.
Let me go further than my original blunt answer: I hope the man doing this knows that Orson Welles would detest him. What he's doing is exactly the same as what was done to *Ambersons* in the first place - an artless and talentless hack presuming to impose his own vision over the work of hundreds of other artists who are now not present to argue against it. His "actors" are not the original actors, his shots are not the original shots, his decisions are not the original decisions. His film is as much the original as Van Sant's *Psycho* is Hitchcock's. This is valueless and repugnant, and a real artist would be too ashamed of himself to ever even consider presenting this as restoration.
1
Nervous_March8748Mar 28, 2026
+1
Its a tool, not a magic wand. The goal should be removing damage, not changing the original artists intent. Upscaling grain is cool, erasing it completely is a crime.
1
FaerieStoriesMar 28, 2026
+1
Well, we've seen how well it can work out when used cleverly. Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old was incredible. The Beatles' Now and Then was incredible.
1
0x14fMar 28, 2026
+1
Black Mirror, Season 7, Episode 3, Hotel Reverie
1
death_by_chocolateMar 28, 2026
+1
The headline is excruciatingly disingenuous haha. This isn't restoration. This is recreation.
1
seifdMar 28, 2026
+1
Is it restoring it or is it creating something new based on classic movies?
1
blazze_eternalMar 28, 2026
+1
Remember when they added cgi to Star Wars and everyone hated it? Yeah, leave our movies alone. This is not worth burning 1000 trees.
Cure cancer or something.
1
fullmoon63Mar 28, 2026
+1
If it’s used for restoration and not ‘remastering into something new,’ I’m all for it.
12 Comments