Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'High Definition' started by X-human, Jun 9, 2012.
I have it on now. Look pretty great to me, no blue tints noticeable. Without al the furore I'd of never thought twice about keeping it. Glad I did. Looks great!
Thing is, if TT would have checked it before hand, they could have made an announcement that the transfer is different than the previous DVD master and have screenshots of the BD. If they would have announced this first, then some would not have ordered it and they'd been less complaining. I just find it odd that companies, especially those who cater to genre fans, would not do a simple quality control before releasing the disc. Other companies do this, why is it hard for TT, who charges $30 per disc, to do it? If it was a Millcreek released BD, not much complaining would be going on due to the fact it'd been $6.
It's been years since I've illegally downloaded a movie, but this release is practically begging for it. Savini may approve, but ultimately I don't believe that his opinion matters all that much any more. Once a work of art is familiarized to the general public it is no longer entirely the artists: it's the worlds. And the older the work becomes the more wrong it is to change it. Fans want the movie the way it has always been because in a very real sense we're not just collectors, we are historians. If every artist was allowed to go back and have second thoughts the world would suffer for it. Saying that this release is okay just because Savini approved it is no different than saying that the NOTLD 30th anniversary cut is okay because it was John Russo approved. Does anybody here honestly believe THAT?
Another update from Twilight Time...
Oh, it'll be repressed, and not limited to 3000 copies or tampered with.
I feel sorry for anyone that has no idea what happened to this release and is paying absurd money for it.
So... this exact transfer was approved by:
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Director of Photography, Frank Prinzi
...over 2 years ago.
And the director, Mr. Savini himself seems very pleased with it as well... calling it both "beautiful" and "terrific".
Twilight Time is offering a full refund for people who purchased it and aren't happy.
So why exactly is everyone's panties STILL in a bunch?
It is what it is. Like the transfer or not, it's all that's going to be available for at least the next three years. When I first saw the screenshots on blu-ray.com, like most of you I was appalled, but this is seeming more and more to be a draw your own conclusion type of deal which I will once I get a chance to check it out this weekend. At the very least Twilight Time needs to really make advanced review copies available in the future so people can know exactly what they're getting and the fact that they don't is ridiculous. I guess I'll judge for myself when I get a chance to check it out and depending on my opinion of it, then I'll decide if I want to order their release of Christine.
I'm figuring my copy will be in my mailbox when I get home today. I was likely going to open it and watch to develop my own opinion (since cell phone pictures of a tv screen don't give a very definitive idea). But Savini's approval at least makes me look a little more forward to the viewing.
I would argue that nowhere among the various forums has anyone used a personal theatrical viewing of the film as the basis of their rejection of the BR image, only the dvd. The theatrical prints would be the closest relative to a version of the film that was actually approved as being "how it should look". Can anyone actually comment who saw it theatrically and can recall? And forget this "but I want what's more familiar" garbage unless you only watch the theatrical cut of My Bloody Valentine, or your old Unsane VHS of Tenebrae.
The idea that this has morphed from poor quality screenshot-based reviews to a demand for a refund to a denouncement of Twilight Time and their business model to a disregard of learned opinions and finally to the disregard of the filmmaker himself reeeeally makes it seem like people are just fighting for their previously reached conclusions. I feel like this is all really about how the concept of TT (that movies may get more expensive for collectors, that films will only get limited edition physical copies, or that films we love are considered "unimportant" enough to be given only these kind of releases) and folks were really just waiting for any excuse to disregard the whole thing and absolve themselves of whatever collecting-compulsion led them to do business with TT in the first place.
IF this is how the film was originally intended to look, then the release should if anything be celebrated as being the first "correct" representation. I'll certainly believe Savini over a random internet dude.
Good grief.... Is that what the blu-ray honestly looks like ???
I remember the original theatrical release VERY well. Not only that, but what else I did and the CDs I bought that day. The original DVD release was a fair representation of what I saw at the cinema. It was certainly NOT a dark/blue looking film in any respect.
Yup. I had to turn my contrast to 100 and set colors to "warm" on my TV to come close to the DVD coloring. On my regular settings (which work with every other BD), it's as dark as that video portrays.
Just flipped through mine real quick and while I did notice a definite darker tint than the DVD, the picture on my TV is honestly nowhere near as dark as that YouTube video unless the brightness on my computer is way off. Worth $35? No. I'll keep it in my collection, but I'm still holding onto my DVD even if the blu-ray had included all of the previous supplemental material. That YouTube video makes it look like the blu-ray is flat out unwatchable, which it is not. This movie must have some kind of curse on it or something because anything titled Night of the Living Dead has some real bad luck in the blu-ray format. Out of all of the available copies of the original on blu, each and every one has issues.
Same here. I recall it because we saw a daytime show and when we came out it looked almost exactly like the opening sequence. I never thought the dvd looked different, I also have a bad vcd of the workprint which while muted colorwise, doesn't have the tint.
I'm torn on what to do with my copy now. Will it stay above $35 on the secondary market, or is returning the safe bet? Would suck to return it then find out with Savini and Prinzi's approval, it's now the disc to have and sells for $300+. All I know is I don't like the new look and I won't watch it again.
So can you/me/anyone take VuDu and burn a BDr? They have a 1080p with correct colors from all I've read on the other, now thankfully closed, thread on the other site. I got lots of shit to trade for one if someone can.
I been watching this jump all the way down to $50 or less. By the time you indecisive ladies decide what to do the blu will be worth peanuts.
A review to confirm what we already know:
Yeah, I already sold mine and I don't regret it at all. I'd rather just watch the old DVD than the revisionist color scheme.
Oh well... I didn't buy mine to resell, but I made a healthy profit off of it at least. I wash my hands of this release now.
LOL...the people in denial remind me of Baghdad Bob claiming everything is fine. Regardless of whether you like the changes or hate them...there ARE definite changes that should have been presented to consumers prior to purchase.
It's the last purchase I'll make from Twilight Times. Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
There's very little chance of a different video transfer being used elsewhere. Sony also monkeyed with Dracula and all international and re-issues have had the same dark color tampered image as approved by Coppola and issued by Sony.
It's unfortunate that in this digital age the wonders of technology that allows us home viewers to get a theatrical quality version of a movie like NotLD is the same technology that allows anyone else in the food chain to press a big blue button to juice it up.